I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a right

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by Troianii, May 20, 2014.

  1. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Speaking for myself, I am also talking about the constitution. If you understand the Constitution, and if you have been following the marriage cases, you would understand that there is no constitutionally defensible argument to justify banning same sex marriage.

    When SCOTUS takes up a same sex marriage case, and they surly will, Kennedy will not be your only concern. Roberts is not hostile to gay rights and I think that there is a good chance that the court will go 6-3 in favor of throwing out all state bans. Let me call your attention to my previous post on this thread (# 78 and 79) where I provide an extensive analysis of what I think will happen and how. There is a clear legal path to victory. If you think that legalizing same sex marriage would be unconstitutional, you do not understand the constitution or the meaning of a constitutional republic.

    As far as a constitutional convention goes, it would require a vote by 2/3 of the state legislatures and even if that were to happen there is no guarantee that it would result in a (anti equality) marriage amendment. Yes, amendments can be passed without a convention ( in fact all 27 have been passed without a convention) It may be proposed the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It must then be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). Another long shot wouldn’t you say.

    A better idea is to just get over it. Again I urge you to read # 78 and 79. It's an eye opener
     
  2. TexMexChef

    TexMexChef Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Firstly, the Supreme court will not "legalize" it [SSM], it will affirm the right exists. Secondly, there does not have to be a constitutional convention to amend the constitution.
     
  3. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    PS And, an anti equality amendment would be in direct conflict with the 5th and 14th amendments and make a mockery of our republic. No my friend, my statement that "the will of the people takes a back seat to the rule of law" is anything but ludicrous
     
  4. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. What I believe will happen is that SCOTUS will declare that same sex marriage is a right equal to heterosexual marriage and throw out all of the state bans. States will then be in a position where they must either legislate marriage equality or face a slew of federal law suits which will come fast and furiously and which they will most assuredly will loose.
     
  5. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Seriously dude?
     
  6. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Correction: All amendments subsequent to the bill of rights were passed without holding a constitutional convention
     
  7. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The more that I think about the idea of a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, the more ludicrous and frightening it seems. It would be in direct conflict with the 5th and 14th amendments. You would have a constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law and due process for all the citizen except one group. And that one group would have been arbitrarily selected to be striped of these constitutional rights without any rational basis let alone a compelling government interest. There would be no other reason except that they are unpopular. I have to wonder, if that happens, who might be next to fall into disfavor? Is that the sort of country that you want?

    Sure, we could toss out the whole constitution and start anew to avoid this conflict with the bill of rights. Hey, just do away with the bill of rights and adapt a document that does in fact allow the people to arbitrarily decide who gets what right. Make it a direct democracy or in other words a tyranny of the majority in all matters great and small. Again I ask, I that the what you really want? Are you willing to sink the ship to drown the rats-to prevent same sex marriage?

    Lastly, when I made the point that the will of the people takes a back seat the rule of law, I was countered with the assertion that even if the SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is a right, it could be overturned by a constitutional amendment. However an amendment, whether passed in the context of a constitutional or not requires action by congress and state legislatures, not by popular vote. Actions by congress and the states do not necessarily reflect the will of the people. Furthermore, the amendment process is provided for in law and therefore the law would have been applied. And, if such a draconian amendment were to pass, it would then be the law which would continue to trump the will of the people.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
     
  8. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Correction (missing word): whether passed in the context of a constitutional convention or not requires action by congress and state legislatures, not by popular vote.
     
  9. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I sincerely apologize for offending you. Just like Michael Savage (who my userid refers to - I am one of his 8 million listeners, http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/), I tend to call it the way I see it. I should have elaborated - again sorry about that.

    I am not intending to be a wise guy so I apologize in advance if the following sounds so.

    Your statement that I was referring to was "... the will of the people takes a back seat to the rule of law." Apply your statement to a different issue (one that you are not so passionate about) where you are in a 75% majority, and see how that statement sounds to you. That is the definition of tyranny.

