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

[thanatos144]

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

You're contradicting yourself. Either you think the majority should rule in all things or you don't.

Discrimination based on animus is discrimination based on animus.

no contradiction here, the majority vote should prevail in all issues. otherwise we have either a dictatorship or anarchy.

We are not a Democracy- we are a Constitutional republic.

IF the majority passes a Constitutional amendment to specifically forbid same gender marriage- then no court can overturn that 'majority' decision- but short of that- the courts are required to uphold the Constitution.

Um homosexual marriage is not in the constitution. So wtf are you talking now?

Marriage is not in the constitution. So wtf are you talking about now?

My point precisely so stop calling homosexual marriage a constitutional right

 

[thanatos144]

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.

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

The lie is that you did not complete the rest: homosexuals have never been banned from marrying homosexuals.

Have the police EVER been called because two fat ugly woman married eachother? No. Do you know why? Because it isn't against the law , fucknut. It just is not legally binding. Yet

 

[thanatos144]

The libertarians and the far right reactionaries have lost the debate here, and SCOTUS will kick it up their ass in June.

Listen commie libertarians are not anti homosexual marrige. I am not even librertain and i know this. Your lies are as pathetic as you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one said "commies", doofus. And I am sure you cannot document that all libertarians are marriage equality. Your lies are falling down around you, thanatos.

 

[thanatos144]

No one said "commies", doofus. And I am sure you cannot document that all libertarians are marriage equality. Your lies are falling down around you, thanatos.

I called you the commie you moron

 

[Ubiquitor]

No, it's ruling on existing law not creating new law.

It's making up a right that doesn't exist in the document.You may see it as a natural right, but until its written in there it is not a constitutional right.

When you make up rights, you are making up laws.

Equal protection under the law is a right that exists in the document. What limitations need to be placed on it is subject to interpretation.
Again, the argument that if it doesn't exist explicitly in the Constitution then it is not a right leaves us without a lot of things we have right now.

So Equal protection is absolute then?

And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.

Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?

The Air Force is state-based?

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

 

[Syriusly]

Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.

yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.

I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.

You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.

yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.

I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.

And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.

Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".

What the fuck do you think you accomplish by such tyrannical tactics? This is America not fucking Cuba. Government should NEVER have the power to force a business to serve a customer that goes against thier religous or morale beliefs. What next forcging a church to officiate a wedding they know to be a sin?

Wow...you seem to have just learned about Public Accommodation laws......

What amazing outrage about laws that have been in existence since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Syriusly]

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

Only if you are going to ignore the fact that gay marriage is following the same trend and both are civil rights issues.

What Bullshit. Homosexual marrige is no where near on par with civil rights fights. No one is banning homosexuals from marrige the nuptials are just not recognized. The faux victimhood of he homosexual is insulting to those who actually were

It is a civil rights issue if the government recognizes and gives over 1000 protections and privileges to some law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and NOT to other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without a solid, measurable reason to do so.

Bullshit. You homosexuals are not opressed.

Due to the actions of Americans standing up for their rights homosexuals are no longer 'oppressed'- but marriage is one issue where they still do not have complete equality.

As late as 2013- Lousiana was still arresting homosexuals under sodomy laws- even though the Supreme Court said that laws against homosexual sodomy were illegal.

History is strewn with both actual instances of homosexuals being denied employment- and attempts to deny homosexuals employment- based entirely upon their sexual preference.

Only through a combination of court- and legislative actions did that change.

Just as the bans on same gender marriage are changing.

 

[Syriusly]

Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.

Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

 

[martybegan]

It's making up a right that doesn't exist in the document.You may see it as a natural right, but until its written in there it is not a constitutional right.

When you make up rights, you are making up laws.

Equal protection under the law is a right that exists in the document. What limitations need to be placed on it is subject to interpretation.
Again, the argument that if it doesn't exist explicitly in the Constitution then it is not a right leaves us without a lot of things we have right now.

So Equal protection is absolute then?

And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.

Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?

The Air Force is state-based?

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

The air force was created as part of the Army in the Signal Corps in 1914. It was only separated via "treaty" with the Executive Branch due to the role of nuclear power projection in 1947.

The Air force has a clear line of creation going back to the army, and the formation of an army is a task left to the federal government.

In no place in the document is any federal mandate to define the marriage contract, nor is there any explicit right to marry who you choose.

The key is "rational." What is happening now is not interpretation, it is creating things out of thin air.

 

[thanatos144]

yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.

I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.

You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.

yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.

I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.

And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.

Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".

What the fuck do you think you accomplish by such tyrannical tactics? This is America not fucking Cuba. Government should NEVER have the power to force a business to serve a customer that goes against thier religous or morale beliefs. What next forcging a church to officiate a wedding they know to be a sin?

Wow...you seem to have just learned about Public Accommodation laws......

What amazing outrage about laws that have been in existence since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Unlike you i am not a fascist i know i have a first amendment

 

[Syriusly]

Oh? Who makes that call then? Tell us more.

The Court does, but as shown in Plessey V Fergueson, the court can be wrong.

The Court can make horrible decisions- but they are by definition Constitutional.

The Supreme Court is far from perfect- but we will never agree on interpretations of the Constitution. People on both sides love to say that the wording for this or that is very clear- but Congress- and States regularly pass laws that groups and individuals think are unconstitutional.

Absent courts review, there would be no recourse for abuses by legislatures- from gun laws to contraceptive laws.

