NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2009
- 117,063
- 13,888
Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.
LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.
So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....
I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.
Right, you just defended a federal government power grab and you don't want government to control marriage. Maybe what you have is a medical condition that needs medication. Schizophrenia. That's the word.
I didn't "defend" anything, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE.
That doesn't mean I can't read. I find it far scarier to ignore the Constitution and get my way on a particular issue than to get my way on a particular issue and set yet another precedent that the Constitutions says whatever we want it to. It doesn't.
This is 'RW bigot posing as a Libertarian' argument. ...I don't want gays to have the right to marry because I don't believe in government marriage..
Well, government marriage is never going away. Period. The bigot gets to deny gays their rights while hiding behind some fantasy scenario.
Except he's full of shit. He defends DOMA which was an unconstitutional power grab on the issue of marriage and gave the federal government power to decide who's married and who's not. True libertarians and conservatives believe that issue belongs to the state. He probably also supports the 1862 Morrill Anti Bigomy Act.
The issue can't belong to the states because it's an equal rights issue and there can only be one right answer on an equal rights issue.
If the Court managed to decide that it's not an equal rights issue - if by some madness they decided that gays are not entitled to equal marriage rights,
then the states could do with it what they wished.