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

[thanatos144]

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

Pretty sure that wouldn't stand Constitutionally.

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

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

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

that is the world we live you flaming asshole. We vote on rights, we vote on what is right and what is wrong.

there is no magical set or human rights, each society sets its own based on what the majority believe.

and for the last time------------MINORITY RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE MAJORITY.

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

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

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

that is the world we live you flaming asshole. We vote on rights, we vote on what is right and what is wrong.

there is no magical set or human rights, each society sets its own based on what the majority believe.

and for the last time------------MINORITY RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE MAJORITY.

Fascinating.....just the kind of person the Framers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us from.

the founders believed exactly as I believe. They founded this country to escape dictatorial rule, and you fools want to return to that.

You believe that slavery should be legal?

The constitution did not aprove slavery that would be the supreme court of the United States that did. The same supreme court you are giving your freedom to.

 

[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

The two are not related.

But do you believe that government is too big and too intrusive?
So do you believe government should step in and prevent the situation you posted about?

How do you reconcile those two beliefs?

How is it not related? It's legal in NJ, it must be extended to all Americans no matter what state they live in.

"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."

For those saying marriage is between two consenting adults, rather than between an adult man and woman, then anything goes because the definition of marriage is now changed, so yes a daughter and father can now marry. So can a brother and sister, or sister and sister. Of course the government is too big and intrusive. How are they going to prevent a daughter and father from marrying if SCOTUS deems ssm as 'the norm'?

 

[thanatos144]

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

The two are not related.

But do you believe that government is too big and too intrusive?
So do you believe government should step in and prevent the situation you posted about?

How do you reconcile those two beliefs?

How is it not related? It's legal in NJ, it must be extended to all Americans no matter what state they live in.

"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."

For those saying marriage is between two consenting adults, rather than between an adult man and woman, then anything goes because the definition of marriage is now changed, so yes a daughter and father can now marry. So can a brother and sister, or sister and sister. Of course the government is too big and intrusive. How are they going to prevent a daughter and father from marrying if SCOTUS deems ssm as 'the norm'?

If rape is legal in Maryland should all the USA be forced to male it so?

 

[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

The two are not related.

But do you believe that government is too big and too intrusive?
So do you believe government should step in and prevent the situation you posted about?

How do you reconcile those two beliefs?

How is it not related? It's legal in NJ, it must be extended to all Americans no matter what state they live in.

"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."

For those saying marriage is between two consenting adults, rather than between an adult man and woman, then anything goes because the definition of marriage is now changed, so yes a daughter and father can now marry. So can a brother and sister, or sister and sister. Of course the government is too big and intrusive. How are they going to prevent a daughter and father from marrying if SCOTUS deems ssm as 'the norm'?

If rape is legal in Maryland should all the USA be forced to male it so?

Well, that's the second most retarded thing I've read here at the usmb. (forced to male it so ... bit of slip there eh?)

Why can't two consenting adults marry each other just because they are related?

 

[Bfgrn]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

Hobby Lobby? Regressives are petty also.

Congress shall make no law that infringes on religon

Religion of people not corporations

how about the religion of man made global warming?

how about the religion of man made global warming
how about the religion of man made global warming
how about the religion of man made global warming

 

[bodecea]

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

The two are not related.

But do you believe that government is too big and too intrusive?
So do you believe government should step in and prevent the situation you posted about?

How do you reconcile those two beliefs?

How is it not related? It's legal in NJ, it must be extended to all Americans no matter what state they live in.

"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."

For those saying marriage is between two consenting adults, rather than between an adult man and woman, then anything goes because the definition of marriage is now changed, so yes a daughter and father can now marry. So can a brother and sister, or sister and sister. Of course the government is too big and intrusive. How are they going to prevent a daughter and father from marrying if SCOTUS deems ssm as 'the norm'?

If rape is legal in Maryland should all the USA be forced to male it so?

Interesting that you think rape can be in anyway equivalent to legalizing gay marriage. Shows a bit about about your moral code there.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

We're talking about marriage, ya dumb fuck.

