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

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions, you have ZERO right to call yourself ANY form of libertarian, be it small "l" or big "L".

That goes double for your apparent belief that a government mandated contract being denied someone somehow deprives them of their right to life.

Public accommodation laws are the law. It's pretty basic stuff. If you don't want to sell to everyone in the public, then you don't make your products available to the general public. It's a pretty simple concept. WRT the liberty issue this is a situation where one person wants to do harm to another it's pretty obvious. However, you being a person that hates gays sees harming that gay person by pushing them out of the public marketplace as a good thing. In fact you see that gay person demanding the right to buy in the public marketplace just like any other citizen is the person causing you harm. IOW you are upside down on this one to. And apparently for the same reason. Someone told you gays are bad, thus you think doing harm to gays is good.

Again, you are as much of a Libertarian as Farkey is a Republican.

Government force is government force. And you are cowardly as well because you let the government do your dirty work for you.

Fucking pussy.

What is it with these right wing conservatives?

They have the vocabulary of 13 year old boys on the school ground.

Is it just a limited vocabulary- or is it just a limited imagination- or is it because of stunted maturity?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

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.

The 14th does apply blanket equality- all Americans are entitled to them.

If a state wants to deny rights to anyone- then the State must have a compelling argument to deny that right.

I think we all agree that an individual has the right to own a gun. The 14th Amendment among other things says that States cannot ignore that right and are subject to the Constitution also- but the State can deny individuals the right to own guns- such as convicted felons- when there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

What states have not been able to do is provide any compelling interest in:
a) preventing mixed race couples from marrying
b) preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
c) preventing a prisoner from marrying
d) preventing same gender couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court has ruled on a-c- and will be ruling on d.

NYC says I cannot carry a firearm outside my home without the permission of the NYPD, and they can deny said permission for any reason they want. This has been held up by countless lower courts.

Is the NYC law constitutional or not?

Yes. NYC is not the federal government. Cities and states have been restricting guns owners since the start of this nation.

 

[Synthaholic]

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with your quote "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."

That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.

That's Public Accomodation Law territory. Don't like them, get your Representative to get rid of them.....INCLUDING the part that protects members of religions when they request services from businesses.

Most religious people will be smart enough not to patronize people who don't want them around. Only homosexuals evidently feel the need to force their morality on people.

What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

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.

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions, you have ZERO right to call yourself ANY form of libertarian, be it small "l" or big "L".

That goes double for your apparent belief that a government mandated contract being denied someone somehow deprives them of their right to life.

Public accommodation laws are the law. It's pretty basic stuff. If you don't want to sell to everyone in the public, then you don't make your products available to the general public. It's a pretty simple concept. WRT the liberty issue this is a situation where one person wants to do harm to another it's pretty obvious. However, you being a person that hates gays sees harming that gay person by pushing them out of the public marketplace as a good thing. In fact you see that gay person demanding the right to buy in the public marketplace just like any other citizen is the person causing you harm. IOW you are upside down on this one to. And apparently for the same reason. Someone told you gays are bad, thus you think doing harm to gays is good.

Again, you are as much of a Libertarian as Farkey is a Republican.

Government force is government force. And you are cowardly as well because you let the government do your dirty work for you.

Fucking pussy.

What is it with these right wing conservatives?

They have the vocabulary of 13 year old boys on the school ground.

Is it just a limited vocabulary- or is it just a limited imagination- or is it because of stunted maturity?

It's just anger. I'm a hetero libertarian right wing christian conservative. He's mad cause his bigotry is being exposed. Where before it was the norm.

I'm just as guilty as the next guy about getting angry. Question is angry about ... what?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

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.

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.

How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?

This isn't India. But I would argue there is harm. So would most Indian women.

Are you arguing for a World Government?

 

[Synthaholic]

How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?

Have to jump to India all of a sudden there?

It's the flail before the fail.

 

[Synthaholic]

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"

Besides your math being egregiously wrong (9-3=6, not 5), did you say that we should have ripped up the Constitution after the 5-4 Citizens United ruling?

5 of 9 is all that is required to get ANY decision, not just this one. try to keep up.

I asked you about Citizens United, and you dodged.

Citizen's United WAS unconstitutional.

Thanks for playing.

Are all 5-4 decisions unconstitutional?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PROGRESSIVE ARE DOING!

You treat the 14th as this apparent destroyer of everything you don't like, when that is clearly not the case.

The due process clause as written sucks. But I'm not saying all of the words are wrong in it.

Let me be more clear.

