Jimmy Carter: "Leave Gay Marriage To States To Decide" (Right On Jimmy!)

[Seawytch]

No, you want to debate where you want the world to be, not where it is. CCW permits are all treated the same, marriage licenses aren't and you're okay with the latter. That's discrimination, period.

I'm poking holes in your logic. by your logic CCW's should be treated the same as marriage licenses, if you assume both are rights.

And I never argued that they shouldn't be. Fight for it. Challenge it to the SCOTUS. I wish you luck.

You, on the other hand are perfectly fine with my marriage license being treated differently. Why is that?

Then why would I vote for SSM being OK in NY if it ever came to a vote.

Its just that my belief in the constitution outweighs my personal views on a matter, and if people in Alabama don't want to recognize SSM there is nothing in the constitution that prevents that.

Actually, there had to be a specific law written by Congress to prevent my legal civil marriage from being recognized in Alabama. Remember DOMA? Not all of it was repealed.

California has to recognize the 50 year old marrying his 15 year old 1st cousin but Alabama doesn't have to recognize my legal civil marriage to my consenting adult partner...because of a law that Congress wrote.

That law was a attempt to get around judges who overstep their bounds, so a misuse of the constitution leads to an unnecessary law, because the definition of the marriage contract is with the states in the first place.

The law is unconstitutional and will be struck down at it's first challenge.

You're still ignoring the California has to recognize the pedophile Alabama marriage. Why?

 

[Seawytch]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

Yes, yes it should. Challenge it!

 

[rightwinger]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

 

[martybegan]

I'm poking holes in your logic. by your logic CCW's should be treated the same as marriage licenses, if you assume both are rights.

And I never argued that they shouldn't be. Fight for it. Challenge it to the SCOTUS. I wish you luck.

You, on the other hand are perfectly fine with my marriage license being treated differently. Why is that?

Then why would I vote for SSM being OK in NY if it ever came to a vote.

Its just that my belief in the constitution outweighs my personal views on a matter, and if people in Alabama don't want to recognize SSM there is nothing in the constitution that prevents that.

Actually, there had to be a specific law written by Congress to prevent my legal civil marriage from being recognized in Alabama. Remember DOMA? Not all of it was repealed.

California has to recognize the 50 year old marrying his 15 year old 1st cousin but Alabama doesn't have to recognize my legal civil marriage to my consenting adult partner...because of a law that Congress wrote.

That law was a attempt to get around judges who overstep their bounds, so a misuse of the constitution leads to an unnecessary law, because the definition of the marriage contract is with the states in the first place.

The law is unconstitutional and will be struck down at it's first challenge.

You're still ignoring the California has to recognize the pedophile Alabama marriage. Why?

Actually that's more the definition of pederasty (or the male older/female younger equivalent).

Harry Hay, one of the icons of the gay rights movement was a proponent of relationships like that between older men and younger post pubescent boys, did you know that?

Unconstitutional because it violates the 10th amendment, not due to the reasons you want it struck down.

 

[martybegan]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I can have the identically same clean record as another person, and the NYPD can deny the permit to me, and give it so someone else "because they say so". How is that equal protection?

If marriage licenses have to be accepted across state lines, if drivers licenses have to be accepted across state lines, CCW's have to be as well.

 

[martybegan]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

Yes, yes it should. Challenge it!

Good luck with that. You see, the asshole judges that go by their whims and not the constitution while in support of your position on SSM are against armed citizens. So the method the courts use to help your cause fuck over my cause.

Get it now?

 

[DriftingSand]

I was never a fan of Carter's but he's 100% correct on this issue. I've also learned to respect him due to his involvement with Habitat For Humanity: A Christian charity that builds homes for the homeless.

Jimmy appears to be going a little senile since he started his flip flop on the issue with a falsehood.

"I don't think that the government ought to ever tell the church to marry people, if the church doesn't want to. I'm a Baptist and the congregation of our church will decide whether we have a man or a woman as pastor, and whether we'll marry gay people or not,"

They aren't Jimmy. Never have and never will. How do we know? By all the churches that were forced to marry interracial and interfaith couples.

