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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, but our laws are made by majority vote. the constituion was ratified by majority vote, the congress makes laws by majority vote, we select our representatives by majority vote.

the judicial branch exists to enforce the laws that WE make, not to make their own, or to interpret those which have been made.

When judges begin to "interpret" thats when the trouble starts.

You couldn't be more wrong. Interpreting the Constitution is a function of the Judicial branch.

Exactly who is it you think is supposed to interpret the Constitution in gray areas if not the Judicial branch?

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law; “but that’s not in the Constitution” is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’

The doctrine of judicial review affords the courts the authority to determine what the Constitution means, this fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition was accepted and understood since before the advent of the Republic, it was incorporated into the very fabric of the Republic with the primacy of the rule of law, and is recognized by judges and justices today where “persons in every generation can invoke [the Constitution’s] principles in their own search for greater freedom,” including same-sex couples.

 

[bodecea]

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution. treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

Wow! Your U.S. Government teacher failed you horribly.

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Duh....you are right...the Court NEVER makes new law when they interpret...they may clarify or strike down laws that already exist....

Maybe you are not clear on the definition of the word "interpret".....it does NOT mean "create".

 

[Faun]

Sorry, you got here a little too late. The traditional understanding of marriage is by now long-established. But remember, all the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

So what if it's long been established? Times change.

You're avoiding my question. Would the above conditions satisfy you or not?

I didn't avoid the question. I answered it. The answer is no. Equal but different is not equal. Should we tell blacks they get all the benefits of living in America but from now on, they are no longer called "Americans?" After all, it's just a word and they would still enjoy all of the benefits of being an American.

 

[Redfish]

So what if it's long been established? Times change. Gays have no problem sharing "marriage" with straights, it's Conservatives who have a problem sharing it with gays. Since the Conservative solution is to call gay marriage something different from the right to marry they enjoy, let straights have civil unions and let gays marry.

You don't want that, no doubt -- neither do gays.

Equal protection under the law doesn't permit one person to marry while not allowing another for no reason other than gender.

sexual orientation is not gender.

It's about the gender of the person they want to marry.

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

 

[bodecea]

How can we take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You are completely ignoring the thousands upon thousands of state and federal court decisions interpreting what various parts of the Constitution mean....

Take the First Amendment...does my Freedom of Speech include burning the flag? Telling state secrets out loud? Threatening the President of the United States? Where is the "crystal clear" there?

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution.

treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

Exactly how does the U.S.S.C. rule on the constitutionality of ruling without interpreting the Constitution?

This is SUCH a hoot!

 

[Redfish]

Wow! Your U.S. Government teacher failed you horribly.

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Duh....you are right...the Court NEVER makes new law when they interpret...they may clarify or strike down laws that already exist....

Maybe you are not clear on the definition of the word "interpret".....it does NOT mean "create".

yeah right. do you understand the meaning of legal predecents?

 

[bodecea]

sexual orientation is not gender.

It's about the gender of the person they want to marry.

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

DO you think your legal arguments FOR bigamy/polygamy will be helpful if argued in court?

 

[Redfish]

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution.

treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

Exactly how does the U.S.S.C. rule on the constitutionality of ruling without interpreting the Constitution?

This is SUCH a hoot!

glad you enjoy making a fool of yourself, it that a gay thing?

 

[Faun]

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution. treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

Wow! Your U.S. Government teacher failed you horribly.

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

 

[Redfish]

It's about the gender of the person they want to marry.

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

DO you think your legal arguments FOR bigamy/polygamy will be helpful if argued in court?

if gay marriage is deemed constitutional, there is no way that bigamy and polygamy will not also be deemed constitutional.

 

[bodecea]

So what if it's long been established? Times change.

You're avoiding my question. Would the above conditions satisfy you or not?

I didn't avoid the question. I answered it. The answer is no. Equal but different is not equal. Should we tell blacks they get all the benefits of living in America but from now on, they are no longer called "Americans?" After all, it's just a word and they would still enjoy all of the benefits of being an American.

Don't give some of them ideas, Faun.

 

[Redfish]

Wow! Your U.S. Government teacher failed you horribly.

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

reading the words of the constitution is NOT interpreting them. words have meanings, interpretation is not necessary. its written in english and we all know the meaning of english words.

 

[bodecea]

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Duh....you are right...the Court NEVER makes new law when they interpret...they may clarify or strike down laws that already exist....

Maybe you are not clear on the definition of the word "interpret".....it does NOT mean "create".

yeah right. do you understand the meaning of legal predecents?

Not acquainted with that word. Are you trying to say "legal precedents"? What about them? They are not new law...they are established....er...precedent.

But feel free to show us a legal "predecent" that is newly created law. (job of the Legislative Branch, btw)

 

[bodecea]

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

reading the words of the constitution is NOT interpreting them. words have meanings, interpretation is not necessary. its written in english and we all know the meaning of english words.

So....what does the 2nd Amendment in its entirety mean?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Anyone is at liberty to say whatever he wishes about civil unions.

But as a fact of 14th Amendment case law a doctrine of separate but equal will never pass Constitutional muster

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

Incorrect.

The contract law that is marriage is very much subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where all persons must be afforded equal protection of (equal access to) all the laws of a given state, including marriage law.

Whether the state enacts measures seeking to deny African-American students access to schools or same-sex couples access to marriage law, it’s all subject to the same equal protection doctrine afforded every person by the 14th Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

DO you think your legal arguments FOR bigamy/polygamy will be helpful if argued in court?

if gay marriage is deemed constitutional, there is no way that bigamy and polygamy will not also be deemed constitutional.

Why isn't bigamy/polygamy deemed constitutional because civil straight marriage is considered constitutional?

 

[Faun]

sexual orientation is not gender.

It's about the gender of the person they want to marry.

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

Well certainly not with someone who doesn't understand logic. The reason they are denied a marriage license is because gender. That doesn't exclude sexual orientation nor does it exclude gender. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Faun]

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

reading the words of the constitution is NOT interpreting them. words have meanings, interpretation is not necessary. its written in english and we all know the meaning of english words.

What, in legal terms, does "natural born citizen" mean?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's say, for argument's sake, a presidential candidate is born in Canada and he is disqualified for running for not being a "natural born citizen." He challenges that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... how do you think that court rules without giving their interpretation of what constitutes a "natural born citizen?"

reading the words of the constitution is NOT interpreting them. words have meanings, interpretation is not necessary. its written in english and we all know the meaning of english words.

So....what does the 2nd Amendment in its entirety mean?

Or the Liberty Clause of the 5th Amendment, containing one word.

The fact is that every perception of the Constitution is an interpretation, even the most hard-core Constitutional ‘literalist’ engages in interpretation.

 

[Redfish]

It's about the gender of the person they want to marry.

no one is being discriminated against because they are male or female, if there is discrimination, and there should not be, its due to sexual orientation, not gender.

bigamists and polygamists are no different than monogamous gays. If we really are after equal rights we must allow bigamist and polygamists to have legal marriages and to file as married people.

you guys cannot win a logic debate on this, never.

Well certainly not with someone who doesn't understand logic. The reason they are denied a marriage license is because gender. That doesn't exclude sexual orientation nor does it exclude gender. The two are not mutually exclusive.

that is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.