McConnell: Congress can't roll back gay marriage decision

[evadR]

McConnell: Congress can't doesn't have the guts to roll back gay marriage decision.

Fixed it.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Disagreeing with you about what Americans believe concerning gay marriage is a far cry from pushing gay marriage.  I don't really care what you believe about me, but I care that the nominee for my Party understand the reality of the issues he or she will take on.  Anti-Gay marriage is a losing issue.  SSM is now the law of the land whether I like it or not.  And apparently most Americans agree with it, so that makes it even more imperative that the GOP candidates leave their rhetoric on this issue at home and address issues Americans really want dealt with. 

It's the conservative thing to do...

Good post!

I am not happy about the direction society has chosen, but it does me no good to deny it and blame McConnell, or Republicans, or posters at the BR.

[MACVSOG68]

Apparently that was meant to at least admit that a majority of Americans agree with the 9-8-7-6-5 on this issue. 

[MACVSOG68]

Good post!

I am not happy about the direction society has chosen, but it does me no good to deny it and blame McConnell, or Republicans, or posters at the BR.

Agreed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Patently false Luis. I have been completely consistent on that and you know it.

So I want you to tell me and everyone else reading that the SCOTUS lacks the power to tell Hobby Lobby that they don't have to adhere to a duly enacted, albeit unpopular law, and that Hobby Lobby should begin to immediately provide contraceptives to their employees.

That would be consistent, so say it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Then Bigun, you also need to say that conservatives need to stop trying to get Obamacare overtoned by the SCOTUS because the SCOTUS lacks the power to overturn laws.

While you're at it, you can also explain why you were so update when SCOTUS DIDN'T overturn it.

[MACVSOG68]

My perception is that you HAVE pushed the gay marriage agenda here on this thread and several others preceding this one and you can take all the umbrage at that you like.  It remains my perception.

Perception I can accept.  Perception pronounced as truth is quite another matter.  That I don't accept.

I vehemently disagree with you that anti-gay marriage is a loosing issue and STRONGLY suspect that we will find out for sure about that very soon. I also disagree with your assertion that giving in to public opinion that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution is the conservative thing to do in ANY case.

I guess public opinion is no longer part of the debate.  Good.  Now, if public opinion favors gay marriage, and it's simply not an issue most Americans would want to deal with during the elections, why should the GOP candidates push it?  Aren't issues like public debt, spending, jobs, national security, the future of energy,  the real elephants in the room?  Just as you think I'm trying to change your opinion on SSM (which I'm not), wouldn't Republicans be trying to change most Americans' opinions on the same issue?  Why is one bad, the other good?

I also disagree with you when you say that 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5  unelected people in black robes get to pronounce what the law is in this country and they sure as hell don't get to make it up out of whole cloth as they did in this case! We have debated that in the past as well.

I'm not sure what you think we should do other than push for a constitutional amendment...which was tried ten years ago.  As a conservative that supports tradition and institutions, I don't have to agree with every SCOTUS decision, but I do have to respect its position as an equal branch of government.

I disagree with you when you say that the child of any illegal who manages to get onto U.S soil in time to drop her progeny here can legally become president of our country someday and we have debated that at length.

The burden is on you to substantiate that the 14th Amendment has some hidden third category of citizenship in it.  But you have no problem with Cruz being president.  I'm not sure why a "Cruz" would be acceptable but a "Martinez" wouldn't even though Martinez was born here "naturally" and Cruz was born in Canada.

The fact is that you and I have debated several issues here over the past several months (you and I don't seem to agree on much)  but we have been civil to each other and I intend to keep it that way for my part.

 
As I said Bigun, you are a decent guy even though, just as you charge me, you too have an agenda.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Lost in this debate is a simple question.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to say anything at all about marriage?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Lost in this debate is a simple question.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to say anything at all about marriage?

Interesting. but ultimately a moot point as Congress can't even pass legislation (much less get it ratified or signed) in the current political climate to fix the SCOTUS ruling. 

Bigun is right that there will be a backlash against the ruling.  But how much?  Perhaps the GOP should consider a show vote if it softens the butthurt from conservatives.

[musiclady]

There is a difference between an echo chamber and some posters who wish it so.  Truth be told though, there are very few threads here with any degree of debate.  Those are the ones I'm drawn to.  While most of us here are after the same political goals, we don't always agree on how best to achieve them.

I would suggest that there are people on both sides of issues that are trying to force an echo chamber based on their own views.

