GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Quantum Windbag]

You are an idiot. Where did I claim racism anywhere?
I stated fact and you run from it like a monkey on fire.
Same sex marriage, gay marriage: who gives a shit?
Why do you oppose 2 people of the same sex that love each other getting married?
Why? Why is that any of your business? Why fight something and oppose something that does not affect you IN ANY WAY?

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

QW, if you do not know the definition of racism that is your problem. No, it is NOT racism.
It is DISCRIMINATION.
It is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor or against, a person or thing based on the GROUP, CLASS OR category to which that person belongs RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Something that serves to differentiate, making fine distinctions with DISCRIMINATING JUDGEMENTS.
You favordiscrimination and I don't.
BTW, your argument about gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex is absurd.
Hate to inform you this late in the discussion QW but gays and lesbians FALL IN LOVE WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX. And what is wrong with love? Are you against them falling in live and being committed and getting married?
WHY?

How is you bringing up inter racial marriages not a reference to racial discrimination, AKA racism? You went down that road, and I called you on it.

By the way, I did not argue that same sex couples have the right to marry opposite sex people. Talk about throwing up strawmen. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either debate the points I am actually making or go play with yourself. I am not going to respond to you if you attack positions I do not have.

 

[bodecea]

There is no right to get married, nor is there a right to access to contracts. In fact, I do not even have any idea what it is you mean by that. Contracts are regulated by law, enforced by law, and totally defined in terms of what is, and is not, legal, by law. Just because I think the government should not be involved in contracts, that does not mean I think they are not. I do not like the way the world works, but that is the way it works.

I'm afraid that is just not true. The Supreme Court has determined, on a number of occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. What legal basis is there to deny a fundamental right to gay and lesbian Americans? (Secular and reasonable person standards DO apply )

What basis do we have to deny it to second cousins?

We don't. You know of any laws against 2nd cousins marrying?

 

[gekaap]

Maybe you should read it sometime, you will then realize that, like I said, it says nothing about the actual laws.

Actually it does. It says that all laws passed by the Congress in accordance with the constitution are also the supreme laws of the land.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm afraid that is just not true. The Supreme Court has determined, on a number of occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. What legal basis is there to deny a fundamental right to gay and lesbian Americans? (Secular and reasonable person standards DO apply )

What basis do we have to deny it to second cousins?

We don't. You know of any laws against 2nd cousins marrying?

Why do we deny marriage to fists cousins once removed, which makes the same amount of sense, and is the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you should read it sometime, you will then realize that, like I said, it says nothing about the actual laws.

Actually it does. It says that all laws passed by the Congress in accordance with the constitution are also the supreme laws of the land.

So it does, but it still says nothing like what you claimed it did earlier.

By the way, you just proved that DOMA is the supreme law of the land.

 

[gekaap]

By the way, you just proved that DOMA is the supreme law of the land.

The DOMA establishes that no state will be forced to recognize the same sex marriage of another state. The element (section 3) that defined marriage as between a man and a woman was ruled unconstitutional. The remaining element (section 2) has not been brought up on challenge.

Thus, the only remaining element of the DOMA is section 2, which reads:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

If this law has been made in accordance with the constitution, then it is the supreme law of the land. However, I firmly doubt its constitutionality. If challenged, I expect this law to be in violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

 

[Gadawg73]

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

QW, if you do not know the definition of racism that is your problem. No, it is NOT racism.
It is DISCRIMINATION.
It is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor or against, a person or thing based on the GROUP, CLASS OR category to which that person belongs RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Something that serves to differentiate, making fine distinctions with DISCRIMINATING JUDGEMENTS.
You favordiscrimination and I don't.
BTW, your argument about gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex is absurd.
Hate to inform you this late in the discussion QW but gays and lesbians FALL IN LOVE WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX. And what is wrong with love? Are you against them falling in live and being committed and getting married?
WHY?

How is you bringing up inter racial marriages not a reference to racial discrimination, AKA racism? You went down that road, and I called you on it.

By the way, I did not argue that same sex couples have the right to marry opposite sex people. Talk about throwing up strawmen. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either debate the points I am actually making or go play with yourself. I am not going to respond to you if you attack positions I do not have.

Being against inter racial marriage is discrimination.
Racism is believing one race is superior to another.
Websters can be bought at your local book store as you obviously don't know the definition of racism.