The due process clause of the 14th currently says:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

What the 14th should have said:
"nor shall any state hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any state subject any person to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any state compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law as set forth by federal guidelines for the 5th amendment; nor any state take private property for public use, without just compensation."

How you get from that statement to forcing gay marriage on states is beyond me.

The feds can't force gay marriage on you, but they can stop you from restricting gay marriage. Do you understand the difference between raping someone and stopping someone from raping someone?

 

[Seawytch]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

I bet it will be unanimously for.

Oh come on. No way Scalia is voting for marriage equality and Thomas just echoes Scalia.

 

[thanatos144]

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

Yeah, when the states and / or feds start deciding what types sexual relationships consenting adults can have... they have gone way beyond the scope of government. Authoritarians, what ya gonna do.

What bullshit lies. What law tells others what human adult non family memeber to fuck?

Nobody could be as dumb as you are pretending to be.

Show me the law liar

 

[RKMBrown]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

I bet it will be unanimously for.

Oh come on. No way Scalia is voting for marriage equality and Thomas just echoes Scalia.

It won't be a vote for marriage equality, it will be a vote to throw out the state laws that restrict gay marriage. Not much different than the vote that threw out the one that passed in California.

 

[thanatos144]

JR, you are wrong.

Geez, you libs are thick headed. the civil rights that we enjoy were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote.

A majority of our citizens decided what rights should apply to all american citizens. Our government representatives are elected by majority vote, laws are passed by majority vote.

To say that the majority does not decide rights is the height of ignorance.

There is no specific law or statute anywhere in our national legal system that specifically addressed gay marriage. The 14th amendment does not mention gay marriage. Equal access to the law does not mean gays can call their unions a marriage.

If you want this settled then put it to a vote in every state--------or process a constitutional amendment specifically addressing gay marriage and see if 38 states will ratify it.

WOW, a right winger saying America is a "democracy"... and not just a run of the mill democracy, a "direct democracy"...

not what I said at all, but your lack of reading comprehension is acknowledged.

We comprehend easily that is what you mean. You want the majority to be able to overturn court decisions that you don't like.

Yes, in cases such as the Dred Scott ruling.

Are you going to compare the Dred Scott decision to possible legalized Gay Marriage thru-out the U.S.?

Why not?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

Yeah, when the states and / or feds start deciding what types sexual relationships consenting adults can have... they have gone way beyond the scope of government. Authoritarians, what ya gonna do.

What bullshit lies. What law tells others what human adult non family memeber to fuck?

Nobody could be as dumb as you are pretending to be.

Show me the law liar

They have been accepted on the SCOTUS docket. Look them up yourself, boy.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

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.

In America as well. It doesn't pass when voted on. No amount of think progress polls change that

 

[Zoom-boing]

Marriage equality is the center position.
A majority favor it

The Equal Protection doctrine of the 14th Amendment will require SCOTUS to extend that right to ALL Americans no matter what state they live in.

So the below will also now be legal in all 50 states as well?

"A New York Magazine interview revealed an 18-year-old woman's plans to marry her long lost father. Next on their to-do list is to move to New Jersey, where incest between adults happens to be legal."

Report Woman Plans To Marry Her Long Lost Father Move To NJ - FOX 29 News Philadelphia WTXF-TV

 

[thanatos144]

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.

No one said said they couldn't. Its just not legally recognized. They put it to a vote and the people said no and now they are using courts in a facist manner to force acceptance. They are stupid and childish. If they wanted amendment they should do it legislatively instead of judicial fiat. Which only nets them less power because they gave it away on the illusion that people will see them differently.

 

[WorldWatcher]

[

In America as well. It doesn't pass when voted on. No amount of think progress polls change that

Marriage Equality passed the last 4 times it was on the General Election Ballot which was 2012. (Maryland, Washington, Maine, and Minnesota)


>>>>

 

[thanatos144]

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

Are you mad they went about it constitutionally?

 

[thanatos144]

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

Yeah, when the states and / or feds start deciding what types sexual relationships consenting adults can have... they have gone way beyond the scope of government. Authoritarians, what ya gonna do.

What bullshit lies. What law tells others what human adult non family memeber to fuck?

Nobody could be as dumb as you are pretending to be.

Show me the law liar

They have been accepted on the SCOTUS docket. Look them up yourself, boy.

That isnt a law banning them from fucking other consenting adults. Man up or shut the fuck up

 

[thanatos144]

[

In America as well. It doesn't pass when voted on. No amount of think progress polls change that

Marriage Equality passed the last 4 times it was on the General Election Ballot which was 2012. (Maryland, Washington, Maine, and Minnesota)


>>>>

So why the bullshit facism then?