Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[The Rabbi]

Argument 2.

^^^Rabbi's rules of deflection^^^

SCOTUS will follow the precedent of Windsor and declare states are empowered to decide what constitutes marriage.

Maybe...but they will strike down DOMA. If TN doesn't want to marry gays, fine....but they WILL have to recognize my legal civil marriage.

Not a deflection. Poinnting out the obvious. Gay marriage supporters have 2 arguments, both of them wrong.
TN does not have to recognize any marriage. To do so would mean the most liberal states could impose their standards on anyone else.

Gay marriage supporters have all the WINNING arguments.

So states that do allow 1st cousins and 15 year olds are "imposing their will" on states that don't?

Argument #2.
They are. How often does that happen?

It doesn't matter how often it happens, FF&C requires that those marriages be recognized. The same will be true for SSM after June.

During segregation days interracial couples married in one state were not necessarily married in another. So there goes your full faith and credit argument.
So you say. DOesnt mean it will happen. In fact the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court will find that homosexuality is not a protected category. Heck they might find a right to hunt down homosexuals.

 

[Seawytch]

^^^Rabbi's rules of deflection^^^
Maybe...but they will strike down DOMA. If TN doesn't want to marry gays, fine....but they WILL have to recognize my legal civil marriage.

Not a deflection. Poinnting out the obvious. Gay marriage supporters have 2 arguments, both of them wrong.
TN does not have to recognize any marriage. To do so would mean the most liberal states could impose their standards on anyone else.

Gay marriage supporters have all the WINNING arguments.

So states that do allow 1st cousins and 15 year olds are "imposing their will" on states that don't?

Argument #2.
They are. How often does that happen?

It doesn't matter how often it happens, FF&C requires that those marriages be recognized. The same will be true for SSM after June.

So you say. DOesnt mean it will happen. In fact the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court will find that homosexuality is not a protected category. Heck they might find a right to hunt down homosexuals.

Wanna bet?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes it is.. Your CC permit is not recognized by all states, so it is treated differently. For instance, CA only recognizes a few states CCW.

-Geaux

If my CC permit was treated differently than yours because I'm gay, he and you would have a point. It isn't. My CA CC permit is treated exactly the same as anyone else's CA CC permit. My CA marriage license, however, is not treated the same as one issued to a straight couple...despite it being the exact same license issued by the exact same authority.

Your missing the point. The states are controlling the differences between Ca vs other states CC requirements.

-Geaux

False comparison fallacy.

The different criteria used to establish eligibly for a CCW is not the same as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Thats simply wrong.
No one is denying same sex couples anything. The states set criteria and the couple either meets those criteria or they dont. Just like a carry permit.

The criteria for exclusion require a valid state interest and a logical reason. And the State can produce neither.

Correct.

There is no rational basis, no documented evidence in support, no legitimate legislative end justifying exclusion.

 

[Skylar]

^^^Rabbi's rules of deflection^^^
Maybe...but they will strike down DOMA. If TN doesn't want to marry gays, fine....but they WILL have to recognize my legal civil marriage.

Not a deflection. Poinnting out the obvious. Gay marriage supporters have 2 arguments, both of them wrong.
TN does not have to recognize any marriage. To do so would mean the most liberal states could impose their standards on anyone else.

Gay marriage supporters have all the WINNING arguments.

So states that do allow 1st cousins and 15 year olds are "imposing their will" on states that don't?

Argument #2.
They are. How often does that happen?

It doesn't matter how often it happens, FF&C requires that those marriages be recognized. The same will be true for SSM after June.

During segregation days interracial couples married in one state were not necessarily married in another. So there goes your full faith and credit argument.
So you say. DOesnt mean it will happen. In fact the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court will find that homosexuality is not a protected category. Heck they might find a right to hunt down homosexuals.

That's your story. Here's the perspective of someone who might have slightly more insight into how the court will rule:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia
Dissent in Windsor v. US

But you go with your 'right to hunt down homosexuals' angle. We'll meet in June and compare notes on how the courts actually ruled.

 

[The Rabbi]

If my CC permit was treated differently than yours because I'm gay, he and you would have a point. It isn't. My CA CC permit is treated exactly the same as anyone else's CA CC permit. My CA marriage license, however, is not treated the same as one issued to a straight couple...despite it being the exact same license issued by the exact same authority.

Your missing the point. The states are controlling the differences between Ca vs other states CC requirements.

-Geaux

False comparison fallacy.

The different criteria used to establish eligibly for a CCW is not the same as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Thats simply wrong.
No one is denying same sex couples anything. The states set criteria and the couple either meets those criteria or they dont. Just like a carry permit.

The criteria for exclusion require a valid state interest and a logical reason. And the State can produce neither.

Correct.

There is no rational basis, no documented evidence in support, no legitimate legislative end justifying exclusion.

That's wrong. Totally wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

^^^Rabbi's rules of deflection^^^
Maybe...but they will strike down DOMA. If TN doesn't want to marry gays, fine....but they WILL have to recognize my legal civil marriage.

Not a deflection. Poinnting out the obvious. Gay marriage supporters have 2 arguments, both of them wrong.
TN does not have to recognize any marriage. To do so would mean the most liberal states could impose their standards on anyone else.

Gay marriage supporters have all the WINNING arguments.

So states that do allow 1st cousins and 15 year olds are "imposing their will" on states that don't?

Argument #2.
They are. How often does that happen?