No church is "forced" to marry anyone and all churches have the right to say "yes" or "no." If the couple doesn't like the answer they can go to another church. There are many pastors that require several meetings with a potential couple before agreeing to marry them. My pastor discussed marriage with me and my wife-to-be on several occasions before agreeing to marry us and we are both white and straight. He could have said "no" had he not believed that we were a good fit. There are also a lot of churches in America who still won't marry interracial couples as they believe it goes against their beliefs. Like it or not ... they have that right.

So ... it sounds to me like Carter's mind is more clear than yours.

 

[francoHFW]

The Moonie Times is a lying propaganda rag, and in this case it's hard to tell what Carter is talking about, ie, he said last year he was for gay marriage nationwide, but now he's worried about people being forced to do things...probably a bs headline.

 

[rightwinger]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I can have the identically same clean record as another person, and the NYPD can deny the permit to me, and give it so someone else "because they say so". How is that equal protection?

If marriage licenses have to be accepted across state lines, if drivers licenses have to be accepted across state lines, CCW's have to be as well.

If you feel that NYPD is unfairly denying you a CCW for arbitrary reasons, I encourage you to take them to court
I would recommend you cite the 14th amendment

Good Luck

 

[rightwinger]

I was never a fan of Carter's but he's 100% correct on this issue. I've also learned to respect him due to his involvement with Habitat For Humanity: A Christian charity that builds homes for the homeless.

Jimmy appears to be going a little senile since he started his flip flop on the issue with a falsehood.

"I don't think that the government ought to ever tell the church to marry people, if the church doesn't want to. I'm a Baptist and the congregation of our church will decide whether we have a man or a woman as pastor, and whether we'll marry gay people or not,"

They aren't Jimmy. Never have and never will. How do we know? By all the churches that were forced to marry interracial and interfaith couples.

No church is "forced" to marry anyone and all churches have the right to say "yes" or "no." If the couple doesn't like the answer they can go to another church. There are many pastors that require several meetings with a potential couple before agreeing to marry them. My pastor discussed marriage with me and my wife-to-be on several occasions before agreeing to marry us and we are both white and straight. He could have said "no" had he not believed that we were a good fit. There are also a lot of churches in America who still won't marry interracial couples as they believe it goes against their beliefs. Like it or not ... they have that right.

So ... it sounds to me like Carter's mind is more clear than yours.

Seems to me she is making the same argument you are

Nobody is forcing churches to marry anyone.....the states are held to a different standard

 

[Seawytch]

And I never argued that they shouldn't be. Fight for it. Challenge it to the SCOTUS. I wish you luck.

You, on the other hand are perfectly fine with my marriage license being treated differently. Why is that?

Then why would I vote for SSM being OK in NY if it ever came to a vote.

Its just that my belief in the constitution outweighs my personal views on a matter, and if people in Alabama don't want to recognize SSM there is nothing in the constitution that prevents that.

Actually, there had to be a specific law written by Congress to prevent my legal civil marriage from being recognized in Alabama. Remember DOMA? Not all of it was repealed.

California has to recognize the 50 year old marrying his 15 year old 1st cousin but Alabama doesn't have to recognize my legal civil marriage to my consenting adult partner...because of a law that Congress wrote.

That law was a attempt to get around judges who overstep their bounds, so a misuse of the constitution leads to an unnecessary law, because the definition of the marriage contract is with the states in the first place.

The law is unconstitutional and will be struck down at it's first challenge.

You're still ignoring the California has to recognize the pedophile Alabama marriage. Why?

Actually that's more the definition of pederasty (or the male older/female younger equivalent).

Harry Hay, one of the icons of the gay rights movement was a proponent of relationships like that between older men and younger post pubescent boys, did you know that?

Unconstitutional because it violates the 10th amendment, not due to the reasons you want it struck down.

What was the section of DOMA that was challenged stuck down on?

Funny how judges seem to be agreeing with me and not you eh?

 

[martybegan]

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I can have the identically same clean record as another person, and the NYPD can deny the permit to me, and give it so someone else "because they say so". How is that equal protection?

If marriage licenses have to be accepted across state lines, if drivers licenses have to be accepted across state lines, CCW's have to be as well.

