Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[OODA_Loop]

For some reason, he/she seems to think the DOMA ruling made amendments like his/her state has "safe".

What finding and precedent did they use to support the DOMA ruling ?

 

[Seawytch]

For some reason, he/she seems to think the DOMA ruling made amendments like his/her state has "safe".

What finding and precedent did they use to support the DOMA ruling ?

just keep thinking your state can't be challenged. You're gonna be in for a rude awakening.

Whether state anti gay amendments violate the Constitution has not yet been a question before the court.

 

[OODA_Loop]

For some reason, he/she seems to think the DOMA ruling made amendments like his/her state has "safe".

What finding and precedent did they use to support the DOMA ruling ?

just keep thinking your state can't be challenged. You're gonna be in for a rude awakening.

Whether state anti gay amendments violate the Constitution has not yet been a question before the court.

What finding did the court affirm and base its DOMA decision on ?

 

[JoeB131]

Supreme Court could have set the precedent.

They set it as a state's right.

Not going to change.

I see you're still confused about this. They ruled that states have the right to make marriage laws that do not violate the Constitution. They did NOT rule on whether amendments like your state has ate in fact Constitutional. Why don't you get that?

Why don't you get that they killed Federal law based on their finding / affirmation that marriage was and always has been a State's right ?

The Constitution being silent on marriage it a 10th Am deal.

Thus a marriage law can not be un-Constitutional.

Because that isn't what they did.

The full faith and credit issue was not addressed in Windsor. Eventually, it will have to be.

And this was the problem with DOMA overall. It was unconstitutional when it was written, and everyone involved knew it.

Much like a flag-burning law, it was passed to mollify the angry, knowing it would be struck down when someone who could read a law book reviewed it.

Of course, the thing was, it was passed on the expectation that Hawaii would legalize gay marriage in 1996. It would be another decade before states started passing gay marriage laws.

 

[deltex1]

evidently the gay shit is piled higher than Grampa thought...

 

[OODA_Loop]

“I continue to believe that this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as marriage.” - Barack Obama

 

[Seawytch]

What finding and precedent did they use to support the DOMA ruling ?

just keep thinking your state can't be challenged. You're gonna be in for a rude awakening.

Whether state anti gay amendments violate the Constitution has not yet been a question before the court.

What finding did the court affirm and base its DOMA decision on ?

Repeating the same question that has been answered isn't getting us anywhere if you don't understand the basic concept.

The SCOTUS affirmed that states can make laws (duh) even those regarding marriage and that if a state passes a marriage law that does not violate the Constitution, everything is hunky dory and the Feds have to recognize it.

Whether or not states with anti gay marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution has not been a question before the SCOTUS for them to rule on. They couldn't rule on them in Windsor because it was not the question before the court. Had they decided to rule on Prop 8, it would have been. They didn't rule on it which leaves the lower court ruling in place (which, BTW, ruled it unconstitutional)

Just wait...the next case is working it's way through...

DOMA ruling’s ripple effects

 

[OODA_Loop]

just keep thinking your state can't be challenged. You're gonna be in for a rude awakening.

Whether state anti gay amendments violate the Constitution has not yet been a question before the court.

What finding did the court affirm and base its DOMA decision on ?

Repeating the same question that has been answered isn't getting us anywhere if you don't understand the basic concept.

The SCOTUS affirmed that states can make laws (duh) even those regarding marriage and that if a state passes a marriage law that does not violate the Constitution, everything is hunky dory and the Feds have to recognize it.

Whether or not states with anti gay marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution has not been a question before the SCOTUS for them to rule on. They couldn't rule on them in Windsor because it was not the question before the court. Had they decided to rule on Prop 8, it would have been. They didn't rule on it which leaves the lower court ruling in place (which, BTW, ruled it unconstitutional)

Just wait...the next case is working it's way through...

DOMA ruling’s ripple effects

What did they base decision in Windsor on ?

He could have based it on discrimination, but didn't.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...eme_court_justice_may_see_banning.single.html

 

[earlycuyler]

Protecting marriage is a battle that has to be fought to the end. That's not a battle we pick. It's s a battle we have to fight if we want to win the battle to restore our nation.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental building block of our society and the best way to raise children. The more we contribute to destroying the foundations of society, the less our society has to stand on.

