http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-president-elect-donald-trump-sex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067&cid=abcn_fb
It's the position you have to take to get elected in this country these days.
Dare question the homosexual agenda, or even say there is one, and your political career is over. Heck, even your regular career might be over, too.
Apparently the democrats won after all.
Settled Law is a term used by the left. This is about the fourth or fifth Trump quote from the 60 Minutes interview that's nauseating.
Apparently the democrats won after all.
He's also siding with the left on the electoral college.
Imagine that. Who could have ever predicted this?
Not if something like a religious conscience act gets passed in Congress.
Evangelicals who gave Trump over 80% of their vote should petition for this.
Evangelicals who gave Trump over 80% of their vote should petition for this.
If only there was some warning that Trump wasn't a conservative...
I'm surprised TOS didn't catch this.
Crickets from the die hard Trumpsters...
LOL yeah you would have thought JimRob would have called Trump a "Liberal Scumbag" or something just a couple years ago. :silly:
Civil marriage equality is settled law in the sense that it has been affirmed as consistent with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.In all fairness, as a single person not entirely by choice, I am denied those same equal protections (I'm not going to rehash that discussion again (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,232481.msg1120011.html#msg1120011), but I use it to bring up the point). That SHOULD raise serious questions about whether the topic is covered under "equal protection" if it is inaccessible to so many, arguably more than those seeking same-sex marriages.
GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-president-elect-donald-trump-sex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067&cid=abcn_fb
I didn't watch Trump's "60 Minutes" interview last night, but according to what I'm seeing on Ben Shapiro's Twitter, there were three takeaways:
Most of Obamacare will be kept
Gay marriage is okay
No prosecution because the Clintons are, quote, good people and he doesn't want to hurt them.
They'll speak up and convince themselves that Orange Glorious is infallible.
It's the position you have to take to get elected in this country these days.
Dare question the homosexual agenda, or even say there is one, and your political career is over. Heck, even your regular career might be over, too.
Well, technically he is correct, just like slavery was settled law, jim crow was settled law, prohibition was settled law. The thing about our Constitutional Republic is that 'settled law' is subject to change as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. We have a system in place that updates laws and customs. So, outside a few limitations on the government, nothing is truly 'settled'.If Bannon is the man I believe him to be, then Donald will get a quick tutorial on judicial review. As long as there are states who assert their sovereignty, then there is no such thing no settled law at the federal level. Of course, there must be a majority of SCOTUS to hear challenges to previous rulings.
I didn't watch Trump's "60 Minutes" interview last night, but according to what I'm seeing on Ben Shapiro's Twitter, there were three takeaways:
Most of Obamacare will be kept
Gay marriage is okay
No prosecution because the Clintons are, quote, good people and he doesn't want to hurt them.
Head Fake.
Dodge the question to make it go away. It will be dealt with once again by future supreme court justices (which he will appoint) and it is not useful to have a fight over this issue right now.
Tell her constituents what they want to hear, meanwhile let the normal course of investigations and prosecutions grind the Clinton's into dust.
Trump's M.O. is having multiple positions on anything contentious.
Here's my advice for dealing with Trump. Pay very little attention to what he says, just watch what he does. He is a long term schmoozer and he tells people what he thinks they want to hear right up until he drops a hammer on them.
Dismissal tactic for the naive. Appointing conservative judges will cause that issue to be revisited in the fullness of time, in the meantime he shuts down the Liberal screech machine in regards to this topic.
On my list of priorities as to what Trump will deal with, gay marriage is not even on the list. I don't care about gay stuff at all. I don't care what they do as long as they stay away from me and my children. Furthermore, I don't think the gays understand how complicated and devastating 'marriage' can be.
I have seen very successful guys lose everything because they stupidly got married. If the gays want to subject themselves to that system and take that risk them more power to them. I simply do not care.
Here's my advice for dealing with Trump. Pay very little attention to what he says, just watch what he does. He is a long term schmoozer and he tells people what he thinks they want to hear right up until he drops a hammer on them.
The existence of "Gay Marriage" undermines the social foundation of Western Culture. It sabotages the belief system underpinning Western society, and as a consequence affects many other issues beyond "gay marriage."
Well both You and Ben, rabid never Trumpers, are wrong. MIGHT want to actually watch and listen not just repeated your emotional based diatribes.
@GAJohnnie
I think I'd rather explore some of your little quirks. Shall we?
For instance, your dogged determination to lie and mischaracterize. Just last night, I posted to you that I lost no time congratulating the Trump supporters and stating I would give him a chance to see what he would do. If it happens to be good, I'll say so. If it isn't, I'll do the same. You didn't respond to that, though. And here you are pushing your little narrative....using the most choice hysterical descriptives to try and illustrate some kind of freak out that never happened.
I've seen it noted elsewhere that some of you seem to be choking with disappointment that we aren't reacting as you hoped to Trump's win. I find that funny as hell.
@CatherineofAragon
You just know that when Trump gets around to gun control Trumpers will be all for it by convincing themselves that it will keep guns out of the hands of nevertrumpers.
I said the exact same thing in almost the same words a couple of days ago. Right now Trump is focused on transition and he does not want to say anything that may disrupt that.
I agree with all you said. He says what he has to say to get the immediate job done as smoothly as possible. And that is what he is doing. You are spot on. We will not know how he really feels about anything until Jan 20.
@CatherineofAragon
You just know that when Trump gets around to gun control Trumpers will be all for it by convincing themselves that it will keep guns out of the hands of nevertrumpers.
@DiogenesLamp
Head fake? For what? He's president-elect now. He ran on repealing Obamacare; no need to pretend otherwise.
@CatherineofAragon
You just know that when Trump gets around to gun control Trumpers will be all for it by convincing themselves that it will keep guns out of the hands of nevertrumpers.
"Forget it...he's rolling."
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOdHX1ywc37txqY6-yM6jWPskaTnsJXwxqPiQLgq3xpkMwLRlL)
I didn't watch Trump's "60 Minutes" interview last night, but according to what I'm seeing on Ben Shapiro's Twitter, there were three takeaways:
Most of Obamacare will be kept
Gay marriage is okay
No prosecution because the Clintons are, quote, good people and he doesn't want to hurt them.
Lesley Stahl: Let me ask you about Obamacare, which you say you’re going to repeal and replace. When you replace it, are you going to make sure that people with pre-conditions are still covered?
Donald Trump: Yes. Because it happens to be one of the strongest assets.
Lesley Stahl: You’re going to keep that?
Donald Trump: Also, with the children living with their parents for an extended period, we’re gonna--
Lesley Stahl: You’re gonna keep that--
Donald Trump: Very much try and keep that. Adds cost, but it’s very much something we’re going to try and keep.
Lesley Stahl: And there’s going to be a period if you repeal it and before you replace it, when millions of people could lose -– no?
Donald Trump: No, we’re going to do it simultaneously. It’ll be just fine. We’re not going to have, like, a two-day period and we’re not going to have a two-year period where there’s nothing. It will be repealed and replaced. And we’ll know. And it’ll be great health care for much less money. So it’ll be better health care, much better, for less money. Not a bad combination.
Lesley Stahl: One of the groups that’s expressing fear are the LGBTQ group. You--
Donald Trump: And yet I mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. And--
Lesley Stahl: You did.
Donald Trump: Everybody said, “That was so great.” I have been, you know, I’ve been-a supporter.
Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for them is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?
Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.
Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that--
Donald Trump: It’s done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.
Lesley Stahl: Are you going to ask for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton over her emails? And are you, as you had said to her face, going to try and put her in jail?
Donald Trump: Well, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do, I’m going to think about it. Um, I feel that I want to focus on jobs, I want to focus on healthcare, I want to focus on the border and immigration and doing a really great immigration bill. We want to have a great immigration bill. And I want to focus on all of these other things that we’ve been talking about.
Lesley Stahl: You-- you know, you--
Donald Trump: And get the country straightened away.
Lesley Stahl: You called her “crooked Hillary,” said you wanted to get in jail, your people in your audiences kept saying, “Lock em’ up.”
