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

[JamesInFlorida]

First of all, marriage is not a "right" (try reading the Constitution just once before commenting on rights). It is not - nor has it ever been - a "right". Why do you think you have to get a marriage license from the state? Rights do not require government-approved licenses. Join us in reality, won't you? Please? Just once?

Second, a gay woman has every freedom to marry a man as a straight woman does. A gay man has ever freedom to marry a woman that a straight man does. Gays have never been denied anything in this country. Again - reality is calling. Won't you please answer so we can move USMB discussions into mature, sane, accurate threads?

Just because something isn't expressed in the Bill of Rights-doesn't mean it's not a right. In fact you have NO rights under the BOR. The BOR restricts what the federal government can do. Hence "shall not restrict".

This is because anything not expressed in the BOR would not been seen as a right (if the BOR granted your rights, and didn't restrict the federal government). As such everything else falls under the 10th. The federal government doesn't have the ability to restrict gay marriage under the Constitution. State governments do however.

If the federal government were to make gay marriage illegal (without amending the Constitution)-it would be in violation of the 10th, and be a big example of big government at work.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Like SW, you apparently have no concept of the definition of a right.

The fact that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government prohibits them from interfering has nothing to do with rights. You are 100% correct - the federal government has zero authority to restrict gay marriage. But the states do (which you acknowledged). And why can the states prohibit it? Because marriage is not a right.

Jesus people - this is not rocket science. Your average second grader understands this...

It's not a "right' under federal law, but it can (and is in some places) be a "right' under state law. That was my point.

For example in my state it's a gun-owner has the right to sell a gun at a garage sale (literally). In other states-you can't.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Only until the SCOTUS agrees to hear a challenge since they chickened out on Prop 8.

If people want gay marriage to be legalized across the country-they have to amend the Constitution. Just like if people want it to be banned across the country they have to amend the Constitution. It's not rocket science.

PS: As a straight (and engaged) man, I personally support gay people being able to get married (as long as it doesn't force religious institutions to perform the marriage). But there's a process and rule of law.

So...there's a amendment about straight marriage? They had to write an amendment to allow inter-racial marriage in the early 70s?

Where's the amendment about inter-faith marriages?

Some religious institutions will not marry you if one of the people getting married isn't a follower of their faith-and that's 100% legal.

But yet those 2 people have the same ability to get married elsewhere.

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The only thing "failed" is your education son. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. It was signed into law and the Supremacy Clause establishes it as such. This is as incredibly ignorant as saying that the 25mph speed limit "exists only in the context of its case law". Or that laws forbidding murder "exists only in the context of its case law". You'd never attempt to make such an ignorant argument, and yet you're so desperate, you're actually attempting to do so with the highest law in the land. God damn are you one dumb little monkey...

Such an argument is also a source of conservative hypocrisy. Nowhere in the Second Amendment, for example, do we find the words ‘individual,’ ‘handgun,’ or ‘self-defense,’ but we’ll hear no one on the right argue there is no individual right to own a handgun because it’s ‘not in the Constitution.’

The 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Handguns are arms you dumb little monkey. And people are the individuals of the United States. Would you like to try again?

Who says hand guns are "arms"? They didn't have handguns when the Bill of Rights was written.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The only thing "failed" is your education son. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. It was signed into law and the Supremacy Clause establishes it as such. This is as incredibly ignorant as saying that the 25mph speed limit "exists only in the context of its case law". Or that laws forbidding murder "exists only in the context of its case law". You'd never attempt to make such an ignorant argument, and yet you're so desperate, you're actually attempting to do so with the highest law in the land. God damn are you one dumb little monkey...

Such an argument is also a source of conservative hypocrisy. Nowhere in the Second Amendment, for example, do we find the words ‘individual,’ ‘handgun,’ or ‘self-defense,’ but we’ll hear no one on the right argue there is no individual right to own a handgun because it’s ‘not in the Constitution.’

The 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Handguns are arms you dumb little monkey. And people are the individuals of the United States. Would you like to try again?

Who says hand guns are "arms"? They didn't have handguns when the Bill of Rights was written.

They also didn't have Mormons. Are Mormons not protected under the 1st?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now now...Rottie knows so much more than the Supreme Court.

On this issue (the power of the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution) - your goddamn right I do.

I'll make you ladies a deal right here and now. If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.

Can't do it? Yeah, I didn't think so...

