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.
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.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.
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.
Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?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.That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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?
I'm just as guilty as the next guy about getting angry. Question is angry about ... what?
This isn't India. But I would argue there is harm. So would most Indian women.As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?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.
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.
How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?
Are you arguing for a World Government?
Are all 5-4 decisions unconstitutional?I asked you about Citizens United, and you dodged.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?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"
5 of 9 is all that is required to get ANY decision, not just this one. try to keep up.
Citizen's United WAS unconstitutional.
Thanks for playing.
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?The due process clause as written sucks. But I'm not saying all of the words are wrong in it.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.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"
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.
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.
Marty, if you are arguing what the hetero-fascists have against marriage equality, your side will lose, period.
First, the 14th does not only apply to gay marriage. Not sure why you asked that silly question.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.
So the 14th amendment somehow ONLY applies to gay marriage?
If the 14th does incorporate the bill of rights onto the States, and The States control municipalities, how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun?
YOU were talking about public accommodation laws, try to keep up.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.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.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.
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?
I'm just as guilty as the next guy about getting angry. Question is angry about ... what?
How can I be a bigot if I have been on record as saying that I have no issue if Gay marriage goes on the book via State legislative action, and that I would probably vote for it?
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?The due process clause as written sucks. But I'm not saying all of the words are wrong in it.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.
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.
Really? A rape comparison?
Talk about losing the argument....
First, the 14th does not only apply to gay marriage. Not sure why you asked that silly question.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.
So the 14th amendment somehow ONLY applies to gay marriage?
If the 14th does incorporate the bill of rights onto the States, and The States control municipalities, how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun?
Second, the 14th does not incorporation all of the federal restrictions to the states. If it incorporated the 2nd amendment it would have also said something like, nor shall the states infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
Third, you "ask how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun." The same way any city sets up laws. It passes a law stating that you can't carry a handgun within the city limits then it enforces that law.
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?The due process clause as written sucks. But I'm not saying all of the words are wrong in it.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.
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.
Really? A rape comparison?
Talk about losing the argument....
So you don't understand the difference between raping someone and stopping someone from raping someone?
REDFISH SAID:
“the founders believed exactly as I believe. They founded this country to escape dictatorial rule, and you fools want to return to that.”
Clearly not.
The Founding Generation created a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is of proof of that.
One does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are citizens' civil rights subject to 'majority rule' – as the Framers in fact sought to prohibit the tyranny of the majority, as well as a dictatorship of the majority.
The states have no authority to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, where the states have only themselves to blame for their unwarranted and un-Constitutional measures being invalidated by the courts.
YOU were talking about public accommodation laws, try to keep up.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.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?
I'm just as guilty as the next guy about getting angry. Question is angry about ... what?
How can I be a bigot if I have been on record as saying that I have no issue if Gay marriage goes on the book via State legislative action, and that I would probably vote for it?
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.
No one is taking away your right to believe, simply not force others to conform to your religious belief. The argument over marriage equality is secular not religious. You won't have to marry someone of your own sex.
nope, you on the left want the government to punish anyone who does not believe as the government dictates.
have you read Orwell and Rand? they saw it coming and wrote about it, but you are too stupid to see what is being rammed up your ass.
Says one of the more stupid posters of the Board.
Marry whom you will, honey. That is not punishment. Punishment is you distorting truth and saying marriage equality harms you. The fuck it does.
Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.
Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.
ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.
Your premise is severely flawed.
Pretty sure that wouldn't stand Constitutionally.Simply because the majority should not be able to vote on what rights the minority should be allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
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.
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.
Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.
Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.
ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.
Your premise is severely flawed.
how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?