First there is nolaw banning marrige just the legality of government recognizing it. Second dummy you didnt say marrige you specifically said sleep with

No dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

Really? what statute makes it a "fundamental" right? Was marriage a fundamental right before the constitution? Where is gay marriage ever mentioned in any of our statutes or legal documents

Statutes don't define rights. The constitution does. Check the 9th amendment. The USSC has recognized marriage as a right. You say it isn't.

Um, so what? The USSC has far more relevance to Supreme Court rulings than you do.

 

[Pasco08]

I honestly feel like the SC Will overrule the States that have voted in favor of Gay Marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I honestly feel like the SC Will overrule the States that have voted in favor of Gay Marriage.

Bet solidly on it, because if you win, you will make a pile of money.

 

[Skylar]

I honestly feel like the SC Will overrule the States that have voted in favor of Gay Marriage.

Seems a bit unlikely, given the Windsor ruling.

Extending rights doesn't violate them. Denying rights does. And voting in favor of gay marriage merely extends rights. So on what basis would the USSC overrule states voting in favor of gay marriage?

 

[Skylar]

I honestly feel like the SC Will overrule the States that have voted in favor of Gay Marriage.

Bet solidly on it, because if you win, you will make a pile of money.

Shitloads. Cartoon ducks will be swimming in that pile of loot. That's how long the odds are.

 

[Skylar]

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

The two are not related.

But do you believe that government is too big and too intrusive?
So do you believe government should step in and prevent the situation you posted about?

How do you reconcile those two beliefs?

How is it not related? It's legal in NJ, it must be extended to all Americans no matter what state they live in.

"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."

For those saying marriage is between two consenting adults, rather than between an adult man and woman, then anything goes because the definition of marriage is now changed, so yes a daughter and father can now marry. So can a brother and sister, or sister and sister. Of course the government is too big and intrusive. How are they going to prevent a daughter and father from marrying if SCOTUS deems ssm as 'the norm'?

The courts in all likelyhood aren't going to be ruling on 'two consenting adults'. But merely same sex marriage. Making your post moot.

 

[Skylar]

Pretty sure that wouldn't stand Constitutionally.

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

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

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

that is the world we live you flaming asshole. We vote on rights, we vote on what is right and what is wrong.

there is no magical set or human rights, each society sets its own based on what the majority believe.

and for the last time------------MINORITY RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE MAJORITY.

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

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

that is the world we live you flaming asshole. We vote on rights, we vote on what is right and what is wrong.

there is no magical set or human rights, each society sets its own based on what the majority believe.

and for the last time------------MINORITY RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE MAJORITY.

Fascinating.....just the kind of person the Framers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us from.

the founders believed exactly as I believe. They founded this country to escape dictatorial rule, and you fools want to return to that.

You believe that slavery should be legal?

The constitution did not aprove slavery that would be the supreme court of the United States that did. The same supreme court you are giving your freedom to.

So who were they referring to in counting some folks as 3/5ths for the purpose of representation?

The Welch?

 

[Skylar]

So why the bullshit facism then?

[Interesting, you don't admit you were wrong - just deflect.]


The court finding unconstitutional laws are - well - unconstitutional isn't fascism.

Actually removing authoritarian controls is the opposite of fascism. Instead of the government deciding who you can Civilly Marry, the decision is left to the individual s in the couple.


>>>>

I am not wrong. You showed one place where a vote passed in the face of many that failed. You are deflecting not I

Um...extending rights isn't fascism. I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is there honestly anything within the constitution that would force the justices to say no to gay marriage? If not, then it is political beliefs that you're expecting from them.

 

[Skylar]

Is there honestly anything within the constitution that would force the justices to say no to gay marriage? If not, then it is political beliefs that you're expecting from them.

There's arguments that could be made that States decide on gay marriage. But the USSC outlawing it?

I'd say the odds of it happening are roughly the number that comes just after zero.

 

[martybegan]

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

The SCOTUS rules on laws, not rights and entitlements.

I've kept up just fine, thank you.

How were those entitlements created?

You really are not that bright.

We are talking about laws, and the constitutionality thereof.

The SCOTUS does not rule on entitlements or rights, they rule on laws being constitutional or not.

'Entitlements' is a Right-Wing buzzword.

Created by laws. Enjoy your lesson.

Laws are the only concern of SCOTUS.

Your point?

 

[martybegan]

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?

A little vitriol added to a reasoned debate adds some spice.