Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[Redfish]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

What we get is your are avoiding the reality of the US Constitution.

No, people don't want a vote on the rights of people. Why? Because it might set a precedent that could destroy the Bill of Rights.

Let's have a vote on whether people can be religious, or can be part of this church or that church. Let's have a vote on whether people can say what they like as long as it doesn't hurt people. Let's have a vote on guns, let's have a vote on torture hey?

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

 

[Redfish]

first thing you have said that makes sense.

ALL OF WHAT i say makes sense.
it's not the left or the democrats who expect him to be perfect it's the right that does...
besides it's the repubs that vowed to block and hinder him in every way possible.
that's about as un american as it gets.

Did the dems work with Bush? This partisan shit started with Clinton. Reagan and O'Neill knew how to work together and get things done. No one since has, although clinton and newt came close.

Why do you continue with the same lies?

Yes the Dems worked with Bush

After 9-11 he got whatever legislation he wanted. He played the 9-11 card for all it was worth. During the economic collapse, Bush got TARP and stimulus out of the Dems. When Obama asked for the same urgent aid, 100% of Republicans voted him down

9/11 was a national crisis. Both parties did the right thing after that attack.

The repubs voted against obama, because what he wanted was wrong for the country at the time. History has proven them right.

So it's right when Bush does it, and wrong when Obama does the same thing? Uh hu!

in a word, yes.

different times call for different actions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

you have to show it because you said it was there

It is. I didn't say it was written there. Duh!

 

[frigidweirdo]

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

Majority of WHAT?

Not majority OF THE PEOPLE!!!!

 

[Seawytch]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

Spoilsport! I like Fishy's national referendum idea. We'd get higher taxes on the uber rich, we'd end their subsidies and tax breaks, we'd get immigration reform, a Dream Act, infrastructure spending...come on, let him work towards it.

 

[Redfish]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it. Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

 

[WorldWatcher]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

What we get is your are avoiding the reality of the US Constitution.

No, people don't want a vote on the rights of people. Why? Because it might set a precedent that could destroy the Bill of Rights.

Let's have a vote on whether people can be religious, or can be part of this church or that church. Let's have a vote on whether people can say what they like as long as it doesn't hurt people. Let's have a vote on guns, let's have a vote on torture hey?

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

You mind showing where the Constitution and it's amendments we passed by direct democratic vote?

My understanding was it was the States the passed the Constitution and it was the State legislatures (and elected body) that approved the Amendments.



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

Majority of WHAT?

Not majority OF THE PEOPLE!!!!

the elected representatives of the people. Just like it works today. If you don't want a constitutional amendment, put a bill in front of both houses of congress. Settle it with a new statute that clarifies what marriage means in the USA. Then stand by for the ACLU to sue on behalf of bigamists and polygamists.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So it's right when Bush does it, and wrong when Obama does the same thing? Uh hu!

in a word, yes.

different times call for different actions.

Isn't that reveling? Republicans do something it's clearly right, Democrats do anything it's clearly wrong.

 

[Redfish]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

What we get is your are avoiding the reality of the US Constitution.

No, people don't want a vote on the rights of people. Why? Because it might set a precedent that could destroy the Bill of Rights.

Let's have a vote on whether people can be religious, or can be part of this church or that church. Let's have a vote on whether people can say what they like as long as it doesn't hurt people. Let's have a vote on guns, let's have a vote on torture hey?

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

You mind showing where the Constitution and it's amendments we passed by direct democratic vote?

My understanding was it was the States the passed the Constitution and it was the State legislatures (and elected body) that approved the Amendments.



>>>>

a majority vote of the people sent representatives to DC to vote for them. We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it.


Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

1. Mathematically yes it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment.

2. The people did decide (using your logic) when they said that all citizens (which includes homosexuals) have a right to due process and equal treatment.

3. The founding document of government (the Constitution) does not have provisions for people to vote to Amend the Constitution, the process uses a representative process.

4. At the height of the anti-gay movement there were numerous attempts to write such an amendment into the Constitution, they already failed.



