It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[candycorn]

"It's time to start thinking about resistance."

It's time to start thinking about getting a grip.

You know that ain't going to happen.

 

[martybegan]

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Again, all of this could be avoided by the legislatures re-writing the laws at the State level, that would make them equal.

Your side keeps going on about no right being absolute, not everything is equal.

Ok, why would it not be...under the law? Keep in mind, those lawyers arguing against gay marriage were not able to present any compelling argument to the Supreme Court...or almost all lower courts that they were not equal under the eyes of the law. Do you have some compelling reason they didn't have?

it was compelling to 4 of the 5 justices. To me its an issue of precedent. There has never been examples of same sex marriage being part of any marriage contract in our history, or the history of Europe, where most of our precedence comes from. If you want to change something so drastically you go to the source of the law, i.e. the legislatures at the State level that created the contracts in the first place, and petition them to change the laws.

This is entirely different than the instances of race based marriage laws, where those were tacked on as additional conditions to the already existing concept, i.e. adding racial disqualifiers to the acknowledged condition of the existing marriage laws.

 

[martybegan]

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

 

[martybegan]

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

Right now the SC seems to outweigh all the other branches, because the other branches are letting them do it.

 

[martybegan]

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

I don't like Citizens United, but there is Constitutional interpretation backing it up....until such time as someone can convince the Supreme Court otherwise...or....a Constitutional Amendment is passed overriding it. That's how it's done.....that's how it was done with Plessey. That's how it was done with the Supreme Court decision in Pollack v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co.

That is a subtle and well thought out dodge, nothing more. When you agree with the decision you just keep running back to the authority appeal, when you don't agree, you do the same thing but leave yourself wiggle room.

 

[koshergrl]

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

Right now the SC seems to outweigh all the other branches, because the other branches are letting them do it.

Which is an indication of how far gone our country is...which is why people are protesting and resisting and thinking about "revolution" (it's not really, it's restoration to constitutionality).

 

[martybegan]

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

Right now the SC seems to outweigh all the other branches, because the other branches are letting them do it.

Which is an indication of how far gone our country is...which is why people are protesting and resisting and thinking about "revolution" (it's not really, it's restoration to constitutionality).

At this point any restoration might require a revolution.

 

[koshergrl]

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

Right now the SC seems to outweigh all the other branches, because the other branches are letting them do it.

Which is an indication of how far gone our country is...which is why people are protesting and resisting and thinking about "revolution" (it's not really, it's restoration to constitutionality).

At this point any restoration might require a revolution.

Well it's sort of a distinction without a difference but still. In one instance, the revolutionaries are considered the "criminals". In the other, it's the government that has gone AWOL.

 

[martybegan]

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

Right now the SC seems to outweigh all the other branches, because the other branches are letting them do it.

Which is an indication of how far gone our country is...which is why people are protesting and resisting and thinking about "revolution" (it's not really, it's restoration to constitutionality).

At this point any restoration might require a revolution.

Well it's sort of a distinction without a difference but still. In one instance, the revolutionaries are considered the "criminals". In the other, it's the government that has gone AWOL.

The criminality of revolutionaries is only established once they lose.

 

[koshergrl]

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

Right now the SC seems to outweigh all the other branches, because the other branches are letting them do it.

Which is an indication of how far gone our country is...which is why people are protesting and resisting and thinking about "revolution" (it's not really, it's restoration to constitutionality).

At this point any restoration might require a revolution.

Well it's sort of a distinction without a difference but still. In one instance, the revolutionaries are considered the "criminals". In the other, it's the government that has gone AWOL.

The criminality of revolutionaries is only established once they lose.

Well let me reword it then..revolutionaries are usually trying to put a new government in, and change or get rid of the existing laws.

We have the correct government in place..we just need to evict the criminals who aren't abiding by it.

 

[Seawytch]

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

 

[martybegan]

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

What was wrong with the process?

