State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[bodecea]

But only if we're talking about rights he doesn't like. If these are rights he does like.....the State has no right to infringe them.

Consistency, it seems, is not a terribly useful trait when arguing conservative positions.

The state DOES have a right to regulate behaviors. Are you talking about gay sex/polygamy behaviors/choices or actual physical race?

Yes, republicans seem to be behind self-extermination by moving the bar on the political spectrum on this issue [and the children raised under the ilk of people who will follow along behind it in herd-think] so far to the left within their own party that it will be a matter of a few short years befor all the registered voters think that conservative ideas are something along the lind of the dodo bird or the steam donkey.

Wrong again. Conservative/liberal are not static terms. Today's liberal idea becomes tomorrow's conservative main-stay. Give it about 20 years and the Conservatives will be taking credit for gay marriage rights.

 

[Skylar]

The state DOES have a right to regulate behaviors. Are you talking about gay sex/polygamy behaviors/choices or actual physical race?

Not if that regulation violates rights. Y Our 'behavior' standard of right regulation...isn't. It simply doesn't exist. You made it up. Rights cannot be abrogated because they are behaviors. Speech, religion, free assembly, redressing of grievances, essentially the entire first amendment is all behavior based.

And they're all protected. Demonstrating elegantly that your 'the state can regulate any behavior' nonsense is imaginary flotsam. Marriage is a right. And if you're going to deny that right to an individual, you'd better have a good reason.

And you have no such reason in denying gays and lesbians their right to marry. You simply find it 'icky'. That's not good enough.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong again. Conservative/liberal are not static terms. Today's liberal idea becomes tomorrow's conservative main-stay. Give it about 20 years and the Conservatives will be taking credit for gay marriage rights.

Oh, come now. Its not like conservatives have claimed that they supported MLK and marched with him for the rights of black folks.

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong again. Conservative/liberal are not static terms. Today's liberal idea becomes tomorrow's conservative main-stay. Give it about 20 years and the Conservatives will be taking credit for gay marriage rights.

I offer that even in 20 years, the idea of two dudes statistically likely to carry HIV, playing at "mommy and daddy" to the orphans they forced the christian orphange to adopt to them isn't going to stop churning the stomachs of those who are still sane. Unless you're advocating that insanity replace sanity within the base culture meme? Is that what you're proposing, ultimately?

No, the GOP is unwittingly engaged in self extermination. When you find their strategists [Carl Rove et al] engaged in softening their core values to the point of non-existence...to the point of disgusting their own faithful base [the last willing to fight blindly for their other agendas], you will have a dead party in less than 30 years. With the bar moved that far to the left, there is no more loyalty. People will disperse and form a new party. I guess that's all right.

But you know, I really thought the GOP had a good thing going if they would only have thought to cater to the US's fastest growing demographic...hispanics and their core values [catholicism/traditional marriage]. Blacks are solidly there too...unless they sense the herd migrating...like most other folks...

But oh well. Cheney does have a lesbian daughter and that man's agendas seem to dominate each and every other important thing to the GOP. He is the albatross to that party as much as the lavender mafia is to the democrats...though I do hear a few whisperings from the Clinton camp like they're getting ready to scrape off the barnacles. It may actually be a race to see which middle party, the Clintons or the moderate GOP, are smart enough to embrace a stance against the cult of LGBT completely taking over the fabric of society and virtually all our long-held cultural mores?

Got a large enough backing. 82% is pretty impressive. I wonder if any of them are capable of elementary school level math? Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 160 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

No, the GOP is unwittingly engaged in self extermination. When you find their strategists [Carl Rove et al] engaged in softening their core values to the point of non-existence...to the point of disgusting their own faithful base [the last willing to fight blindly for their other agendas], you will have a dead party in less than 30 years. With the bar moved that far to the left, there is no more loyalty. People will disperse and form a new party. I guess that's all right.

Most folks don't share the religious 'core values' of right wing republicans.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the GOP is unwittingly engaged in self extermination. When you find their strategists [Carl Rove et al] engaged in softening their core values to the point of non-existence...to the point of disgusting their own faithful base [the last willing to fight blindly for their other agendas], you will have a dead party in less than 30 years. With the bar moved that far to the left, there is no more loyalty. People will disperse and form a new party. I guess that's all right.

Most folks don't share the religious 'core values' of right wing republicans.

