Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

[The Rabbi]

So you lose the argument and then rehash a bunch of crap about civil rights era legislation and cases that has nothing, zip nada, to do with this topic.

The truth is that men cannot legally marry men and women cannot legally marry women. That is true whether someone is straight, bi, gay, or whatever. So there is no, zero, issue of equal protection.

Every state that has run a ballot initiative has had the same result: gay marriage is a loser. The only way to implement it is to ignore the will of the sovereign people (remember them?) and let unelected judges impose their morality on the rest of the country. That is an intolerable situation of tyranny.

 

[Vanquish]

It's NOT a loser. For all the reasons I posted. Everything I posted was on point...and you simply want to sidestep it because you've got no understanding or answer to it.

I'm sorry if you're unable to synthesize case law and achieve a straight line. (No pun intended). Maybe that's why I'm a lawyer and you're not. God I love tagging you with that.

Of course there's an issue of EP, whether you, in your personal stupidity, ignore the protected class of sexual orientation or not. The SCOTUS does...and that's why gay marriage will be the law of the land in 50 years or less.

Kinda sucks to see the train coming down the tracks when you're tied to it, doesn't it?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's NOT a loser. For all the reasons I posted. Everything I posted was on point...and you simply want to sidestep it because you've got no understanding or answer to it.

I'm sorry if you're unable to synthesize case law and achieve a straight line. (No pun intended). Maybe that's why I'm a lawyer and you're not. God I love tagging you with that.

Of course there's an issue of EP, whether you, in your personal stupidity, ignore the protected class of sexual orientation or not. The SCOTUS does...and that's why gay marriage will be the law of the land in 50 years or less.

Kinda sucks to see the train coming down the tracks when you're tied to it, doesn't it?

So now you're a lawyer too? What is it with fakers on this site claiming to be lawyers?
You lose and then declare victory.
The truth is as I laid out. Gay marriage is a political loser. Judges will find themselves impeached if they try to impose this. Therefore they will not.

 

[Vanquish]

Rabbi Fail #45 - Having posted that I was a lawyer for as long as I've been on the boards, yeah.
Are you really calling me a liar on that fact? I'd be more than happy to give you my Alabama Bar # so you can look me up

The further you go down the worse your spinout gets.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi Fail #45 - Having posted that I was a lawyer for as long as I've been on the boards, yeah.
Are you really calling me a liar on that fact? I'd be more than happy to give you my Alabama Bar # so you can look me up

The further you go down the worse your spinout gets.

Keep trotting out irrelevant facts to cover your loss on this.

Care to discuss the actual substance of this thread?

 

[Vanquish]

I did. I gave you a detailed analysis of prior case law to show you why same-sex marriage is constitutional. You're the one who sidestepped to accusations of lying.
Care to get back on board?

 

[The Rabbi]

I did. I gave you a detailed analysis of prior case law to show you why same-sex marriage is constitutional. You're the one who sidestepped to accusations of lying.
Care to get back on board?

You posted a bunch of irrelevant bullshit.
The subject here is not gay marriage, in case you missed it, "counselor."

 

[WorldWatcher]

The truth is that men cannot legally marry men and women cannot legally marry women. That is true whether someone is straight, bi, gay, or whatever. So there is no, zero, issue of equal protection.

Factually incorrect, currently Civil Marriage license are issued so men can marry men, men can marry women, and women can marry women in 6 legal entities in the United States (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.).

Every state that has run a ballot initiative has had the same result: gay marriage is a loser. The only way to implement it is to ignore the will of the sovereign people (remember them?) and let unelected judges impose their morality on the rest of the country. That is an intolerable situation of tyranny.

Again factually incorrect, of the 6 legal entities listed above Civil Marriage has been achieved in 50% of them through legislative action and not judicial action: Vermont - legislative action in 2009, New Hampshire - Legislative action in 2009 which started in 2010, and Washington D.C. which passed same sex legislation in 2009.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

The truth is that men cannot legally marry men and women cannot legally marry women. That is true whether someone is straight, bi, gay, or whatever. So there is no, zero, issue of equal protection.

Factually incorrect, currently Civil Marriage license are issued so men can marry men, men can marry women, and women can marry women in 6 legal entities in the United States (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.).