While I agree with your premise here-the SC does have the authority to interpret the Constitution (not change, and not rule on). But that's irrelevant to gay marriage (or should be). As of right now: it's very simple.

-Does the federal government have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? No.

-Do state governments have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? Yes.

We don’t know that yet.

We do know the states in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may not.

We also know that disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage law is not consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the Constitution does not ‘authorize’ any state to discriminate against a given class of persons. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996).

We’ll need to see how other Federal Appeals courts rule. If a given Federal Appeals court upholds a state’s law disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage – which seems unlikely given the case law – the Supreme Court would be compelled to address the conflicting rulings.

 

[Katzndogz]

They certainly did have hand guns when the Constitution was written. They were pistols.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. The Constitution is a limit on government power and a protection of individual liberty. Unless you intend to marry yourself there is no individual right to marry and certainly no right to marry whoever you want no matter how much you might love them.

If there was a right to marry, an individual would be deprived of a basic fundamental right simply by not finding a partner. Individuals are prohibited from marrying those they love every day. No matter how desperately they love them. Marriage is not an entitlement.

 

[bodecea]

The only thing "failed" is your education son. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. It was signed into law and the Supremacy Clause establishes it as such. This is as incredibly ignorant as saying that the 25mph speed limit "exists only in the context of its case law". Or that laws forbidding murder "exists only in the context of its case law". You'd never attempt to make such an ignorant argument, and yet you're so desperate, you're actually attempting to do so with the highest law in the land. God damn are you one dumb little monkey...



The 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Handguns are arms you dumb little monkey. And people are the individuals of the United States. Would you like to try again?

Who says hand guns are "arms"? They didn't have handguns when the Bill of Rights was written.

They also didn't have Mormons. Are Mormons not protected under the 1st?

For a while they were not. So..where in the Constitution does it clarify that handguns are "arms"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They certainly did have hand guns when the Constitution was written. They were pistols.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. The Constitution is a limit on government power and a protection of individual liberty. Unless you intend to marry yourself there is no individual right to marry and certainly no right to marry whoever you want no matter how much you might love them.

If there was a right to marry, an individual would be deprived of a basic fundamental right simply by not finding a partner. Individuals are prohibited from marrying those they love every day. No matter how desperately they love them. Marriage is not an entitlement.

There was also marriage when the Constitution was written.

And that you completely miss the point comes as no surprise.

It also comes as no surprise that your opposition to same-sex couples accessing marriage law is predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals, absent any fact of evidence or case law.

And again, this is why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from your hate and ignorance.

 

[Seawytch]

False narrative much [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]?





Gays have never been denied the right to marriage. Just like a straight woman, a gay woman had equal access to marry a man anytime she wanted. Just like a straight man, a gay man had equal access to marry a woman anytime he wanted.



So if CA decided to pass by initiative a law that prevented all gay women from marrying a man (like their straight female counterparts) all gay men from marrying a woman (like their straight male counterparts) from legal marriage, I would march along side you and fight until that injustice was corrected.



Any other false narratives you would like me to expose today SW?

Lutherans wouldn't be prevented from marrying either, they would just have to switch faiths.



I am legally married, thanks...to a woman. (And it's legal in 38% of the country and growing)



#YouLost

Thumping your chest that 38% agrees with you?



Damn if that's not Dumbocrat ignorance at it's finest! "Yeah, 62% of the nation realizes I am wrong - yeah for me!!!"



By the way, the Constitution prevents the government from interfering in your religion. But you never were one to let the Constitution get in the way of your goose-stepping march to fascist government control!



#YourStillMyBitchOnUsmb

I keep forgetting you're not terribly bright. Sorry.

38% of the country live in a SSM state. A majority of Americans believes that should be country-wide.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The only thing "failed" is your education son. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. It was signed into law and the Supremacy Clause establishes it as such. This is as incredibly ignorant as saying that the 25mph speed limit "exists only in the context of its case law". Or that laws forbidding murder "exists only in the context of its case law". You'd never attempt to make such an ignorant argument, and yet you're so desperate, you're actually attempting to do so with the highest law in the land. God damn are you one dumb little monkey...

Such an argument is also a source of conservative hypocrisy. Nowhere in the Second Amendment, for example, do we find the words ‘individual,’ ‘handgun,’ or ‘self-defense,’ but we’ll hear no one on the right argue there is no individual right to own a handgun because it’s ‘not in the Constitution.’

