Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have already addressed that issue. The fact that you're asking again tells me that you're reading comprehension is first grade at best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Though I am enjoying some of your evasiveness,
Do feel free to quote your yes or no answer for the audience again.

I clearly stated in post 429 that the issue of who can marry who can and is regulated by the government but is subject to legal challenges and the gov. must defend those restrictions. What part of that don't you understand??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why can't you give a yes or no answer to a direct yes or no question.

See, this is one of the uuuuge reasons for why there is no meaningful dialect between the two sides.

I'm not giving a direct yes or no answer because there is no direct yes or no answer. The problem is that your concreate, ridged and unsophisticated thinking only allows you to process simplistic yes or no answers. You have no ability to deal with nuances or complexities . The answer that I gave , that you can't seem to grasp, is that government can limit rights if 1. those limitations go unchallenged 2. If challenged, they can justify them. You seem to be unable to understand that .

The only thing that I don't know is whether this is some sick and bizarre game that your playing where you pretend to not understand what I'm saying, or if your are really that intellectually limited .

Watch this.

The answer is YES!

Period.

Thank you for that stimulating and in depth discussion on the issue of government and it's role in determining who can marry who. You have touched on all of the subtleties and nuances of that complex question and provided an eloquent analysis of the constitutional issues and process involved in making that determination.

You clearly have a sound understanding of why the government can say that you can't marry your sibling, your offspring, or your dog- but has failed to justify restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

You are truly an intellectual powerhouse! An intellect among intellects and a real asset to this message board,.. I have learned so much from you! THANK YOU!

 

[danielpalos]

It is not about States' rights. It is about equal protection of the law.

Marriage and benefits is NOT what the founders and framers were talking about when they talked about "equal protection."


Try again.

Laws have to be applied equally, dear.

When a right is a qualified right (like the age to drive or to vote) - They are in fact "applied equally."

You either meet the requirements (qualifications) or you don't.

marriage is a purely private Act; it is "commuted public" for full faith and credit purposes, nothing more.

NOTHING more.....

Guess you wont miss the Tax deductions or any other financial benefits then.

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

 

[Chuz Life]

Marriage and benefits is NOT what the founders and framers were talking about when they talked about "equal protection."


Try again.

Laws have to be applied equally, dear.

When a right is a qualified right (like the age to drive or to vote) - They are in fact "applied equally."

You either meet the requirements (qualifications) or you don't.

marriage is a purely private Act; it is "commuted public" for full faith and credit purposes, nothing more.

NOTHING more.....

Guess you wont miss the Tax deductions or any other financial benefits then.

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

Who would?

Ever?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Laws have to be applied equally, dear.

When a right is a qualified right (like the age to drive or to vote) - They are in fact "applied equally."

You either meet the requirements (qualifications) or you don't.

marriage is a purely private Act; it is "commuted public" for full faith and credit purposes, nothing more.

NOTHING more.....

Guess you wont miss the Tax deductions or any other financial benefits then.

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

Who would?

Ever?

Oh you're still here. Good! In addition to my earlier accolades , I wanted to also recognize your excellent mastery of Constitutional Law and the principle of Strict Scrutiny, as well as the concepts of , Compelling Government Interest, and Rational Basis Review.

Thanks to you, the other participants here now understand that these standards are what allows the courts to distinguish between what restrictions on marriage pass Constitutional muster and which do not. The fact that you understand that there is no easy, yes or no answer to questions like "can government restrict marriage" is a sure sign of intellectual superiority. What a guy!!

 

[Chuz Life]

When a right is a qualified right (like the age to drive or to vote) - They are in fact "applied equally."

You either meet the requirements (qualifications) or you don't.

marriage is a purely private Act; it is "commuted public" for full faith and credit purposes, nothing more.

NOTHING more.....

Guess you wont miss the Tax deductions or any other financial benefits then.

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

Who would?

Ever?

Oh you're still here. Good! In addition to my earlier accolades , I wanted to also recognize your excellent mastery of Constitutional Law and the principle of Strict Scrutiny, as well as the concepts of , Compelling Government Interest, and Rational Basis Review.

Thanks to you, the other participants here now understand that these standards are what allows the courts to distinguish between what restrictions on marriage pass Constitutional muster and which do not. The fact that you understand that there is no easy, yes or no answer to questions like "can government restrict marriage" is a sure sign of intellectual superiority. What a guy!!

It's all good, snowflake.

I know how traumatic it is for you tardz to acknowledge facts.

Thus the gif image in my signature line.

 

[Seawytch]

marriage is a purely private Act; it is "commuted public" for full faith and credit purposes, nothing more.

