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

[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.

'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!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

 

[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!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

not at all. the constitution provides ALL citizens equal protection under state laws.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Thank you for admitting you lied.

Houston's mayor, Annise Parker, has agreed that the initial demands were too broad.

“Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday,” the mayor’s spokesperson Janice Evans told the Huffington Post over email. “Both agree the original documents were overly broad. The city will move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing.”

 

[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.

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!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You have to prove that in a court, not declare it on a message board

 

[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.

'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!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

its two different (actually 3) types of relationships. You can get legal equality all you want, its still different biologically and socially, and there is nothing short of mental exercises that can change that.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You have to prove that in a court, not declare it on a message board

Not proving it in court does not preclude me declaring it on a message board.

 

[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.

'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!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

Also, how many of those states passed laws declaring it, and how many had it done by judicial fiat?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You have to prove that in a court, not declare it on a message board

Not proving it in court does not preclude me declaring it on a message board.

Very true

And what the judge decides is law and what you decide is opinion

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Carter's wrong.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You have to prove that in a court, not declare it on a message board

Not proving it in court does not preclude me declaring it on a message board.

Very true

And what the judge decides is law and what you decide is opinion

Actually all he has is opinion as well. A law has to come from the legislature.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You have to prove that in a court, not declare it on a message board

Not proving it in court does not preclude me declaring it on a message board.

Very true

And what the judge decides is law and what you decide is opinion

Actually all he has is opinion as well. A law has to come from the legislature.

The NY gun law did come from the legislature

It is you seeking to overrule the legislature, not the judge

 

[martybegan]

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.

You have to prove that in a court, not declare it on a message board

Not proving it in court does not preclude me declaring it on a message board.

Very true

And what the judge decides is law and what you decide is opinion

Actually all he has is opinion as well. A law has to come from the legislature.

The NY gun law did come from the legislature

It is you seeking to overrule the legislature, not the judge

Yes, the real purpose of judicial review. Find a law that is unconstitutional, make it unenforceable, and then make the legislature come up with something valid.

The difference is gun rights is explicit in the constitution, marriage rights, especially SSM, are not. So the same judge becoming creative in granting SSM as a right is usually the same asshole ignoring the 2nd amendment.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

Unless you are a baker, a photographer, or own a wedding chapel.

Then, its SUBMIT PEON.

Or change the laws that businesses must abide by.

Duh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

You have to prove that in a court, not declare it on a message board

Not proving it in court does not preclude me declaring it on a message board.

Very true

And what the judge decides is law and what you decide is opinion

Actually all he has is opinion as well. A law has to come from the legislature.

The NY gun law did come from the legislature

It is you seeking to overrule the legislature, not the judge

Yes, the real purpose of judicial review. Find a law that is unconstitutional, make it unenforceable, and then make the legislature come up with something valid.

The difference is gun rights is explicit in the constitution, marriage rights, especially SSM, are not. So the same judge becoming creative in granting SSM as a right is usually the same asshole ignoring the 2nd amendment.

Gun rights are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. That is why we have needed so many judicial rulings

 

[martybegan]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

Unless you are a baker, a photographer, or own a wedding chapel.

Then, its SUBMIT PEON.

Or change the laws that businesses must abide by.

Duh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second someone attempts that progressives will paint them as racists/sexists/homophobes, etc.

You know it, I know it.

 

[martybegan]

Not proving it in court does not preclude me declaring it on a message board.

Very true

And what the judge decides is law and what you decide is opinion

Actually all he has is opinion as well. A law has to come from the legislature.

The NY gun law did come from the legislature

It is you seeking to overrule the legislature, not the judge

Yes, the real purpose of judicial review. Find a law that is unconstitutional, make it unenforceable, and then make the legislature come up with something valid.

The difference is gun rights is explicit in the constitution, marriage rights, especially SSM, are not. So the same judge becoming creative in granting SSM as a right is usually the same asshole ignoring the 2nd amendment.

Gun rights are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. That is why we have needed so many judicial rulings

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats pretty clear fucking cut.

If I am denied a CCW solely because the NYPD does not want me to have one, that is infringement.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true

And what the judge decides is law and what you decide is opinion

Actually all he has is opinion as well. A law has to come from the legislature.

The NY gun law did come from the legislature

It is you seeking to overrule the legislature, not the judge

Yes, the real purpose of judicial review. Find a law that is unconstitutional, make it unenforceable, and then make the legislature come up with something valid.

The difference is gun rights is explicit in the constitution, marriage rights, especially SSM, are not. So the same judge becoming creative in granting SSM as a right is usually the same asshole ignoring the 2nd amendment.

Gun rights are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. That is why we have needed so many judicial rulings

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats pretty clear fucking cut.

If I am denied a CCW solely because the NYPD does not want me to have one, that is infringement.

You seem to leave off all that militia stuff for some reason. The right to bear arms is far from absolute. Even in Heller

 

[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.

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!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

its two different (actually 3) types of relationships. You can get legal equality all you want, its still different biologically and socially, and there is nothing short of mental exercises that can change that.

And I don't care what your opinion is. It doesn't change the legality.

 

[Seawytch]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

Unless you are a baker, a photographer, or own a wedding chapel.

Then, its SUBMIT PEON.

Or change the laws that businesses must abide by.

Duh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second someone attempts that progressives will paint them as racists/sexists/homophobes, etc.

You know it, I know it.

Oh,so that's what's keeping the Federal PA laws in place...people that wish to discriminate based on race, religion, etc don't want to be called bigots.