Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[Redfish]

There is just marriage- whether it is same gender couples or opposite gender couples- and all marriage is equal.

thats your opinion, but a majority of humans on planet earth disagree with you.

Nah, your opinion that all marriages must for all time be between one man and one woman... yeah that opinion is now in the minority. Sucks to be the in minority huh?

then put it to a vote, pass a constitutional amendment. Clear it up once and for all.

Notice that I said a majority of humans on planet earth, not in the US. So my statement was 100% accurate.

My version of the federal amendment:

Proposed: Congress shall make no law that allows, restricts, or benefits marriages between groups of consenting adults.

Translation... leave it to the states.

Conservatives are really falling back in their fight against gay marriage. First they wanted an amendment to ban it nationwide, now they are falling back to an amendment to let the states decide

not at all, I am perfectly willing to accept the will of the people. Are you?

 

[Redfish]

at the end of the day gay marriage doesn't touch one single part of my life so I don't give a damn. The only people it effects are gays trying to get married. Enter fanatical RW's telling people how to live their lives. Gays do whatever they want, I do whatever I want, we never cross trails, we never bitch about each other to each other. Apparently, RW's live deep in the gay community, thus their lives are shattered. What other reason do they have to whine about same sex marriage?

oh yeah, they're MORONS,

Contain your RW hatred, first explain why LW California voted to ban gay marriage.

It would not do that today.

then lets have a vote, resolve this mess. let the people speak.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Redfishes do not vote on that which is good and right when it comes to civil rights, otherwise many of us would be in the concentation camps of the far right reactionaries.

SCOTUS makes these decisions, and the Redfishes will be forced to kneel and confess their error.

wrong, I am all for equality in all things. I fully support the civil rights act, I want gays treated equally and fairly. Where we differ is that I do not believe that a gay union is a marraige or that society should consider gay unions equally acceptable and normal as man/woman marriages.

Thats what I believe, Last time I checked we have the right to our beliefs in this country.

What I find very dangerous is the idea that beliefs can be mandated by the government----------and thats what this whole gay marriage debate really boils down to.

Bullshit. What it amounts to is whether bigots like you get to keep pissing on the rights of gays to life and liberty.

you stupidity is showing, better pull your pants up.

Poor effort at deflecting. I must have hit a nerve.

 

[Redfish]

The Redfishes do not vote on that which is good and right when it comes to civil rights, otherwise many of us would be in the concentation camps of the far right reactionaries.

SCOTUS makes these decisions, and the Redfishes will be forced to kneel and confess their error.

wrong, I am all for equality in all things. I fully support the civil rights act, I want gays treated equally and fairly. Where we differ is that I do not believe that a gay union is a marraige or that society should consider gay unions equally acceptable and normal as man/woman marriages.

Thats what I believe, Last time I checked we have the right to our beliefs in this country.

What I find very dangerous is the idea that beliefs can be mandated by the government----------and thats what this whole gay marriage debate really boils down to.

Bullshit. What it amounts to is whether bigots like you get to keep pissing on the rights of gays to life and liberty.

you stupidity is showing, better pull your pants up.

Poor effort at deflecting. I must have hit a nerve.

nope, not at all. your post got the response that it deserved.

 

[Dana7360]

There is just marriage- whether it is same gender couples or opposite gender couples- and all marriage is equal.

thats your opinion, but a majority of humans on planet earth disagree with you.

Nah, your opinion that all marriages must for all time be between one man and one woman... yeah that opinion is now in the minority. Sucks to be the in minority huh?

then put it to a vote, pass a constitutional amendment. Clear it up once and for all.

Notice that I said a majority of humans on planet earth, not in the US. So my statement was 100% accurate.

My version of the federal amendment:

Proposed: Congress shall make no law that allows, restricts, or benefits marriages between groups of consenting adults.

Translation... leave it to the states.

Conservatives are really falling back in their fight against gay marriage. First they wanted an amendment to ban it nationwide, now they are falling back to an amendment to let the states decide

My state already decided.

It was on the ballot in 2012.

It passed with a good majority and gay people have legally been getting married since 2012.

We're just waiting for the rest of the nation to catch up and come into the 21st century.

 

[Redfish]

thats your opinion, but a majority of humans on planet earth disagree with you.