The 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Handguns are arms you dumb little monkey. And people are the individuals of the United States. Would you like to try again?

Here’s the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please find and highlight in the Second Amendment the words “handgun,’ ‘individual,’ and ‘self-defense.’

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, in Heller the Supreme Court determined there is indeed an individual right to own a handgun and there is a right to self-defense. In the same manner and by the same authority the Supreme Court determined that marriage is indeed a Constitutional right.

If you and others on the right are going to be consistent, if you reject the Constitutional right to marry because the word ‘marriage’ is not in the Constitution, then you must also reject the Constitutional right of the individual to own a handgun and possess that handgun pursuant to the Constitutional right to self-defense.

 

[Seawytch]

While I agree with your premise here-the SC does have the authority to interpret the Constitution (not change, and not rule on). But that's irrelevant to gay marriage (or should be). As of right now: it's very simple.



-Does the federal government have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? No.



-Do state governments have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? Yes.

Only until the SCOTUS agrees to hear a challenge since they chickened out on Prop 8.

If people want gay marriage to be legalized across the country-they have to amend the Constitution. Just like if people want it to be banned across the country they have to amend the Constitution. It's not rocket science.

PS: As a straight (and engaged) man, I personally support gay people being able to get married (as long as it doesn't force religious institutions to perform the marriage). But there's a process and rule of law.

You are incorrect. The Constitution does not have to changed to allow SSM...why do you think they tried to amend it to prevent SSM?

 

[P@triot]

Just because something isn't expressed in the Bill of Rights-doesn't mean it's not a right. In fact you have NO rights under the BOR. The BOR restricts what the federal government can do. Hence "shall not restrict".

This is because anything not expressed in the BOR would not been seen as a right (if the BOR granted your rights, and didn't restrict the federal government). As such everything else falls under the 10th. The federal government doesn't have the ability to restrict gay marriage under the Constitution. State governments do however.

If the federal government were to make gay marriage illegal (without amending the Constitution)-it would be in violation of the 10th, and be a big example of big government at work.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Like SW, you apparently have no concept of the definition of a right.

The fact that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government prohibits them from interfering has nothing to do with rights. You are 100% correct - the federal government has zero authority to restrict gay marriage. But the states do (which you acknowledged). And why can the states prohibit it? Because marriage is not a right.

Jesus people - this is not rocket science. Your average second grader understands this...

It's not a "right' under federal law, but it can (and is in some places) be a "right' under state law. That was my point.

For example in my state it's a gun-owner has the right to sell a gun at a garage sale (literally). In other states-you can't.

So that is not a "right". That is simply a privilege under that state. A right is not a state-by-state privilege. It is universal across all 50 states and cannot be denied.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Like SW, you apparently have no concept of the definition of a right.

The fact that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government prohibits them from interfering has nothing to do with rights. You are 100% correct - the federal government has zero authority to restrict gay marriage. But the states do (which you acknowledged). And why can the states prohibit it? Because marriage is not a right.

Jesus people - this is not rocket science. Your average second grader understands this...

It's not a "right' under federal law, but it can (and is in some places) be a "right' under state law. That was my point.

For example in my state it's a gun-owner has the right to sell a gun at a garage sale (literally). In other states-you can't.

So that is not a "right". That is simply a privilege under that state. A right is not a state-by-state privilege. It is universal across all 50 states and cannot be denied.

Not true. A privilege is something that can be earned, and can be taken away (driving is a good example).

Selling a gun at a garage sale in my state for example-cannot be taken away (unless your civil rights have been restricted from being a felon).

 

[P@triot]

Who says hand guns are "arms"? They didn't have handguns when the Bill of Rights was written.

They also didn't have Mormons. Are Mormons not protected under the 1st?

For a while they were not. So..where in the Constitution does it clarify that handguns are "arms"?

Handguns are arms. It's just a fact.

You're desperate response is as stupid as saying where does it clarify in the Constitution that women are U.S. citizens or that gays are not allowed to be executed?

You can play dumb all you want, by a handgun is a firearm and that is simply a universal, self-evidentiary truth.

 

[P@triot]

Lutherans wouldn't be prevented from marrying either, they would just have to switch faiths.

I am legally married, thanks...to a woman. (And it's legal in 38% of the country and growing)

#YouLost

Thumping your chest that 38% agrees with you?

