Mississippi & Louisiana Join Refusal to Honor Same Sex "Marriage"

[Darkwind]

Happy, happy attorneys. It's all billable hours, that the states will be paying for. Happy days...

Really? What are they going to do? Throw the state in jail?

Fine them?

If they refuse to pay....then what? Withhold federal tax dollars?

LMAO....

 

[martybegan]

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

And one law suit against one bakery is not a systemic attack on all Christians.

It's coming. Do you support making people choose between their livelihood and their beliefs?

There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.

They don't want to be involved in a Same Sex wedding. at all. The State is saying either be involved, or lose your business.

How is that not a conflict?

 

[bendog]

Fake Rabbi is a timesuck, and probably not even a Jew. But, the "discussion," esp with Paddy and Seawytch, illustrates some of the debate among conservatives on the issue. During oral argument in Windsor, Scalia asked either Olson or Boies when did this right of homosexuals to arise, and the attorney said when did the right in Loving arise. Judges don't like questions, but it was a response - the right arose when the scotus said there was a right. THAT is not ok with judicial or constitutional conservatives. Maybe one can make the argument that Anti-miscegenation laws were never constitutional after the 14th amendment. But you can't make the same claim for gay marriage because there's no way to rationally argue that the 14th was ever intended to apply to glbt. To a constitutional conservative, an argument based on the rational that the constitution can come to mean something different is an anathema. And, I admit I'm not a real adherent to this, but I thought the scotus should have dodged this issue. Anti-miscegenation laws were not going to change for a hundred years even after their hatred and bigotry were exposed. Gay marriage was breaking out in the states faster than measles amongst white upper class new age idiots in California.

And the rational of Windsor already would have protected gays in challenging state laws that discriminated against them in taxes, healthcare decisions, estate planning, childcare, etc.

 

[martybegan]

because the right to free exercise of religion is in the constitution, and the bill of rights has been found to be incorporated to the States, thus Colorado's PA laws must take religion into account.
.

No actually they do not.

yes, they do.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

That view was rejected in both the New Mexico Case and others. They found that religious liberty took a back seat to PA.

That's interesting. Then it would be a matter of rewriting the PA law, modeled on the Utah law.

Not going to happen, because again, for most progs, punishing people who disagree with them is the end game, not a feature.

 

[martybegan]

It's not settled in a Clausewitzian sense, the conflict that led to the decision is still being fought, with sizable groups of people supporting both sides.

If it was "settled" you wouldn't have the continuing lawsuits and protests you still see today.

Clausewitzian sense?
damn ...cute but far of the mark there is nothing military about the ignorant assholes who want to destroy a woman's right to control her reproductive choices.

Clauswitzian, as in "the reason for the conflict has been resolved." So the end of World War 1 was not a clauswitzian "peace" as the cause of the war, german militarism and expansionism was not resolved. World War 2 resulted in a Clauswitzian peace with Germany, as those causes were removed from the equation.

Thus Roe V Wade is a non-Clauswitzian victory, as the underlying conflict, i.e. the question of abortion rights has not gone away.

And I don't want to "destroy a woman's right to off her fetus" (lets call a spade a spade here), What I don't see is the ability of the federal government to say Alabama can't make abortions illegal.

bullshit!

Nice retort. try actually rebutting it, if you can.

The federal government did not say that Alabama can't make Abortions illegal. The Supreme Court held that that such laws violate the Constitution, which Alabama, despite their claims otherwise, is bound by. The federal government cannot ban abortions if it wanted to.

What part of government is the Supreme Court part of?

 

[bendog]

And in 1965 they had to "find" a right for blacks to marry whites. Before that they had to "find" that blacks could be educated with whites...and on and on.

There were stragglers then and there is you now. History will judge you the same.

They did not "find" those rights. Those rights were set out in the Constitution. The right to substantive due process and the right to equal protection. That is what the rabbi is just not bright enough to understand. He still needs menus with pictures so he knows what to order.

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? Where is a right to privacy? Where is a right to an abortion? I want the exact text that contains these.

"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."

I dont see the words "marriage", "abortion" or "privacy" anywhere there. Is there soje magic decoder ring you use?

Where is integrating schools in the Constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution against Jim Crow Laws

Eh, I can argue both were unconstitutional since the 14th amendment, but courts didn't have the stones to enforce it until the 1960s

 

[The Rabbi]

And in 1965 they had to "find" a right for blacks to marry whites. Before that they had to "find" that blacks could be educated with whites...and on and on.

