Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.14th amendmentWhy? 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.
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"
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).
Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.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.14th amendmentNonsense. The right to get married exists until government magically takes it away. You are upside down on this one.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.
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.
As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation
And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.
Not true, not even a little bit true. I'm fully aware of the two types of due process discussed in the constitution.You are not listening. The court is going to rule on whether the states applied due process or not.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.14th amendmentWhy? 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.
As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation
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.
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.
No legislative due process does not mean, you get input.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.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.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"
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).
Again, you are not using the term correctly. Due process means that in criminal cases you get a judge to decide your fate. legislatively it means you get input into the passing of laws via representation.
Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.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.14th amendmentNonsense. 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.
As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation
And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.
No legislative due process does not mean, you get input.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.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.Cousins can't marry
People below a certain age even with consent cannot marry
And again, you rely on the broad definition of "equal"
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).
Again, you are not using the term correctly. Due process means that in criminal cases you get a judge to decide your fate. legislatively it means you get input into the passing of laws via representation.
I bet it will be unanimously for.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
It's an issue of whether the right to life includes marriage, which it does, and whether gays are consenting adults, which they are, and whether the states may by majority opinion draft laws taking the right to life away from gays simply because the people in the state are spiteful toward gay people living in their state.Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.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.14th amendmentWhy? 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.
As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation
And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.
No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.
You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.
Nope...Scalia will definitely vote NO and Thomas will vote whatever way Scalia does.I bet it will be unanimously for.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
Ok. Explain to us what that phrase has to do with legalized gay marriage.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.
We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"
Nonsense. You are just making shit up. Their job is to rule on the clear meaning of the constitutional amendments we are living under. Not the version you wish we were living under. If you want the SCOTUS to make different decisions, you should start with a drive to change the 14th due process clause. Eg. You appear to prefer a 14th amendment that allows the states to restrict the rights of it's citizens by majority vote.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.
We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"
Wanna bet?Nope...Scalia will definitely vote NO and Thomas will vote whatever way Scalia does.I bet it will be unanimously for.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
It's an issue of whether the right to life includes marriage, which it does, and whether gays are consenting adults, which they are, and whether the states may by majority opinion draft laws taking the right to life away from gays simply because the people in the state are spiteful toward gay people living in their state.Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.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.14th amendment
As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation
And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.
No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.
You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.
Public accommodation laws... liberty is not the liberty to do others harm. The question for the baking incident is who is being harmed the baker in being asked to bake a cake or the baker's customer in being asked to move along because this baker doesn't bake cakes for gay people, black people, jewish people or any other type of person they are bigoted against.
Nonsense. You are just making shit up. Their job is to rule on the clear meaning of the constitutional amendments we are living under. Not the version you wish we were living under. If you want the SCOTUS to make different decisions, you should start with a drive to change the 14th due process clause. Eg. You appear to prefer a 14th amendment that allows the states to restrict the rights of it's citizens by majority vote.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.
We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"
Ok. Explain to us what that phrase has to do with legalized gay marriage.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.
We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"
Can you show any country prior to the forming of the U.S. that specified marriage be codified by law in order to be recognized?Nonsense. The right to get married exists until government magically takes it away. You are upside down on this one.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.
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.
Sounds like fun....Avatar bet?Wanna bet?Nope...Scalia will definitely vote NO and Thomas will vote whatever way Scalia does.I bet it will be unanimously for.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with your quote "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."Ok. Explain to us what that phrase has to do with legalized gay marriage.Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?
With the exception of three judges....Yes
If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.
We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"
Forcing gay marriage on States that don't want it will be just the start. Soon other groups will claim "rights" that don't exist in the document, and who among you will have the standing to deny them? Next we can get rid of rights we don't like using the same logic, just like you assholes are doing with then 2nd amendment.
