Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?

[martybegan]

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

That is why they are there.

It doesn't make them right, or make them as powerful as they have become in the past 3 decades.

 

[PratchettFan]

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

No, but if you want me to accept what I consider to be a completely fallacious statement as anything more than that, then you're going to have to do more than just give me an unsupported opinion. Don't ask me to expand if you aren't willing to.

Again, reject or accept my position. Unlike a lot of progressives, I don't have an issue with being told by someone my views are wrong.

I did reject it. You asked me to expand on that rejection and I expanded on it. I don't understand the problem.

 

[Seawytch]

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

No, but if you want me to accept what I consider to be a completely fallacious statement as anything more than that, then you're going to have to do more than just give me an unsupported opinion. Don't ask me to expand if you aren't willing to.

Again, reject or accept my position. Unlike a lot of progressives, I don't have an issue with being told by someone my views are wrong.

Unsupported. He's saying "convince him". You can't or won't.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

That is why they are there.

It doesn't make them right, or make them as powerful as they have become in the past 3 decades.

If you wish to follow the Constitution, it does make them right.

 

[martybegan]

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

No, but if you want me to accept what I consider to be a completely fallacious statement as anything more than that, then you're going to have to do more than just give me an unsupported opinion. Don't ask me to expand if you aren't willing to.

Again, reject or accept my position. Unlike a lot of progressives, I don't have an issue with being told by someone my views are wrong.

I did reject it. You asked me to expand on that rejection and I expanded on it. I don't understand the problem.

No problem. Ok then.

 

[martybegan]

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

That is why they are there.

It doesn't make them right, or make them as powerful as they have become in the past 3 decades.

If you wish to follow the Constitution, it does make them right.

Not if I think they are ignoring the constitution in some of their decisions,.

 

[martybegan]

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

No, but if you want me to accept what I consider to be a completely fallacious statement as anything more than that, then you're going to have to do more than just give me an unsupported opinion. Don't ask me to expand if you aren't willing to.

Again, reject or accept my position. Unlike a lot of progressives, I don't have an issue with being told by someone my views are wrong.

Unsupported. He's saying "convince him". You can't or won't.

Not worth the level of effort. I know I am right, that's good enough.

 

[Seawytch]

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

No, but if you want me to accept what I consider to be a completely fallacious statement as anything more than that, then you're going to have to do more than just give me an unsupported opinion. Don't ask me to expand if you aren't willing to.

Again, reject or accept my position. Unlike a lot of progressives, I don't have an issue with being told by someone my views are wrong.

Unsupported. He's saying "convince him". You can't or won't.

Not worth the level of effort. I know I am right, that's good enough.

I suppose it has to be. Arguing a position without supporting evidence seems to be a conservative standard. Way to keep up!

 

[PratchettFan]

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

That is why they are there.

It doesn't make them right, or make them as powerful as they have become in the past 3 decades.

If you wish to follow the Constitution, it does make them right.

Not if I think they are ignoring the constitution in some of their decisions,.

They are the final arbiter of disputes arising under the Constitution They are, by definition, right. Any other take on their decision requires one to ignore the Constitution. And in every single case before them, one side or another obviously disagrees with their finding. Which makes that side, by definition, wrong.

That is not to say you are not entitled to your opinion and to voice that opinion. You can hold the position at any given decision of SCOTUS is a violation of the Constitution. It is just that you will be, by definition, wrong.

If Congress and the states are really opposed to that decision, they can amend the Constitution and the courts have no say in that process. That is the way the Constitution was set up.

 

[hazlnut]

What a stupid fucking question. Do you KNOW who Ted Olson is?

Yeah, but we also know who Rick Santorum is....

 

[martybegan]

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

That is why they are there.

It doesn't make them right, or make them as powerful as they have become in the past 3 decades.

If you wish to follow the Constitution, it does make them right.

Not if I think they are ignoring the constitution in some of their decisions,.

They are the final arbiter of disputes arising under the Constitution They are, by definition, right. Any other take on their decision requires one to ignore the Constitution. And in every single case before them, one side or another obviously disagrees with their finding. Which makes that side, by definition, wrong.

That is not to say you are not entitled to your opinion and to voice that opinion. You can hold the position at any given decision of SCOTUS is a violation of the Constitution. It is just that you will be, by definition, wrong.

If Congress and the states are really opposed to that decision, they can amend the Constitution and the courts have no say in that process. That is the way the Constitution was set up.

Respect for things such as the court only works when they play inside their own rules, which they have not been doing since the 70's consistently, and occasionally in the cases of Dredd Scott, and Plessey.

 

[Truth2Know]

Dear republicans, some questions to you.
Are you a republican that supports gay marriage?
Are these terms absolutely opposite?
How about being a republican and believing that the state has no place in the church's institution of marriage?
I am trying to be straight.

Yes. You just can't be a Christian Republican.

 

[BluesLegend]

I can be a conservative and not give a shit about gay marriage. I simply don't care one iota.

 

[PratchettFan]

That is why they are there.

It doesn't make them right, or make them as powerful as they have become in the past 3 decades.

If you wish to follow the Constitution, it does make them right.

Not if I think they are ignoring the constitution in some of their decisions,.

They are the final arbiter of disputes arising under the Constitution They are, by definition, right. Any other take on their decision requires one to ignore the Constitution. And in every single case before them, one side or another obviously disagrees with their finding. Which makes that side, by definition, wrong.

That is not to say you are not entitled to your opinion and to voice that opinion. You can hold the position at any given decision of SCOTUS is a violation of the Constitution. It is just that you will be, by definition, wrong.