There were stragglers then and there is you now. History will judge you the same.

They did not "find" those rights. Those rights were set out in the Constitution. The right to substantive due process and the right to equal protection. That is what the rabbi is just not bright enough to understand. He still needs menus with pictures so he knows what to order.

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? Where is a right to privacy? Where is a right to an abortion? I want the exact text that contains these.

"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."

I dont see the words "marriage", "abortion" or "privacy" anywhere there. Is there soje magic decoder ring you use?

Where is integrating schools in the Constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution against Jim Crow Laws

Correct.

 

[martybegan]

because the right to free exercise of religion is in the constitution, and the bill of rights has been found to be incorporated to the States, thus Colorado's PA laws must take religion into account.
.

No actually they do not.

yes, they do.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

That view was rejected in both the New Mexico Case and others. They found that religious liberty took a back seat to PA.

that's as it should be
the irony is that all these so called Christian businesses only started using the against my religion ploy when Obama got elected and when the majority of Americans realized gay folk were being treated as second class citizens.
funny it didn't seem to matter when "they" (the religious liberty wankers) "unknowingly "were doing business with gays.

Your rant is not material to the discussion. Again, who are you and government to determine how a person practices their religion?

So we trade treating gay people as "second class citizens" with treating people of faith as "second class citizens"? So it's all about revenge, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Fake Rabbi is a timesuck, and probably not even a Jew. But, the "discussion," esp with Paddy and Seawytch, illustrates some of the debate among conservatives on the issue. During oral argument in Windsor, Scalia asked either Olson or Boies when did this right of homosexuals to arise, and the attorney said when did the right in Loving arise. Judges don't like questions, but it was a response - the right arose when the scotus said there was a right. THAT is not ok with judicial or constitutional conservatives. Maybe one can make the argument that Anti-miscegenation laws were never constitutional after the 14th amendment. But you can't make the same claim for gay marriage because there's no way to rationally argue that the 14th was ever intended to apply to glbt. To a constitutional conservative, an argument based on the rational that the constitution can come to mean something different is an anathema. And, I admit I'm not a real adherent to this, but I thought the scotus should have dodged this issue. Anti-miscegenation laws were not going to change for a hundred years even after their hatred and bigotry were exposed. Gay marriage was breaking out in the states faster than measles amongst white upper class new age idiots in California.

And the rational of Windsor already would have protected gays in challenging state laws that discriminated against them in taxes, healthcare decisions, estate planning, childcare, etc.

Had they been consistent with Windsor they would have ruled that states have power to set marriage terms.

 

[martybegan]

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

The cat is out of the bag

Once same sex couples establish married relationships around the country, there will be no going back to the old rules

So just like segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation tomorrow?

How effective has reinstituting segregation after 50 years been?

Do you think we could ever go back to Jim Crow? Same applies to same sex marriage

You can't unbreak an egg

Who want's to re implement government mandated segregation?

getting rid of it took 70 years or so. That egg got unbroken.

Odd...you brought the issue up

Seems we will never go back to Jim Crow just like we will never go back to blocking same sex marriage

We are going back to Jim Crow now, except it's via progressives using the media and government to ruin and separate people they disagree with.

 

[martybegan]

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

And one law suit against one bakery is not a systemic attack on all Christians.

It's coming. Do you support making people choose between their livelihood and their beliefs?

Yes.

Then you are not about freedom, you are about tyranny.

 

[007]

The war is over, 007.

You lost.

Are you a racist rebel?

 

[martybegan]

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

Yep- the courts have made bad decisions- and good decisions also.

Would I have preferred a 9-0 decision? Sure. And that only happens extremely rarely.

Bad 5:4 decisions include Bush v Gore- but I survived that.
And Citizen's United-
Both of those cases are what you would have called 'unresolved'- as in large segments of the population still consider those to be bad rulings- but guess what- they are the decisions that were made. A vote the other way would have been a 5:4 vote the other direction.

I am not 'resting my laurels' on anything- the majority of Americans now favor the right to marriage of Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse. Unlike Loving v. Virginia, the Court actually is following American opinion- in Loving v. Virginia the Court anticpated public opinion by 20 years.

And that worked out just fine.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

Well you're wrong.

or are you just mad some right wingers got their first, and you are going second when you go after them for not allowing SSM?

or do you have the normal progressive inability to criticize brown people?