If you feel that NYPD is unfairly denying you a CCW for arbitrary reasons, I encourage you to take them to court
I would recommend you cite the 14th amendment

Good Luck

its been tried, the judges are assholes, and the system that helps your cause uses the exact same process to hurt mine.

 

[martybegan]

Then why would I vote for SSM being OK in NY if it ever came to a vote.

Its just that my belief in the constitution outweighs my personal views on a matter, and if people in Alabama don't want to recognize SSM there is nothing in the constitution that prevents that.

Actually, there had to be a specific law written by Congress to prevent my legal civil marriage from being recognized in Alabama. Remember DOMA? Not all of it was repealed.

California has to recognize the 50 year old marrying his 15 year old 1st cousin but Alabama doesn't have to recognize my legal civil marriage to my consenting adult partner...because of a law that Congress wrote.

That law was a attempt to get around judges who overstep their bounds, so a misuse of the constitution leads to an unnecessary law, because the definition of the marriage contract is with the states in the first place.

The law is unconstitutional and will be struck down at it's first challenge.

You're still ignoring the California has to recognize the pedophile Alabama marriage. Why?

Actually that's more the definition of pederasty (or the male older/female younger equivalent).

Harry Hay, one of the icons of the gay rights movement was a proponent of relationships like that between older men and younger post pubescent boys, did you know that?

Unconstitutional because it violates the 10th amendment, not due to the reasons you want it struck down.

What was the section of DOMA that was challenged stuck down on?

Funny how judges seem to be agreeing with me and not you eh?

So judges are always right? Fancy that.

 

[Seawytch]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

 

[Seawytch]

I was never a fan of Carter's but he's 100% correct on this issue. I've also learned to respect him due to his involvement with Habitat For Humanity: A Christian charity that builds homes for the homeless.

Jimmy appears to be going a little senile since he started his flip flop on the issue with a falsehood.

"I don't think that the government ought to ever tell the church to marry people, if the church doesn't want to. I'm a Baptist and the congregation of our church will decide whether we have a man or a woman as pastor, and whether we'll marry gay people or not,"

They aren't Jimmy. Never have and never will. How do we know? By all the churches that were forced to marry interracial and interfaith couples.

No church is "forced" to marry anyone and all churches have the right to say "yes" or "no." If the couple doesn't like the answer they can go to another church. There are many pastors that require several meetings with a potential couple before agreeing to marry them. My pastor discussed marriage with me and my wife-to-be on several occasions before agreeing to marry us and we are both white and straight. He could have said "no" had he not believed that we were a good fit. There are also a lot of churches in America who still won't marry interracial couples as they believe it goes against their beliefs. Like it or not ... they have that right.

So ... it sounds to me like Carter's mind is more clear than yours.

You just repeated what I said. Carter is basing his flip flop on a lie, that churches will be forced to marry gay people. They won't.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, there had to be a specific law written by Congress to prevent my legal civil marriage from being recognized in Alabama. Remember DOMA? Not all of it was repealed.

California has to recognize the 50 year old marrying his 15 year old 1st cousin but Alabama doesn't have to recognize my legal civil marriage to my consenting adult partner...because of a law that Congress wrote.

That law was a attempt to get around judges who overstep their bounds, so a misuse of the constitution leads to an unnecessary law, because the definition of the marriage contract is with the states in the first place.

The law is unconstitutional and will be struck down at it's first challenge.

You're still ignoring the California has to recognize the pedophile Alabama marriage. Why?

Actually that's more the definition of pederasty (or the male older/female younger equivalent).

Harry Hay, one of the icons of the gay rights movement was a proponent of relationships like that between older men and younger post pubescent boys, did you know that?

Unconstitutional because it violates the 10th amendment, not due to the reasons you want it struck down.

What was the section of DOMA that was challenged stuck down on?

Funny how judges seem to be agreeing with me and not you eh?

So judges are always right? Fancy that.

How many rulings have there been? You actually believe that 50 some rulings are wrong, but you're right?

What was the section of DOMA that was challenged struck down on? (I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the 10th)

 

[DriftingSand]

I was never a fan of Carter's but he's 100% correct on this issue. I've also learned to respect him due to his involvement with Habitat For Humanity: A Christian charity that builds homes for the homeless.

Jimmy appears to be going a little senile since he started his flip flop on the issue with a falsehood.