>>>>

We were speaking about Alabama.
Other states prohibit such a practice and will not recognize them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The truth is that men cannot legally marry men and women cannot legally marry women. That is true whether someone is straight, bi, gay, or whatever. So there is no, zero, issue of equal protection.

Factually incorrect, currently Civil Marriage license are issued so men can marry men, men can marry women, and women can marry women in 6 legal entities in the United States (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.).


>>>>

We were speaking about Alabama.
Other states prohibit such a practice and will not recognize them.

Interesting, you include the 1st of two sections of a post, snip out the middle, and then include my closing characters (which are ">>>>".

Let's take a look at the portion of your post that you removed.

Every state that has run a ballot initiative has had the same result: gay marriage is a loser. The only way to implement it is to ignore the will of the sovereign people (remember them?) and let unelected judges impose their morality on the rest of the country. That is an intolerable situation of tyranny.

You bring up "Every State". First, the discussion is no longer then limited to a single state. Secondly, to my knowledge no Judges in Alabama have ruled and had it upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court that Same Sex Civil Marriage is valid in Alabama - so again your comment cannot be limited to Alabama since no Judge in Alabama has "imposed" Same Sex Civil Marriage in that State.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Right.
In AL gays are not discriminated against since they enjoy the same rights as anyone else.
Glad you agree. Now get lost.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, the Supreme Court created a right called Right To Privacy in Griswold. BUt it shouldn't. It is bad law and nowhere in the Constitution.

See Mulbury v Madison (1803).

And excluding abortion – which one assumes is your opposition to the right to privacy per Girswold/Roe/Casey – I find it telling a conservative would be opposed to privacy rights, something that places a restriction on government.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that there is an individual right to own a handgun, although none of those words are in the Second Amendment. I don’t hear the right complaining about that.

The Constitution is not a ‘Cafeteria Plan,’ you don’t get to pick and choose what you like and don’t like.

Lastly, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage is un-Constitutional. That is currently the fact of the law until such time as a higher court rules otherwise.

And the topic of this thread is very much same-sex marriage, how Santorum’s opposition to Equal Protection for fellow Americans in conjunction with his willful ignorance of Constitutional case law indeed makes him unqualified to hold pubic office.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Right.
In AL gays are not discriminated against since they enjoy the same rights as anyone else.
Glad you agree. Now get lost.

Sorry you feel the need to get insulting when someone shoots holes in your post and when you try to back peddle shows it.



BTW - I don't agree that homosexuals enjoy the same rights as everyone else. They are denied equal treatment under the law for no compelling government interest. Not all discrimination is bad, for example denying Driver Licenses to blind people is discrimination, but there is a compelling reason in preventing blind people from operating 2.5 ton vehicles on highways at 60MPH. However to date there has been no convincing, compelling government reason for discriminating between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult couples in a same sex relationship when compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult couples in a different sex relationship.


>>>>

 

[Vanquish]

Rabbi must type standing up and with one hand...cuz he just got his ass chewed out and handed to him.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi must type standing up and with one hand...cuz he just got his ass chewed out and handed to him.

Keep telling yourself that, "counselor."

You haven't addressed the idea that gay men have exactly the same right to marry that straight men do. And you cannot. You can merely mouth crap and hope some of it sticks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, the Supreme Court created a right called Right To Privacy in Griswold. BUt it shouldn't. It is bad law and nowhere in the Constitution.

See Mulbury v Madison (1803).

And excluding abortion – which one assumes is your opposition to the right to privacy per Girswold/Roe/Casey – I find it telling a conservative would be opposed to privacy rights, something that places a restriction on government.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that there is an individual right to own a handgun, although none of those words are in the Second Amendment. I don’t hear the right complaining about that.

The Constitution is not a ‘Cafeteria Plan,’ you don’t get to pick and choose what you like and don’t like.

Lastly, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage is un-Constitutional. That is currently the fact of the law until such time as a higher court rules otherwise.

And the topic of this thread is very much same-sex marriage, how Santorum’s opposition to Equal Protection for fellow Americans in conjunction with his willful ignorance of Constitutional case law indeed makes him unqualified to hold pubic office.