    What if you and 75% of the people wanted to be able to buy a 40oz Pepsi, but the Government decides that it knows what is best for you and creates a law saying you can't. What if the government extended its knowledge of what is good for you by banning cookies, cakes and ice cream (i.e., sugary foods too). What if the Government says that broccoli is good for you and passes a law saying that all citizens will eat broccoli every day, but 75% of the people including yourself hates broccoli. What if the Government was monitoring your phone calls, emails, texts and forum posts and 75% of the people including yourself oppose that (oh wait, that is actually happening). Tyranny, all of it.

    The Government gets it's power to govern, from the consent of the people as documented by James Madison in the Federalist Papers, and as he noted, this consent by the people to be governed is what is required for a Republic to exist. Your statement is in direct conflict with this principle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39

    Your statement "... the will of the people takes a back seat to the rule of law." is exactly why the approval rating of our Government is so low, because the politicians think exactly what you say. Republicans and Democrat politicians say (with their actions) TO HELL WITH THE PEOPLE, WE WILL DO WHAT WE WANT AND MAKE THE LAWS WE WANT. The only time they listen to us if at all, is in the few months before the election.

    I give you credit because you are passionate about this issue and you are fighting for what you believe in. You are a better person than the majority of Americans who don't give a damn about what the politicians do, which allows them to do whatever they want and never be held accountable. I believe that the more people involved and following political issues the better, even if they don't believe as I do.

    You are focused on this issue, which is what you believe to be just. I am focused on what the Constitution says and on Judicial Tyranny (Google "Thomas Jefferson Judicial Tyranny" and see what you get) so we are not talking the same language and therefore will not get anywhere.

    It has been proven over and over that SCOTUS are Judicial tyrants just as Thomas Jefferson warned. When the people wanted to ban slavery, SCOTUS gave the people the middle finger and upheld slavery (Dred Scott decision). SCOTUS also upheld racial segregation (Plessy vs. Ferguson) delaying minority equal rights for another 50 years. These are only two of the examples of Judicial Tyranny covered in Mark Levin's book "Men in Black" a great book covering the Judiciary and only $13 on Amazon for anyone interested.

    Then you have the more recent Kelo vs. New London decision where SCOTUS ruled in favor of using eminent domain to take property from a private owner to give to a developer (another private owner, not government) because the mall he was going to build benefited the "public good." If I remember correctly, SCOTUS used the fact that tax revenues to the Government would increase to justify this decision and thereby gave the middle finger to private property rights. Unreal.

    In the Heller vs. D.C. case, SCOTUS correctly ruled that a citizen living in the district of Columbia should be allowed to posses a firearm in their residence for self defense, but did so BY ONLY ONE VOTE. It was a 5-4 decision. Four justices voted in favor of elimination of the second amendment right to a firearm IN A PERSON'S HOME! If Justice Kennedy voted the other way I can only imagine what would have happened (see Federalist #39, consent of the people to be ruled etc.). And on and on and on. History has shown that a Judiciary that can determine what is constitutional and what is not is tyranny just as Thomas Jefferson stated.

    Further, there is no provision in Article III of the Constitution for the Judiciary to determine the Constitutionality of laws. You can read Article II for yourself, but Thomas Jefferson was also quoted as saying this fact. SCOTUS seized the ability to determine a law's constitutionality on their own (again read Mark Levin's book he goes into great detail on the political dynamics at the time with Justice Marshall who was at political war with Thomas Jefferson and wanted to get even with him) and the fact that SCOTUS justices are appointed for life terms, they are accountable to nobody. That is probably the biggest point here - APPOINTED FOR LIFE. If I had my way, there would be elections EVERY YEAR for the President, Congress and SCOTUS because they would need us every year and MIGHT listen to the people instead of their big money donors. Then if they do something stupid, we throw them out of office the following year (not 3-5 years later or never as in the case of SCOTUS).

    If you look back at my posts you will see that I never said I was against gay marriage. I am for the will of the people because without that, you have tyranny, whether it be Judicial tyranny or tyranny from a King or dictator. You are not for usurping the will of the people are you? Your answer to this question (or lack of answer) will tell me if you are more progressive or more patriot (not meant to be offending - it is the name you chose).