Damn if that's not Dumbocrat ignorance at it's finest! "Yeah, 62% of the nation realizes I am wrong - yeah for me!!!"

By the way, the Constitution prevents the government from interfering in your religion. But you never were one to let the Constitution get in the way of your goose-stepping march to fascist government control!

#YourStillMyBitchOnUsmb

I keep forgetting you're not terribly bright. Sorry.

38% of the country live in a SSM state. A majority of Americans believes that should be country-wide.

If the "majority of Americans", gay marriage would be accepted in more than 38% of the country genius. Talk about not being terribly bright!

#YouJustGotBentOverAgain

 

[Samson]

Not affirming Queers is like not affirming dwarves and two-headed turtles.

They are freaks, and cannot help it.

 

[bodecea]

They certainly did have hand guns when the Constitution was written. They were pistols.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. The Constitution is a limit on government power and a protection of individual liberty. Unless you intend to marry yourself there is no individual right to marry and certainly no right to marry whoever you want no matter how much you might love them.

If there was a right to marry, an individual would be deprived of a basic fundamental right simply by not finding a partner. Individuals are prohibited from marrying those they love every day. No matter how desperately they love them. Marriage is not an entitlement.

Pistols were not like they are today. So....tell us, how do we know that the Founders meant our handguns when they said "arms"?

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The only thing "failed" is your education son. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. It was signed into law and the Supremacy Clause establishes it as such. This is as incredibly ignorant as saying that the 25mph speed limit "exists only in the context of its case law". Or that laws forbidding murder "exists only in the context of its case law". You'd never attempt to make such an ignorant argument, and yet you're so desperate, you're actually attempting to do so with the highest law in the land. God damn are you one dumb little monkey...

Such an argument is also a source of conservative hypocrisy. Nowhere in the Second Amendment, for example, do we find the words ‘individual,’ ‘handgun,’ or ‘self-defense,’ but we’ll hear no one on the right argue there is no individual right to own a handgun because it’s ‘not in the Constitution.’

The 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Handguns are arms you dumb little monkey. And people are the individuals of the United States. Would you like to try again?

Here’s the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please find and highlight in the Second Amendment the words “handgun,’ ‘individual,’ and ‘self-defense.’

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, in Heller the Supreme Court determined there is indeed an individual right to own a handgun and there is a right to self-defense. In the same manner and by the same authority the Supreme Court determined that marriage is indeed a Constitutional right.

If you and others on the right are going to be consistent, if you reject the Constitutional right to marry because the word ‘marriage’ is not in the Constitution, then you must also reject the Constitutional right of the individual to own a handgun and possess that handgun pursuant to the Constitutional right to self-defense.

I already did stupid. It's ARMS. Our founders specifically cited arms to encompass ALL firearms because they knew assholes like you would try to pervert everything due to your hunger for oppressing.

You lose. Want to play again?

 

[P@triot]

It's not a "right' under federal law, but it can (and is in some places) be a "right' under state law. That was my point.

For example in my state it's a gun-owner has the right to sell a gun at a garage sale (literally). In other states-you can't.

So that is not a "right". That is simply a privilege under that state. A right is not a state-by-state privilege. It is universal across all 50 states and cannot be denied.

Not true. A privilege is something that can be earned, and can be taken away (driving is a good example).

Selling a gun at a garage sale in my state for example-cannot be taken away (unless your civil rights have been restricted from being a felon).

Yes it can. It can absolutely be taken away. How dumb are you to make such an outrageous claim? With one stroke of a pen by your state legislators and that privilege is gone. Would you like to try again?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Thumping your chest that 38% agrees with you?

Damn if that's not Dumbocrat ignorance at it's finest! "Yeah, 62% of the nation realizes I am wrong - yeah for me!!!"

By the way, the Constitution prevents the government from interfering in your religion. But you never were one to let the Constitution get in the way of your goose-stepping march to fascist government control!

#YourStillMyBitchOnUsmb

I keep forgetting you're not terribly bright. Sorry.

38% of the country live in a SSM state. A majority of Americans believes that should be country-wide.

If the "majority of Americans", gay marriage would be accepted in more than 38% of the country genius. Talk about not being terribly bright!

#YouJustGotBentOverAgain

The word "accepted" isn't accurate. Many people in states in states with gay marriage don't "accept" it, and many in states without gay marriage don't "accept" that either.

#YouJustGotBentOverByJamesInFlorida