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

[martybegan]

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)

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)

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."[4]

It actually reinforced the 10th, saying if a state decided on something, it overrules federal law in this case.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You are being intentionally obtuse. How droll.

NY treats my CCW permit the same as it treats Alabama's.

My CCW permit is not given more or less weight because it was issued to me in CA. Marriage licenses, except for gays, are treated the same state to state. Imagine if a CCW permit issued to a straight person was treated differently than one issued to a gay person. Understand now Mr. Obtuse?

 

[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.

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.

So you think Loving v Virginia (1967) was a bad ruling do you?

 

[martybegan]

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.

You are being intentionally obtuse. How droll.

NY treats my CCW permit the same as it treats Alabama's.

My CCW permit is not given more or less weight because it was issued to me in CA. Marriage licenses, except for gays, are treated the same state to state. Imagine if a CCW permit issued to a straight person was treated differently than one issued to a gay person. Understand now Mr. Obtuse?

So there is some magical "one other state does it" rule that obviates rights under the amendments?

Again, you assume that SSM and OSM are "equal" and they are not.

 

[Seawytch]

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)

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)

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."[4]

It actually reinforced the 10th, saying if a state decided on something, it overrules federal law in this case.

Riiiigggghhht. Go with that. Take it to the bank.

 

[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

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.

States are being "forced" to comply with the US Constitution which they signed up for. Same as when they were "forced" to abandon Jim Crow laws. The will of the people only goes so far

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You are being intentionally obtuse. How droll.

NY treats my CCW permit the same as it treats Alabama's.

My CCW permit is not given more or less weight because it was issued to me in CA. Marriage licenses, except for gays, are treated the same state to state. Imagine if a CCW permit issued to a straight person was treated differently than one issued to a gay person. Understand now Mr. Obtuse?

So there is some magical "one other state does it" rule that obviates rights under the amendments?

Again, you assume that SSM and OSM are "equal" and they are not.

And there you have it folks. Marty doesn't think my marriage is equal to his and therefore not deserving of the same rights and benefits.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The "judges are assholes" defense is used by everyone currently in prison

 

[martybegan]

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.

You are being intentionally obtuse. How droll.

NY treats my CCW permit the same as it treats Alabama's.

My CCW permit is not given more or less weight because it was issued to me in CA. Marriage licenses, except for gays, are treated the same state to state. Imagine if a CCW permit issued to a straight person was treated differently than one issued to a gay person. Understand now Mr. Obtuse?

So there is some magical "one other state does it" rule that obviates rights under the amendments?

Again, you assume that SSM and OSM are "equal" and they are not.

And there you have it folks. Marty doesn't think my marriage is equal to his and therefore not deserving of the same rights and benefits.

I would actually vote for it to be legally equal, but its still not equal. Two different things. What I will not support is judges forcing other states to recognized them as equal without those states first deciding to do so via legislative action.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The "judges are assholes" defense is used by everyone currently in prison

i.e. criminals. Are you saying you want to make my opinion criminal?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The "judges are assholes" defense is used by everyone currently in prison

i.e. criminals. Are you saying you want to make my opinion criminal?

Blaming the judge is a last defense of someone with a losing argument

If you think NY is unfair in the way it hands out CCWs there is an organization called the NRA that would be glad to pick up your case if it has merit. There is also a network called FoxNews that will give you all the free airtime you need to make a case

 

[martybegan]

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.

The "judges are assholes" defense is used by everyone currently in prison

i.e. criminals. Are you saying you want to make my opinion criminal?

Blaming the judge is a last defense of someone with a losing argument

If you think NY is unfair in the way it hands out CCWs there is an organization called the NRA that would be glad to pick up your case if it has merit. There is also a network called FoxNews that will give you all the free airtime you need to make a case

You really think they have not tried? Any suit never makes it out of the base level of courts. Again, your precious courts are the supposed protectors of rights. Oh, I forgot, its only made up progressive bullshit rights.

 

[Valerie]

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.

i haven't been following your CCW discussion...

as far as the OP...

the question is on what grounds does the state deny homosexual partners the same privileges conveyed by state marriage laws??

because God...? because tradition...? because tyranny of the majority...?

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??

 

[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.

i haven't been following your CCW discussion...

as far as the OP...

the question is on what grounds does the state deny homosexual partners the same privileges conveyed by state marriage laws??

because God...? because tradition...? because tyranny of the majority...?

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??

Because SSM is not a right as per the federal constitution, and is not given to the feds to regulate. Thus it falls to the state legislatures to determine the contents of the marriage contract.

 

[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.

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

Pay very close to the key word in the following headline (from the Huffington Post):

Why Houston Is Forcing Pastors To Turn In Their Sermons

Did you see it? Yup ... Houston Mayor is "forcing pastors" against their will. Any more questions?