Donald Trump: Yeah. She did--
Lesley Stahl: Do you—
Donald Trump: She did some bad things, I mean she did some bad things--
Lesley Stahl: I know, but a special prosecutor? You think you might…
Donald Trump: I don’t want to hurt them. I don’t want to hurt them. They’re, they’re good people. I don’t want to hurt them. And I will give you a very, very good and definitive answer the next time we do 60 Minutes together.
It's the position you have to take to get elected in this country these days.
Dare question the homosexual agenda, or even say there is one, and your political career is over. Heck, even your regular career might be over, too.
If only there was some warning that Trump wasn't a conservative...
That is true. Now, my question is... how is 2% to 4% of the country get so much power?
In all fairness, as a single person not entirely by choice, I am denied those same equal protections (I'm not going to rehash that discussion again (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,232481.msg1120011.html#msg1120011), but I use it to bring up the point). That SHOULD raise serious questions about whether the topic is covered under "equal protection" if it is inaccessible to so many, arguably more than those seeking same-sex marriages.
I really don't care about gay marriage being legal. I just don't. It's a small minority of the population and for the few members of that minority who are in a long-time committed relationship, I think it's okay to make their union legal. They could accomplish much of the same with various legal documents, such as designation of who controls medical decisions, wills, etc.
But, hey, marriage is easy. Any fool can do it and many have.
It's just not something I'd go to the wall on.
The problem is that it's a wedge issue. Most gays could care less about marriage as they are not monogamous. But it destroys institutions and gives power to the left. Thats all this was ever about.
No. Sorry. If you call marriage a sacred institution... and I do... far more harm has been done to that sacred institution by selfish people who immediately consider divorce if everything is not perfect. My marriage would not have lasted so long if I'd expected perfection.
When 50% of marriages end in divorce, don't even try to tell me that a few thousand gay marriages will topple the instituion.
I do very much think it is a sacred institution. The issue is that they do not, and use it as a hammer. They use it as a wedge to lessen the authority of the church (using the term 'church' to represent all faiths here). The gay 'marriages' in and of themselves will not. The legal issues surrounding them very well could because as we see already, they are making all manner of legal challenges using their 'marriage' as a springboard to civil rights suits, closing down businesses and having govt encroach on faith.
I have no seen any evidence of that. The Gay mafia is already doing that with great success. The friends I know in that community are decent people who want marital rights because they've lived with their partners and are committed to them.
I think your fear is overblown about gay marriage. However, I do think the courts must take down frivolous stuff like suing a baker over a cake, etc. That should not stand, nor should any other outrageous violation of the rights of others.
Head Fake.Look I'm not trying to be argumentative, but isn't your advice a little bit, um, odd? Afterall almost everyone that voted for Trump based it on what he said, not what he has done, because he has never done anything in government to judge him by. So you advice now is completely opposite to what people were told during the campaign when all were told listen to Trump's message here what he promises because those promises would be kept. Now he is elected and we should all just ignore what he says. BRILLIANT ****slapping
Dodge the question to make it go away. It will be dealt with once again by future supreme court justices (which he will appoint) and it is not useful to have a fight over this issue right now.
Tell her constituents what they want to hear, meanwhile let the normal course of investigations and prosecutions grind the Clinton's into dust.
Trump's M.O. is having multiple positions on anything contentious.
Here's my advice for dealing with Trump. Pay very little attention to what he says, just watch what he does. He is a long term schmoozer and he tells people what he thinks they want to hear right up until he drops a hammer on them.
The cake bakers sued out of business are evidence of that.
The cake bakers sued out of business are evidence of that.
LOL yeah you would have thought JimRob would have called Trump a "Liberal Scumbag" or something just a couple years ago. :silly:
Utterly hypocritical for you #Never Trumps to scream because Trump cannot do things your political idols, like Reagan and the 2 Bush's, could not do when they were President.
Funny how you squealed in hysterics when Obama tried to ignore the rule of law but now demand Trump do the same thing for you.
Utterly hypocritical for you #Never Trumps to scream because Trump cannot do things your political idols, like Reagan and the 2 Bush's, could not do when they were President.
Funny how you squealed in hysterics when Obama tried to ignore the rule of law but now demand Trump do the same thing for you.
I wonder how they are handling this over at TOS?
We're not demanding Trump do shit pal, except uphold his oath of office and follow the limits prescribed on the Executive in the Constitution.
That said - Trump saying homo marriage is 'settled law' is as stupid and dumb as stating that Dredd-Scott was 'settled law' and therefore untouchable, unable to be amended, stricken or removed from precedent.
It also demonstrates he is no more going to stand up for Christians and Christian principles (as he promised) than Obama did.
The constitution doesn't mention marriage therefore leaving it up to the states to decide. I believe Justice Scalia made that exact point in his dissenting opinion.
The constitution doesn't mention marriage therefore leaving it up to the states to decide. I believe Justice Scalia made that exact point in his dissenting opinion.
Typical Trump method of handling contentious issues. Just Dodge them.
The constitution doesn't mention marriage therefore leaving it up to the states to decide. I believe Justice Scalia made that exact point in his dissenting opinion.
That is true. Now, my question is... how is 2% to 4% of the country get so much power?
Utterly hypocritical for you #Never Trumps to scream because Trump cannot do things your political idols, like Reagan and the 2 Bush's, could not do when they were President.
Funny how you squealed in hysterics when Obama tried to ignore the rule of law but now demand Trump do the same thing for you.
Here is a picture of Trump dodging the issue:
(http://www.lgbtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GettyImages-619309888.jpg)
Whatever LGBT is, I don't know for sure other than homosexuals. If Trump is to be the President of all Americans, then homosexuals would be included.
Obama and the Democrat party have pandered to homosexuals to the point of putting the so called "rights" of homosexuals above the rights of everyone else. This kind of bias toward the homosexual agenda has to be stopped, right now.
However, I see no reason why homosexuals cannot be recognized and treated with respect. They cannot go into my daughter's bathroom or locker room. They cannot have parades with display open acts of public sodomy. But, and this is important, neither can anyone else.
If homosexuals want 'equality', then they must behave the same way every other citizen behaves. Equality has never meant 'special rights'. It simply means that they will be treated the same as everyone else, as long as they obey the same rules everyone else obeys.
The Liberals and the Democrats cannot understand this simple idea. I think Donald Trump does. He is a no nonsense kind of guy.
First off Mechanicos, I'm not #NeverTrump. I'm #NeverLiberal. And as long as Trump insists on being #NeverConservative, I will remain opposed to him.
Second, the reason Trump cannot do what Reagan did is because he embraces policies that are the ideological opposite of Reagan. Trump is on record condemning the Reagan tax cuts AFTER their success was proven. And Trump is on record advocating higher taxes as a way to bring about economic growth.
And this is who you support. Someone who agrees with 99.9% of the Democrat Party. Someone who stuck with Walter Mondale's platform 5 years after he suffered the second biggest defeat in US Election history.
Rule of law? Here is the rule of law:
Amendment X
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.
So what legislation do we have? From the Federal side, none (except for a prohibition on polygamy). And from the State side? The State of California put a resolution before its citizens to amend its State Constitution in order to define marriage between one man and one woman. And that resolution overwhelmingly passed.
So the rule of law in California is that the only marriage sanctioned by the State is between one man and one woman. THAT is settled law. The Supreme Court ignored the law. They ignored the Constitution. They issued an order that was not based upon law, but was instead based purely upon fiat. So don't lecture me about ignoring the rule of law when it is your candidate who is supporting exactly that. But hey, that's what Democrats do.
First off Mechanicos, I'm not #NeverTrump. I'm #NeverLiberal. And as long as Trump insists on being #NeverConservative, I will remain opposed to him.
Second, the reason Trump cannot do what Reagan did is because he embraces policies that are the ideological opposite of Reagan. Trump is on record condemning the Reagan tax cuts AFTER their success was proven. And Trump is on record advocating higher taxes as a way to bring about economic growth.
And this is who you support. Someone who agrees with 99.9% of the Democrat Party. Someone who stuck with Walter Mondale's platform 5 years after he suffered the second biggest defeat in US Election history.