82% of Americans would disagree with you. Check out the numbers at the poll at the top of this page. It's one of the most popular polls EVER in USMB history... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 160 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In forums such as these or other formal polls they may be quiet as church mice. For instance, over 150 posters here voted on that poll but only about a dozen actually posted their feelings in the thread. But they show up to eat at Chic Fil-a, to "like" the "Boycott A&E Facebook page"....and they vote. They just don't like getting beat up for having an open opinion against gay marriage... Kind of fucks with the polling how silent they are...or rather how they show how they feel in unconventional ways..

 

[Skylar]

No, the GOP is unwittingly engaged in self extermination. When you find their strategists [Carl Rove et al] engaged in softening their core values to the point of non-existence...to the point of disgusting their own faithful base [the last willing to fight blindly for their other agendas], you will have a dead party in less than 30 years. With the bar moved that far to the left, there is no more loyalty. People will disperse and form a new party. I guess that's all right.

Most folks don't share the religious 'core values' of right wing republicans.

82% of Americans would disagree with you.

Not according to Gallup:

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%. Marriage equality advocates have had a string of legal successes over the past year, most recently this week in Pennsylvania and Oregon where federal judges struck down bans on gay marriage.

Two successive Gallup polls in 2012 saw support climb from 53% to 54%, indicating a steady but slight growth in acceptance of gay marriages over the past year after a more rapid increase between 2009 and 2011. In the latest May 8-11 poll, there is further evidence that support for gay marriage has solidified above the majority level. This comes on the heels of gay marriage proponents' 14th legal victory in a row.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

With 8 in 10 young folks supporting gay marriage. In all fairness, the slow and steady climb of gay marriage support at this point is probably just your ilk dying off.

Check out the numbers at the poll at the top of this page. It's one of the most popular polls EVER in USMB history... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 160 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The poll asks if churches should be forced to accommodate gay weddings. It doesn't ask a thing about whether or not gay marriages should be legal.

Once again, you blunder badly, assuming that because you don't like gay marriage, everyone else must oppose it to. Alas, you're simply wrong. As of this year, the support for gay marriage out paces opposition by 12 points.

 

[Silhouette]

Not according to Gallup:

OK, your gallup poll vs the 82% who showed up silently to vote on the link in my last post and then drifted back into the shadows.. And gallup vs the crowds who silently clogged Chic Fil-a that fateful day, without so much as a peep except the sound or unwrapped lunches... And gallup vs the over million people who showed up at the "Boycott A&E Facebook" page within 24 hours of its being put up to silently support Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage..

OK politicians. Will it be the USMB poll and all the rest? Or will you stake your future on gallup's poll instead? Your choice.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

I'm pretty sure this argument was made in 1967 after the Loving decision. It didn't amount to much as the State doesn't have the authority to violate the rights of citizens. You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority. And as I remember, very inconsistently. As you were more than in favor of the McDonald V. Chicago decision where laws built on the state's sovereign authority were overruled by the Federal Courts.

So its clearly not state sovereignty that is your common denominator in your argument.

The state does have that authority. Thats what nullification is all about.
McDonald was decided correctly as the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution. But even so, Chicago could always choose not to obey that. Just as they chose not to obey the federal act enabling all LEOs to carry weapons anywhere in the US.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

The referees can't decide that the forward pass is illegal all of a sudden, on their own. The rulebook as to be changed for that.

and most pro sports are more like dictatorships than a democracy. Poor choice of comparison there, although most progressives do seem to like the hard handed fist of a dictator.

So want the states to be dictators over the Constitution. What's then the point of having a Constitution?

 

[Skylar]

Not according to Gallup:

OK, your gallup poll vs the 82% who showed up silently to vote on the link in my last post and then drifted back into the shadows..

First off, Gallup is infinitely more reliable than some message board poll. A Gallup selects its respondents randomly. While those replying to a message board poll are by definition, interested parties.

Second, your poll says nothing....absolutely nothing, about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Meaning that you've presented no poll that indicates that 82% of folks oppose gay marriage. While I've presented one of the most reliable polls in nation that indicate that gay marriage supporters outpace gay marriage opponents by 12 points. With gay marriage support now at 55%.

Yet you're clinging to an informal message board poll that doesn't even ask about the legality of gay marriage as more reliable on public sentiment on the issue of the legality of gay marriage than Gallup?

That more than little bizarre.

OK politicians. Will it be the USMB poll and all the rest? Or will you stake your future on gallup's poll instead? Your choice.

I'm pretty sure politicians will go with the actual polling agency on the legality of gay marriage. Especially considering that the informal message board poll you just cited didn't ask about the legality of gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

The state does have that authority. Thats what nullification is all about.

The Loving Decision and interracial marriages sudden legality and recognition by Virginia says otherwise. As does racial integration. The authority you claim the States' possess.....they don't.