We have to do our part in both the law and culture to preserve traditional marriage. Protecting the definition is fundamental to that. Preserving our own marriage is likewise fundamental. We need to be discouraging non-traditional "marriages" and divorce as much as possible.

Our society will be destroyed if we don't protect marriage to the end. Even if I am the only one standing for it, I will not back down.

If we lose marriage, winning elections wont mean jack.

We can marry in 13 states and we've always been able to marry in church. You've "lost" already.

Only fake churches.

 

[007]

What's your fucking problem?? Why do you always think you can start threads preaching to conservatives about what they're allowed to believe, and what's off fucking limits according to you? Why don't you mind your own damn biznez for once, worry about your girlfriend or wife who collects welfare which almost caused you to leave her.. blah blah blah.. STFU already Gramps.. DAMN


You sound like Bloomberg telling people what to do.. Get over yourself!

Because if I can't call out my own I have no business bitching at the other side. I'm not a fucking drone. If you don't like it find the ignore feature and utilize it.

Then just give your opinion like everyone else and shut your fucking cake hole old man. You got no moral authority or high ground to be telling ANYONE, ESPECIALLY Christian conservatives what they can or can't believe or hold as their opinion. You sound as bad obama ya sons a bitch... go pound sand asshole.

 

[candycorn]

evidently the gay shit is piled higher than Grampa thought...

This is one of the few times he has been right. The worst enemy for the GOP on this is not the middle aged liberals or middle aged Christian Conservatives. The demographics of marriage skew inevitably toward younger people. As a voting block, they tend to be much more liberal. The GOP is telling these people that they don't approve or is telling their friends or people they know they don't approve. The GOP can count on losing a significant portion of the next generation if this keeps up. And the tragic thing is that it isn't based on anything but hate.

 

[earlycuyler]

Protecting marriage is a battle that has to be fought to the end. That's not a battle we pick. It's s a battle we have to fight if we want to win the battle to restore our nation.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental building block of our society and the best way to raise children. The more we contribute to destroying the foundations of society, the less our society has to stand on.

We have to do our part in both the law and culture to preserve traditional marriage. Protecting the definition is fundamental to that. Preserving our own marriage is likewise fundamental. We need to be discouraging non-traditional "marriages" and divorce as much as possible.

Our society will be destroyed if we don't protect marriage to the end. Even if I am the only one standing for it, I will not back down.

If we lose marriage, winning elections wont mean jack.

Winning elections already means jack. A supreme court that was appointed by republicans for the most part decided that cartoons that depict rape and murder of children is protected by 1st amendment. It covered allot more, but that alone gives you the picture.

 

[deltex1]

Is Seawytch a lesbo??? I havent been paying attention...

 

[Seawytch]

What finding did the court affirm and base its DOMA decision on ?

Repeating the same question that has been answered isn't getting us anywhere if you don't understand the basic concept.

The SCOTUS affirmed that states can make laws (duh) even those regarding marriage and that if a state passes a marriage law that does not violate the Constitution, everything is hunky dory and the Feds have to recognize it.

Whether or not states with anti gay marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution has not been a question before the SCOTUS for them to rule on. They couldn't rule on them in Windsor because it was not the question before the court. Had they decided to rule on Prop 8, it would have been. They didn't rule on it which leaves the lower court ruling in place (which, BTW, ruled it unconstitutional)

Just wait...the next case is working it's way through...

DOMA ruling’s ripple effects

What did they base decision in Windsor on ?

He could have based it on discrimination, but didn't.

Anthony Kennedy?s gay marriage views: The Supreme Court justice may see banning same-sex unions as gender discrimination. - Slate Magazine

I quit. I give up. You're gonna keep believing what you believe until the facts prove out otherwise. Anti gay marriage laws will be challenged, will be found unconstitutional and will end up at the SCOTUS for them to rule on. They haven't yet ruled on whether ANY of these laws violate the U.S. Constitution. It hasn't happened.


Can a state pass a law that violates the U.S. Constitution? Answer that to yourself and maybe, just maybe you'll start to get it just a little bit.