Rule of law? Here is the rule of law:
Amendment X
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.
So what legislation do we have? From the Federal side, none (except for a prohibition on polygamy). And from the State side? The State of California put a resolution before its citizens to amend its State Constitution in order to define marriage between one man and one woman. And that resolution overwhelmingly passed.
So the rule of law in California is that the only marriage sanctioned by the State is between one man and one woman. THAT is settled law. The Supreme Court ignored the law. They ignored the Constitution. They issued an order that was not based upon law, but was instead based purely upon fiat. So don't lecture me about ignoring the rule of law when it is your candidate who is supporting exactly that. But hey, that's what Democrats do.
Not if something like a religious conscience act gets passed in Congress.
Evangelicals who gave Trump over 80% of their vote should petition for this.
The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things. The Constitution doesn't mention computers; does that mean the Fourth Amendment does not apply to them?
I think who he appoints the SCOTUS is the payoff. The media is trying to fracture the Pub party and Trump is not taking the bait. If conservative judges are put on the court the pro-life supporters will be happy and the pro traditional marriage supporters will be happy. A great deal of this stuff should go back to the States.
So far he is living up to my post election fears about him, backing away from conservative issues he was for during the campaign as if they were now poison
You mean a justice nominated by the individual who has already repudiated his campaign promises on marriage and is getting there on abortion? Good luck with that.
I disagree with that assessment. Trump supported these liberal positions during the campaign as well. It was his supporters lying on his behalf that insisted he supported Conservative issues. Trump claimed that same-sex-marriage was settled law long before the election. His 'liberal' has been on full display for over a year now, and his supporters know it.
He's been all over the board with what he's going to do about Obamacare too
My job involves helping people get signed up through the Marketplace, I'm actually a Certified Application Counsleor, and this year, there are lots of people who are refusing to re-new or enroll because "Trump's gonna get rid of it!"
Don't assume anything at this point. If he appoints good judges and the Senate confirms them all this speculation will have been for nothing. I know Trump is a lifelong NY liberal, with liberal values. However, he does have some conservatives around him and has promised he will appoint pro-life conservatives.
Lets see what he does.
He's been all over the board with what he's going to do about Obamacare too
My job involves helping people get signed up through the Marketplace, I'm actually a Certified Application Counsleor, and this year, there are lots of people who are refusing to re-new or enroll because "Trump's gonna get rid of it!"
Great to hear!
My health insurance costs went through the roof until I found a Christian Healthcare Co-op. The sooner that obamacare is done away with the better.
Too bad the Republicans failed to nominate someone that would make that happen.
On the other hand he'll probably finish the democrats push to go full single payer.
@Oceander
FYI: I hate the part of my job that requires me to push ACA.
@Oceander
FYI: I hate the part of my job that requires me to push ACA.
Maybe this is heresy, but IMO, there are good things about the law. Is it worth totally scrapping? I don't think so, but if we do, hopefully we put something better in there. Our health care system failed a lot of people truth be told, and maybe all do in many ways I guess.
Who did it fail that it doesn't now?
And, how does this become a federal government function?
I know people with preexisting conditions. As for the federal government functions... are you willing to get rid of medicare and social security too?
Fact is there are tons of stuff the federal government does that it probably shouldn't.
I know people with preexisting conditions. As for the federal government functions... are you willing to get rid of medicare and social security too?
Fact is there are tons of stuff the federal government does that it probably shouldn't.
Speaking as a person with a pre existing condition that the BS of Obamacare almost killed, I have no right to force my fellow Americans to fund my health issues nor do any of you have an obligation to keep me alive/healthy or anything else..
As we said in 2009 or so, we need to stop Obamacare or people will become dependent on it and it will become another perpetual entitlement.
Here's how it goes in Missouri:
To qualify for Medicaid you have to be under a certain income level, AND you have to be Over 65, or blind, or disabled, or be under age 19, or have dependent children under 18 living in the household with you.
To qualify for ACA you cannot be eligible for health insurance through an employer plan, if said plan meets minimum coverage guidelines set up for the government.
To qualify for income tax credits to offset the cost of health insurance through the marketplace, you must make a minimum of about $13,000. If you don't make that much (an in our rural area, lots here don't), the cheapest plan for you is about $500 or so with like a $10,000 deductible.
To put this in perspective, before ACA, I went to an agent and got health insurance for my son through Blue Cross Blue Shield for my son for less than $100 a month.
As the ACA was written, it called for Medicaid expansion in every state for residents with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty. But in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not be penalized for opting out of expansion, and Missouri is one of 19 states that has not yet taken steps to expand coverage.
Because subsidies are only available in the exchange for people whose household incomes are at least 100 percent of poverty (since Medicaid was supposed to be available for those below that level), there are 147,000 people in Missouri who are in the coverage gap and have no realistic access to health insurance. They aren’t eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies to offset the cost of private insurance.
And then we have these wonderful people like the woman I just talked to. She qualifies for Medicaid, all she had to do was bring in a copy of her social security card so Medicaid could verify it. I called her every day for 2 weeks, twice a day, each day, she was going to be bringing it in, she was on the way to bring it in. She never did. She owes this facility over $200,000 in medical bills and it's insane! Emergency Rooms have to treat everyone, so we've got people coming in, rcving treatment and then walking out the door, and if you ask about paying, they literally laugh in your face.
Sorry, it's been a rough day.
I know people with preexisting conditions. As for the federal government functions... are you willing to get rid of medicare and social security too?
HELL YES !!!!!
Ok, fair enough, but I've met plenty of people for whom they are conservatives but believe they are entitled to SS and Medicare because they have been "Paying for it their entire lives" and if that is true, then I'm saying that their are parts of the ACA that do work. The whole thing could be scrapped and implemented at state levels, of course. Politically that's pretty much unfeasible. I think.
People with pre-existing conditions can either pay more, take out a catastrophic plan* or go on medicaid if they can't afford the other two. Being one of those people, I have had to think about that.
And, putting the feds in charge of medical care is wrong, anti-Constitutional and just asking for abuse. Just because we have other questionable laws doesn't make this one any more right.
* I think the very reasonable and useful catastrophic plans may have been put out of business by 0care.
The man with the most brilliant mind believes same sex marriage is settled law but RoevWade is not.
Oy vey.
What people don't realize is that this whole thing about same sex "marriage" has never been about property agreements...hospital visitations or taxes...it's about tearing apart the fundamental underpinnings of our society and principals this country was founded on.
Morals mean nothing to the people behind all of this. Never has never will.
What people don't realize is that this whole thing about same sex "marriage" has never been about property agreements...hospital visitations or taxes...it's about tearing apart the fundamental underpinnings of our society and principals this country was founded on.
Morals mean nothing to the people behind all of this. Never has never will.
What people don't realize is that this whole thing about same sex "marriage" has never been about property agreements...hospital visitations or taxes...it's about tearing apart the fundamental underpinnings of our society and principals this country was founded on.
Morals mean nothing to the people behind all of this. Never has never will.
I strongly disagree. This is about the equal protection of the law. The civil law grants valuable rights and benefits to married couples. Those rights and benefits cannot be arbitrarily denied to gay couples who are willing to enter into a civil marriage commitment.
As for morals, civil marriage -whether for gays or straights - is intended to promote sexual monogamy. IMO, that's a good thing - and I know well several gay married couples that are perfectly conservative homebodies. The moral rupture that's infected the culture is sexual promiscuity - and such promiscuity has far greater social consequences when practiced by straights.
What civil right do you and I have that a gay person doesn't?
WhT are they being Constitutionally denied?
The equal protection clause has been severely abused and was never intended as a catch-all for every bit of Liberal social engineering they want to foist on us.
The equal protection clause is one of the most important protections we have against arbitrary government.
The states and the federal government attach valuable protections and benefits to the institution of civil marriage. If such valuable protections and benefits didn't exist, there would be no equal protection issue. But since they do, they can't be arbitrarily denied to gay couples.
(And let's not forget - a gay couple's civil marriage doesn't affect my marriage, or yours, in the slightest.)