 

[bendog]

Fake Rabbi is a timesuck, and probably not even a Jew. But, the "discussion," esp with Paddy and Seawytch, illustrates some of the debate among conservatives on the issue. During oral argument in Windsor, Scalia asked either Olson or Boies when did this right of homosexuals to arise, and the attorney said when did the right in Loving arise. Judges don't like questions, but it was a response - the right arose when the scotus said there was a right. THAT is not ok with judicial or constitutional conservatives. Maybe one can make the argument that Anti-miscegenation laws were never constitutional after the 14th amendment. But you can't make the same claim for gay marriage because there's no way to rationally argue that the 14th was ever intended to apply to glbt. To a constitutional conservative, an argument based on the rational that the constitution can come to mean something different is an anathema. And, I admit I'm not a real adherent to this, but I thought the scotus should have dodged this issue. Anti-miscegenation laws were not going to change for a hundred years even after their hatred and bigotry were exposed. Gay marriage was breaking out in the states faster than measles amongst white upper class new age idiots in California.

And the rational of Windsor already would have protected gays in challenging state laws that discriminated against them in taxes, healthcare decisions, estate planning, childcare, etc.

Had they been consistent with Windsor they would have ruled that states have power to set marriage terms.

Yes, but those marriage terms could not mean that a gay couple could not have the same economic benefits of marriage as a straight couple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The right to marry has been recognized for over fifty years. You have no fucking clue about the constitution or constitutional law. Go back to running around in your white sheet and burning crosses.

Idiot. There is no right to same sex marriage. Go back to chewing gum.

So, you missed the news last week when the Supreme Court said there is?

I realize I have to use words of one or two syllables for you to undertand.
But up until 20 years ago no one even thought there was a right of same sex marriage. The fact that the Court suddenly found one indicates it doesnt exist.

The fight for gay marriage in this country started more like 45 years ago. Historically gay marriage goes back much, much longer.

Link?
Nope.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[JakeStarkey]

I realize I have to use words of one or two syllables for you to undertand.
But up until 20 years ago no one even thought there was a right of same sex marriage. The fact that the Court suddenly found one indicates it doesnt exist.

And in 1965 they had to "find" a right for blacks to marry whites. Before that they had to "find" that blacks could be educated with whites...and on and on.

There were stragglers then and there is you now. History will judge you the same.

They did not "find" those rights. Those rights were set out in the Constitution. The right to substantive due process and the right to equal protection. That is what the rabbi is just not bright enough to understand. He still needs menus with pictures so he knows what to order.

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? Where is a right to privacy? Where is a right to an abortion? I want the exact text that contains these.

"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."

I dont see the words "marriage", "abortion" or "privacy" anywhere there. Is there soje magic decoder ring you use?

So?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

And one law suit against one bakery is not a systemic attack on all Christians.

It's coming. Do you support making people choose between their livelihood and their beliefs?

There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.

They don't want to be involved in a Same Sex wedding. at all. The State is saying either be involved, or lose your business.

How is that not a conflict?

Get rid of the PA law then.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarians are sucking sour lemons here.

Good.

 

[martybegan]

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

And one law suit against one bakery is not a systemic attack on all Christians.

It's coming. Do you support making people choose between their livelihood and their beliefs?

There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.

They don't want to be involved in a Same Sex wedding. at all. The State is saying either be involved, or lose your business.

How is that not a conflict?

Get rid of the PA law then.

They don't have to be gotten rid of, they need to be clarified to cover actual Public Accommodations, not "every business out there."

 

[paddymurphy]

They did not "find" those rights. Those rights were set out in the Constitution. The right to substantive due process and the right to equal protection. That is what the rabbi is just not bright enough to understand. He still needs menus with pictures so he knows what to order.

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? Where is a right to privacy? Where is a right to an abortion? I want the exact text that contains these.

"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."

I dont see the words "marriage", "abortion" or "privacy" anywhere there. Is there soje magic decoder ring you use?

Yes, it is called my brain. You ought to see about getting one. Leave the law to judges and lawyers. You do do what you do best and greet folks walking into Wal Mart.

OK. So those are right next to the right to wear a hat, the right to drink wine, and the right to have mismatched socks. Correct?

No. They are set forth explicitly right there in the 14th amendment. Your problem being too fucking stupid to understand.