    Nobody agrees with the majority of people on everything so on some issues we all have to learn to live with what the people want. And if it gets to be so bad you can't take it anymore, you can move if you want to. This happens all the time when people move from one state to another state (essentially voting with their feet). If the States were to decide the gay marriage issue as they should have been allowed absent Judicial tyranny, then folks with your beliefs could have moved to those States that supported gay marriage, and folks that don't believe in it could have moved to States that opposed gay marriage and folks like me who wouldn't move based on this issue can move to States that support the issues we are passionate about (such as gun rights, low taxes and liberty etc.). This is the greatness of the Constitution - that most issues (i.e., the duties not specifically identified in the Constitution belonging to the Federal Government) should be left to the States or to the people (per the tenth amendment). Then folks can vote with their feet and move to the states that support their beliefs. It's happening right now in Nevada with pot, something I don't believe in because I don't think it helps young people be successful in life, but I don't want the Federal Government or the Judiciary to (unconstitutionally) overrule the will of the people.

    So since we are not talking the same language and will never get anywhere, I will be checking this thread one or two times more then unsubscribing from it - I'm thinking I want to find some pro business conservatives to debate the income inequality issue with.

    It's been great to exchange ideas with you and DentalFloss; thanks for keeping it civil. I wish you both good luck.

    Anyone reading this thread that wants to learn more about Constitutional Government (or the lack thereof in our Country's case) as I discussed in this post, there are posts from several excellent syndicated columnists, my favorites being Walter Williams and Judge Andrew Napolitano, from the "constitution" menu button at http://www.editorialwatch.com/
     
  10. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Based on who's interpretation of the Constitution?

    See my previous post for details - SCOTUS has upheld slavery and racial segregation which were clearly wrong. Interpreting the Constitution cannot be done consistently which is why rulings over overturned on appeal and why SCOTUS almost never decides by a 9-0 vote. If it were that cut and dry, it would always be a 9-0 vote. Because its always split, means that the Judiciary must inject their opinion into the decision. Because they use opinion, we are subject to Judicial tyranny by unelected old people in black robes who are appointed for life terms (i.e., accountable to no-one).
     
  11. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That was quite a dissertation in response to my two word post. You are obviously very knowledgeable in certain areas ,and ,like me , passionate in your beliefs. I was not offended but rather amazed at how people, even smart people make charges of communism simply because they disagree or fail to understand the issue.
    First let’s be sure that we are on the same page when we talk about the rule of law.

    A short definition is
    A more extensive definition would be
    It all comes down to no one being above the law and that the law is to be applied fairly and evenly to all. I hope that we can agree on that much. Before going on I should also clarify what I mean by “the will of the people” As I’m sure you know legislative actions by themselves do not necessarily reflect the will of the people. I am referring to situations where the people-the voters- decide on an issue at the poles as a referendum, OR where lawmakers, believing that they are acting in accordance with popular sentiment, pass laws. In many cases doing so is perfectly appropriate EXCEPT in cases where those actions disproportionately or unfairly effect other and are done without regard for the rule of law as stated above AND where there is no compelling government interest in doing so.

    Having said that, you begin by talking extensively about some issues that you see as government over reach. Of course any and all could and should all be an entirely different thread so I will just say this. There may or may not conform to the rule of law, and there may or may not be a compelling government interest in cases where the law disproportionately or unfairly effects a particular group. You could argue that laws against large soft drinks conform to the rule of law because they apply equally to everyone, but it can also be argued that they don’t because not everyone drinks soda. The case may well turn on the issue of whether or not there is a rational basis for the ban, such as public health which could override other considerations. The same might apply to national security. To be clear, I’m not saying that any of the examples that you gave are good things-remember, I’m not a communist.

    You ask if I am for usurping the will of the people. In the end, the will of the people is not absolute or supreme. Yes, the power to govern is derived from the people, but the government must indeed govern, not leave issues that deeply affect others, issues concerning the rights of others to be left to the whim of the people. The people have no more of a right to decide that gay couples cannot marry when their straight counterparts can, than they do to decide that an Atheist can’t hold public office when no religious test is required for anyone else, or that a black man cannot marry a white woman. So I am indeed for usurping the will of the people when appropriate. If we did not do so, there would be places in this county where blacks would still have separate bathrooms in bus stations. Yes, I know, homosexuality is different than race or religion so don’t even go there. And, I beg to differ on your point that we have to choose between the pure will of the people and tyranny. This is not a direct Democracy. If the founders had intended it to be, the constitution would be written that way. They also created the Judiciary and the concept of balance of powers