 

[Gadawg73]

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

QW, if you do not know the definition of racism that is your problem. No, it is NOT racism.
It is DISCRIMINATION.
It is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor or against, a person or thing based on the GROUP, CLASS OR category to which that person belongs RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Something that serves to differentiate, making fine distinctions with DISCRIMINATING JUDGEMENTS.
You favordiscrimination and I don't.
BTW, your argument about gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex is absurd.
Hate to inform you this late in the discussion QW but gays and lesbians FALL IN LOVE WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX. And what is wrong with love? Are you against them falling in live and being committed and getting married?
WHY?

How is you bringing up inter racial marriages not a reference to racial discrimination, AKA racism? You went down that road, and I called you on it.

By the way, I did not argue that same sex couples have the right to marry opposite sex people. Talk about throwing up strawmen. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either debate the points I am actually making or go play with yourself. I am not going to respond to you if you attack positions I do not have.

You are right about the same sex couples argument. I thought that was you making that argument.
I will be ashamed of myself for making that mistake when you are ashamed of yourself for not supporting equal protection of the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By the way, you just proved that DOMA is the supreme law of the land.

The DOMA establishes that no state will be forced to recognize the same sex marriage of another state. The element (section 3) that defined marriage as between a man and a woman was ruled unconstitutional. The remaining element (section 2) has not been brought up on challenge.

Thus, the only remaining element of the DOMA is section 2, which reads:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

If this law has been made in accordance with the constitution, then it is the supreme law of the land. However, I firmly doubt its constitutionality. If challenged, I expect this law to be in violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

Are you aware that only the Supreme Court truly has the power to declare a law unconstitutional on a national level? Are you also aware that your opinion on the constitutionality, or unconstitutionality, of any law counts for squat? Don't you think that people loose their right to free speech if they follow federal law and form corporations?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, if you do not know the definition of racism that is your problem. No, it is NOT racism.
It is DISCRIMINATION.
It is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor or against, a person or thing based on the GROUP, CLASS OR category to which that person belongs RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Something that serves to differentiate, making fine distinctions with DISCRIMINATING JUDGEMENTS.
You favordiscrimination and I don't.
BTW, your argument about gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex is absurd.
Hate to inform you this late in the discussion QW but gays and lesbians FALL IN LOVE WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX. And what is wrong with love? Are you against them falling in live and being committed and getting married?
WHY?

How is you bringing up inter racial marriages not a reference to racial discrimination, AKA racism? You went down that road, and I called you on it.

By the way, I did not argue that same sex couples have the right to marry opposite sex people. Talk about throwing up strawmen. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either debate the points I am actually making or go play with yourself. I am not going to respond to you if you attack positions I do not have.

You are right about the same sex couples argument. I thought that was you making that argument.
I will be ashamed of myself for making that mistake when you are ashamed of yourself for not supporting equal protection of the law.

Ah, I see said the blind man. You can discriminate on the basis of race, and not be a racist.

One reason that anti-miscegenation laws failed is that they applied ony to white people marrying non whites. That, even by your definition, makes them racist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, if you do not know the definition of racism that is your problem. No, it is NOT racism.
It is DISCRIMINATION.
It is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor or against, a person or thing based on the GROUP, CLASS OR category to which that person belongs RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Something that serves to differentiate, making fine distinctions with DISCRIMINATING JUDGEMENTS.
You favordiscrimination and I don't.
BTW, your argument about gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex is absurd.
Hate to inform you this late in the discussion QW but gays and lesbians FALL IN LOVE WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX. And what is wrong with love? Are you against them falling in live and being committed and getting married?
WHY?

How is you bringing up inter racial marriages not a reference to racial discrimination, AKA racism? You went down that road, and I called you on it.

By the way, I did not argue that same sex couples have the right to marry opposite sex people. Talk about throwing up strawmen. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either debate the points I am actually making or go play with yourself. I am not going to respond to you if you attack positions I do not have.

You are right about the same sex couples argument. I thought that was you making that argument.
I will be ashamed of myself for making that mistake when you are ashamed of yourself for not supporting equal protection of the law.

What I find shameful is your attempt to condition your contrition on an attempt to make me feel guilty for a stance I do not have.

 

[gekaap]

Are you aware that only the Supreme Court truly has the power to declare a law unconstitutional on a national level?

This is untrue. In fact, all federal and state courts are charged by the constitution to uphold the constitution. If any court finds a law unconstitutional then that court is required to not honor that law.