The equal protection clause is one of the most important protections we have against arbitrary government.
The states and the federal government attach valuable protections and benefits to the institution of civil marriage. If such valuable protections and benefits didn't exist, there would be no equal protection issue. But since they do, they can't be arbitrarily denied to gay couples.
(And let's not forget - a gay couple's civil marriage doesn't affect my marriage, or yours, in the slightest.)
I strongly disagree. This is about the equal protection of the law. The civil law grants valuable rights and benefits to married couples.
The equal protection clause is part of a trio of post Civil War Amendments that we're designed to give newly freed slaves protection from continued discrimination by a defeated South.
It was NOT put there to allow gays to “marry“ or give everyone Healthcare. Two things the Liberals have used that clause to ram through.
It's the same clause Liberals are using to let people go into locker rooms and public restrooms their natural born genetics should prevent them from going into.
And it's an abuse and misuse in the worst way.
So again what right is being denied to gay people in America.
Hint: Marriage is NOT a right.
The states and the federal government attach valuable protections and benefits to the institution of civil marriage. If such valuable protections and benefits didn't exist, there would be no equal protection issue. But since they do, they can't be arbitrarily denied to gay couples.
People with pre-existing conditions can either pay more, take out a catastrophic plan* or go on medicaid if they can't afford the other two. Being one of those people, I have had to think about that.Comes down to what is the proper role of government. Naturally, libs believe the fed. gov. should step in at every opportunity to "solve" problems like healthcare, etc.
And, putting the feds in charge of medical care is wrong, anti-Constitutional and just asking for abuse. Just because we have other questionable laws doesn't make this one any more right.
* I think the very reasonable and useful catastrophic plans may have been put out of business by 0care.
Comes down to what is the proper role of government. Naturally, libs believe the fed. gov. should step in at every opportunity to "solve" problems like healthcare, etc.
It's not that the fed. or state govs. don't have their places, it's just that every free market opportunity should be exhausted before the feds step in. And only with limited power.
Of course, the feds even when starting out with limited power end up amassing huge power. Which is what will happen with healthcare....unless they're stopped in their tracks.
Obamacare should be COMPLETELY!!! destroyed and the free market employed/unleashed.
If, after that, we find out healthcare is too expensive for average Americans, then we can think about gov. "help."
Marriage and matrimony is an institution of the church and religion.
Government has no moral authority to be involved in that institution.
We took it out of the court of The Lord and put it into the courts of men - and men will always redefine institutions and laws to be in their own image, likeness and passions.
I didn't say civil marriage is a right. But as I said above:
It's those valuable protections and benefits which are subject to equal protection.
I couldn't be more pleased that friends, relatives and colleagues of mine now have the right to marry just as I do. And my marriage - and yours - isn't affected in the slightest.
The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman?
Since the people "evolved" on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn't act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.
<snip>
Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don't have equal rights. The "born that way" justification doesn't work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement "marriage," which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.
So, in your view, a couple that is not religious cannot marry? What about couples from different religions? That was my situation - Mrs. Jazz and I are of different faiths. So we got married before a judge. So is my marriage invalid in your eyes as well?
The reality is that the civil law attaches valuable rights and benefits for those couples willing to take on the obligations of civil marriage. As such, civil marriage is subject to the equal protection of the law.
The state should be unconcerned about what additional requirements a church may require before it will solemnize a marriage "before God". If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then that is its right. But it is not the right of the religious to deny gay couples the equal protection of the civil law.
.
Do you apply the same thought process to polygamy? If marriage is not to be defined as man and woman, why is it limited to only 2 people in bound commitment? Immediate family members?
I couldn't be more pleased that friends, relatives and colleagues of mine now have the right to marry just as I do.
So, in your view, a couple that is not religious cannot marry?
What about couples from different religions? That was my situation - Mrs. Jazz and I are of different faiths. So we got married before a judge. So is my marriage invalid in your eyes as well?
The reality is that the civil law attaches valuable rights and benefits for those couples willing to take on the obligations of civil marriage. As such, civil marriage is subject to the equal protection of the law.
Ok, if someone wants to drive a car, we say they must meet certain conditions to legally drive, like they must be 16, they must have a liscense, etc. That was the case with marriage. If you wanted to get married you must meet certain guidelines, like must be man and woman, must be 18, etc.
We don't change the law just because a few 13 year olds want to be able to legally drive. I don't see this as much different.
Do you apply the same thought process to polygamy? If marriage is not to be defined as man and woman, why is it limited to only 2 people in bound commitment? Immediate family members?
There is no Constitutional right to marry, whether to one person or several. But as it turns out, the law provides for civil marriage between two individuals, and conveys benefits and protections for those who agree to its obligations. It is, in essence, a unique and extremely valuable form of contract. That the contract is limited to two individuals gives no right to demand that it be extended to polygamy. But since it is extended to two adult individuals, who are presumed to be in a sexual relationship, it must be extended on the same basis to two adult individuals of the same sex as well as two adult individuals of the opposite sex. That's the essence of equal protection.
I couldn't be more pleased that friends, relatives and colleagues of mine now have the right to marry just as I do. And my marriage - and yours - isn't affected in the slightest.
They already had equal marriage rights. A lesbian could marry a man just like a straight woman. A gay man could marry a woman just like a straight male. What they demanded and recieved were extra rights. The LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community has more marriage rights than the non-perverse. How is that equal?
There is no Constitutional right to marry, whether to one person or several. But as it turns out, the law provides for civil marriage between two individuals, and conveys benefits and protections for those who agree to its obligations. It is, in essence, a unique and extremely valuable form of contract. That the contract is limited to two individuals gives no right to demand that it be extended to polygamy. But since it is extended to two adult individuals, who are presumed to be in a sexual relationship, it must be extended on the same basis to two adult individuals of the same sex as well as two adult individuals of the opposite sex. That's the essence of equal protection.
The perfect is the enemy of the possible.
If one expects perfection, one might get 8 years of Obama and that leftist agenda. That was pretty bad.
Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
The perfect is the enemy of the possible.
If one expects perfection, one might get 8 years of Obama and that leftist agenda. That was pretty bad.
Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
You're lack of knowledge of the Equal Protection Clause is stunning.
Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
When the "law" ( note the quotes) affects your personal livelihood and the way you ought to live your life, I'll say it is. Otherwise, there is no hill that one will be willing to die on at all, only servile acceptance.
When the "law" ( note the quotes) affects your personal livelihood and the way you ought to live your life, I'll say it is. Otherwise, there is no hill that one will be willing to die on at all, only servile acceptance.
Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
Right back at ya, TRG.
By the way, the SCOTUS agrees with me, not you. I understand the origins of the equal protection clause, but it's scope isn't limited to slavery. That's been settled for a century.
The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman?
Since the people "evolved" on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn't act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.
<snip>
Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don't have equal rights. The "born that way" justification doesn't work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement "marriage," which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.
If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. If you want to call two folks in a loving, monogamous relationship perverts, then that's your right under the First Amendment. But you don't have the right to impose your morality on others, and neither does the state by declining to extend to my gay friends, relatives and neighbors the equal protection of the law.
Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
The 'way it is' is that for you and yours, there is no hill worth dying on. Every time a wedge issue arises, you side with the liberal position. You wrap it up in names like compromise but at the end of the day abortion is still legal, marriage is now open to homosexual and you have done nothing but aid the left with capitulation.
The problem is not leftists pushing all manner of idiocy. It's people claiming to be o the right undermining opposition to the left with 'compromise', whether it's gay marriage or compromise on abortion from within. I would put forward there is no socially conservative issue that you and yours would not sell out to advance the liberal position. And we have all read your postings as proof.
The 'way it is' is that for you and yours, there is no hill worth dying on. Every time a wedge issue arises, you side with the liberal position. You wrap it up in names like compromise but at the end of the day abortion is still legal, marriage is now open to homosexual and you have done nothing but aid the left with capitulation.