 

[007]

evidently the gay shit is piled higher than Grampa thought...

This is one of the few times he has been right. The worst enemy for the GOP on this is not the middle aged liberals or middle aged Christian Conservatives. The demographics of marriage skew inevitably toward younger people. As a voting block, they tend to be much more liberal. The GOP is telling these people that they don't approve or is telling their friends or people they know they don't approve. The GOP can count on losing a significant portion of the next generation if this keeps up. And the tragic thing is that it isn't based on anything but hate.

You're full shit. That is the bull shit LIE you libtards have been trying to pass off. MODERATES LOSE CONSERVATIVES ELECTIONS, and we KNOW THIS. The ONLY time conservatives WIN elections is when they STICK TO THEIR PRINCIPLES. So your line of CRAP here is nothing but GARBAGE.

Go fucking pass that gas somewhere else asshole. No true conservative here is buying that load of shit.

 

[Seawytch]

Protecting marriage is a battle that has to be fought to the end. That's not a battle we pick. It's s a battle we have to fight if we want to win the battle to restore our nation.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental building block of our society and the best way to raise children. The more we contribute to destroying the foundations of society, the less our society has to stand on.

We have to do our part in both the law and culture to preserve traditional marriage. Protecting the definition is fundamental to that. Preserving our own marriage is likewise fundamental. We need to be discouraging non-traditional "marriages" and divorce as much as possible.

Our society will be destroyed if we don't protect marriage to the end. Even if I am the only one standing for it, I will not back down.

If we lose marriage, winning elections wont mean jack.

We can marry in 13 states and we've always been able to marry in church. You've "lost" already.

Only fake churches.

 

[Seawytch]

evidently the gay shit is piled higher than Grampa thought...

This is one of the few times he has been right. The worst enemy for the GOP on this is not the middle aged liberals or middle aged Christian Conservatives. The demographics of marriage skew inevitably toward younger people. As a voting block, they tend to be much more liberal. The GOP is telling these people that they don't approve or is telling their friends or people they know they don't approve. The GOP can count on losing a significant portion of the next generation if this keeps up. And the tragic thing is that it isn't based on anything but hate.

You're full shit. That is the bull shit LIE you libtards have been trying to pass off. MODERATES LOSE CONSERVATIVES ELECTIONS, and we KNOW THIS. The ONLY time conservatives WIN elections is when they STICK TO THEIR PRINCIPLES. So your line of CRAP here is nothing but GARBAGE.

Go fucking pass that gas somewhere else asshole. No true conservative here is buying that load of shit.

Yes, please go with that....make sure you nominate a lot of "true conservatives" in 2016...pretty please with sugar on top?

 

[earlycuyler]

We can marry in 13 states and we've always been able to marry in church. You've "lost" already.

Only fake churches.

Pic no bueno.

 

[deltex1]

evidently the gay shit is piled higher than Grampa thought...

This is one of the few times he has been right. The worst enemy for the GOP on this is not the middle aged liberals or middle aged Christian Conservatives. The demographics of marriage skew inevitably toward younger people. As a voting block, they tend to be much more liberal. The GOP is telling these people that they don't approve or is telling their friends or people they know they don't approve. The GOP can count on losing a significant portion of the next generation if this keeps up. And the tragic thing is that it isn't based on anything but hate.

It has nothing to do with hate...it has to do with different opinions on a basic cornerstone of society.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I quit. I give up. You're gonna keep believing what you believe until the facts prove out otherwise. Anti gay marriage laws will be challenged, will be found unconstitutional and will end up at the SCOTUS for them to rule on. They haven't yet ruled on whether ANY of these laws violate the U.S. Constitution. It hasn't happened.

Can a state pass a law that violates the U.S. Constitution? Answer that to yourself and maybe, just maybe you'll start to get it just a little bit.

Gay marriage doesn't violate the Constitution because it was just upheld to be a State's right by the majority in Windsor.

SCOTUS could have based it the other way and said it was discriminatory.

It would have then been unconstitutional.

They didn't. SCOTUS said it was for the State to decide and the Federal gov will honor the state decision for allowance of Federal benefits.

Precedent is a bitch.

You will see.