That being said, there are jurisdictional matters that do come into play. If a state court finds a federal law unconstitutional then that decision would not be able to be used in the next state over, unless the decision was then appealed to the SCOTUS and upheld. As federal courts go, any federal court can find a law unconstitutional if it has jurisdiction to hear the case, and that court has the authority to issue any necessary orders to halt enforcement of said law. The case can always be appealed. But that does not mean that the lower court does not have the jurisdiction to rule a law unconstitutional. It, in fact, has the constitutionally charged duty to weigh the constitutionality of the law.

Are you also aware that your opinion on the constitutionality, or unconstitutionality, of any law counts for squat? Don't you think that people loose their right to free speech if they follow federal law and form corporations?

I don't have the authority to prevent the government from enforcing any law just because I think it is unconstitutional. But that is not what we are discussing. You argue that I affirmed the constitutionality of the DOMA. I explained that I do not affirm such, because I suspect the law to be unconstitutional and that it will be overturned if it is challenged. Whether such a challenge is ever made, or whether any court supports a similar opinion remains to be seen. But you make it sound like I have no right to offer a critical appraisal of the constitutionality of a given law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you aware that only the Supreme Court truly has the power to declare a law unconstitutional on a national level?

This is untrue. In fact, all federal and state courts are charged by the constitution to uphold the constitution. If any court finds a law unconstitutional then that court is required to not honor that law.

That being said, there are jurisdictional matters that do come into play. If a state court finds a federal law unconstitutional then that decision would not be able to be used in the next state over, unless the decision was then appealed to the SCOTUS and upheld. As federal courts go, any federal court can find a law unconstitutional if it has jurisdiction to hear the case, and that court has the authority to issue any necessary orders to halt enforcement of said law. The case can always be appealed. But that does not mean that the lower court does not have the jurisdiction to rule a law unconstitutional. It, in fact, has the constitutionally charged duty to weigh the constitutionality of the law.

Are you also aware that your opinion on the constitutionality, or unconstitutionality, of any law counts for squat? Don't you think that people loose their right to free speech if they follow federal law and form corporations?

I don't have the authority to prevent the government from enforcing any law just because I think it is unconstitutional. But that is not what we are discussing. You argue that I affirmed the constitutionality of the DOMA. I explained that I do not affirm such, because I suspect the law to be unconstitutional and that it will be overturned if it is challenged. Whether such a challenge is ever made, or whether any court supports a similar opinion remains to be seen. But you make it sound like I have no right to offer a critical appraisal of the constitutionality of a given law.

No, I pointed out that you made the point that DOMA is the supreme law of the land. It has been around for years and, unless you can point out something that was done that that was not pursuant to the Constitution, it is automatically constitutional. You seem to think that it is impossible to pass an unconstitutional law while following the Constitution. I would love for you to explain that logic, if you can.

 

[Gadawg73]

How is you bringing up inter racial marriages not a reference to racial discrimination, AKA racism? You went down that road, and I called you on it.

By the way, I did not argue that same sex couples have the right to marry opposite sex people. Talk about throwing up strawmen. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either debate the points I am actually making or go play with yourself. I am not going to respond to you if you attack positions I do not have.

You are right about the same sex couples argument. I thought that was you making that argument.
I will be ashamed of myself for making that mistake when you are ashamed of yourself for not supporting equal protection of the law.

Ah, I see said the blind man. You can discriminate on the basis of race, and not be a racist.

One reason that anti-miscegenation laws failed is that they applied ony to white people marrying non whites. That, even by your definition, makes them racist.

And the non white was never being discriminated against with anti miscengenation?
In the real world BOTH PARTIES were being discriminated against.
Just like gays and lesbians are being discriminated against.
No equal protection under the law in BOTH cases.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no right to get married, nor is there a right to access to contracts. In fact, I do not even have any idea what it is you mean by that. Contracts are regulated by law, enforced by law, and totally defined in terms of what is, and is not, legal, by law. Just because I think the government should not be involved in contracts, that does not mean I think they are not. I do not like the way the world works, but that is the way it works.

I'm afraid that is just not true. The Supreme Court has determined, on a number of occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. What legal basis is there to deny a fundamental right to gay and lesbian Americans? (Secular and reasonable person standards DO apply )

What basis do we have to deny it to second cousins?

Some states don't. Some states even ALLOW 1st cousin marriages. (AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN,, VT, VA and Washington DC) State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

And if some cousins decide to get married in Alabama, their marriage is STILL recognized in Minnesota.

If cousins in those other states want to fight for THEIR marriages in THEIR states, nobody is stopping them. You see, when you challenge something, those defending it must come up with a societal harm that those marriages or relationships cause in order to deny them legal marriage.

