Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.
...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....
Oh, that decision will be made. And it will be made by the same court who two of which on the left are catholics. You remember the Pope's recent visit and his position on gay marriage..?Should that decision be made, it will be made by the same court that declared discrimination against gays to be unconstitutional.
To quote JFK;
"I don't tell the Pope how to run his church, and he doesn't tell me how to run my country".
If there is any deliberation in the minds of the catholics on the left of the Bench as to whether or not PA laws dominate the 1st Amendment, I think the fate of their eternal souls per Jude 1 might weigh in at that point. Even if just in (Justice) Kennedy's mind....speaking of Kennedy..
To quote JFK;
"I don't tell the Pope how to run his church, and he doesn't tell me how to run my country".
If there is any deliberation in the minds of the catholics on the left of the Bench as to whether or not PA laws dominate the 1st Amendment, I think the fate of their eternal souls per Jude 1 might weigh in at that point. Even if just in (Justice) Kennedy's mind....speaking of Kennedy..
Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.
...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....
Oh, that decision will be made. And it will be made by the same court who two of which on the left are catholics. You remember the Pope's recent visit and his position on gay marriage..?Should that decision be made, it will be made by the same court that declared discrimination against gays to be unconstitutional.
So you believe that Supreme Court Justices do the bidding the Pope?
No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations
That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.
But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship
So precedent is worthless?
Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.
Oh, that decision will be made. And it will be made by the same court who two of which on the left are catholics. You remember the Pope's recent visit and his position on gay marriage..?
because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.
You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..
I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.
Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.
it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).
Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.
[
So you believe that Supreme Court Justices do the bidding the Pope?
If there is any deliberation in the minds of the catholics on the left of the Bench as to whether or not PA laws dominate the 1st Amendment, I think the fate of their eternal souls per Jude 1 might weigh in at that point. Even if just in (Justice) Kennedy's mind....speaking of Kennedy..
vv Syriusly, vv ....race has nothing to do with sexual behaviors and that premise when argued by Christians in SCOTUS next, will be your undoing.
It's really simple, if you can't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th amendments.
Explain what due process means. Explain what cruel and unusual punishment is. Explain what probable cause is. If all you need to the plain language, why did it take Scalia pages and pages to explain what the Second Amendment means? While I understand why folks like you, uneducated in the law and not bright to begin with fear having to actually explain what the words in the constitution mean that is why we have law schools where folks can learn the process.And it took the Supreme Court in Heller page after page to decipher the language of the Second Amendment; to explain what damn near every word meant. So much for black letter law that only needs to be applied. It has to be interpreted. Five justices have one interpretation and four have another. Just like in Obergefell.Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.
No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.
And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?
And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.
I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.
5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.
Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.
Only lawyers say it needs to be interpreted, the folks that wrote it said it says what it says, plain and simple. Their intent was to keep it so simple even the least educated farmer could understand it, then lawyers got involved. Not for the good either.
You mean the process established by lawyers for lawyers, couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest there.
I have not offered any opinion on New York's law. If I ever have the interest in reading about it, I will form an opinion. Your distinction between systemic discrimination and limited specific cases is idiotic. You would ban discrimination but not if it only happens occasionally, in limited cases? So, as long as only one hotel in town is discriminating, that is OK. If the others join in, then you have a problem? Anti discrimination laws work because they apply to everyone providing a public accommodation or service. Limiting it to "essential services" makes no sense. Is someone's job at a plant "essential"? Maybe not to society, but it certainly is the employee. You think it is perfectly ok if every business in a community, all the restaurants, banks, bakeries, florists, stores etc. discriminate, but not if the hospital does or the funeral director? Again you cannot have PA laws that only apply to "essential services" as that would allow continued discrimination. Discrimination is damaging to society. It creates barriers and resentment. How can it be good to allow some businesses; businesses that benefit from the orderly society that government has created, to deny service to some people based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation? Why should a business be afforded the protections of our laws and still be permitted to deny services to people based on their own bigotry?Don't tell me what I believe, dickhead. You do have the right to own a firearm. I never said you didn't. Though, since I know nothing about your criminal history or history of mental illness or abusive behavior towards women, that right may have been lost. I do support laws that ban discrimination in public accommodations. You, apparently, think that discrimination is fine. Some b and b owner does not like Jews, you would allow them to not rent to them. They don't like blacks, they need to have the freedom to discriminate. I think society has the right to restrict conduct that is harmful to society. Discrimination is harmfulI have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.See. That comment is why you are an idiot. Loving and others clearly held that the right to marry is a fundamental component of the right to liberty. Is there a right to liberty in the constitution or not? Can you name a more important choice a person makes in their life than with whom to spend that life in a loving partnership; in a family? What justification is there to deny to all Americans that right to make that choice? You have made hundreds of comments and have yet to explain that. What good is a constitution that protects fundamental rights if everything is left to the direction the political winds are blowing?
Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.