As for the 'same political goals,' I would also suggest that there are differences of some significance on moral issues on this forum.

Some of us believe that morality is best for society, as the Founders did, and some believe that the Constitution doesn't allow for enforcing morality on society (though never bother to say that laws against theft and murder, and other laws they agree with are indeed forcing morality on us).

I've actually seen some very healthy and rational debate on these issues on this forum.

From both sides.

[MACVSOG68]

I would suggest that there are people on both sides of issues that are trying to force an echo chamber based on their own views.

As for the 'same political goals,' I would also suggest that there are differences of some significance on moral issues on this forum.

Some of us believe that morality is best for society, as the Founders did, and some believe that the Constitution doesn't allow for enforcing morality on society (though never bother to say that laws against theft and murder, and other laws they agree with are indeed forcing morality on us).

I've actually seen some very healthy and rational debate on these issues on this forum.

From both sides.

Perhaps, but when one is losing an argument and takes it personally to the poster, and others saying there's no room for such viewpoints (words to that effect), I'd have to lean heavily toward one side as wanting an echo chamber.

As for the moral issues, with a combination of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pushing many moral issues is a lost cause.  It's going to have to take families and faiths to take the lead, not our political leaders.

[musiclady]

Perhaps, but when one is losing an argument and takes it personally to the poster, and others saying there's no room for such viewpoints (words to that effect), I'd have to lean heavily toward one side as wanting an echo chamber.

As for the moral issues, with a combination of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pushing many moral issues is a lost cause.  It's going to have to take families and faiths to take the lead, not our political leaders.

I completely agree that it's going to take families and faith to lead, but our Founders acknowledged that without morality, the country could not survive, and many of us agree with them.

Watching our once great nation go down the tubes into complete amorality can make people react pretty emotionally.

One can cerebrally call it 'libertarian,' but if one sees the end of the country we once lived in (and not that long ago), it's pretty hard to take.

No matter what the polls say......

[GourmetDan]

Perhaps, but when one is losing an argument and takes it personally to the poster, and others saying there's no room for such viewpoints (words to that effect), I'd have to lean heavily toward one side as wanting an echo chamber.

Paladin called you out for doing exactly that and now you're pretending to take the high-road?

Please...

[Bigun]

Apparently that was meant to at least admit that a majority of Americans agree with the 9-8-7-6-5 on this issue.

Nope! I just like what the graphic says and thought this a good place to put it.

[Bigun]

Then Bigun, you also need to say that conservatives need to stop trying to get Obamacare overtoned by the SCOTUS because the SCOTUS lacks the power to overturn laws.

While you're at it, you can also explain why you were so update when SCOTUS DIDN'T overturn it.

Wrong again Luis! I don't need to explain anything to you.

Anyone who cares to do so can go back and read what I have said on that!
 

[Bigun]

Lost in this debate is a simple question.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to say anything at all about marriage?

It doesn't! Just like it nowhere grants the power of judicial review to SCOTUS! Marriage is one of those things covered in the ninth and tenth amendments!

[Bigun]

Perhaps, but when one is losing an argument and takes it personally to the poster, and others saying there's no room for such viewpoints (words to that effect), I'd have to lean heavily toward one side as wanting an echo chamber.

As for the moral issues, with a combination of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pushing many moral issues is a lost cause.  It's going to have to take families and faiths to take the lead, not our political leaders.

I agree so why not stop doing that?

[MACVSOG68]

I completely agree that it's going to take families and faith to lead, but our Founders acknowledged that without morality, the country could not survive, and many of us agree with them.

Watching our once great nation go down the tubes into complete amorality can make people react pretty emotionally.

One can cerebrally call it 'libertarian,' but if one sees the end of the country we once lived in (and not that long ago), it's pretty hard to take.

No matter what the polls say......

I agree that there are numerous moral issues facing us a Nation, not the least of which is the continuing decline of marriage and the increase in divorce.  Add to that increasing use of drugs, more and more violent games, movies, music videos, increases in STDs, single parent homes all attacking the moral fiber of our Country, and I'm sorry, but two gays wanting to spend their lives with each other, while not something I can begin to understand or relate to, isn't all that high on my list of political goals for the next election.

[MACVSOG68]

Paladin called you out for doing exactly that and now you're pretending to take the high-road?

Please...

While I love to watch a mutual admiration society in action, do you actually have a point about the issues under discussion?