Where is the overriding societal harm in allowing cousins or siblings to marry? What is the harm in allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry?

 

[Seawytch]

No, I pointed out that you made the point that DOMA is the supreme law of the land. It has been around for years and, unless you can point out something that was done that that was not pursuant to the Constitution, it is automatically constitutional. You seem to think that it is impossible to pass an unconstitutional law while following the Constitution. I would love for you to explain that logic, if you can.

So, if a majority of our legislature decides to craft a law that prohibits Protestants from legally marrying, it is constitutional simply because they passed it?

 

[Gadawg73]

How is you bringing up inter racial marriages not a reference to racial discrimination, AKA racism? You went down that road, and I called you on it.

By the way, I did not argue that same sex couples have the right to marry opposite sex people. Talk about throwing up strawmen. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either debate the points I am actually making or go play with yourself. I am not going to respond to you if you attack positions I do not have.

You are right about the same sex couples argument. I thought that was you making that argument.
I will be ashamed of myself for making that mistake when you are ashamed of yourself for not supporting equal protection of the law.

Ah, I see said the blind man. You can discriminate on the basis of race, and not be a racist.

One reason that anti-miscegenation laws failed is that they applied ony to white people marrying non whites. That, even by your definition, makes them racist.

QW, racism is a BELIEF. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particluar race.
Discrimination is AN ACT.
Laws are DISCRIMINATORY.
People are RACIST.
You can enforce laws and regulations.
You CAN NOT force and regulate BELIEFS.
You are a closet liberal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm afraid that is just not true. The Supreme Court has determined, on a number of occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. What legal basis is there to deny a fundamental right to gay and lesbian Americans? (Secular and reasonable person standards DO apply )

What basis do we have to deny it to second cousins?

Some states don't. Some states even ALLOW 1st cousin marriages. (AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN,, VT, VA and Washington DC) State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

And if some cousins decide to get married in Alabama, their marriage is STILL recognized in Minnesota.

If cousins in those other states want to fight for THEIR marriages in THEIR states, nobody is stopping them. You see, when you challenge something, those defending it must come up with a societal harm that those marriages or relationships cause in order to deny them legal marriage.

Where is the overriding societal harm in allowing cousins or siblings to marry? What is the harm in allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry?

You are missing my point. Those laws were obviously designed to prevent inbreeding. In the days before we understood genetics the only thing we had to go with was familial relationships. Some states have actually moved into modern times and permit cousin marriages with genetic counseling. The people that argue that marriage was never about children obviously need to refine their arguments.

By the way, prevent birth defects that come from inbreeding and reinforcement of negative traits is an overwhelming societal concern. That is why laws that prevent a siblings or other close relatives from marrying will pass court scrutiny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I pointed out that you made the point that DOMA is the supreme law of the land. It has been around for years and, unless you can point out something that was done that that was not pursuant to the Constitution, it is automatically constitutional. You seem to think that it is impossible to pass an unconstitutional law while following the Constitution. I would love for you to explain that logic, if you can.

So, if a majority of our legislature decides to craft a law that prohibits Protestants from legally marrying, it is constitutional simply because they passed it?

Where did I say that? Why is everyone basing their argument for SSM on things that are not happening? Maybe I should post links to some good, well thought out, arguments for allowing consenting adults to marry that do not reduce the argument to sound bites.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are right about the same sex couples argument. I thought that was you making that argument.
I will be ashamed of myself for making that mistake when you are ashamed of yourself for not supporting equal protection of the law.

Ah, I see said the blind man. You can discriminate on the basis of race, and not be a racist.

One reason that anti-miscegenation laws failed is that they applied ony to white people marrying non whites. That, even by your definition, makes them racist.

QW, racism is a BELIEF. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particluar race.
Discrimination is AN ACT.
Laws are DISCRIMINATORY.
People are RACIST.
You can enforce laws and regulations.
You CAN NOT force and regulate BELIEFS.
You are a closet liberal.

I am not a closet anything. I am simply pointing out the how absurd you are in arguing that a law can discriminate but cannot be racist. Both of those are actually actions of people, not laws. You are attempting to parse a position that is absurd.

Laws simply exist. Affirmative action laws do not discriminate, yet applying them involves racist thinking. Get down off your hobby horse and admit that the only reason you are attempting to argue that laws discriminate, but are not racist, is that you do not want to admit that I am actually right. Get over it, it happens.