>>>>


C

 

[Redfish]

So it's right when Bush does it, and wrong when Obama does the same thing? Uh hu!

in a word, yes.

different times call for different actions.

Isn't that reveling? Republicans do something it's clearly right, Democrats do anything it's clearly wrong.

Not always. republicans have passed stupid laws too.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

What we get is your are avoiding the reality of the US Constitution.

No, people don't want a vote on the rights of people. Why? Because it might set a precedent that could destroy the Bill of Rights.

Let's have a vote on whether people can be religious, or can be part of this church or that church. Let's have a vote on whether people can say what they like as long as it doesn't hurt people. Let's have a vote on guns, let's have a vote on torture hey?

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

You mind showing where the Constitution and it's amendments we passed by direct democratic vote?

My understanding was it was the States the passed the Constitution and it was the State legislatures (and elected body) that approved the Amendments.



>>>>

a majority vote of the people sent representatives to DC to vote for them. We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

So you agree, there is not national process for the people to vote on a law. That's an improvement, maybe now you can stop calling for a national vote.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it.


Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

1. Mathematically yes it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment.

2. The people did decide (using your logic) when they said that all citizens (which includes homosexuals) have a right to due process and equal treatment.

3. The founding document of government (the Constitution) does not have provisions for people to vote to Amend the Constitution, the process uses a representative process.

4. At the height of the anti-gay movement there were numerous attempts to write such an amendment into the Constitution, they already failed.



>>>>


C

what you are missing is that nowhere is marriage defined as a civil right.

 

[Redfish]

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

What we get is your are avoiding the reality of the US Constitution.

No, people don't want a vote on the rights of people. Why? Because it might set a precedent that could destroy the Bill of Rights.

Let's have a vote on whether people can be religious, or can be part of this church or that church. Let's have a vote on whether people can say what they like as long as it doesn't hurt people. Let's have a vote on guns, let's have a vote on torture hey?

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

You mind showing where the Constitution and it's amendments we passed by direct democratic vote?

My understanding was it was the States the passed the Constitution and it was the State legislatures (and elected body) that approved the Amendments.



>>>>

a majority vote of the people sent representatives to DC to vote for them. We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

So you agree, there is not national process for the people to vote on a law. That's an improvement, maybe now you can stop calling for a national vote.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the elected representatives of the people. Just like it works today. If you don't want a constitutional amendment, put a bill in front of both houses of congress. Settle it with a new statute that clarifies what marriage means in the USA. Then stand by for the ACLU to sue on behalf of bigamists and polygamists.

You do realise that Supreme Court justices are chosen by these very elected representatives, therefore what they do is in the name of the elected representatives of the people.

Though, the President has never been directly elected by the people, and the Senate isn't proportional to the people and the Republicans, apparently, have been changing borders to suit their needs, stuff.

You're basically making a nice little corner for yourself, which doesn't work. The US is not very democratic, it's taken down more democratically elected govts than it is itself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

what you are missing is that nowhere is marriage defined as a civil right.

And what you're missing is the US constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

 

[Redfish]

the elected representatives of the people. Just like it works today. If you don't want a constitutional amendment, put a bill in front of both houses of congress. Settle it with a new statute that clarifies what marriage means in the USA. Then stand by for the ACLU to sue on behalf of bigamists and polygamists.

You do realise that Supreme Court justices are chosen by these very elected representatives, therefore what they do is in the name of the elected representatives of the people.

Though, the President has never been directly elected by the people, and the Senate isn't proportional to the people and the Republicans, apparently, have been changing borders to suit their needs, stuff.

You're basically making a nice little corner for yourself, which doesn't work. The US is not very democratic, it's taken down more democratically elected govts than it is itself.

yes, I realize all of those things. I just said that same thing in different words.

While you want a minority view to prevail on the gay marriage issue, you want a majority view to prevail on most others. You have an agenda, just like wytch and a few others.

Why not admit it and move on truthfully?

 

[Redfish]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.