The problem is not leftists pushing all manner of idiocy. It's people claiming to be on the right undermining opposition to the left with 'compromise', whether it's gay marriage or compromise on abortion from within. I would put forward there is no socially conservative issue that you and yours would not sell out to advance the liberal position. And we have all read your postings as proof.
Go with the Constitution Party, less than one percent and growing.
(http://applauding one insulting others snipped)
Trump got the endorsements of 220 ex-Reagan staff members led by Ed Meese,
Good luck name calling others as not conservative.
Ted Cruz sponsored, co-sponsored the fetal pain bill, no abortions after 20 weeks.
Wouldn't you know, there were purists that said "Ted, you are allowing abortions in the first 20 weeks".
If that is what your purist political philosophy brings one, so be it. Lesser abortions is better than more.
If one personalizes it, this kind of thinking is what gives us Obama, if one is so pure.
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
How sanctimonious, so race card players are conservatives now to boot? Eh?
Applaud libel if that rings one bell.
TomSea makes posts about extra special reasons he would rather compromise on marriage and abortion than stand up for the right to life and traditional marriage.
Every baby that dies because you and yours 'compromise their lives is one more death on your conscience. I am not willing to trade one life for another based on arbitrary time figures. Life is life. There will be no compromise. Ever. If you choose to compromise, your situational ethics will never end with one life over another. Eventually you will trade adult lives for one issue or another as well.
That's one area you and I disagree on. If I could save 50 lives out of a 100, I would do so and not reject the whole deal because I couldn't save all 100.
I used to look at it that way. But the problem is that we never advance our position, only get more of our position chipped away. the left uses it as a hammer and increases their slaughter one court ruling at a time. Since we are losing and abortion goes on, I can see no point in taking the compromise route even if I were to accept the argument that in matters of life, compromise is acceptable. All we are doing is giving the left a reason to keep killing.
OK, Norm, but I'm willing to watch my 50 get a chance to grow up. Not sure what you'll be watching.
Watching/helping people fighting for the other 50 so they can live too.
Ah, but you can only do that if I've gotten the first 50 off. Otherwise, you're watching zilch.
No, I don't need you to do anything in order to work toward trying to keep them all alive. Those with the position I share will continue to fight for all life regardless of what you choose to do.
And, with that you just complete that circle of logic.
Not trying to pick on you - I think you're wearing blinders.
Right back at ya, TRG.
By the way, the SCOTUS agrees with me, not you. I understand the origins of the equal protection clause, but it's scope isn't limited to slavery. That's been settled for a century.
If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it.
And, with that you just complete that circle of logic.
Not trying to pick on you - I think you're wearing blinders.
Trump got the endorsements of 220 ex-Reagan staff members led by Ed Meese,
Good luck name calling others as not conservative.
I didn't call them perverts. Stop putting words in my mouth. Your problem with this issue is you're too close to the subject.
And once again I will ask you...since you've ignored the question a couple times...please cite to me what Constitutional right gays are being denied?
Marriage is not a right. You are wanting to bastardize something that has nothing to do with gay "rights" and give them a protection that I'm not afforded.
I want MY constitutional "right" to marry.
Where do I go to get redress?
And I keep on telling you - the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Bullshit already. We already had equal protection before the court decided to legislate from the bench.
There is no Constitutional right to marry, whether to one person or several. But as it turns out, the law provides for civil marriage between two individuals, and conveys benefits and protections for those who agree to its obligations. It is, in essence, a unique and extremely valuable form of contract. That the contract is limited to two individuals gives no right to demand that it be extended to polygamy. But since it is extended to two adult individuals, who are presumed to be in a sexual relationship, it must be extended on the same basis to two adult individuals of the same sex as well as two adult individuals of the opposite sex. That's the essence of equal protection.
That's beautiful and all, but still takes away nothing from the fact that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. His policies prove it - policies that you continue to ignore no matter how many times they are brought up.
I'll go with ex-Reagan Staffers, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich and many other luminaries, medal of honor winners and so on if one is going to be cynical.
It's beautiful and all to hear a condescending attitude, but I don't want to sit around and do nothing.
If Trump appointed Cruz to some position, that is because Trump won. If he and Pence cut the abortion rate down, that is because they were elected.
Again, Trump never legislated abortion into law like Reagan, his record is better than Romney's.
Oh, someone who hasn't passed any bills or held real leadership roles like Ted Cruz, no real record of accomplishment, I guess, his record is much better.
You do realize that abortion is "settled law" too. So by that standard Trump will do nothing.
One could call Roe V. Wade settled law, however Trump said he would work to unfund planned parenthood if they perform abortions and he may also enable the Mexico City policy immediately too, which prohibits US funds from funding overseas abortions.
Roe v. Wade is more than settled as precedent
SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?”
ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
SPECTER: ”You went on to say then, ‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.’“
ROBERTS: ”I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don’t go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding.“
A Trump Administration: Social Policy Fiats on Day One
1. Access to Birth Control
Defunding Planned Parenthood
Replacing the Mexico City Policy
I see marriage as a unique pairing of a man and a woman. I can accept civil unions between individuals. I would like to separate the religious ceremony from the legal status. I know pastors with this idea and don't care to be agent of the state.
That's beautiful and all, but still takes away nothing from the fact that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. His policies prove it - policies that you continue to ignore no matter how many times they are brought up.
Settled Law may not have a superficial meaning we all may see it is.
John Roberts: One could call Roe V. Wade settled law, however Trump said he would work to unfund planned parenthood if they perform abortions and he may also enable the Mexico City policy immediately too, which prohibits US funds from funding overseas abortions.
To call Roe v. Wade as settled law is also being a bit cynical, Slavery was settled law too.
Pence is the most pro-life Republican ever on the ticket especially if one includes actual accomplishments.
http://www.thirdway.org/memo/a-trump-administration-social-policy-fiats-on-day-one
I look for Trump to act on this.
I absolutely agree! Religious marriage is something quite different from civil marriage, which is a bundle of legal rights, benefits and obligations. The latter must be extended consistent with the Constitution. A pastor who solemnizes, or refuses to solemnize, a civil marriage in the name of the Creator is in no way an agent of the state.
QuoteThat's beautiful and all, but still takes away nothing from the fact that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. His policies prove it - policies that you continue to ignore no matter how many times they are brought up.
Hoodat, we get it,
In the Primaries, Tennessee, Arkansas, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama voted for Trump.
So, you say those states voted for a liberal. Got it.
Was a conservative on the ballot?
Trump supports federal rather than state control of public lands. LIBERAL
however Trump said he would work to unfund planned parenthood if they perform abortions
Pence is the most pro-life Republican ever on the ticket
Furthermore (sorry, the rice for tonight's black bean soup was boiling over) it is one of the nastiest symptoms because it is unconstitutional (in that marriage isn't in the Constitution), it is given to a severe minority of the electorate, it is an extra right granted to a severe minority of the electorate, and the reasons put forth are unconstitutional (for example social security distribution to a partner is unconstitutional in that SS is itself unconstitutional).
Donald still refuses to open his bible I see.
By that reckoning Dredd-Scott should be "settled law" too.
Ought to make whatever tyranny he imposes, to be 'settled law' too.
It's the position you have to take to get elected in this country these days.
Settled Law? Did the US Congress pass this law? What bill is it?
If a strict constitutionalist Supreme Court justice appointment in the mold of Scalia were appointed, is it not possible for this issue to be revisited?
He's also siding with the left on the electoral college.
Not if something like a religious conscience act gets passed in Congress.
Evangelicals who gave Trump over 80% of their vote should petition for this.
Well, technically he is correct, just like slavery was settled law, jim crow was settled law, prohibition was settled law. The thing about our Constitutional Republic is that 'settled law' is subject to change as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. We have a system in place that updates laws and customs. So, outside a few limitations on the government, nothing is truly 'settled'.
This is meaningless. The President doesn't get to choose how the Justices he appoints will rule on specific issues after they are on the Court. At that point, they are free agents and don't answer to his preferences.
So as long as he appoints good conservative justices - which is something he has only confirmed since the election - that's all that matters
Tempest in a teapot - at the most.
