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

[martybegan]

My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court 'forced' the States to comply with the Constitution::
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.

Lets break them down.

1. Based explicitly on the right to not self incriminate
2. Based explicitly on the right to counsel
3. Not in the document
4. Not in the document, but rightly judged from equal protection.
5. Not in the document
6. Not in the document
7. Found in equal protection under the law
8. Based explicitly on the 4th amendment
9. Based on the 4th amendment, not explicitly, but close enough.
10. Explicitly based on the 1st amendment.

So basically right, right, wrong, right, wrong, wrong, right, right, right, right.

 

[bodecea]

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

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

So...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages. .....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)

 

[bodecea]

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

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

It's not bullshit.....it's now true in most states...soon to be all states.

Who has been arrested for it ,Chewbacca?

Don't cry.

 

[Syriusly]

Amendments aren't created with a majority vote. Review the 5th article again and tell us what proportion of the States are required to ratify an amendment.

correct, not a simple majority, 38 states. 75%. But such a vote of 38 states could create a new amendment or repeal a previous one.

my point is that constitutional rights that we enjoy were establshed by voting, not govt decree.

The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court spelled out that we do have those rights:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.

What the fuck are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

Amendments aren't created with a majority vote. Review the 5th article again and tell us what proportion of the States are required to ratify an amendment.

correct, not a simple majority, 38 states. 75%. But such a vote of 38 states could create a new amendment or repeal a previous one.

my point is that constitutional rights that we enjoy were establshed by voting, not govt decree.

The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court spelled out that we do have those rights:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.

What the fuck are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

Um...no they cannot (if you are referring to the Supreme Court).

 

[Syriusly]

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'

Your problem is you are to fucking ignorant of history to understand why you know Jack shit about fascism. You dummies dont even know what the latin even means

 

[Ubiquitor]

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.

So just as the Air Force has "a clear line of creation going back to the Army" gay marriage has one from heterosexual marriage.

There is nothing irrational about allowing homosexuals to enter into a contract exactly as heterosexuals do.

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.

I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.

 

[bodecea]

"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"

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So just as the Air Force has "a clear line of creation going back to the Army" gay marriage has one from heterosexual marriage.

There is nothing irrational about allowing homosexuals to enter into a contract exactly as heterosexuals do.

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.

I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.

Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.

Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals

My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.

 

[martybegan]

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"

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

 

[bodecea]

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"

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

Who's forcing you to like my marriage? As for acceptance....are you really whining about having to recognize that my marriage is just as legal as yours? Truely?

 

[Ubiquitor]

"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.

So just as the Air Force has "a clear line of creation going back to the Army" gay marriage has one from heterosexual marriage.

There is nothing irrational about allowing homosexuals to enter into a contract exactly as heterosexuals do.

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.

I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.

Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.

Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals

My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.

Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.

 

[martybegan]

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

Who's forcing you to like my marriage? As for acceptance....are you really whining about having to recognize that my marriage is just as legal as yours? Truely?

Only if the courts force it do I have a problem, and only when you use the government to force people to accept it in their every day lives.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So just as the Air Force has "a clear line of creation going back to the Army" gay marriage has one from heterosexual marriage.

There is nothing irrational about allowing homosexuals to enter into a contract exactly as heterosexuals do.

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.

I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.

Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.

Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals

My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.

Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.

You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.

They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.

 

[Ubiquitor]

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"

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

 

[martybegan]

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

 

[bodecea]

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

Who's forcing you to like my marriage? As for acceptance....are you really whining about having to recognize that my marriage is just as legal as yours? Truely?

Only if the courts force it do I have a problem, and only when you use the government to force people to accept it in their every day lives.

"The courts force it".....the courts force it on who? Who will the courts FORCE to marry?

 

[bodecea]

So just as the Air Force has "a clear line of creation going back to the Army" gay marriage has one from heterosexual marriage.

There is nothing irrational about allowing homosexuals to enter into a contract exactly as heterosexuals do.

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.

I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.

Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.

Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals

My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.

Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.

You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.

They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.

You mean like a country free of slavery?

You mean like a country where women have political rights?

You mean like a country with legal protections against child labor?

You mean like a country with freedom of and from religion?

You mean like a country with a WRITTEN Constitution?

There was ZERO precedence in history for ALL those things. May the gods forbid you be FORCED to accept those things.

 

[bodecea]

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

Then your complaint is with Public Accomodation laws....which has been pointed out to you several times. You are choosing not to accept that fact.

 

[bendog]

persecuted, Marty. And, I'm only half joking.