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

[Ubiquitor]

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.

This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Those are business people. And as such, they are subject to the PA laws of their states. You don't have to 'accept gay marriage'. You simply have to treat your customers fairly and equally.

 

[Ubiquitor]

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.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Easy. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the federal government stating that the federal government can't infringe, not a right granted by the federal government that can't be infringed. As much as I dislike it, the states, cities and such have always infringed on this right.

The document says nothing about restrictions by just the feds, it says the rights of the people cannot be infringed.

Its amazing you are arguing in favor of government power.

And btw, if this is all a snark attempt by a libertarian trying to be all smart, go fuck yourself. We have enough fake assholes on this site.

No sir. First off that's not even close to what I said.

Second, these ten amendments include declaratory clauses and restrictive clauses.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

You should read the entire transcript for the bill of rights amendments, not just the amendments. The restrictive clauses in the bill of rights apply restrictions to the federal government not to the states, except and unless it states that the restriction applies to the states. More particularly the 10th stated that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW if they 2nd amendment were to be applied to the feds and the states as you so imagine, then the 2nd would have had to say "shall not be infringed by congress or the states." But clearly it does not and clearly the states have been restricting our right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after the bill of rights were signed into law.

I'm not being a fake asshole, I'm a gun proponent that's telling you a fact about the 2nd amendment that not to many understand.

If it isn't in the document, what bearing does it have besides a view into intent, which is debatable.

And if you are not a fake, then you are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are a statist. Not as bad as Farkey over there, but in the same ballpark.

Uhmm, listen nimrod, can I call you nimrod? Not only is it in the document, I quoted the document. Not only does the portion I cited have bearing, it is also well understood that the bill of rights are not really a listing of rights but rather a listing of restrictive clauses that apply to the federal government to restrict the power of the federal government.

I know it's hard to believe that you don't know everything about such an important document, but there it is nonetheless.

I'm not a statist. Not by any measure.

Do you have a right to keep and bear arms? Yes. That is a natural right. That natural right can't be taken from you by the federal government, per the 2nd amendment. However, each individual state, and cities, and private owners can restrict this right within their jurisdiction.

Do I like that states can do this? No. But that's why we have a republic. Do I like that individual can restrict it within their property? Yes within reason.

The 2nd amendment, unlike the first, does not specifically list congress as being unable to impact what is in the amendment. It gives the people the right, a right they have as US citizens. As the Federal Constitution has supremacy, it overrides any State law or constitutional statute that says contrary.

The 1st and and 4th at a minimum have been incorporated via the 14th amendment, and slowly the 2nd is as well. If not, how are decisions such as Heller and McDonald even possible?

Apology for the long answer.

No. You are upside down again. Federal laws override state laws. All restrictions on federal lawmakers do not apply necessarily to restrictions on state lawmakers. Try to keep up. The restrictions that do apply are explicitly listed. A restriction on lawmakers making certain types of laws is not the same as a certain type of law.

Unless an amendment restricting the power of the federal government specifically mentions states it does not apply as a restriction to the states. This is why it has ALWAYS BEEN THE PERVUE OF THE STATES TO DO WRITE LAWS RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP. You are implying that the thousands of laws in the various states that currently restrict gun ownership are all unconstitutional and the states have been just getting away with it for hundreds of years. After the 14th due process clause, this may be true but it has not gone to the court yet.

This is the essentially the same problem you had the other day when you could not tell the difference between stopping someone from harming others and harming others. Not sure why you think these are the same thing.

WRT to incorporation by the 14th. The 14th explicitly states that the states also can not restrict life, liberty, or property without due process. But this clause is somewhat vague in the minds of the court. Thus, through incorporation of various elements of the prior amendments the court has pontificated/specified what life, liberty, and property means with respect to the restrictions on the federal government for restricting same.

For example, your religious choices are a part of life and liberty... so the states can't make any laws respecting establishment of or prohibiting religion. There ya go.

On the issue of property.. one could argue a gun is property. Thus in theory, the scotus could in fact incorporate property through the 2nd amendment as a type of property that the states are not allowed to restrict, "AT ALL," or at least not without due process. But as far as I know no state has been dumb enough, yet, to prosecute someone without due process for not adhering to their restrictions on said property (guns). Thus no harm no foul, and the SCOTUS won't listen to the case till harm by a state is established by the lower courts.