NOTHING more.....

Guess you wont miss the Tax deductions or any other financial benefits then.

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

Who would?

Ever?

Oh you're still here. Good! In addition to my earlier accolades , I wanted to also recognize your excellent mastery of Constitutional Law and the principle of Strict Scrutiny, as well as the concepts of , Compelling Government Interest, and Rational Basis Review.

Thanks to you, the other participants here now understand that these standards are what allows the courts to distinguish between what restrictions on marriage pass Constitutional muster and which do not. The fact that you understand that there is no easy, yes or no answer to questions like "can government restrict marriage" is a sure sign of intellectual superiority. What a guy!!

It's all good, snowflake.

I know how traumatic it is for you tardz to acknowledge facts.

Thus the gif image in my signature line.

We do understand the fact that there is no easy answer to questions like "can governments restrict X?". It involves nuance.

 

[Chuz Life]

NOTHING more.....

Guess you wont miss the Tax deductions or any other financial benefits then.

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

Who would?

Ever?

Oh you're still here. Good! In addition to my earlier accolades , I wanted to also recognize your excellent mastery of Constitutional Law and the principle of Strict Scrutiny, as well as the concepts of , Compelling Government Interest, and Rational Basis Review.

Thanks to you, the other participants here now understand that these standards are what allows the courts to distinguish between what restrictions on marriage pass Constitutional muster and which do not. The fact that you understand that there is no easy, yes or no answer to questions like "can government restrict marriage" is a sure sign of intellectual superiority. What a guy!!

It's all good, snowflake.

I know how traumatic it is for you tardz to acknowledge facts.

Thus the gif image in my signature line.

We do understand the fact that there is no easy answer to questions like "can governments restrict X?". It involves nuance.

You can engage in all the mental gymnastics you want to.

At the end of the day, there is still a yes or no answer.

Either the government can (yes) or it can't (no).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

Who would?

Ever?

Oh you're still here. Good! In addition to my earlier accolades , I wanted to also recognize your excellent mastery of Constitutional Law and the principle of Strict Scrutiny, as well as the concepts of , Compelling Government Interest, and Rational Basis Review.

Thanks to you, the other participants here now understand that these standards are what allows the courts to distinguish between what restrictions on marriage pass Constitutional muster and which do not. The fact that you understand that there is no easy, yes or no answer to questions like "can government restrict marriage" is a sure sign of intellectual superiority. What a guy!!

It's all good, snowflake.

I know how traumatic it is for you tardz to acknowledge facts.

Thus the gif image in my signature line.

We do understand the fact that there is no easy answer to questions like "can governments restrict X?". It involves nuance.

You can engage in all the mental gymnastics you want to.

At the end of the day, there is still a yes or no answer.

Either the government can (yes) or it can't (no).

 

[Seawytch]

Guess the right wing won't be missing, Increased Litigation.

Who would?

Ever?

Oh you're still here. Good! In addition to my earlier accolades , I wanted to also recognize your excellent mastery of Constitutional Law and the principle of Strict Scrutiny, as well as the concepts of , Compelling Government Interest, and Rational Basis Review.

Thanks to you, the other participants here now understand that these standards are what allows the courts to distinguish between what restrictions on marriage pass Constitutional muster and which do not. The fact that you understand that there is no easy, yes or no answer to questions like "can government restrict marriage" is a sure sign of intellectual superiority. What a guy!!

It's all good, snowflake.

I know how traumatic it is for you tardz to acknowledge facts.

Thus the gif image in my signature line.

We do understand the fact that there is no easy answer to questions like "can governments restrict X?". It involves nuance.

You can engage in all the mental gymnastics you want to.

At the end of the day, there is still a yes or no answer.

Either the government can (yes) or it can't (no).

Yes, if the government can demonstrate a societal harm, they can restrict just about anything they want.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who would?

Ever?

Oh you're still here. Good! In addition to my earlier accolades , I wanted to also recognize your excellent mastery of Constitutional Law and the principle of Strict Scrutiny, as well as the concepts of , Compelling Government Interest, and Rational Basis Review.

Thanks to you, the other participants here now understand that these standards are what allows the courts to distinguish between what restrictions on marriage pass Constitutional muster and which do not. The fact that you understand that there is no easy, yes or no answer to questions like "can government restrict marriage" is a sure sign of intellectual superiority. What a guy!!

It's all good, snowflake.

I know how traumatic it is for you tardz to acknowledge facts.

Thus the gif image in my signature line.

We do understand the fact that there is no easy answer to questions like "can governments restrict X?". It involves nuance.