Civil marriage equality is settled law in the sense that it has been affirmed as consistent with the equal protection clause of the Constitution. I agree with Trump - there's no going back. There will likely be clarification along the margins; e.g., in areas where the current laws respecting public accommodations may conflict with religious liberty, but it's hard to ground a right more firmly than in the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
"Settled law" is more properly the ancient legal concept of "stare decisis" - and that's something anyone with a conservative view of the role of the courts in our system ought to embrace. A proper conservative first and foremost applauds a court that interprets the law rather than makes it, that defers to the verdict of the peoples' elected representatives rather than acts as an unelected legislature unto itself. While I concede that the SCOTUS's decision affirming marriage equality was probably premature - the states had been quickly moving on their own to confirm the right - the grounding of the decision in the equal protection clause was sound as a judicial and Constitutional matter. Besides - a gay couple's right to marry under the civil law harms no one, and affects no couple's heterosexual marriage.
As for the abortion issue, a conservative court cognizant of stare decisis will realize that every woman of child bearing age has had the liberty, for her entire adult life, to decide for herself whether to reproduce. Overturning that right would be as disruptive a move by an unelected court as one can imagine. If the abortion right is to be overturned, it should be done by the people, in the manner provided for in the Constitution - by an amendment ratified by two-thirds of the state.
In all fairness, as a single person not entirely by choice, I am denied those same equal protections (I'm not going to rehash that discussion again (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,232481.msg1120011.html#msg1120011), but I use it to bring up the point). That SHOULD raise serious questions about whether the topic is covered under "equal protection" if it is inaccessible to so many, arguably more than those seeking same-sex marriages.
I didn't watch Trump's "60 Minutes" interview last night, but according to what I'm seeing on Ben Shapiro's Twitter, there were three takeaways:
Most of Obamacare will be kept
Gay marriage is okay
No prosecution because the Clintons are, quote, good people and he doesn't want to hurt them.
If Bannon is the man I believe him to be, then Donald will get a quick tutorial on judicial review. As long as there are states who assert their sovereignty, then there is no such thing no settled law at the federal level. Of course, there must be a majority of SCOTUS to hear challenges to previous rulings.
Which was more than enough reason for me to vote Trump.
Sessions for SCOTUS!i
Furthermore, I don't think the gays understand how complicated and devastating 'marriage' can be.
Tell her constituents what they want to hear, meanwhile let the normal course of investigations and prosecutions grind the Clinton's into dust.
@DiogenesLamp
You would think most people would understand the fact that neither Trump nor any other President would want to jump feet-first into THAT snakepit. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by being seen to meddle in that mess. Let the system handle it like they are supposed to handle it,and keep your hands clean.
"Trump's M.O. is having multiple positions on anything contentious. "
For a guy as bombastic and new to politics as he is,he sure is looking like a fast learner,ain't he? Frankly,I am shocked. I really and truly thought he was stupid. I am now beginning to suspect he purposely promotes that image so people underestimate him.
"Here's my advice for dealing with Trump. Pay very little attention to what he says, just watch what he does. He is a long term schmoozer and he tells people what he thinks they want to hear right up until he drops a hammer on them."
That is the conclusion I am coming to,also.
The existence of "Gay Marriage" undermines the social foundation of Western Culture. It sabotages the belief system underpinning Western society, and as a consequence affects many other issues beyond "gay marriage."
@DiogenesLamp
Head fake? For what? He's president-elect now. He ran on repealing Obamacare; no need to pretend otherwise.
"Marriage is not a right."
Say WHAT????
"You are wanting to bastardize something that has nothing to do with gay "rights" and give them a protection that I'm not afforded."
Who says you don't have the same right to marry the man of your dreams that everyone else has?
Providing of course that he also wants to marry you.
"I want MY constitutional "right" to marry."
WHO is denying it to you?
"Where do I go to get redress?"
First you have to prove that someone is preventing you from marrying. Good luck with that one.
The 'way it is' is that for you and yours, there is no hill worth dying on. Every time a wedge issue arises, you side with the liberal position. You wrap it up in names like compromise but at the end of the day abortion is still legal, marriage is now open to homosexual and you have done nothing but aid the left with capitulation."
The HELL you say! AMERICANS are being ALLOWED to marry other Americans that want to marry them? SAY IT AIN'T SO! We MUST stamp out this "freedom stuff" before it gets out of hand,and people start believing they should be allowed to live free and make up there own minds about things affecting their own lives. We MUST nip this freedom crap in the bud!
@Cripplecreek
How so? This is the first time I have heard that.
Not long ago, and entire society that once boasted making the scriptures available to the world and having the most cathedrals -
Ted Cruz sponsored, co-sponsored the fetal pain bill, no abortions after 20 weeks.
Wouldn't you know, there were purists that said "Ted, you are allowing abortions in the first 20 weeks".
If that is what your purist political philosophy brings one, so be it. Lesser abortions is better than more.
Ted Cruz sponsored, co-sponsored the fetal pain bill, no abortions after 20 weeks.
Wouldn't you know, there were purists that said "Ted, you are allowing abortions in the first 20 weeks".
If that is what your purist political philosophy brings one, so be it. Lesser abortions is better than more.
TomSea makes posts about extra special reasons he would rather compromise on marriage and abortion than stand up for the right to life and traditional marriage.
That's beautiful and all, but still takes away nothing from the fact that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. His policies prove it - policies that you continue to ignore no matter how many times they are brought up.
My apologies for that, TRG. The term was used in the thread discussion, but not by you. Am I too close to the subject? Well, millions of folks know gay couples well and think it's wrong to treat them as second class citizens. The woman who won the SCOTUS decision had several hundred thousand dollars in taxes at stake. A failure to recognize marriage equality causes real people real tax dollars, and it's within the power of government to rectify that. And it has nothing to do with "morality".
I disagree. It is immoral for a government to deny any group of American citizens rights that other groups of American citizens are free to enjoy,and name ONE issue more personal than who you choose to marry or have as a mate? Not only is it immoral,it is un-Constitutional for for the government to do this. They just don't have that legal right.
THAT needs to be understood before anything else even remotely related is even discussed. We either have the freedom to choose who we can live with and love,or we have no freedoms at all. There is no right more basic or important than this one.
Bullshit already. We already had equal protection before the court decided to legislate from the bench.
I thought the good book said, to give unto Caesar what is Caesar.
Another idea is just to get 'marriage' out of the government's hands.
Who knows, maybe in 8 years of a Republican presidency, the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.
Words have meaning. Marriage is a very old word with a specific meaning.....
Hey! Anyone know what Trumps position on gay marriage is?
I can't find anything on the site about it.
In 2012 he had this to say.
(http://i.imgur.com/lpmSsnj.png)
Trump doesn't have a right to change his mind? Haven't you changed your mind about some things in the last 4 years.
on 60 Minutes this weekend when asked about the electoral college he said that if someone gets 100 million votes and someone gets 90 million, the guy with the most votes should win.
I didn't watch 60 Minutes and don't know the context that caused him to say that,but if he said it as the plain bold statement as you present it,that's puzzling.
SP,
Are you going to respond to every single GM post on this thread? :laugh:
Yeah. Didn't comment on mine.
What am I, chopped liver? :tongue2:
Seems like many people here prefer THEIR tyranny BE the Law of the Land,and to hell with all that silly "freedom stuff".
@SirLinksALot
Congress has a responsibility to follow the will of the people,and it SEEMS like most people seem to have the radical idea that homosexual Americans are STILL Americans,and have the same rights as the rest of us.
It is immoral for a government to deny any group of American citizens rights that other groups of American citizens are free to enjoy,and name ONE issue more personal than who you choose to marry or have as a mate? Not only is it immoral,it is un-Constitutional for for the government to do this. They just don't have that legal right.
THAT needs to be understood before anything else even remotely related is even discussed. We either have the freedom to choose who we can live with and love,or we have no freedoms at all. There is no right more basic or important than this one.
@Hoodat
WHAT policies? According to MY calendar,he won't be President and have policies for another 60 days or so.