The problem is any court that is allowed such a wide breadth to create new rights can just as easily take away existing ones. The court has gone from narrowly interpreting the constitution to tailor it to changes in the times to basically making whole new things up, and saying the document "says it" when it does not.

When has the Court TAKEN AWAY rights?

NY courts have upheld NYC's unconstitutional gun laws. .

Clearly they are not unconstitutional then.

I understand that you consider them to be so- but your opinion is a personal opinion that really has no legal weight.

The courts upheld the laws, and that was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court- which could have- but did not- reverse them.

So yes the laws are Constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

The Court does, but as shown in Plessey V Fergueson, the court can be wrong.

The Court can make horrible decisions- but they are by definition Constitutional.

The Supreme Court is far from perfect- but we will never agree on interpretations of the Constitution. People on both sides love to say that the wording for this or that is very clear- but Congress- and States regularly pass laws that groups and individuals think are unconstitutional.

Absent courts review, there would be no recourse for abuses by legislatures- from gun laws to contraceptive laws.

The problem is any court that is allowed such a wide breadth to create new rights can just as easily take away existing ones. The court has gone from narrowly interpreting the constitution to tailor it to changes in the times to basically making whole new things up, and saying the document "says it" when it does not.

When has the Court TAKEN AWAY rights?

NY courts have upheld NYC's unconstitutional gun laws. .

Clearly they are not unconstitutional then.

I understand that you consider them to be so- but your opinion is a personal opinion that really has no legal weight.

The courts upheld the laws, and that was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court- which could have- but did not- reverse them.

So yes the laws are Constitutional.

Again with the propensity of Progressives to defer to un-elected lawyers. So because 5 of 9 robed idiots say something is "the truth" we are just supposed to meekly submit to it?

You are a fucking lemming.

 

[thanatos144]

Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.

Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

Think you are to stupid to have a statement on the matter

 

[Syriusly]

Equal protection under the law is a right that exists in the document. What limitations need to be placed on it is subject to interpretation.
Again, the argument that if it doesn't exist explicitly in the Constitution then it is not a right leaves us without a lot of things we have right now.

So Equal protection is absolute then?

And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.

Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?

The Air Force is state-based?

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

The air force was created as part of the Army in the Signal Corps in 1914. It was only separated via "treaty" with the Executive Branch due to the role of nuclear power projection in 1947.

The Air force has a clear line of creation going back to the army, and the formation of an army is a task left to the federal government.

In no place in the document is any federal mandate to define the marriage contract, nor is there any explicit right to marry who you choose.

The key is "rational." What is happening now is not interpretation, it is creating things out of thin air.

Oh the Air Force is created out of thin air. The Constitution does not provide for the establishment of an Air Force- but we have one anyway.

Meanwhile- the right to marry has been confirmed over and over.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.

Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

Think you are to stupid to have a statement on the mattet

LOL....your post is so wonderfully ironic......meanwhile- every time you mention 'fascism'

 

[Synthaholic]

You don't know the difference between a product and a service?

Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.

False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.

Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.

The photographer is providing a service, not a product. He can only be in one place at a time, so he is either available or he isn't. Now, whether he lies about his availability on that date is a different matter from what we are discussing.

That's different from a bakery which does not bake cakes in real time. Or a Tux rental place, who doesn't manufacture tux' on demand, and does not only have one tux to rent.

So the photographer should be allowed to say "no thanks" to a gay wedding without an issue?

Legally, just because it's a Gay wedding? No.

But in order to convict you would have to prove in court that he actually wasn't previously engaged to be somewhere else - and that doesn't have to even be in a professional capacity. He could have been on vacation, or made plans to attend his kid's baseball game. Or he could have just decided that he wasn't going to do any work on that Saturday.

Like I said, it's the difference between a service and a product that you sell to the public.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again with the propensity of Progressives to defer to un-elected lawyers.

That's a brain-dead response from someone who claims to value the Constitution.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[bodecea]

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.

No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.

you just don't get it, I have no issue with your california "marriage" license, well I really do because the people of cal voted against it twice and a couple judges with an agenda overturned the will of the people. Whereas in other states the will of the people has been upheld, that is where the inequality exists. Either we live by the constitution and the citizens vote on such issues or we live in a dictatorship where laws are made or ignored by the legislative branch.

So you are against Judicial Review of any kind.

as I said, I am against the making of laws and the ignoring of laws by the judicial branch. Their job is to rule on the legality of actions, not to make law.

What law(s) has the Court made? Name the law or statute.

 

[martybegan]

Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.

False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.

Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.

The photographer is providing a service, not a product. He can only be in one place at a time, so he is either available or he isn't. Now, whether he lies about his availability on that date is a different matter from what we are discussing.

That's different from a bakery which does not bake cakes in real time. Or a Tux rental place, who doesn't manufacture tux' on demand, and does not only have one tux to rent.

So the photographer should be allowed to say "no thanks" to a gay wedding without an issue?

Legally, just because it's a Gay wedding? No.

But in order to convict you would have to prove in court that he actually wasn't previously engaged to be somewhere else - and that doesn't have to even be in a professional capacity. He could have been on vacation, or made plans to attend his kid's baseball game. Or he could have just decided that he wasn't going to do any work on that Saturday.

Like I said, it's the difference between a service and a product that you sell to the public.

So instead of just saying a person can withhold a non-necessary service, we make them lie. Why not just allow them "choice"