Kasich on Gay Marriage - "We Have a SCOTUS Ruling ... Let's Move On"

[AnybodyButaDem]

The courts have also ruled on abortion, ObamaCare, and many other unconstitutional decisions.

Does that mean we should give up on fighting those decisions too, Mr. Conservative?   Way to stand up for your principles, Mr. Conservative!

Funny how he considers standing up for the sanctity of marriage a "wedge issue," isn't it?  I imagine some people against gay marriage actually do so out of principle and their personal morals, and not as a "wedge issue."

What else should we "move on from" because 5 unelected people in robes say its so, Mr. Conservative?  Are the Democrats "moving on" because SCOTUS ruled Citizens' United protected free speech?  Trump supports Kelo, which I strongly disagree with his stance on that and on the SCOTUS ruling.  Should we give up on having that overturned because "we have a ruling?"

What a wimp!!

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/11/kasich-im-a-traditional-marriage-guy-but-scotus-ruled-lets-move-on-what-the-hell-are-we-doing-with-mississippi-law/

Kasich said, “I’m a traditional marriage guy, okay? I believe a man and a woman, but, I went home one day, I said, ‘Sweetie, we’ve been invited to a gay wedding.’ This was after the court. I said, ‘What do you think?” she said, ‘Well, I’m going, I don’t know if you are or not.’ And we went, and look, here’s the thing, we may disagree with something about people’s lifestyles and all those kinds of things, we may disagree, but you know what, let’s try to understand each other a little bit. What are we going to do, write a law? I read about this thing they did in Mississippi where apparently you can deny somebody service because they’re gay. What the hell are we doing in this country? I mean, look, I may not appreciate a certain lifestyle, or even approve of it, but I can — that doesn’t mean I’ve got to go write a law and try to figure out how to have another wedge issue, because one of the things that’s happening, on this issue itself, is that there are politicians that are using it to get publicity, which ultimately divides us

. We had a Supreme Court ruling, and you know what, let’s move on. Let’s move on from where we are.

[/color]”

[Frank Cannon]

What a principled fighter. He is sure to turn DC around get the country back on track.

[Bill Cipher]

Why is it that whenever the Supreme Court does something a person doesn't like (liberal or conservative) it's always a bad decision by 5 unelected chumps, but when they do something that person likes they're the great bulwark protecting individual rights and liberties?

[AnybodyButaDem]

Why is it that whenever the Supreme Court does something a person doesn't like (liberal or conservative) it's always a bad decision by 5 unelected chumps, but when they do something that person likes they're the great bulwark protecting individual rights and liberties?

Why is it I feel like I'm reading an Obama strawman argument that nobody here is making?

Hey, according to Kasich, once SCOTUS decides anything it's time to "move on!"

That guy's a real fighter!

[Jazzhead]

Why is it that whenever the Supreme Court does something a person doesn't like (liberal or conservative) it's always a bad decision by 5 unelected chumps, but when they do something that person likes they're the great bulwark protecting individual rights and liberties?

Funny about that, huh?    Conservatives generally support the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law.  That was the basis for the SCOTUS's same-sex marriage decision.   

[AnybodyButaDem]

Funny about that, huh?    Conservatives generally support the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law.  That was the basis for the SCOTUS's same-sex marriage decision.

The conservatives on SCOTUS even disagree with your liberal opinion on what is "equal protection" as it applies in this case, as they voted against it, but from what little I've read of you, I'm not surprised you didn't know that.  Why you can even read my take of the decision in the dissent of a true Conservative, the late and Hon. Antonin Scalia.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

The conservative justice railed against his fellow justices, calling the majority opinion "egotistical" and pointing out that the justices were a homogeneous group that didn't represent the people. As proof, Scalia pointed out that many went to the same law schools, and none were evangelical or protestant Christians.

"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," Scalia said.

"Let's move on."

Mr. Conservative's new campaign motto, or what the vast majority of GOP primary voters have done with the GOPe?   

[sinkspur]

Why is it I feel like I'm reading an Obama strawman argument that nobody here is making?

Hey, according to Kasich, once SCOTUS decides anything it's time to "move on!"

That guy's a real fighter!

Unless you can muster a Constitutional Amendment (almost an impossibility on abortion or gay marriage), or get another conservative justice, Kasich is correct.  And the same holds true for Citizens United.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Why is it that whenever the Supreme Court does something a person doesn't like (liberal or conservative) it's always a bad decision by 5 unelected chumps, but when they do something that person likes they're the great bulwark protecting individual rights and liberties?

I don't know, maybe you could have asked Justice Scalia that question, since he feels the same way about the gay marriage ruling.

He was no conservative like Mr. Conservative John Kasich, though.   

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

The conservative justice railed against his fellow justices, calling the majority opinion "egotistical" and pointing out that the justices were a homogeneous group that didn't represent the people. As proof, Scalia pointed out that many went to the same law schools, and none were evangelical or protestant Christians.

"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," Scalia said.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Unless you can muster a Constitutional Amendment (almost an impossibility on abortion or gay marriage), or get another conservative justice, Kasich is correct.  And the same holds true for Citizens United.

I don't care about gay marriage, gays should have the chance to be as miserable as I was in my marriage, but Kasich is asking why laws that don't fall under the scope of this decision are being voted on in states like Mississippi to the point he's even using liberal talking point to misrepresent these laws.  It shows he doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's hilarious and embarrassing.

