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

[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 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.

the constitution governs all of our laws. A law is measured against whether it's constitutional or not. If it is, that law stands. If it's not that law doesn't stand.

Now, a lot of conservatives have been demanding where in the constitution it says gays can get married.

I'm asking where in the constitution does it say gays can't get married.

I have yet to get an honest answer from you cowards. I'm just throwing your own question back in your faces and you're too cowardly to answer it. LOL.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

As long as the state laws are constitutional.

The Supreme Court has turned over at least three State marriage laws for being unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes- according to me. You don't want to accept that, then that is your loss and your delusion.

 

[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

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.

Who took Obamacare to the Supreme Court?

Who took Social Security and Medicare to the Supreme Court?

 

[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.

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

Do you deny you are a bigot that is pissing on the rights of gays to life and liberty?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So far multiple courts have said that same gender couples have the same marriage rights as my wife and I enjoy- and I agree with them.

The issue will be going to the Supreme Court to decide.

The difference between you and I?

If the Supreme Court rules against marriage equality- I will say it is a bad decision- but I will recognize the Supreme Court's authority to make the decision, and the legal validity of their decision.

If the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality- you will be saying the ruling is unconstitutional and 'fascist stalinist'.

 

[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.

So far multiple courts have said that same gender couples have the same marriage rights as my wife and I enjoy- and I agree with them.

The issue will be going to the Supreme Court to decide.

The difference between you and I?

If the Supreme Court rules against marriage equality- I will say it is a bad decision- but I will recognize the Supreme Court's authority to make the decision, and the legal validity of their decision.

If the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality- you will be saying the ruling is unconstitutional and 'fascist stalinist'.

Passion in the face of tyranny is not a vice. When the court says it can magically create rights, it is also saying it can magically destroy them.

 

[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.

Who took Obamacare to the Supreme Court?

Who took Social Security and Medicare to the Supreme Court?

Where in any of those programs does it say they are "rights"

They are entitlements, not rights. The argument is different.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yes- according to me. You don't want to accept that, then that is your loss and your delusion.

I can accept it if a majority of the people in an individual State decide via legislative action to make it legally equal. I do not accept lawyers forcing people to accept is as equal.

 

[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..

As long as the state laws are constitutional.

The Supreme Court has turned over at least three State marriage laws for being unconstitutional.

Related to sex or race?

 

[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.

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

The SAFE act as well as NYC'd draconian handgun laws violate an EXPLICIT RIGHT in the constitution.

And as for the other states suing Colorado, its a bullshit lawsuit, regardless of which party supports it. I have been in favor of Pot being treated like alcohol (States decide legality) for a long time.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

No. You are wrong on this one. The right to life includes marriage, that is a settled matter. The states are required to apply due process when restricting one's right to life, that is also a settled matter. Thus all the SCOTUS has to do is determine whether the states have applied due process in restricting the right to life of gays. I honestly don't give the bigots against gays a chance in hell of winning this fight.

The states are arguing that being gay means you forgo your right to marriage, thus right to life. You can't have it both ways. Either marriage is a part of life guaranteed by the right to life or it's not. Saying gay marriage is a sub-class of marriage that is not part of life would the be exact same thing as saying gays are a sub-class of human.

 

[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.

No. You are wrong on this one. The right to life includes marriage, that is a settled matter. The states are required to apply due process when restricting one's right to life, that is also a settled matter. Thus all the SCOTUS has to do is determine whether the states have applied due process in restricting the right to life of gays. I honestly don't give the bigots against gays a chance in hell of winning this fight.

The states are arguing that being gay means you forgo your right to marriage, thus right to life. You can't have it both ways. Either marriage is a part of life guaranteed by the right to life or it's not.

So we should also allow polygamy and incest marriage, and offer contracts to basically anyone who wants to be called "married"?

 

[rdean]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

So far multiple courts have said that same gender couples have the same marriage rights as my wife and I enjoy- and I agree with them.

The issue will be going to the Supreme Court to decide.

The difference between you and I?

If the Supreme Court rules against marriage equality- I will say it is a bad decision- but I will recognize the Supreme Court's authority to make the decision, and the legal validity of their decision.

If the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality- you will be saying the ruling is unconstitutional and 'fascist stalinist'.

Passion in the face of tyranny is not a vice. When the court says it can magically create rights, it is also saying it can magically destroy them.

Nonsense. The right to get married exists until government magically takes it away. You are upside down on this 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.

So far multiple courts have said that same gender couples have the same marriage rights as my wife and I enjoy- and I agree with them.

The issue will be going to the Supreme Court to decide.

The difference between you and I?

If the Supreme Court rules against marriage equality- I will say it is a bad decision- but I will recognize the Supreme Court's authority to make the decision, and the legal validity of their decision.

If the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality- you will be saying the ruling is unconstitutional and 'fascist stalinist'.

Passion in the face of tyranny is not a vice. When the court says it can magically create rights, it is also saying it can magically destroy them.

Nonsense. The right to get married exists until government magically takes it away. You are upside down on this one.

Why? Where in the document is the right to marry whoever you want explicitly given in the document? The feds have no place in this debate, it is up to the States themselves to figure it out.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

martybegan: "States Rights for me, but not for thee"

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

No. You are wrong on this one. The right to life includes marriage, that is a settled matter. The states are required to apply due process when restricting one's right to life, that is also a settled matter. Thus all the SCOTUS has to do is determine whether the states have applied due process in restricting the right to life of gays. I honestly don't give the bigots against gays a chance in hell of winning this fight.

The states are arguing that being gay means you forgo your right to marriage, thus right to life. You can't have it both ways. Either marriage is a part of life guaranteed by the right to life or it's not.

So we should also allow polygamy and incest marriage, and offer contracts to basically anyone who wants to be called "married"?

As with any other type of contract, marriage should only be restricted to consenting adults.
Incest has been shown to cause harm, so that's a separate issue.
I see no harm in plural marriages, so I don't see why that is being restricted.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

So far multiple courts have said that same gender couples have the same marriage rights as my wife and I enjoy- and I agree with them.

The issue will be going to the Supreme Court to decide.

The difference between you and I?

If the Supreme Court rules against marriage equality- I will say it is a bad decision- but I will recognize the Supreme Court's authority to make the decision, and the legal validity of their decision.

If the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality- you will be saying the ruling is unconstitutional and 'fascist stalinist'.

Passion in the face of tyranny is not a vice. When the court says it can magically create rights, it is also saying it can magically destroy them.

Nonsense. The right to get married exists until government magically takes it away. You are upside down on this one.

Why? Where in the document is the right to marry whoever you want explicitly given in the document? The feds have no place in this debate, it is up to the States themselves to figure it out.

The right to life is a basic natural right afforded to all citizens. That's why it had to be mentioned in the 14th when they decided to make it clear that due process had to be shown when restricting it.

You appear to have a current lack of understanding for what the right to life means. Marriage is a part of that right.

The feds place in this debate is merely to ensure the due process clause in the 14th amendment is being adhered to.