[GourmetDan]

I agree that there are numerous moral issues facing us a Nation, not the least of which is the continuing decline of marriage and the increase in divorce.  Add to that increasing use of drugs, more and more violent games, movies, music videos, increases in STDs, single parent homes all attacking the moral fiber of our Country, and I'm sorry, but two gays wanting to spend their lives with each other, while not something I can begin to understand or relate to, isn't all that high on my list of political goals for the next election.

Ya, don't pay any attention to what happened to the Romans for exactly the same thing...

"Given that the gay marriage agenda will be increasingly pressed upon Catholics by the state, we should be much more aware of what history has to teach us about gay marriage—given that we don’t want to be among those who, ignorant of history, blithely condemned themselves to repeat it."

"Contrary to the popular view—both among proponents and opponents—gay marriage is not a new issue. It cannot be couched (by proponents) as a seamless advance on the civil rights movement, nor should it be understood (by opponents) as something that’s evil merely because it appears to them to be morally unprecedented."

"Gay marriage was—surprise!—alive and well in Rome, celebrated even and especially by select emperors, a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of Roman homosexuality. Gay marriage was, along with homosexuality, something the first Christians faced as part of the pagan moral darkness of their time."

"What Christians are fighting against today, then, is not yet another sexual innovation peculiar to our “enlightened age,” but the return to pre-Christian, pagan sexual morality."

[GourmetDan]

While I love to watch a mutual admiration society in action, do you actually have a point about the issues under discussion?

Like you and Once-Ler?

Hypocrite...

[MACVSOG68]

It doesn't! Just like it nowhere grants the power of judicial review to SCOTUS! Marriage is one of those things covered in the ninth and tenth amendments!

I agree that marriage is a 10th Amendment issue, but that amendment doesn't trump the 14th when the rights to equal protection of the laws and due process are under consideration by the courts. 

[MACVSOG68]

I agree so why not stop doing that?

Good, now if we can only get the candidates to get off the issue and get on with solutions  to real problems.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I would suggest that there are people on both sides of issues that are trying to force an echo chamber based on their own views.

As for the 'same political goals,' I would also suggest that there are differences of some significance on moral issues on this forum.

Some of us believe that morality is best for society, as the Founders did, and some believe that the Constitution doesn't allow for enforcing morality on society (though never bother to say that laws against theft and murder, and other laws they agree with are indeed forcing morality on us)

I've actually seen some very healthy and rational debate on these issues on this forum.

From both sides.

You seriously want to try drawing a line of moral equivalency between theft/murder and mutually consensual sexual activity between adults?

How do you get to consent to being murdered or robbed?

By that logic, there's no difference between marriage and rape.

[Bigun]

Perception I can accept.  Perception pronounced as truth is quite another matter.  That I don't accept.

We have been over this many times before Mac and my opinions are at least as valid as yours.

I guess public opinion is no longer part of the debate.  Good.  Now, if public opinion favors gay marriage, and it's simply not an issue most Americans would want to deal with during the elections, why should the GOP candidates push it?  Aren't issues like public debt, spending, jobs, national security, the future of energy,  the real elephants in the room?  Just as you think I'm trying to change your opinion on SSM (which I'm not), wouldn't Republicans be trying to change most Americans' opinions on the same issue?  Why is one bad, the other good?

When it comes to the Constitution public opinion doesn't matter a whit until and unless the public decides to us their power and change it! I predict that will soon happen! What you consider to be elephants in the room others don't find nearly as compelling as a runaway court that assumes powers it is nowhere granted!
 

I'm not sure what you think we should do other than push for a constitutional amendment...which was tried ten years ago.  As a conservative that supports tradition and institutions, I don't have to agree with every SCOTUS decision, but I do have to respect its position as an equal branch of government.

There is a reason why every person in government is required by the constitution to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend, the constitution before they assume office after EVERY election!

The burden is on you to substantiate that the 14th Amendment has some hidden third category of citizenship in it.  But you have no problem with Cruz being president.  I'm not sure why a "Cruz" would be acceptable but a "Martinez" wouldn't even though Martinez was born here "naturally" and Cruz was born in Canada.

And I have done so MANY times before today! If article III of the Constitution had been modified in ANY way by the 14th amendment it would say so somewhere. Perhaps I missed that notation and you will point it out to me but the last time we talked about this YOU agreed that there was no such modification of Article III to be found.

As I said Bigun, you are a decent guy even though, just as you charge me, you too have an agenda.

Yes indeed I do! I happen to love this country and our constitution as the founders created it and would like to preserve at least a little bit of that for my posterity!

[/quote]