And you have the opposite view when it comes to my right to own a firearm, or for a baker to not be compelled to bake a cake they don't want. Evidently government force is A-OK as long as it's government force you like.
So you think the NYC law that requires me to spend $3,000, 6 months and provide a reason to NYPD to get a CCW is wrong? I have no criminal record or history of mental illness.
I support laws that ban discrimination in true public accommodations, especially ones that provide timely or life necessary services. I also think government has an interest in preventing systemic discrimination is all types of transactions. What I don't support is using said laws in limited specific cases. Let the market handle that, and in this day and age, it will.
Whether or not plural marriages should be permitted is not relevant to gay marriage. Supporting one does not require supporting the other.None of the things I listed are easily dealt with through changes in the law. More importantly, why do you assholes always try to turn a discussion on gay marriage into a discussion on other issues? I don't frankly, fucking care about plural marriages. Whether they are legal or not has nothing to do with gay marriage. You want to marry two other men, you go to court and fight for that right.No, Mr. Engineer, I am explaining to you the compelling governmental reason to continue to ban plural marriages. You asked me to and I did. Now you cannot form a rational response so you dismiss them as "details." SSM was not a radical change. Gay couples have been involved in lifelong commitments to one another for generations. They just had to hide those relationships from the bigots you seem to think should have the right to decide who marries.Yes, I can. A marriage comes with certain rights and responsibilities. A married couple are, in many ways, considered in the law to be one entity. A spouse has a legal obligation to support the other when they separate. There are issues of the division of property. The marriage relationship entitles spouses to access to benefits. There is a whole legal structure built around marriage between two people. When they own property, they own it without division. Marital property cannot be reached by the creditors of one spouse. That structure is not affected by two people of the same gender. It is affected by a plural marriage. People who want to be in a plural marriage have the right to live in one, but society is not obligated to recognize any marriage beyond the first one. As for marriages between related people, you are probably right. There may not be a compelling reason even for opposite sex couples. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Both are a radical change to the concept of marriage as given by centuries of american tradition and law. Now you are arguing details when it suits you. All the arguments you give just means the government has to do a bit more work, nothing more. The concept remains that such a radical change such as SSM and to me Plural Marriage requires the people to decide they want to allow it.
It is a very radical change, Plural marriage has more precedent throughout history than SSM does.
and said compelling government interest seems to only spawn from your desire to separate it from plural marriage, nothing more. all the reasons you listed are easily dealt with by changes to laws.
It still to me doesn't mean a court can force either, but if a legislature votes it in and issues licenses, the rest of the states have to accept.
because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.
Actually, the argument is over. You clowns can whine and stomp your feet all you want and offer your uneducated and asinine opinions on the law, but the argument is over. We, as a society, do not grant rights and then take them away.It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.
For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.
The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.
That being said, ends the argument.
"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.
Interracial relationships are not accepted by some of the lesser lights of society. As one who claims to accept it as proper, why are you defending the bigots who won't?It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.
For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.
The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.
That being said, ends the argument.
"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.
Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.
But it will never be accepted, at least by some people. sooner or later it is going to cross a bridge too far (probably with gun rights) and then we will see what happens.
It doesn't.Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.
...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....
Actually, the argument is over. You clowns can whine and stomp your feet all you want and offer your uneducated and asinine opinions on the law, but the argument is over. We, as a society, do not grant rights and then take them away.It is always amusing seeing people with no legal education explain why Supreme Court decisions are incorrect.
For some reason, these people do not understand the basic truth regarding law.
The Supreme Court may not always agree with you. However, they will always be the Supreme Court.
That being said, ends the argument.
"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled" is an argument used by autocrats and dictators. Free people can question anything they want to, and the argument is NEVER over.
There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.
There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.
Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.
Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.
Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.
So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.
But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.
Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.
No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.
But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship
So precedent is worthless?
Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.
Loving applied to marriage.
There have been 4 cases now in which the Supreme Court overturned State marriage laws or regulations as being unconstitutional
Loving- overturned bans on mixed race marriages.
Zablocki- overturned bans on marriage for owing child support
Turner(?)- overturned state prison regulations which prohibited prisoners from marrying
Obergefel- overturned state bans on same gender marriage.
All of them based upon Americans right to marriage- and the 14th Amendment.
Well, if you call your claim that the SC is dead wrong, "Questioning", then I guess so. You can question all you like. When you are finished "questioning", the law as decided by the SC will be enforced.
...Unless it conflicts with the 1st Amendment....
Oh, that decision will be made. And it will be made by the same court who two of which on the left are catholics. You remember the Pope's recent visit and his position on gay marriage..?Should that decision be made, it will be made by the same court that declared discrimination against gays to be unconstitutional.
So you believe that Supreme Court Justices do the bidding the Pope?
If there is any deliberation in the minds of the catholics on the left of the Bench as to whether or not PA laws dominate the 1st Amendment, I think the fate of their eternal souls per Jude 1 might weigh in at that point. Even if just in (Justice) Kennedy's mind....speaking of Kennedy..