McDonald was decided correctly as the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution.

Ah, so the Federal government does have the authority to override State bans....as long as you don't like what the State is banning. You do realize that you're arguing for and against Federal supremacy in the defense of rights....dependent solely on whether or not you like the right being defended. As both the McDonald and the Loving decision were based on the defense of reserve rights.

The obvious problem being, whether or not you like a right is wholly irrelevant to its defense by the federal judiciary.

The basis of the McDonald decision wasn't the right to 'keep and bear arms.' It was based on the Heller decision which was founded in the 'right to self defense with a firearm'. And scour the constitution as you like, its mentioned no where. Its a reserve right, as protected by the 9th amendment. Just like the right to marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"State Nullification on Gay Marriage!"

Why are conservatives clueless about our Constitution Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This thread is yet another example of the Constitution and the clueless conservative.

 

[Skylar]

This thread is yet another example of the Constitution and the clueless conservative.

The 'clueless conservative' as you describe him/her....is under the misconception that the law means whatever the conservative in question believes it does. And that their personal opinions are enforceable law.

Alas, the law doesn't.

 

[Kosh]

This thread is yet another example of the Constitution and the clueless conservative.

The 'clueless conservative' as you describe him/her....is under the misconception that the law means whatever the conservative in question believes it does. And that their personal opinions are enforceable law.

Alas, the law doesn't.

And the clueless far left continue to show they do not understand the Constitution and what to apply their religion to all except themselves.

Then again there are those that still believe that "Marriage" is a right, but still want "separation of church and state".

 

[Skylar]

And the clueless far left continue to show they do not understand the Constitution and what to apply their religion to all except themselves.

I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on the constitution over you quoting yourself. And the USSC has found that marriage is a right.

You disagree. So what?

 

[Kosh]

Not according to Gallup:

OK, your gallup poll vs the 82% who showed up silently to vote on the link in my last post and then drifted back into the shadows..

First off, Gallup is infinitely more reliable than some message board poll. A Gallup selects its respondents randomly. While those replying to a message board poll are by definition, interested parties.

Second, your poll says nothing....absolutely nothing, about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Meaning that you've presented no poll that indicates that 82% of folks oppose gay marriage. While I've presented one of the most reliable polls in nation that indicate that gay marriage supporters outpace gay marriage opponents by 12 points. With gay marriage support now at 55%.

Yet you're clinging to an informal message board poll that doesn't even ask about the legality of gay marriage as more reliable on public sentiment on the issue of the legality of gay marriage than Gallup?

That more than little bizarre.

OK politicians. Will it be the USMB poll and all the rest? Or will you stake your future on gallup's poll instead? Your choice.

I'm pretty sure politicians will go with the actual polling agency on the legality of gay marriage. Especially considering that the informal message board poll you just cited didn't ask about the legality of gay marriage.

Gallop is owned by a far left media sources, not as trustworthy as it may have been.

For a better view try this:
Civil Rights

How many gay people have gone to jail for being "Married" illegally in the US?

 

[g5000]

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

Huh?
That wasnt even a good deflection.

You're claiming states can ban same sex marriage regardless of what the Court says. On the exact same principle they should be able to ban guns.

Why aren't you consistent in your principles?

because arms are actually stated in the document. I don't see a reference to marriage anywhere.

But you do see equal protection of the laws in the Constitution, don't you?

 

[Kosh]

And the clueless far left continue to show they do not understand the Constitution and what to apply their religion to all except themselves.

I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on the constitution over you quoting yourself. And the USSC has found that marriage is a right.

You disagree. So what?

Just goes to show that you do not understand what you are talking about other than outdated far left talking points and blog sites.

"Marriage" is not a "right", But then again the far left has demonstrated they do not understand what a "right" is.

 

[g5000]

Referenda? lol, those are examples of that direct democracy mob rule that you conservatives claim to hate when it's convenient for you.

I guess this time it's not that convenient...

Remind me how you disapprove of Colorado's legalization of marijuana. Oh yeah, that's different somehwo because well it just is.

Don't change the subject. The feds have every right to enforce federal marijuana laws.

So why arent they? WHy arent you outraged at this blatant example of state nullification of federal law. That's federal law, btw, not some judge's opinion.

They haven't nullified the law. Personally I believe the federal government should either enforce it or repeal it.

LOL!
They havent nullified the law? Federal law forbids growing, selling, using marijuana. But no one is prosecuted for it in Colorado. If that isnt nullification then what is?

It isn't nullification. It's federal prosecutorial discretion.