He's a fighter! 

[Jazzhead]

ABAD, the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law is hardly a "liberal opinion".   Most responsible conservatives support such guarantee of equal protection.   I certainly do.   

[AnybodyButaDem]

And the same holds true for Citizens United.

Psst ... you should probably tell the Democrats that it is already decided.   

While Clinton has previously said she would support a constitutional amendment overturning the 2010 decision known as Citizens United, she has not previously said publicly that she would use the ruling as a benchmark for nominating justices.

She added Monday she is consulting with legal experts about other ways the court's ruling in the case could be trumped.

I was wrong.  At least Hillary won't just accept a SCOTUS ruling that goes against her core believes, unlike Mr. Conservative Kasich, who says "let's move on."

[musiclady]

So was slavery.  Didn't make it right, nor would it have meant I would support anyone who said "move on."  It had to be fought against until it ended.

Good parallel. 

Abortion is another one the SC got completely wrong.  Both homosexual marriage and abortion need to be fought against until they end.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What a principled fighter. He is sure to turn DC around get the country back on track.

You really think that two guys getting a marriage license is what we need to do to turn this country around?

Who cares?

Let's take care of the things that REALLY matter and stop worrying about crap that's designed to trip us up.

[Jazzhead]

So was slavery.  Didn't make it right, nor would it have meant I would support anyone who said "move on."  It had to be fought against until it ended.

We went to war over slavery.   I have no desire to go to war to deny my fellow citizens their right to marry, or to defend shopkeepers who want to make profits while engaging in  discrimination. 

Kasich is right - get over it, and be a good neighbor.     

[Jazzhead]

You really think that two guys getting a marriage license is what we need to do to turn this country around?

Who cares?

Let's take care of the things that REALLY matter and stop worrying about crap that's designed to trip us up.

Bingo! 

[Luis Gonzalez]

So was slavery.  Didn't make it right, nor would it have meant I would support anyone who said "move on."  It had to be fought against until it ended.

You're comparing people being sold off as chattel against their will to two people of the same sex being free to marry each other?

[AnybodyButaDem]

ABAD, the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law is hardly a "liberal opinion".   Most responsible conservatives support such guarantee of equal protection.   I certainly do.

Except for the 4 solid conservatives who were on SCOTUS last year when it was decided, of course.

You're apparently more conservative than Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.  Folks this is breaking news!

No wonder you think Kasich is a conservative. 

[AnybodyButaDem]

You really think that two guys getting a marriage license is what we need to do to turn this country around?

Who cares?

Let's take care of the things that REALLY matter and stop worrying about crap that's designed to trip us up.

That's not what he said.  According to Kasich, if there is a SCOTUS ruling on anything, "let's move on."

Hell even Hillary isn't that wimpy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We went to war over slavery.   I have no desire to go to war to deny my fellow citizens their right to marry, or to defend shopkeepers who want to make profits while engaging in  discrimination. 

Kasich is right - get over it, and be a good neighbor.   

Everyone has a constitutional right to freely live by their religious beliefs.

No one has a Constitutional right to run a business. It's a licensed and regulated activity subject to the prevailing municipality, County/city, State and Federal laws.

You don't want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings? Don't bake wedding cakes for a living.

[jmyrlefuller]

Why is it that whenever the Supreme Court does something a person doesn't like (liberal or conservative) it's always a bad decision by 5 unelected chumps, but when they do something that person likes they're the great bulwark protecting individual rights and liberties?

Because sometimes the court is right, and sometimes the court is wrong. Next question.

[HonestJohn]

Too many on the right cannot separate the religious sacrament of marriage from the government's marriage certificate.

The Supreme Court made no ruling on the religious sacrament.  They only ruled that the governmental certificate must be open to all consenting adults.

It's no different than the Supreme Court ruling that states must provide car titles to lesbian car buyers.  Or hairdresser certifications to gay hairdressers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's not what he said.  According to Kasich, if there is a SCOTUS ruling on anything, "let's move on."

Hell even Hillary isn't that wimpy.

We need to set Hillary as a standard for how Republicans run for office?

Is it OK for Hillary to start politicking to overturn the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision?

Should we have interminable fights over SCOTUS decisions?

[jmyrlefuller]

You really think that two guys getting a marriage license is what we need to do to turn this country around?

I think that society understanding what man and woman are, and what they are supposed to be, would make a huge improvement in our society's understanding of the world.

[jmyrlefuller]

We need to set Hillary as a standard for how Republicans run for office?

Is it OK for Hillary to start politicking to overturn the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision?

Should we have interminable fights over SCOTUS decisions?

Haven't we been having interminable fights since the Warren Court started overturning laws left and right 60 years go? Besides, Hillary's going to be politicking for those issues anyway.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Too many on the right cannot separate the religious sacrament of marriage from the government's marriage certificate.

The Supreme Court made no ruling on the religious sacrament.  They only ruled that the governmental certificate must be open to all consenting adults.

It's no different than the Supreme Court ruling that states must provide car titles to lesbian car buyers.  Or hairdresser certifications to gay hairdressers.

Let's be honest, John.  Five liberal judges decided that sexual preference is a protected right.  The 4 conservatives disagreed.

It's a liberal ruling that it appears some "conservatives" here agree with in principle.  You hold the literal liberal view of the ruling.