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

[rightwinger]

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.

Moving the goalpost are we?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oh so its only when 'progressives' sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights that they are- how did you put it so colorfully? "they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes"

But not when conservatives sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights.

I love the double standard- and am not surprised in the least by it.

 

[Synthaholic]

When the court says it can magically create rights, it is also saying it can magically destroy them.

Laws, not rights.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Laws. Not rights. Not entitlements.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

 

[martybegan]

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"

You cut off my quote, dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Oh so its only when 'progressives' sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights that they are- how did you put it so colorfully? "they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes"

But not when conservatives sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights.

I love the double standard- and am not surprised in the least by it.

The right I am talking about is explicitly written in the document. How is that a double standard?

 

[martybegan]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

Cousins can't marry
People below a certain age even with consent cannot marry

And again, you rely on the broad definition of "equal"

 

[martybegan]

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.

Laws. Not rights. Not entitlements.

The laws in those cases created entitlements. try to keep up.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Moving the goalpost are we?

No, answering you statement. You are just too much of a hack to admit it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

When the feds force states to do things THAT is the tyranny of the majority. No true Libertarian would EVER run to the feds for something like this.

 

[martybegan]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

Cousins can't marry
People below a certain age even with consent cannot marry

And again, you rely on the broad definition of "equal"

So basically you are trying to argue that gay adult males and gay adult women who are not related in any way are somehow not eligible consenting adults because being gay is the same as being a cousin or being underage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oh so its only when 'progressives' sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights that they are- how did you put it so colorfully? "they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes"

But not when conservatives sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights.

I love the double standard- and am not surprised in the least by it.

The right I am talking about is explicitly written in the document. How is that a double standard?

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

 

[martybegan]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

Cousins can't marry
People below a certain age even with consent cannot marry

And again, you rely on the broad definition of "equal"

So basically you are trying to argue that gay adult males and gay adult women who are not related in any way are somehow not eligible consenting adults because being gay is the same as being a cousin or being underage.

it establishes that States can set requirements for how they want to issue a marriage license. A lot of arguments from the "use the courts" side make it sound like the right to marriage is absolute (the same people who say I can't have a handgun in NYC and that is somehow OK).

 

[martybegan]

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.

Oh so its only when 'progressives' sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights that they are- how did you put it so colorfully? "they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes"

But not when conservatives sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights.

I love the double standard- and am not surprised in the least by it.

The right I am talking about is explicitly written in the document. How is that a double standard?

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution, and the ones you support are basically "because I want to" based lawsuits.

And the fact you don't care how you get there makes you a far more dangerous opponent of freedom in general than I ever will be.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

When the feds force states to do things THAT is the tyranny of the majority. No true Libertarian would EVER run to the feds for something like this.

You are not listening. The court is going to rule on whether the states applied due process or not.

Tyranny of the majority is not due process.

Again you are completely upside down. You are essentially arguing that stopping a rape being committed by tyranny of the majority is crime against the majority.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

Cousins can't marry
People below a certain age even with consent cannot marry

And again, you rely on the broad definition of "equal"

So basically you are trying to argue that gay adult males and gay adult women who are not related in any way are somehow not eligible consenting adults because being gay is the same as being a cousin or being underage.

it establishes that States can set requirements for how they want to issue a marriage license. A lot of arguments from the "use the courts" side make it sound like the right to marriage is absolute (the same people who say I can't have a handgun in NYC and that is somehow OK).

You are close. It establishes that States can set requirements for how they want to issue a marriage license, so long as they apply due process.

 

[martybegan]

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.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

When the feds force states to do things THAT is the tyranny of the majority. No true Libertarian would EVER run to the feds for something like this.

You are not listening. The court is going to rule on whether the states applied due process or not.

Tyranny of the majority is not due process.

Again you are completely upside down. You are essentially arguing that stopping a rape being committed by tyranny of the majority is crime against the majority.

You keep using due process, not sure you know what it actually means.
What you want to do is force State governments to recognize a contract they don't want to recognize, in some states against the will of the residents of that state. You want to use a "right" as the basis, that is NEVER mentioned in the federal constitution, using the same implied logic that got us Roe V. Wade, and the same reasoning that got us Plessy V. Fergueson.