I agree, SneakyPete. I've spoken of the marriage equality issue in terms of the application of equal protection
Yet again, we already had equal protection before the tyranny of the courts were imposed upon this entire nation. Equal protection has now been replaced by arbitrary boundaries that are at the future mercy of whomever happens to be wearing the black robe that day.
@jmyrlefuller
I don't know,or need/want to know your personal circumstances that leads you to believe you have no choice but to remain unmarried,but I am inclined to believe it is a matter of your own personal choices.
@Maj. Bill Martin
@sneakypete
You would think that people who haunt political bulletin boards,most of whom are over 40 years old,would understand this, wouldn't you?
Paul introduces bill to give unborn children constitutional rights
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights.
The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals.
Paul said the legislation "declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception."
"Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way," he said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/266711-rand-paul-pushes-for-protection-of-unborn-children
@Maj. Bill Martin
You would think that people who haunt political bulletin boards,most of whom are over 40 years old,would understand this,wouldn't you?
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that equal protection of the law was a Constitutional imperative before the 14th amendment?
And what's the "tyranny" in holding that a gay person has, under the Constitution, the same right to marry who he/she wants to marry as you do?
Isn't a "tyranny" when a right or freedom is taken away?
How are your rights affected by whether your neighbors can marry?
Well that's rich. You make this bogus case of equal protection in order to cater to one person's personal choice while completely ignoring the personal choice (with 'equal protection' rights attached) of another.
I suppose some animals are more equal than others.
Marriage really belongs to the Churches.
But you got tax breaks by having children and that is good public policy because they become citizens.
Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex. Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.
And that has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good idea or not. It's a matter of interpreting the Constitution as it is written, not as what we might wish it said.
Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex. Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.
And that has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good idea or not. It's a matter of interpreting the Constitution as it is written, not as what we might wish it said.
So requiring an individual, to gain the benefits of marriage, to marry someone they cannot be attracted to is consistent with equal protection? You do know that most us choose to marry a sexual partner, don't you?
Ahhhh,traditional marriage! Are you afraid you will find some hot 6 year old and not be able to marry her,even if you buy her with a whole damn herd of goats?
Those who would find against abortion as not being in the Constitution which most scholars agree with will likewise find "marriage", polygamy, same-sex marriage is not there either.
Hence, these laws should be governed by the states.
So, since Trump has made a point of saying he would nominate "constructionalists" to the Supreme Court, I just don't think he felt he needed to make a big deal about this issue.
One of Trump's supporters is Huckabee, who is very anti-SSM.
Constitutional Amendments are not needed in my view, just allow the state to run it as the Constitution allows.
Those who would find against abortion as not being in the Constitution which most scholars agree with will likewise find "marriage", polygamy, same-sex marriage is not there either.
Hence, these laws should be governed by the states.
Constitutional Amendments are not needed in my view, just allow the state to run it as the Constitution allows.
So requiring an individual, to gain the benefits of marriage, to marry someone they cannot be attracted to is consistent with equal protection?
Lots of meaningless chatter in this thread.
Justice Antonin Scalia cuts to the chase and lays it out clearly and concisely.
"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.
"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.
"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."
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6
Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.
"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.
Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex. Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.
Justice Antonin Scalia cuts to the chase and lays it out clearly and concisely.
"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.
"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.
"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."
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6
Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.
"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.
First off,they may or may NOT be "gay",but what they ARE is "homosexuals". Generally speaking,I can't think of a single group of Americans that are LESS "gay" than homosexuals.
Having settled that,WHAT is your problem with homosexuals getting married? Are you afraid the government is going to require YOU to marry one?
Or maybe you think homosexual marriages will make your own marriage "less meaningful" in some respect?
I honestly don't see how this affects anyone BUT homosexuals and divorce attorneys. I say "Let's see how damn "gay" they are when they show up in divorce court!"
Now invert it.
Everyone - NOW - has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the same sex, to whom they are not too closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the same sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.
So - where is your loss of rights here? Where is the "extra right?"
Maybe you haven't noticed,but he is NOT the actual president yet,
and trying to pretend that he is would only make it harder for him to form his cabinet and get ready to take over the controls. He would gain NOTHING from entering into the fray now. Let him focus right now on what he needs to be doing right now,and worry about the rest of it once he is in a position to maybe do something about it?
Right now he has no more authority to do anything about current laws or regulations than you or I do.
The primary right is the right for the members of a society to create laws that mold and shape that society.
It is also noteworthy to point out your own restriction here: a competent adult. So if I want to marry two people, you are willing to place an arbitrary restriction on me denying me that right. You see? Once personal preference is applied, the entire equal protection argument goes flying out the window.
Before, we had equal protection. Today, we do not.
I disagree. It is immoral for a government to deny any group of American citizens rights that other groups of American citizens are free to enjoy
What specifically is this right that I enjoy that is being denied others?
However, marriage is a contract.
It is a well established tenet of law (since well before the founding of the USA) that a contract entered into by coercion, or one between two parties
Now invert it.
Everyone - NOW - has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the same sex, to whom they are not too closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the same sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.
So - where is your loss of rights here? Where is the "extra right?"
Apparently some people are under the false impression that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.
In his dissent of that ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia angrily warned that if the court was willing to strike down sodomy laws, other state laws on moral choices could soon be lifted, among them gay marriage. He wrote:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.
He further argued:
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?'
@INVAR
And people woke up and realized that organized religion is the enemy of freedom,so the laws changed.
What specifically is this right that I enjoy that is being denied others?
Not for the better.
It cost the world roughly 60 million lives in just 6 years.
Your right to the equal protection of the law.
National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church.
-Paul Joseph Goebbels-
Apparently some people are under the false impression that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.
Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex. Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.
Wrong. Civil unions existed while marriage was still marriage.
When I die my wife gets 100% of everything I own tax free or vica versa.
If a gay man dies, his partner if not allowed to be married, has to pay taxes on the proceeds.
I would say that is deprived of a right.
@Maj. Bill Martin
When I die my wife gets 100% of everything I own tax free or vica versa.
If a gay man dies, his partner if not allowed to be married, has to pay taxes on the proceeds.
I would say that is deprived of a right.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Your right to the equal protection of the law.
@Cripplecreek
Replace "Hitler" in your quote with Trump and you've got "BlackFemaleArmyCaptain"
That's a lie.
Marriage is NOT a right.
No one is denying gays a seat at a lunch counter.
No one is telling them to sit at the back of a bus. Gays are not being given literacy tests or being subjected to any Jim Crow style laws where voting is concerned.
Gays are not being denied the right to vote or own property. There are not "Gays Only" water fountains and restrooms.
They are not being forced into "separate but equal" segregated schools on the other side of the tracks.
Gays are not being lynched. They aren't being told that because they are gay they are not considered citizens of the U.S.
All of the above are clear violations of the 14th Amendment and actual violations of the separate but equal clause you keep misusing.
There is no rights violation if a state doesn't have a provision in their laws that does or does not allow two gay people to get married.
And I don't care how many times you try to repeat a lie...it's not going to make it so. Just because some Liberal judge with a lifetime appointment decides to read things into the Constitution that is clearly not there...doesn't mean it's right or legal.
I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult. The Constitution says that the law must treat all people equally. It does not say that the law must treat all choices equally.
Your premise is faulty. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Tell me - and be honest - did you choose to be straight, or are you wired that way?
C'mon, TRG. I understand that we disagree, but I don't accuse you of promoting a "lie". I've repeated several times that I do not view civil marriage as a "right" - but that once the state decides to marry individuals and afford them valuable benefits, it must do so consistent with equal protection.
I'll say it again, slowly - the right that is violated isn't the right to marry, it's the right the equal protection of the law.
For example, a state can get out of the marriage business altogether, leave marriages up to the churches, and afford no legal protections or benefits for such marriages.
For example, a state can affirm civil unions for all competent adult couples, gay or straight.
For example, a state can affirm civil marriage for all competent adult couples, gay or straight.
Each of the foregoing is consistent with equal protection. But the state cannot afford protection and benefits to opposite civil marriages but not same sex civil marriages. That's not a "lie", it's the considered opinion of a century of equal protection jurisprudence, applied ultimately to the circumstance of civil marriage by the Supreme Court of the land.