Nah, your opinion that all marriages must for all time be between one man and one woman... yeah that opinion is now in the minority. Sucks to be the in minority huh?

then put it to a vote, pass a constitutional amendment. Clear it up once and for all.

Notice that I said a majority of humans on planet earth, not in the US. So my statement was 100% accurate.

My version of the federal amendment:

Proposed: Congress shall make no law that allows, restricts, or benefits marriages between groups of consenting adults.

Translation... leave it to the states.

Conservatives are really falling back in their fight against gay marriage. First they wanted an amendment to ban it nationwide, now they are falling back to an amendment to let the states decide

My state already decided.

It was on the ballot in 2012.

It passed with a good majority and gay people have legally been getting married since 2012.

We're just waiting for the rest of the nation to catch up and come into the 21st century.

fine, so lets have a referendum in every state and put this shit debate to bed for good. or vote on a constitutional amendment-------------------let the people decide.

 

[bodecea]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

if that poll is accurate then why do you on the left object to a national referendum or a constitutional amendment? Why do you object to letting the people speak? Could it be because you know that that poll is bullshit?

Simply because the majority should not be able to vote on what rights the minority should be allowed

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

OMG, I cannot continue to deal with your stupidity. The majority decided on the rights of minorities. And Yes, a majority could limit the rights of a minority, For example, a majority could decide to limit the number of muslim immigrants allowed to enter this country. Minority rights do not include the right to attack and kill the majority.

Non sequitur. Stop your babbling, wuckfit. SCOTUS decides these things, not majoritarian democracy. We might as well let the Iranians rule us, because that is what you obviously want.

Actually dumbass the constitution says that it is a state issue so no the supreme court doesnt make the decision. You do know we are not a democracy right? Oh look whom i am posting to of course you dont

State issues? So you are telling us that marriages are not recognized from state to state, divorces are not recognized from state to state. Interesting.

 

[Dana7360]

I so would love for the conservatives to show us where in the constitution it says that gay people can't legally get married to the person they love.

I would also like conservatives to show us where in the constitution it says that our government can legally discriminate against gay people.

I would also love to know where in the constitution it says that marriage is between a woman and a man.

First you show us where 4 men and 6 women cannot get married, or a father and daughter cannot bet married.

it gay marriage is constitutionally OK, then so are all other forms of marriage.

How typical of a cowardly conservative.

You didn't answer my questions.

I didn't expect to see an answer either but was willing to see if any of you cowards would even try.

How about answering my questions honestly?

You people keep asking where in the constitution gives gays the right to marry. We all gave you several parts of the constitution that support gay marriage. Yet you can't do the same.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Redfish]

I so would love for the conservatives to show us where in the constitution it says that gay people can't legally get married to the person they love.

I would also like conservatives to show us where in the constitution it says that our government can legally discriminate against gay people.

I would also love to know where in the constitution it says that marriage is between a woman and a man.

First you show us where 4 men and 6 women cannot get married, or a father and daughter cannot bet married.

it gay marriage is constitutionally OK, then so are all other forms of marriage.

How typical of a cowardly conservative.

You didn't answer my questions.

I didn't expect to see an answer either but was willing to see if any of you cowards would even try.

How about answering my questions honestly?

You people keep asking where in the constitution give gays the right to marry. We all gave you several parts of the constitution that support gay marriage. Yet you can't do the same.

I wonder why that is?

because nothing you quoted mentions gay marriage. nothing. nothing you quoted mentions marriage of any kind.

this is a societal issue, not a constitutional issue. If you want it to be constitutional, pass an amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

An inherent right maybe, but one which is not enshrined in the constitution, only in the minds of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Marriage is a Fundamental Right -- Constitutional case law. Deal with it.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

"It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Again, relying on 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers. And most of those have to do with race.

If marriage is a "fundamental right" how can we place restrictions on incest, bigamy and plural marriage?

 

[martybegan]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

You don't even need an amendment. Just get the state legislatures amend the marriage contract, and force other states to apply full faith and credit.

Then a state can say "we don't marry gays" but would still have to accept as married a couple that goes to say NY and gets legally hitched.

There is precedent for the feds forcing states to accept marriage contracts outside their states. There is only one precedent based on race of the feds forcing the terms of the marriage contracts being issued by a State.

 

[martybegan]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

Feel free to pursue one.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages- there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

You have NO constitutional right to a same sex marriage.