    As far as your extensive critique of SCOTUS goes, I am aware of the origins and history of judicial review, and I’m also aware of the courts short comings in terms of bad decisions that were made historically and right to the present day. None of that negates anything that I’ve said here. We can’t just say that because the system is flawed, that we should not even try to ensure that law are passed and applied evenhandedly and appropriately. Citing the failings of SCOTUS to support your will of the people mantra is a Non sequitur because your conclusion is disconnected from the premise

    I too am focused on the constitution. But remember, the constitution is what replaced the Articles of Confederation and the anti-federalists came out on the short end at the Constitutional convention. For that reason, your contention that the states should decide the gay marriage issue is preposterous as is you suggestion that gay people can just more to a state that will accommodate them. Rather callous I must say.

    In conclusion, I refuse to choose between being a patriot and a progressive. I believe that I am both. Read my bio id you don’t believe me
     
    Woolley likes this.
  12. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Just an afterthought that I found amusing. Gay states and straight states LOL. Sounds vaguely familiar
     
  13. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It was meant as a response to your last 3 posts. I don't know how to combine them together to quote from one.

    I am talking about the interpretation of the law regarding what is constitutional and what is not. Slavery used to be the law of the land, "separate but equal" racial discrimination used to be the law of the land, both thanks to judicial tyranny. There is no question you must have laws in a civil society.

    I don't disagree with any of this expect for that you give the politicians way too much credit. They don't pass laws because of popular sentiment, they pass laws because their big money donors pay them off to do it, again because once they are elected they can give the middle finger to the people. Quick example - while the politicians publicly say that immigration is all about humanitarianism, it is really about what their big money donors want, which is an unlimited supply of cheap labor to work at their companies which keeps their labor costs down and their stock values up.

    I know you are not a Communist. BTW, sugary drinks are bad for your health. Four years ago I was in my mid 40s and realized that I was a fat ass. I studied nutrition, read books, read articles etc. and one of the things I did was cut out sugar as much as possible. The food companies put it in just about every food (to make it taste better) so it's really hard to cut it out. I lost 40 pounds and now have muscle definition I never had in my 20's. Sugar is highly processed and refined and chemically altered by food companies. It caused blood sugar spikes, followed by insulin spikes followed by hunger (due to low blood sugar after the insulin spikes) which caused overeating. Sugar in causing diabetes, heart disease and cancer (even in thin people). Even with that I do not believe the government should pass laws restricting the rights of people to choose what they eat. If sugar is evil as Bloomberg says (I agree with him), government should ban it as a toxic substance. But they wont because the sugar lobby is powerful in Washington.



    Where does the Government grant the right to marry to straight couples?

    That is where you and I will never agree because who decides when the will of the people is not appropriate? That is the definition of tyranny. You really need to rethink your position on this. I know what you are trying to say, that we are a representative democracy - a republic - but

    1) Congress holds elections and is ultimately accountable to their constituents while SCOTUS is not accountable to anyone and
    2) Congress is supposed to represent the citizens in their district/state (politics is local)

    Then we will agree to disagree. I have nothing more to add than what I said on my last post.

    Then we will agree to disagree. I thought my logic was sound.

    Thirty three or so States passed State constitutional amendments declaring marriage is between a man and a woman. How can you say that it is prposterous for me to say this is a State issue? They jumped through all the hoops of those ballot initiatives because they too thought it was a State right.

    Look, i am new to this forum posting thing, so you very well may be correct in that statement and I could be wrong with my next statement. But since I don't know you personally I can only judge you by what you post and based on what I've seen you are clearly more progressive than patriot. Your bio speaks more progressive than patriot as well (in my opinion). You hint at one of my concerns in your bio with the talk of oppressive government but then you cast that aside as if it were unimportant.

    I see you are in NJ. I certainly don't hold anything against you because if I did that kind of thing I wouldn't speak to most of my family. If you look at my bio I am originally from liberal land too. But my views have changed multiple times since I've moved and seen first hand the different states. New York State is one of the most screwed up places yet my family members continue to put those greedy morons in office. My father pays 5X the property tax rate I do and continues to vote for them. It's insane. You are not alone that is for sure.