For example, if the guy's a criminal, not letting a known criminal have a gun.. due process. However if you are not insane, you are a good standing citizen, you know how to use a gun, well then they don't have an excuse to say due process then do they? Thus NYC takes your gun cause that's the law, then apologizes and gives it back, so you can't claim harm to the SCOTUS.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Having to go to another baker does not make you a 2nd class citizen.

Nope, but that's not what I was talking about.

Having to go to another baker is sometimes in violation of local PA laws. States rights and all...

States rights are limited by the constitution, and forcing someone to work for someone they do not want to work for is involuntary servitude, with is unconstitutional.

So you can cite the cases where PA laws have been found to be unconstitutional? Of course you can't...because the opposite is true.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Ok, here we get to the meat of the matter. Marty is upset that we have a Supreme Court (even tho it is a core tenet of our government). Who's the one who hates the Constitution? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Stop putting words in my mouth. I hate what the court (and courts in general) have become. They have overstepped their mandate as arbiters and have become creators of law.

Overturning gay marriage bans do not create law it provides tax paying gay Americans equal access and protection of the existing laws.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

WARNING: conflation of marriage equality and Public Accommodation laws.

(They are unrelated)

 

[bendog]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

 

[bodecea]

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.

WARNING: conflation of marriage equality and Public Accommodation laws.

(They are unrelated)

Marty has a beef with PA laws.....today. Where was he at their inception..........back in the 60s?

 

[Seawytch]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

Then feel free to try to abolish them all (federal laws that protect race, religion, disability etc) and not just whine about the small number that protect the gays.

 

[Seawytch]

And PA Laws still have nothing to do with marriage equality.

 

[Synthaholic]

Any photographer being prosecuted (I doubt it) deserves it for being a moron.

 

[bendog]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

Then feel free to try to abolish them all (federal laws that protect race, religion, disability etc) and not just whine about the small number that protect the gays.

I won't waste the effort, but imo gays and lesbians will in the longterm do themselves more harm than good by hammering these religious zealots instead of simply ignoring them.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

No one is forcing you to 'accept' anything- you can stay in denial as much for and as long as you want- there are still folks who have never accepted that mixed race marriages are moral.

But we all have the same rights to legal protections and to be treated equally under the law. That is not forcing you to accept anything.

 

[Syriusly]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

Then feel free to try to abolish them all (federal laws that protect race, religion, disability etc) and not just whine about the small number that protect the gays.

I won't waste the effort, but imo gays and lesbians will in the longterm do themselves more harm than good by hammering these religious zealots instead of simply ignoring them.

Ignoring didn't work work out so well for homosexuals- only by demanding equal rights did homosexuals gradually get equal rights.

 

[Syriusly]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

Public Accommodation laws require business's to sell their services without discriminating based on a number of customer's criteria- if you think that is wrong, then by all means change those PA laws in your state or city.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?

 

[bendog]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

Public Accommodation laws require business's to sell their services without discriminating based on a number of customer's criteria- if you think that is wrong, then by all means change those PA laws in your state or city.

My state already has. Jmo but there's a backlash brewing, not about most people thinking gays and lesbians deserve to be treated equally, but that they are more concerned with making people who differ personally accept their unions rather than just having equal treatment for child care, insurance and retirement.

 

[Syriusly]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

Public Accommodation laws require business's to sell their services without discriminating based on a number of customer's criteria- if you think that is wrong, then by all means change those PA laws in your state or city.

My state already has. Jmo but there's a backlash brewing, not about most people thinking gays and lesbians deserve to be treated equally, but that they are more concerned with making people who differ personally accept their unions rather than just having equal treatment for child care, insurance and retirement.

If history is any example, acceptance will come after the laws change. It took over 20 years for most Americans to accept mixed race marriages even after it was settled legally. We are almost there for same gender marriage.

 

[bendog]

I'm all in favor of legal acceptance, but I think there is a private backlash with people seeing the glbt movement as strident people you don't want to be around.