 

[martybegan]

So do I. Roberts has three abiding core values: conservatism, legacy and the integrity of the courts.

On the first count, Roberts would side with the conservatives. The latter two would compel him to side with the left and Kennedy.

I think if Roberts vote could change the outcome, he'd side with the conservatives. But it seems increasingly unlikely that his vote will change anything. Kennedy seems poised to side with the left on this issue and preserve gay marriage. So Roberts is left with his own personal legacy and the intergrity of the courts.

No one save Scalia wants to be this generations Leon Bazile;

With 50 years of separation, Leon sounds ignorant as fuck. And that ruling against the Lovings defines his legacy. I think Roberts recognizes the issue of gay marriage will be similarly important in the long term. With opposition to gay marriage look back upon and scorned as useless ignorance. I don't think he wants to be on the wrong side of this issue.

As for the integrity of the court, most of your major civil rights legislation was historically done as close to unanimous as possible. Both Brown v. The Board of Education and Loving V. Virginia ruling were unanimous. A deeply divided court makes the USSC look political. A more unanimous verdict, impartial and more constitutional. I see this ruling as being in the same ball park in terms of long term significance. I suspect this may push Roberts toward concurring sheerly for the sake of consensus within the courts.

I think its likely that we'll get a 6 to 3 ruling out of the court in favor of gay marriage. I'd say even 7-2 was possible....though quite unlikely. I don't see Scalia or Thomas siding with gay marriage regardless.

And as an aside, I disagree with Roberts on many issues. But I think he's a fine Chief Justice. Thoroughly qualified, thoughtful, and principled. I just disagree on where he's placed his principles.

The only judge who is an outright fag hater is Scalia. I can see him use some Bazile type wording in his dissent that will be mocked for generations.
Thomas will vote against but will distance himself from Scalia and side with states rights
Alito, like a true conservative will just vote no

Everyone else, including Roberts will side with the 14th amendment

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Here you go:

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By any definition, gays are persons

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.
.

There is just marriage- whether it is same gender couples or opposite gender couples- and all marriage is equal.

According to you, and if a state wants to legislatively make them legally equal, so be it. But they are not "equal" and nothing you can say will make that true.

 

[rightwinger]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

if that poll is accurate then why do you on the left object to a national referendum or a constitutional amendment? Why do you object to letting the people speak? Could it be because you know that that poll is bullshit?

Simply because the majority should not be able to vote on what rights the minority should be allowed

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

OMG, I cannot continue to deal with your stupidity. The majority decided on the rights of minorities. And Yes, a majority could limit the rights of a minority, For example, a majority could decide to limit the number of muslim immigrants allowed to enter this country. Minority rights do not include the right to attack and kill the majority.

Pretty sure that wouldn't stand Constitutionally.

IF THE CONSTITUTION WAS CHANGED TO READ THAT WAY IT WOULD BE 100% CONSTITUTIONAL. WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS WHAT IS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION, NOT WHAT YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE.

She is dealing in the real world of our Constitution while you are engaging in Constitutional fantasy

Even you would not want to live in the world you propose

 

[martybegan]

Redfish and Marty are just running in circles dodging the rebuttals.

Unsuccessfully as always.

They are 'concrete' learners.

Go fuck a tire iron with your anus, starkey.

 

[Synthaholic]

Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

^^^ The stupidity is strong with this one.

Hey JR - name the 5 Left-Leaning justices. It must be at least 5 for your statement to be true.

 

[rightwinger]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

Feel free to pursue one.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages- there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

You have NO constitutional right to a same sex marriage.

Have to see what the Supreme Court says on that one

 

[martybegan]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

Feel free to pursue one.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages- there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

You have NO constitutional right to a same sex marriage.

Have to see what the Supreme Court says on that one

They would still be wrong, but because you agree with it, you are OK with it. Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

 

[Synthaholic]

They would still be wrong

Perhaps you can point to where in the Constitution same-sex marriage is a violation?

 

[martybegan]

They would still be wrong

Perhaps you can point to where in the Constitution same-sex marriage is a violation?

Its not a violation, its not in the document. It is up to the States to determine the contents of the marriage contract. If states want to make same and opposite sex marriage the same thing be legislative process, so be it. I would probably vote FOR it. However using the courts to create a right out of thin air (especially since most of you assholes also support denying me my explicit 2nd amendment rights) is wrong.