    I see on your bio that you are interested in nutrition as well. If you want more info on what I learned about sugar let me know and I will look up those articles again and send you the links.
     
  14. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I’m in New Jersey. Formerly from Brooklyn NY. I’ve long known that I would never go south and you have served to reinforce my resolve. What have they done to you down there man!??

    Anyway, this is about pretty well played out. Interesting that you agree that you must have laws in a civil society-and have a level of respect for the constitution- but at the same time believe that “the people” should be able to have the last word on what those laws mean, how to apply them, and to who.

    While you never said that you’re against same sex marriage but you don’t seem to be all that much in favor of it and are quite willing to defer the matter to the whim of the people or state legislators who may flout the supreme law of the land. While SCOTUS-as you correctly pointed out has at times botched their job of interpreting the constitution that does not constitute a reason give up all efforts to apply the constitution fairly. Yes, SCOTUS is not elected and you can’t get rid of bad justices. However, I completely disagree with the idea of electing them. They are supposed to be apolitical at least in theory, and of course, electing them would erase all hope of that.

    Regarding marriage, we both know that the constitution is silent on marriage so I don’t know why you felt the need to ask that question. The fact is that one group of people who are essentially the same as another group of people except for one, albeit, salient characteristic is being treated differently under the law and that amounts to discrimination. Add to that, the fact that no one has been able to show how anyone one else-or society at large- is harmed by same sex marriage, while the harm done to gays is well documented. Time and again, courts have ruled that there is no rational basis-let alone a compelling state interest- for the denial of marriage to gays.

    Lastly, Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

    Marriage is clearly not just a state issue, especially in light of the case on that list that is among the better known, Loving v. Virginia which established the limits of the states in defining marriage.

    These are the simple truths that SCOTUS-not withstanding your disdain for them- will not be able to avoid or deny-except for the three far right wing nuts who are immune from all reason. Meanwhile the opponents of equality keep obfuscating the issue and continually come up with excuses ranging from the creative to the bizarre, all of which are nothing more than logical fallacies.

    Thanks for the info on sugar. I’m 67 and in perfect health. You be well too. It’s been fun. Off to the gym now

    Progress is patriotic. Patriotism is progress
     
  15. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I will take that as a compliment!!

    Ya I had to move south. I grew up a liberal in liberal land. My first vote was for Walter Mondale because (I swear I thought this) I thought he was the only honest candidate for saying he was going to raise taxes because I just knew taxes had to be raised!! But there I was a college grad with a Mechanical Engineering degree, 22 years old and couldn't find a job. Wanted to stay local for the friends and family but had only 3 interviews in 6 months so I had to move to where the jobs were.

    Only later after I became "southernized" did i realize why there were no jobs in WNY. HIGH TAXES. Business crushing, job killing high taxes ... to fund the big government (2 of my 3 interviews were for government jobs). Businesses had less of their money to re-invest and modernize so they couldn't compete. That is why everything is old there, even to this day. Oh and free trade killed a-lot of the jobs too. Idiot Republicans destroyed the working middle class.

    You need tax revenues from businesses to fund the government since the government doesn't create any wealth of its own and with a large government cost structure, you need high State taxes (they can't print money out of thin air and borrow against future generations like the federal government can). So the only people making out are government employees, that is until all the businesses leave and the government can't fund all it's liabilities. I saw in your bio that you work for the government so maybe this is why you are OK with big government. Nothing wrong with that - it's to be expected. Just remember that all those businesses you and I demonize are paying the taxes to fund your government job. Well, except when the Governor gives his business buddies tax breaks. I'm sure you saw that your Governor (Christie) gave $2 billion dollars in tax breaks to businesses the same year that he cut the government employee's pension fund by $2 billion! Aren't politicians wonderful? They are all traitors. Republicans. Democrats. Traitors. Hopefully you didn't take a hit on that. Even if you did, don't worry about it because businesses are doing the same thing (cutting pensions). Last year, the stock of the company where I work doubled in price, as did their earnings per share. Did any of that trickle down to we the workers? Nope. Earlier in the year they took our paid sick time away and the year before that they cut our pension benefits. Now new hires don't get any pension at all - they completely eliminated it for them so I'm lucky (I guess). The company executives gave themselves millions in their own pension the year after they cut ours (they have to report it and it made the news) and they all made out big with all the stock they own (the stock options the company gives them for free).