It doesn't matter how often it happens, FF&C requires that those marriages be recognized. The same will be true for SSM after June.

During segregation days interracial couples married in one state were not necessarily married in another. So there goes your full faith and credit argument.
So you say. DOesnt mean it will happen. In fact the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court will find that homosexuality is not a protected category. Heck they might find a right to hunt down homosexuals.

What part of SC already showing they don't care did you miss?

 

[Seawytch]

No bet Rabbi? I say my marriage will be valid in all 50 states when the SCOTUS rules in June. Any takers?

 

[JFK_USA]

The Constitution was set up to protect the minority.

Think about it, why do need to protect the rights of Christians to freely practice their religion if they are an overwhelming majority of the country? They are the majority, it would be the norm. You would need to protect the rights of Muslims, Jews, and Atheists to practice their religion (or lack thereof) from the will of the majority who could, as the majority, could easily vote that the only religion in the US is Christianity.

So equal protection under the law is set up not for the majority, they have the protection. It's for the minority to be protected from the tyranny of the Majority. That a popular vote by the citizens would strip away the rights and privileges of a certain group of citizens. That's why it's in the Constitution, to protect the minority from the majority.

 

[JFK_USA]

No bet Rabbi? I say my marriage will be valid in all 50 states when the SCOTUS rules in June. Any takers?

Oh it will. Public momentum is on the side for Gay Marriage. The Supreme Court doesn't take away people's rights. They know they will be on the wrong side of history if they don't rule that Gay Marriage is a protected right.

 

[Skylar]

Your missing the point. The states are controlling the differences between Ca vs other states CC requirements.

-Geaux

False comparison fallacy.

The different criteria used to establish eligibly for a CCW is not the same as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Thats simply wrong.
No one is denying same sex couples anything. The states set criteria and the couple either meets those criteria or they dont. Just like a carry permit.

The criteria for exclusion require a valid state interest and a logical reason. And the State can produce neither.

Correct.

There is no rational basis, no documented evidence in support, no legitimate legislative end justifying exclusion.

That's wrong. Totally wrong.

Says you. But you can't explain why.

And guess what? Neither can advocates of gay marriage when arguing their case in court.

 

[Skylar]

No bet Rabbi? I say my marriage will be valid in all 50 states when the SCOTUS rules in June. Any takers?

At the very least, all 50 States will be required to recognize gay marriage. If they'll all be required to perform them.....I dunno. I'd say its quite likely. And Justice Scalia certainly thinks it will be so. Calling it 'inevitable'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

^^^Rabbi's rules of deflection^^^
Maybe...but they will strike down DOMA. If TN doesn't want to marry gays, fine....but they WILL have to recognize my legal civil marriage.

Not a deflection. Poinnting out the obvious. Gay marriage supporters have 2 arguments, both of them wrong.
TN does not have to recognize any marriage. To do so would mean the most liberal states could impose their standards on anyone else.

Gay marriage supporters have all the WINNING arguments.

So states that do allow 1st cousins and 15 year olds are "imposing their will" on states that don't?

Argument #2.
They are. How often does that happen?

It doesn't matter how often it happens, FF&C requires that those marriages be recognized. The same will be true for SSM after June.

During segregation days interracial couples married in one state were not necessarily married in another. So there goes your full faith and credit argument.
So you say. DOesnt mean it will happen. In fact the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court will find that homosexuality is not a protected category. Heck they might find a right to hunt down homosexuals.

I guess you missed the part where segregation lost.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not a deflection. Poinnting out the obvious. Gay marriage supporters have 2 arguments, both of them wrong.
TN does not have to recognize any marriage. To do so would mean the most liberal states could impose their standards on anyone else.

Gay marriage supporters have all the WINNING arguments.

So states that do allow 1st cousins and 15 year olds are "imposing their will" on states that don't?

Argument #2.
They are. How often does that happen?

It doesn't matter how often it happens, FF&C requires that those marriages be recognized. The same will be true for SSM after June.

During segregation days interracial couples married in one state were not necessarily married in another. So there goes your full faith and credit argument.
So you say. DOesnt mean it will happen. In fact the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court will find that homosexuality is not a protected category. Heck they might find a right to hunt down homosexuals.

I guess you missed the part where segregation lost.

Argument 1.
You dont have the chops for this discussion, son, so just move along.

 

[The Rabbi]

No bet Rabbi? I say my marriage will be valid in all 50 states when the SCOTUS rules in June. Any takers?

Oh it will. Public momentum is on the side for Gay Marriage. The Supreme Court doesn't take away people's rights. They know they will be on the wrong side of history if they don't rule that Gay Marriage is a protected right.

If they vote to overturn the overwhelming will of the people they will have stripped away the most basic right of all--the right of self government. Libs are OK with that because at base they are fascists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

 

[Seawytch]

No bet Rabbi? I say my marriage will be valid in all 50 states when the SCOTUS rules in June. Any takers?

Oh it will. Public momentum is on the side for Gay Marriage. The Supreme Court doesn't take away people's rights. They know they will be on the wrong side of history if they don't rule that Gay Marriage is a protected right.

If they vote to overturn the overwhelming will of the people they will have stripped away the most basic right of all--the right of self government. Libs are OK with that because at base they are fascists.

But you're certain they won't, right? Not certain enough to bet though.

 

[Geaux4it]

Traditional America has gone by the way of the horse and buggy

-Geaux

 

[defcon4]

People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.