SCOTUS divided over SSM

[RKMBrown]

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

 

[martybegan]

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

Or French He sounds like some other poster that claims to be Canadian, he might have a language translation prob.

 

[martybegan]

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

Or French He sounds like some other poster that claims to be Canadian.

I'd go with dumb.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

 

[martybegan]

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The 14th A was never meant to govern private business conduct. I dont think it was meant to govern state and local governments either.
Segregation would have died out on its own anyway, certainly in the private world. Discrimination is expensive. Few businesses can afford to write off whole segments of customers.

 

[g5000]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

 

[Pop23]

Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.

See the difference?

Yes I see that you are a racist and a bigot. Next question.

Please point out the racist comment.

Taken alone and in combination each of your comments in that post are both racist and bigoted.

How do, be specific. Is stating a black man will always be black racist?

Odd world you live in

Coming from you in the context that you provided in this thread, yes. Context matters.

I see you can't, probably cause there is nothing in pointing out that comparing race to sexuality is a fail.

A black man was discriminated against because of a trait he has no control over. A black man could act white/red/brown or orange, he is still black. treating him different did not hold up the tradition of marriage being between a male and a female.

Gays on the other hand have, and still will, enter into opposite sex marriage.

A black male could not marry the woman of his choice

A gay male can marry the woman of his choice. Can/have and will

 

[danielpalos]

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

no moral clue or moral Cause, Person on the Right?

 

[Pop23]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

So, target groups, hmmmmm

There could be the argument that same sex siblings should be able to marry since the state has no compelling reason to deny same.

Yet


Opposite sex sibling could not.

Paradox aye?

 

[martybegan]

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The 14th A was never meant to govern private business conduct. I dont think it was meant to govern state and local governments either.
Segregation would have died out on its own anyway, certainly in the private world. Discrimination is expensive. Few businesses can afford to write off whole segments of customers.

I disagree that the 14th was never intended to apply to State governments (which flows to local governments, as home rule is dictated by State constitutions). As for businesses, due to the pervasive nature of Jim Crow, I can understand the over-reaction, even if I don't condone it. Its continuance, however is no longer needed.

 

[martybegan]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

Then create a separate contract for same sex people and don't call it marriage. Oh wait, that was tried, and the SSM people want acceptance, not just equality.

The rational reason is that SSM was never considered when the original contract was written up, thus you have to change the contract the same way it was made, via legislative action.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 by the general government of the Union.

 

[Skylar]

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The 14th A was never meant to govern private business conduct. I dont think it was meant to govern state and local governments either.
Segregation would have died out on its own anyway, certainly in the private world. Discrimination is expensive. Few businesses can afford to write off whole segments of customers.

I disagree that the 14th was never intended to apply to State governments (which flows to local governments, as home rule is dictated by State constitutions). As for businesses, due to the pervasive nature of Jim Crow, I can understand the over-reaction, even if I don't condone it. Its continuance, however is no longer needed.

Its all a moot point. As the laws in question are state laws.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

 

[Pop23]

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am on the right YOU DUMB ASS.

I know.

Well then don't make blanket statements that everyone on the right are against liberty.

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

no moral clue or moral Cause, Person on the Right?

The way to say that is... "Some people on the right lack the very morals that they profess." Are you just now learning English?

 

[RKMBrown]

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

Enlighten me, what's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

 

[Pop23]

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?