Why Houston Is Forcing Pastors To Turn In Their Sermons

 

[Valerie]

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.

i haven't been following your CCW discussion...

as far as the OP...

the question is on what grounds does the state deny homosexual partners the same privileges conveyed by state marriage laws??

because God...? because tradition...? because tyranny of the majority...?

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??

Because SSM is not a right as per the federal constitution, and is not given to the feds to regulate. Thus it falls to the state legislatures to determine the contents of the marriage contract.

'the feds' via the court have the authority to make sure state laws are constitutional.

you did not answer my question but that's okay since there is no answer...meaning, there aren't any constitutional grounds for states to refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships... why? because the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION!

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The "judges are assholes" defense is used by everyone currently in prison

i.e. criminals. Are you saying you want to make my opinion criminal?

Blaming the judge is a last defense of someone with a losing argument

If you think NY is unfair in the way it hands out CCWs there is an organization called the NRA that would be glad to pick up your case if it has merit. There is also a network called FoxNews that will give you all the free airtime you need to make a case

You really think they have not tried? Any suit never makes it out of the base level of courts. Again, your precious courts are the supposed protectors of rights. Oh, I forgot, its only made up progressive bullshit rights.

Look

You tried and failed repeatedly. That shows you do not have a case. Blaming the judges is kind of lame
NY gun laws are constitutional. You have had the best gun lawyers that the NRA can buy and you still lost

 

[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.

i haven't been following your CCW discussion...

as far as the OP...

the question is on what grounds does the state deny homosexual partners the same privileges conveyed by state marriage laws??

because God...? because tradition...? because tyranny of the majority...?

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??[/QUOTE]

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??
That is where the states keep failing. They can't point to any Constitutional grounds to prevent gay citizens from marrying. They can't prove how gay marriage harms anyone
Their argument of "its always been that way" "gays can't procreate" and "the bible says so" has been falling flat

 

[Londoner]

He's right. At least he is using common sense of how gay marriage should be delt with..........by the will of the voter and not by an activist rogue judge.


Jimmy Carter Leave gay marriage to states to decide - Washington Times

Side note on the 1980 election

Jimmy Carter was (and still is) an evangelical who went (and still goes) to Church regularly. He was/is very active in church activities and outreach programs; puts his money where his mouth is and donates tons of money to church sponsored charities - and was the last vestige of the old Southern Conservative wing of the Democratic party. He was vigorously opposed by Northeastern liberals like Teddy Kennedy.

Carter has always been uneasy about gay marriage because of his religious values.

By contrast, Ronald Reagan - prior to his politically motivated conversion to conservatism - rarely went to Church. His wife Nancy was a notorious anti-religious astrology buff who would later support the Democrats stem cell research initiative.

The Reagans were emphatically not religious until the Republican Party needed conservatism as a form of populism to steal disaffected poor voters from the left, especially Southern and heartland Democrats who were alienated by their party's shift from traditional working class issues to the 60s cultural revolution (centered upon gender, race, life-style and anti-war issues).

Reagan was the first modern presidential candidate that was funded exclusively by large corporations, which corporations understood the power of branding. Reagan's backers put together a marketing machine which convinced poor American voters that the gipper was the reincarnation of American Conservatism - yet nobody thought to look more closely at his actual behavior and beliefs, which were socially far morel liberal than Carter's (the evangelical).

Say what you want about Carter, but know this. He did not agree with his party's liberal social values. He went along with them, but he has never been comfortable with the social values of the post 60s Left.

[Don't try to tell a Republican the ironic back story of the 1980 election, where the non-religious candidate used his newly discovered, fake religious conservatism against the true evangelical. Don't tell the Republican party that the father of American Conservatism was largely a marketing tool used to build a voting coalition. Today's Republican voters can't imagine that one of their Washington leaders (Reagan) would lie to the them. By and large, conservative voters trust their Washington leaders more than any other single voting faction in this great nation's history. Conservatives deeply trust their politicians - and Reagan was the greatest politician to come along in the last 1/2 century]

 

[martybegan]

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

The "judges are assholes" defense is used by everyone currently in prison

i.e. criminals. Are you saying you want to make my opinion criminal?

Blaming the judge is a last defense of someone with a losing argument

If you think NY is unfair in the way it hands out CCWs there is an organization called the NRA that would be glad to pick up your case if it has merit. There is also a network called FoxNews that will give you all the free airtime you need to make a case

You really think they have not tried? Any suit never makes it out of the base level of courts. Again, your precious courts are the supposed protectors of rights. Oh, I forgot, its only made up progressive bullshit rights.

Look

You tried and failed repeatedly. That shows you do not have a case. Blaming the judges is kind of lame
NY gun laws are constitutional. You have had the best gun lawyers that the NRA can buy and you still lost

They are not constitutional, they are capricious and allow the government to deny a CCW based not on law, but on the opinion of the police chief.

A judges opinion is just that, an opinion. Again your progressive desire to be lorded over by your "betters" shines through.