Minnesota Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill Into Law

[Seawytch]

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

How do you feel about a CA people's initiative banning handguns?

A direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear on the right to keep and bear arms. It is neutral on the topic of marriage, and thus legislatures or referendums at the state level can do as they see fit.

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

 

[rightwinger]

How do you feel about a CA people's initiative banning handguns?

A direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear on the right to keep and bear arms. It is neutral on the topic of marriage, and thus legislatures or referendums at the state level can do as they see fit.

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Constitutionally, marriage is a States issue

However, when States do not provide equal protection under the law, it becomes a Federal issue

 

[Jroc]

A direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear on the right to keep and bear arms. It is neutral on the topic of marriage, and thus legislatures or referendums at the state level can do as they see fit.

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Constitutionally, marriage is a States issue

However, when States do not provide equal protection under the law, it becomes a Federal issue

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

 

[rightwinger]

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Constitutionally, marriage is a States issue

However, when States do not provide equal protection under the law, it becomes a Federal issue

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

That stupid argument has never worked with the SCOTUS

Why do you keep trying?

 

[Jroc]

Constitutionally, marriage is a States issue

However, when States do not provide equal protection under the law, it becomes a Federal issue

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

That stupid argument has never worked with the SCOTUS

Why do you keep trying?

Simple logic is beyond you...Nothing new

 

[Seawytch]

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Constitutionally, marriage is a States issue

However, when States do not provide equal protection under the law, it becomes a Federal issue

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

Where did I hear that argument before...oh yeah, Loving v Virginia again. Funny how it keeps circling back to that. Probably because the arguments and motives are the same.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

So can States discriminate against citizens withholding privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection under the law based on gender for no compelling government reason?


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

That stupid argument has never worked with the SCOTUS

Why do you keep trying?

Simple logic is beyond you...Nothing new

You realize that argument was used in Loving v. Virginia and the Justices actually LAUGHED OUT LOUD at it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

That stupid argument has never worked with the SCOTUS

Why do you keep trying?

Simple logic is beyond you...Nothing new

It was the same logical structure presented by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving case (that whites and coloreds were treated equally under the law since coloreds couldn't marry white and whites couldn't marry coloreds). The SCOTUS though evaluated the case on how the couple was treated, not on whether individual had some access to Civil Marriage.


As we know, Virginia's logic failed based on the SCOTUS ruling in the case.


>>>>

 

[Jroc]

Constitutionally, marriage is a States issue

However, when States do not provide equal protection under the law, it becomes a Federal issue

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

Where did I hear that argument before...oh yeah, Loving v Virginia again. Funny how it keeps circling back to that. Probably because the arguments and motives are the same.

Sorry but your race thing is a weak argument, it's not the same thing and the court is not going mandate everything and everything goes for all states when it comes to marriage. If the states pass it, then good for that state. Right now most states don't want gay "marriage" Civil unions are ok and would pass in most all states.

 

[rightwinger]

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

Where did I hear that argument before...oh yeah, Loving v Virginia again. Funny how it keeps circling back to that. Probably because the arguments and motives are the same.

Sorry but your race thing is a weak argument, it's not the same thing and the court is not going mandate everything and everything goes for all states when it comes to marriage. If the states pass it, then good for that state. Right now most states don't want gay "marriage" Civil unions are ok and would pass in most all states.

The Republican Party Platform in 2012 also opposed Civil Unions

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79936.html

 

[bodecea]

The law is the same for everyone...In MI I can't marry a man either.

Where did I hear that argument before...oh yeah, Loving v Virginia again. Funny how it keeps circling back to that. Probably because the arguments and motives are the same.

Sorry but your race thing is a weak argument, it's not the same thing and the court is not going mandate everything and everything goes for all states when it comes to marriage. If the states pass it, then good for that state. Right now most states don't want gay "marriage" Civil unions are ok and would pass in most all states.

Then why are Red states passing laws that forbid even Civil Unions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot. Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Narrow and perverted, thus askew. The reactionary certainly thinks he knows what is right and good for everyone else. Consider the definitions below. They are both philosophies. They are both willing to use court decisions. The voters of Minnesota refused the elite to prevent gay marriage, and the used the tools of progressivism and democracy to empower it.

populism: a political philosophy that struggles for the people against the power and privilege of the elite.

progressivism: a philosophy that works for reform in government, culture, society, and economics through political means.

 

[bodecea]

Where did I hear that argument before...oh yeah, Loving v Virginia again. Funny how it keeps circling back to that. Probably because the arguments and motives are the same.

Sorry but your race thing is a weak argument, it's not the same thing and the court is not going mandate everything and everything goes for all states when it comes to marriage. If the states pass it, then good for that state. Right now most states don't want gay "marriage" Civil unions are ok and would pass in most all states.

The Republican Party Platform in 2012 also opposed Civil Unions

GOP platform committee rejects civil unions - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

The latest RW talking points basically LIE about what the RW really wants. They try to soften their anti-gay message by SAYING "we don't like the word 'marriage' but we have no problem with 'civil unions'". And yet, their ACTIONS show they are against civil unions for gay couples as well.

 

[Katzndogz]

No group could demand that religious clergy perform civil union ceremonies. That's why civil unions are acceptable. That's also why gay activist groups find civil unions unacceptable.

 

[martybegan]

How do you feel about a CA people's initiative banning handguns?

A direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear on the right to keep and bear arms. It is neutral on the topic of marriage, and thus legislatures or referendums at the state level can do as they see fit.

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No group could demand that religious clergy perform civil union ceremonies. That's why civil unions are acceptable. That's also why gay activist groups find civil unions unacceptable.

No "group" can demand that religious clergy perform any religious ceremony. Civil Marriage isn't a religious ceremony, it's a contractual condition between three parties the two spouses and the government.

If you think religious clergy can be forced by the government to perform a religious ceremony I'm sure you will be able to provide examples of when:

1. Religious clergy were forced by a group under the power of government to perform an interracial Religious Marriage,
2. Religious clergy were forced by a group under the power of government to perform an interfaith Religious Marriage,
3. Religious clergy were forced by a group under the power of government to perform an Religious Marriage when one (or both) of the prospective spouses were divorced for conditions not recognized by that faith, or
4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has existed for almost a decade, where religious clergy were forced by a group under the power of government to perform a same-sex Religious Marriage.​

>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot. Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Narrow and perverted, thus askew. The reactionary certainly thinks he knows what is right and good for everyone else. Consider the definitions below. They are both philosophies. They are both willing to use court decisions. The voters of Minnesota refused the elite to prevent gay marriage, and the used the tools of progressivism and democracy to empower it.

populism: a political philosophy that struggles for the people against the power and privilege of the elite.

progressivism: a philosophy that works for reform in government, culture, society, and economics through political means.

Nice of you to make both definitions fit your worldview, however Ross Perot's run was an example of populism, and a doubt he could be considered left wing.

progressives by definition think they know better than you do, and expect you to understand the "logic" of thier position (even though they often do not practice what the preach algore, cough cough)

 

[rightwinger]

A direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear on the right to keep and bear arms. It is neutral on the topic of marriage, and thus legislatures or referendums at the state level can do as they see fit.

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

All of them do

 

[Seawytch]

A direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear on the right to keep and bear arms. It is neutral on the topic of marriage, and thus legislatures or referendums at the state level can do as they see fit.

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

Do you know what precedent is?