There is no case called "Mulbury v Madison." Sorry.

The Constitution guarantees the right fo "the people" to keep and bear arms. If that isn't an individual right, I don't know what is.
Where si similar language for a "right of privacy"?? There is none. They invented it out of whole cloth.

He disagrees with your progressive agenda and has an R by his name. That is all the disqualification you need.

 

[Smash_Hits]

Yes, the Supreme Court created a right called Right To Privacy in Griswold. BUt it shouldn't. It is bad law and nowhere in the Constitution.

See Mulbury v Madison (1803).

And excluding abortion – which one assumes is your opposition to the right to privacy per Girswold/Roe/Casey – I find it telling a conservative would be opposed to privacy rights, something that places a restriction on government.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that there is an individual right to own a handgun, although none of those words are in the Second Amendment. I don’t hear the right complaining about that.

The Constitution is not a ‘Cafeteria Plan,’ you don’t get to pick and choose what you like and don’t like.

Lastly, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage is un-Constitutional. That is currently the fact of the law until such time as a higher court rules otherwise.

And the topic of this thread is very much same-sex marriage, how Santorum’s opposition to Equal Protection for fellow Americans in conjunction with his willful ignorance of Constitutional case law indeed makes him unqualified to hold pubic office.

There is no case called "Mulbury v Madison." Sorry.

The Constitution guarantees the right fo "the people" to keep and bear arms. If that isn't an individual right, I don't know what is.
Where si similar language for a "right of privacy"?? There is none. They invented it out of whole cloth.

He disagrees with your progressive agenda and has an R by his name. That is all the disqualification you need.

I think he meant Marbury vs. Madison

Our Documents - Marbury v. Madison (1803)

There you go.

 

[The Rabbi]

See Mulbury v Madison (1803).

And excluding abortion – which one assumes is your opposition to the right to privacy per Girswold/Roe/Casey – I find it telling a conservative would be opposed to privacy rights, something that places a restriction on government.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that there is an individual right to own a handgun, although none of those words are in the Second Amendment. I don’t hear the right complaining about that.

The Constitution is not a ‘Cafeteria Plan,’ you don’t get to pick and choose what you like and don’t like.

Lastly, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage is un-Constitutional. That is currently the fact of the law until such time as a higher court rules otherwise.

And the topic of this thread is very much same-sex marriage, how Santorum’s opposition to Equal Protection for fellow Americans in conjunction with his willful ignorance of Constitutional case law indeed makes him unqualified to hold pubic office.

There is no case called "Mulbury v Madison." Sorry.

The Constitution guarantees the right fo "the people" to keep and bear arms. If that isn't an individual right, I don't know what is.
Where si similar language for a "right of privacy"?? There is none. They invented it out of whole cloth.

He disagrees with your progressive agenda and has an R by his name. That is all the disqualification you need.

I think he meant Marbury vs. Madison

Our Documents - Marbury v. Madison (1803)

There you go.

Of course he did. And it established the principle of judicial review, also nowhere in the Constitution.
But it didn't establish a right to sodomy.

 

[shintao]

There is no case called "Mulbury v Madison." Sorry.

The Constitution guarantees the right fo "the people" to keep and bear arms. If that isn't an individual right, I don't know what is.
Where si similar language for a "right of privacy"?? There is none. They invented it out of whole cloth.

He disagrees with your progressive agenda and has an R by his name. That is all the disqualification you need.

I think he meant Marbury vs. Madison

Our Documents - Marbury v. Madison (1803)

There you go.

Of course he did. And it established the principle of judicial review, also nowhere in the Constitution.
But it didn't establish a right to sodomy.

I think you meant the 4th Amendment, and was just lying about it, ya habitual lying rabbid dog............

 

[The Rabbi]

I think he meant Marbury vs. Madison

Our Documents - Marbury v. Madison (1803)

There you go.

Of course he did. And it established the principle of judicial review, also nowhere in the Constitution.
But it didn't establish a right to sodomy.

I think you meant the 4th Amendment, and was just lying about it, ya habitual lying rabbid dog............

The 4A establishes a right to sodomy??
Can I have what you're smoking, Shitnow?