"I don't think that the government ought to ever tell the church to marry people, if the church doesn't want to. I'm a Baptist and the congregation of our church will decide whether we have a man or a woman as pastor, and whether we'll marry gay people or not,"

They aren't Jimmy. Never have and never will. How do we know? By all the churches that were forced to marry interracial and interfaith couples.

No church is "forced" to marry anyone and all churches have the right to say "yes" or "no." If the couple doesn't like the answer they can go to another church. There are many pastors that require several meetings with a potential couple before agreeing to marry them. My pastor discussed marriage with me and my wife-to-be on several occasions before agreeing to marry us and we are both white and straight. He could have said "no" had he not believed that we were a good fit. There are also a lot of churches in America who still won't marry interracial couples as they believe it goes against their beliefs. Like it or not ... they have that right.

So ... it sounds to me like Carter's mind is more clear than yours.

Seems to me she is making the same argument you are

Nobody is forcing churches to marry anyone.....the states are held to a different standard

States are being "forced" to go against the will of their people. Once that happens then the "people" will be forced to go against their personal will. The proverbial foot is in the door and, as Vladimir Lenin said, "two steps forward, one step back." The lobster is in the pot and the heat has been turned up.

 

[DriftingSand]

I was never a fan of Carter's but he's 100% correct on this issue. I've also learned to respect him due to his involvement with Habitat For Humanity: A Christian charity that builds homes for the homeless.

Jimmy appears to be going a little senile since he started his flip flop on the issue with a falsehood.

"I don't think that the government ought to ever tell the church to marry people, if the church doesn't want to. I'm a Baptist and the congregation of our church will decide whether we have a man or a woman as pastor, and whether we'll marry gay people or not,"

They aren't Jimmy. Never have and never will. How do we know? By all the churches that were forced to marry interracial and interfaith couples.

No church is "forced" to marry anyone and all churches have the right to say "yes" or "no." If the couple doesn't like the answer they can go to another church. There are many pastors that require several meetings with a potential couple before agreeing to marry them. My pastor discussed marriage with me and my wife-to-be on several occasions before agreeing to marry us and we are both white and straight. He could have said "no" had he not believed that we were a good fit. There are also a lot of churches in America who still won't marry interracial couples as they believe it goes against their beliefs. Like it or not ... they have that right.

So ... it sounds to me like Carter's mind is more clear than yours.

You just repeated what I said. Carter is basing his flip flop on a lie, that churches will be forced to marry gay people. They won't.

Oh really? You have heard about the Hag Mayor of Houston, haven't you? The government is already attempting to force pastors to go against their will and their beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

No, it is not. You would be arrested in NYC for carrying a gun that was legal in your home state, and any state that voluntarily offers reciprocity.

 

[Seawytch]

I was never a fan of Carter's but he's 100% correct on this issue. I've also learned to respect him due to his involvement with Habitat For Humanity: A Christian charity that builds homes for the homeless.

Jimmy appears to be going a little senile since he started his flip flop on the issue with a falsehood.

"I don't think that the government ought to ever tell the church to marry people, if the church doesn't want to. I'm a Baptist and the congregation of our church will decide whether we have a man or a woman as pastor, and whether we'll marry gay people or not,"

They aren't Jimmy. Never have and never will. How do we know? By all the churches that were forced to marry interracial and interfaith couples.

No church is "forced" to marry anyone and all churches have the right to say "yes" or "no." If the couple doesn't like the answer they can go to another church. There are many pastors that require several meetings with a potential couple before agreeing to marry them. My pastor discussed marriage with me and my wife-to-be on several occasions before agreeing to marry us and we are both white and straight. He could have said "no" had he not believed that we were a good fit. There are also a lot of churches in America who still won't marry interracial couples as they believe it goes against their beliefs. Like it or not ... they have that right.

So ... it sounds to me like Carter's mind is more clear than yours.

You just repeated what I said. Carter is basing his flip flop on a lie, that churches will be forced to marry gay people. They won't.

Oh really? You have heard about the Hag Mayor of Houston, haven't you? The government is already attempting to force pastors to go against their will and their beliefs.

Let me guess...you read that on the Blaze or some such crap? Try getting the real story.