If Congress and the states are really opposed to that decision, they can amend the Constitution and the courts have no say in that process. That is the way the Constitution was set up.

Respect for things such as the court only works when they play inside their own rules, which they have not been doing since the 70's consistently, and occasionally in the cases of Dredd Scott, and Plessey.

The are playing inside their own rules. They have always done so and there is not a single case in which they haven't.

 

[PratchettFan]

Dear republicans, some questions to you.
Are you a republican that supports gay marriage?
Are these terms absolutely opposite?
How about being a republican and believing that the state has no place in the church's institution of marriage?
I am trying to be straight.

Yes. You just can't be a Christian Republican.

Well, not being a Christian I would not venture an opinion. However, I know quite a few republicans who are Christians who would dispute that.

 

[martybegan]

It doesn't make them right, or make them as powerful as they have become in the past 3 decades.

If you wish to follow the Constitution, it does make them right.

Not if I think they are ignoring the constitution in some of their decisions,.

They are the final arbiter of disputes arising under the Constitution They are, by definition, right. Any other take on their decision requires one to ignore the Constitution. And in every single case before them, one side or another obviously disagrees with their finding. Which makes that side, by definition, wrong.

That is not to say you are not entitled to your opinion and to voice that opinion. You can hold the position at any given decision of SCOTUS is a violation of the Constitution. It is just that you will be, by definition, wrong.

If Congress and the states are really opposed to that decision, they can amend the Constitution and the courts have no say in that process. That is the way the Constitution was set up.

Respect for things such as the court only works when they play inside their own rules, which they have not been doing since the 70's consistently, and occasionally in the cases of Dredd Scott, and Plessey.

The are playing inside their own rules. They have always done so and there is not a single case in which they haven't.

So Plessey V Fergueson was within the rules?

 

[PratchettFan]

If you wish to follow the Constitution, it does make them right.

Not if I think they are ignoring the constitution in some of their decisions,.

They are the final arbiter of disputes arising under the Constitution They are, by definition, right. Any other take on their decision requires one to ignore the Constitution. And in every single case before them, one side or another obviously disagrees with their finding. Which makes that side, by definition, wrong.

That is not to say you are not entitled to your opinion and to voice that opinion. You can hold the position at any given decision of SCOTUS is a violation of the Constitution. It is just that you will be, by definition, wrong.

If Congress and the states are really opposed to that decision, they can amend the Constitution and the courts have no say in that process. That is the way the Constitution was set up.

Respect for things such as the court only works when they play inside their own rules, which they have not been doing since the 70's consistently, and occasionally in the cases of Dredd Scott, and Plessey.

The are playing inside their own rules. They have always done so and there is not a single case in which they haven't.

So Plessey V Fergueson was within the rules?

Yes.

 

[Redfish]

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

States don't have to recognize out of state marriage licenses, but it is either recognize them equally or recognize none.

Can you identify any state that discriminates based on gender in the recognition of an out of state carry permit? If a state recognizes your states permit, don't they accept them all or none?


>>>>

what does gender have to do with it? my drivers license is accepted in all states, isn't yours?

The gender of the couples in a legal Civil Marriage was the basis for non-recognition. But you knew that right?

If a man and a woman were married and went to a different state - it was recognized. If a man and a man (or woman and a woman) were legally married and went to a different state - it was not recognized.

Man and woman is a gender (or sex) classification.

**************************************************

No state that I know of discriminates on the recognition of out of State licenses for carry permits or drivers licenses for that matter, based on the gender.

Do you know of any? Then you would have a valid comparison. Carry permits - not so much.


>>>>

Yes, gender matters. A marriage consists of one man and one woman. two men, two women, three men and four women, sisters, brothers are not marriages.

 

[Redfish]

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree. I think you should file a suit.

Why ? I don't plan to go to NJ of NY. My permit is valid in the states that I go to. But the principle is valid, drivers licenses are accepted in all states, now SSM licenses must be accepted in all states, so CC permits should also be. But I will let the NRA handle any suits.

So long as there is no SCOTUS opinion which says all states must recognize the permit, then all states don't have to recognize it Until a suit is filed and it works its way through the system, then just saying that is the way it should be means nothing.

Oh, I see. So now you are all for states rights. You are saying exactly what the confederacy said before the civil war.

No, I'm just explaining legal reality. If you don't believe me, walk up to a cop in NYC and explain that you have a concealed weapon and they have to honor your CC permit. I'm sure they will be impressed.

exactly my point. the double standard.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

States don't have to recognize out of state marriage licenses, but it is either recognize them equally or recognize none.

Can you identify any state that discriminates based on gender in the recognition of an out of state carry permit? If a state recognizes your states permit, don't they accept them all or none?


>>>>

what does gender have to do with it? my drivers license is accepted in all states, isn't yours?

The gender of the couples in a legal Civil Marriage was the basis for non-recognition. But you knew that right?

If a man and a woman were married and went to a different state - it was recognized. If a man and a man (or woman and a woman) were legally married and went to a different state - it was not recognized.

Man and woman is a gender (or sex) classification.

**************************************************

No state that I know of discriminates on the recognition of out of State licenses for carry permits or drivers licenses for that matter, based on the gender.

Do you know of any? Then you would have a valid comparison. Carry permits - not so much.


>>>>

Yes, gender matters. A marriage consists of one man and one woman. two men, two women, three men and four women, sisters, brothers are not marriages.

Nope. Marriage consists of non familial consenting adult couples...still.