    Sorry for getting off topic but it seems as if nobody else is posting to this thread anyway.

    Anyway - good luck to you and hopefully I will see you on another thread.
     
  16. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    We'll I'm not going to get into all that economic stuff, at least not here. It might just get deleted anyway and it'snot my favorite thing. I'm most comfortable and sure of myself on the social issues. Watch for the decision coming out of the 6th circuit court in Cincinnati on marriage equality. Oral arguments are being heard today. I will post it here

    There is still time to save yourself. Comeback to liberal land. We will give you asylum and deprogram you. Good luck!
     
  17. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    In an interesting twist, Utah gay marriage advocates have joined their legal opponents in asking the Supreme Court to take up the lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

    The advocates challenging the ban triumphed in December in federal district court and again in June in federal appeals court. The Utah attorney general then asked in July for the Supreme Court to take the case. And the gay marriage proponents have agreed that the nation's highest court should hear it. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/utah-gay-marriage-case-scotus-appeal
     
  18. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    19,928
    Likes Received:
    11,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Marriage which Started as a religious ceremony is now a legal right to invest the two partners in each others financial affairs.It became important to same sex couples because family members were denying the rights of home and asset inheritance when one of the partners died.
     
  19. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,595
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    John Marshall explained to Tommy Jefferson what the constitution meant and what powers the SCOTUS has in Marbury. Tommy wanted another system, he lost. The rest is history. Referencing one source is not going to win any debate on the constitution here. The courts are the interpreters of the law, there is no disputing that fact. It is true that some far right pundits like Levin want to change this system to gain advantages they are precluded from having today in the name of freedom or liberty. All Levin wants is the freedom or liberty to have the law support his political views without having to answer to others. Since his particular views are very unpopular nationally, he hopes to convince his following that holding a constitutional convention will return power to the states to become conservative paradises of discrimination. It appears that he has convinced some that this is the best way to preserve their freedoms.
     
  20. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Marriage" (the forming of partnerships between adults) began long before religions were invented. These partnerships were required by nature for the preservation of the species.

    It was the financial implications of marriage established by law that required the acknowledgement of same-sex marriage under the Constitution. Same-sex marriage had always existed as a common law marriage in the United States but it didn't require government recognition under the financial considerations connected to the word marriage created unequal treatment of those that created these partnership, It was noted at the time before the Supreme Court made the correct Constitutional decision to recognize the rights of same sex marriage that over 1,100 federal laws alone used the term marriage as a criteria that often created disparity for those same-sex couples that were denied the legal institution of marriage.
     
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These far right pundits don't seek liberty, they seek license and the two are not the same. Liberty is the freedom to exercise an unalienable right while license is to be able to do that which the law doesn't prohibit.

    For example:

    No person has a right to destroy or spoil (pollute) nature (John Locke - Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 5). To spoil or destroy nature violates the Rights of the Common (all people). The "right-wing" wants and expects the "license" to pollute and destroy nature while those that advocate "liberty" oppose that destruction and spoiling of nature.
     
  22. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Re nature - read a book on the "ecocide" of the USSR. It was a lot more than Chernobyl
    and the Arial Sea.
    Be careful in supporting one political party over another. Ultimately politics is about doing
    what the electorate want you to do, and what one must do for one's country. You will surely
    be disappointed if your favorites chose to respect the democratic system and the nation's
    interest.
     
  23. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male






    I have not read all the posts on this thread but am compelled to ask, are you now satisfied that the Court has accepted that the equal protection clause applies here thereby legalizing same sex marriage?
     
  24. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Equal marriage rights" also means not just accepting alternate genders, but alternate
    marriage numbers (polygamy) alternate marriage duration (lifetime, seven years, weekend)
    and alternate ages (gay boys, pederasty etc..)
     
  25. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male



    So you are satisfied that the equal protection clause applies to these matters.
     

Share This Page