 

[bodecea]

Right now the SC seems to outweigh all the other branches, because the other branches are letting them do it.

Which is an indication of how far gone our country is...which is why people are protesting and resisting and thinking about "revolution" (it's not really, it's restoration to constitutionality).

At this point any restoration might require a revolution.

Well it's sort of a distinction without a difference but still. In one instance, the revolutionaries are considered the "criminals". In the other, it's the government that has gone AWOL.

The criminality of revolutionaries is only established once they lose.

Well let me reword it then..revolutionaries are usually trying to put a new government in, and change or get rid of the existing laws.

We have the correct government in place..we just need to evict the criminals who aren't abiding by it.

Then do that.....start at the local and state level. Quit voting in encumbents.

 

[martybegan]

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

What was wrong with the process?

The Federal courts had no jurisdiction over the State level marriage contract in this situation.

 

[Seawytch]

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

If your issue was only with the "process" then there was no need to infer that gay couples are not on par with straight couples.

 

[martybegan]

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

If your issue was only with the "process" then there was no need to infer that gay couples are not on par with straight couples.

Only when it comes to marriage contracts as they have been written for centuries. There is no precedent to be found for it. For a change as drastic as going from husband and wife to husband/husband wife/wife a vote by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is not the process to use. Going State by State, petitioning them to change the Marriage Contract (and using the Courts to make sure States have to recognize marriage licenses issued by other States as valid) was the proper process to take.

 

[bendog]

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

If your issue was only with the "process" then there was no need to infer that gay couples are not on par with straight couples.

I don't know about Marty, but for the scotus to find an equal protection violation, there couldn't be a rational reason some legislator in "ain't seen indoor plumbing yet county" Kentucky, to conclude that no gay marriage would tend to keep some straight marriage together. While that may or may not actually be true, the test is could the inbred semi-literate ill-educated redneck actually believe that, and is there absolutely no chance of it being so?

I can't see that.

But, it's a separate question to say gay couples should be treated any different that straight couples in health, educ, property and child rearing.

I'm fine with the result, but legally and historically speaking, it was a sloppy way to get there.

 

[martybegan]

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

If your issue was only with the "process" then there was no need to infer that gay couples are not on par with straight couples.

I don't know about Marty, but for the scotus to find an equal protection violation, there couldn't be a rational reason some legislator in "ain't seen indoor plumbing yet county" Kentucky, to conclude that no gay marriage would tend to keep some straight marriage together. While that may or may not actually be true, the test is could the inbred semi-literate ill-educated redneck actually believe that, and is there absolutely no chance of it being so?

I can't see that.

But, it's a separate question to say gay couples should be treated any different that straight couples in health, educ, property and child rearing.

I'm fine with the result, but legally and historically speaking, it was a sloppy way to get there.

It's also a dangerous way to get there, because any court that can make stuff up to add to the constitution, can rationalize removing things from it just as easily. The SC simply has too much power right now. Just wait until they reverse Heller (which I hope never happens) eventually and say the 2nd doesn't protect an individuals right to arms.

 

[bendog]

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

If your issue was only with the "process" then there was no need to infer that gay couples are not on par with straight couples.

Only when it comes to marriage contracts as they have been written for centuries. There is no precedent to be found for it. For a change as drastic as going from husband and wife to husband/husband wife/wife a vote by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is not the process to use. Going State by State, petitioning them to change the Marriage Contract (and using the Courts to make sure States have to recognize marriage licenses issued by other States as valid) was the proper process to take.

Ah, but the other states would have had to deal with the marriages. For example, gay couple marries in Mass, and two children are born. They move to Miss. And they want to divorce. That was actually the question down here, at the time of the scotus decision. Another example, by inter-state compact, states must enforce child custody decrees from other states. Say the couple divorces in Mass, and custody is shared, with each parent paying support to the other when the child is with the other parent. What happens when the Miss parent won't pay the support or when she won't return the child.

There was no way for the states to avoid the issue.