You can engage in all the mental gymnastics you want to.

At the end of the day, there is still a yes or no answer.

Either the government can (yes) or it can't (no).

Yes, if the government can demonstrate a societal harm, they can restrict just about anything they want.

Actually, my take on it is that they can restrict or prohibit certain things without demonstrating a societal harm up front - as they did with same sex marriage- and will get away with it until challenged. But once challenged, the burden of proof that it is harmful. falls on the government and they failed miserably in that capacity on same sex marriage. It might have gone differently if the issue before the court was the right to marry your child or sibling....or your dog, ya think? LOL

 

[Chuz Life]

Lol...


Snowflakes

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Lol...


Snowflakes

Please explain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[12icer]

So the liberal Bullshit position is the government can restrict constitutional rights for some people but not for others. Like the government can restrict free speech for whites who say one word, but not for blacks who say an equally offensive word, restrict Christian rights to pray in schools or read bibles , but not Muslim rights to pray in schools or read the Quran. Restrict the rights of a person to withhold their services because of a belief that same sex marriage is against their religion, but not restrict the right of a liberal shit professional entertainer to withhold their services from someone they don't agree with. AND the liberal belief There is no right of a person or cop to protect themselves or to posses a constitutionally protected firearm to use to protect themselves from a thug that is bent on doing grievous physical harm to them, yet a Thug has the right to be released to repeat the same violent crimes again and again. So liberals seem to have the idea that rights are exclusive to groups the deem "worthy" to exercise them. Another reason in MY mind to exterminate all liberals, and all who worship them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So the liberal Bullshit position is the government can restrict constitutional rights for some people but not for others. Like the government can restrict free speech for whites who say one word, but not for blacks who say an equally offensive word, restrict Christian rights to pray in schools or read bibles , but not Muslim rights to pray in schools or read the Quran. Restrict the rights of a person to withhold their services because of a belief that same sex marriage is against their religion, but not restrict the right of a liberal shit professional entertainer to withhold their services from someone they don't agree with. AND the liberal belief There is no right of a person or cop to protect themselves or to posses a constitutionally protected firearm to use to protect themselves from a thug that is bent on doing grievous physical harm to them, yet a Thug has the right to be released to repeat the same violent crimes again and again. So liberals seem to have the idea that rights are exclusive to groups the deem "worthy" to exercise them. Another reason in MY mind to exterminate all liberals, and all who worship them.

That is one hell of an incoherent, psychotic, mind numbing , boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that tells me that you don't have a fucking clue about how government works and especially how constitutional law is applied. Maybe you would like to break down this wall of blather into individual bit size issues and explore each one in a calm and rational way.

This thread is about marriage and marital benefits so maybe you would like to try to focus on that and the issue of "rights" that you seem to be all in a tither about. Maybe you would even like to present an opinion about what is happening in the Huston case. Calmly. No rants.

Oh, and you do realize that you're threatening bodily harm to liberals in this post as well as with you signature, don' t you?

I would watch that shit if I were you. Thank the Goddess that I'm not you.

 

[Iceweasel]

This thread is about marriage and marital benefits so maybe you would like to try to focus on that and the issue of "rights" that you seem to be all in a tither about. Calmly.

People have rights, relationships don't. Liberals are confused about that. There's nothing in the Constitution that says xyz relationship has this privelege and abc relationship doesn't. There's nothing that even says a man/woman relationship has any amount of privilege. Normal people don't view same sex couples in the same light because that isn't how nature works. You are here via opposite genders getting together and no amount of brainwashing can alter the reality of the matter.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

 

[Iceweasel]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

Nothing makes any sense to you if it recognizes the fact genders matter. Nor are they restricting anything by not giving something.

 

[miketx]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

What makes no sense is another man wanting to be a woman or to play like a woman while another man porks him. That is sick and disgusting. And no matter how many times you libs puke it out, there is no RIGHT to do that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People have rights, relationships don't

That does not make a lick of sense but then again, nothing that you ever have to offer does. People have a right TO THEIR RELASHIONSHIPS.............TO THE EXTENT that there is no COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST, in restricting those relationships. It is just that simple Sparky

Nothing makes any sense to you if it recognizes the fact genders matter. Nor are they restricting anything by not giving something.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.

Today's 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.

But it's Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Here's an image of it – save it to your hard drive, take a picture of it, keep it handy. Always remember, #LoveWins.

So STFU , You loose!

 

[miketx]

Perhaps a welcome side effect this ruling would be Texas homosexuals moving out of the state say to California. Win win.