Are you claiming some people don't make that choice then change their mind?
Are you claiming some people don't make that choice then change their mind?
JH is part of the "born this way" crowd.
And you have a serious comprehension problem with the fact that marriage...gay straight or otherwise never had been nor should it ever be a "right".
I'll say it again, slowly - the right that is violated isn't the right to marry, it's the right [to] the equal protection of the law.
Well, what say you? Were you born straight, or was it a choice you made?
Your premise is faulty. Sexual orientation is not a choice.
But you are being obtuse if you refuse to recognize that most folks marry a sexual partner.
Do you believe that if people are naturally born a certain way, that way must be acceptable to the rest of society?
Do you believe that if people are naturally born a certain way, that way must be acceptable to the rest of society?
Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is a choice.
I don't think people should be ashamed of who they are.
Let me give you an example. I presume you are a straight white male who lust after hot women.
What is things were reversed. Homosexuality was normal and being straight was considered pervert land.
In reality you lust after say Kate Upton and her volopertous body but what if society said what was normal is you lusting after a man with a hairy a**.
I think I know what your choice would be.
The dissents are among the harshest, most dismissive, and most suggestive in the history of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia opines that the Court has “descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” He says, “If I ever joined [such] an opinion . . . I would hide my head in a bag.” Alas, as self-governing citizens of a constitutional republic, we cannot get off so easily. We can neither run nor hide. Aphoristic reasoning of the sort Justice Kennedy has produced is owed nothing by the citizens it purports to control. We must offer resistance to a decision so patently ungrounded in the Constitution that the dissenters themselves suggest it is owed no deference. The Supreme Court cannot command our obedience when it has not earned our respect. As Daniel Webster said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420934/reclaiming-rule-law-after-obergefell-bradley-c-s-watson
Whatisif things were reversed. Homosexuality was normal and being straight was considered pervert land.
Including pedophiles and rapists?
Idiotic point. Pedophiles and rapists do bad things to other people... why didn't you just throw murders in there?
Idiotic point. Pedophiles and rapists do bad things to other people... why didn't you just throw murders in there?
the right that is violated isn't the right to marry, it's the right [to] the equal protection of the law.
Are pedophiles born that way? I think it's a good point and this is something the anti-same-sex lobby has warned against.
:shrug: Pedophiles actually commit a violent crime on another person in general. Or they seek out kiddie porn, which is a violent crime in how it is made.
Pick another example if you prefer. Individuals have lots of actions/perversions/etc that society deems unacceptable.
My point is, just because it comes naturally to those individuals is not sufficient justification to force the rest of society to accept it.
@Maj. Bill Martin
What's your point?
@mirraflake
I agree about force. But I still think as long as you're not hurting anyone else you have no reason to be ashamed of who you are.
Bigamists? Incest relationships? Those should be accepted by everyone else if consenting adults?
My point is we all draw a line. We are only arguing where to draw it.
Pick another example if you prefer. Individuals have lots of actions/perversions/etc that society deems unacceptable.
My point is, just because it comes naturally to those individuals is not sufficient justification to force the rest of society to accept it.
What you accept is up to you, bro. We're all individuals.
I stated my opinion now you have to deal with it.
In many Muslim countries women are not allowed to vote, drive, go out on their own because Muslim culture finds those actions also perversion or which their society deems unnaceptable
Now, if we want to give the same "rights" to other, non-marital couples, fine. Write up the laws and pass them. Don't try to change the definition of marriage, because that is more an effort to weaken that basic unit of society than it is to ensure "equal rights".
Now, if we want to give the same "rights" to other, non-marital couples, fine. Write up the laws and pass them. Don't try to change the definition of marriage, because that is more an effort to weaken that basic unit of society than it is to ensure "equal rights".
My point is gay men look at Kate Upton the same way we look at men..no interest or revulsion. It is not a choice
@Maj. Bill Martin
I don't disagree, but note there's a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. The state can have no role in changing the definition of religious marriage. But since civil marriage is wholly a creation - a contract, a legal status - of the state, the state is obliged to afford its citizens the equal protection of the law.
I also don't understand how gay marriage "weakens" the "basic unit of society" represented by the institution of civil marriage. As I've noted above, what concerns me about our modern culture is the easy acceptance of sexual promiscuity. Yet most gays who seek to marry want to affirm a permanent and monogamous sexual relationship the same way that straight couples do. Given the AIDS epidemic, I'd say the rise of marriage equality is good for the community by encouraging and recognizing responsible sexual behavior.
I don't disagree, but note there's a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. The state can have no role in changing the definition of religious marriage. But since civil marriage is wholly a creation - a contract, a legal status - of the state, the state is obliged to afford its citizens the equal protection of the law.
I also don't understand how gay marriage "weakens" the "basic unit of society" represented by the institution of civil marriage.
JH is part of the "born this way" crowd.
My point is gay men look at Kate Upton the same way we look at men..no interest or revulsion. It is not a choice
@Maj. Bill Martin
@txradioguy
I'm with @Jazzhead on this. Do you really think that someone would choose to be an outcast.
I don't think homosexuality is a sin or a disease. I think it's normal, but rare -- like a four leaf clover.
@txradioguy
I'm with @Jazzhead on this. Do you really think that someone would choose to be an outcast.
My sister in law was as gay as the day is long. Until she wasn't. My daughter's best friend was a 'married' lesbian until about a month ago. And now she's back to men.
Yes. Often.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbMVnfmHjvo
@Norm Lenhart
Men and women are different.
Well that's rich. You make this bogus case of equal protection in order to cater to one person's personal choice while completely ignoring the personal choice (with 'equal protection' rights attached) of another.
I suppose some animals are more equal than others.
A lot of people choose to be outcasts. There are a lot of advantages to being a member of a victim or outcast class in American society today.
The Roman Catholic Church Canon Law used to allow age 7, and at the turn of the 20th Century, it was still at age 12, as most US states.
And at that time, Delaware was age 7, and many states were at 10 years.
Lots of meaningless chatter in this thread.
Justice Antonin Scalia cuts to the chase and lays it out clearly and concisely.
"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.
"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.
"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."[/b]
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6
Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.
"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.
I've always been a fan of being myself but have never sought special treatment because of it.
My niece told me about the "LUGs" when she was in college. They were Lesbian Until Graduation and there were lots of on campus perks for them.
Apparently some people are under the false impression that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.
@txradioguy
I'm with @Jazzhead on this. Do you really think that someone would choose to be an outcast.
I've repeated several times that I do not view civil marriage as a "right" - but that once the state decides to marry individuals and afford them valuable benefits, it must do so consistent with equal protection.
Your right to the equal protection of the law.
Once again, this was already the case prior to the Court's ruling. Now that preference has been forced into the equation while the right to self- governance has been denied by the tyranny of the court, equal protection is no longer in place.
Homosexuality is a sin. If homosexuals are born that way, does that mean that God screwed up? Follow up question: Who wants to tell Him He messed up? Not I!
We are all sinning through our lives. God gives us all our own unique characteristics and challenges. I am not a mistake, merely a work in progress.
@jmyrlefullerLet's extend that line of reasoning.
I don't know,or need/want to know your personal circumstances that leads you to believe you have no choice but to remain unmarried,but I am inclined to believe it is a matter of your own personal choices. Just look around you at some of the people getting married. If they can do it,so can you if you really wanted to be married.
SOOOOO,in a very real sense,nobody is denying you equal protection under the law but yourself and POSSIBLY those evil,rich,supermodels who refuse to marry you so you can live in the manner you deserve to live.
I can even identify with that.
We are all sinners. Pretending a sin isn't a sin by claiming that God made you that way does not fix it.
I agree with you; but if I were playing devil's advocate, one could say drinking and dancing are sins, they are with some people. Then we are at the place of legislating morality.
Which brings us to the place of people like Trump who have had multiple marriages, others point, oh yeah, what about all of those marriages and people like you want to deny others the right to a faithful marriage.
1. How are drinking and dancing sins? God didn't destroy a city for its drink and body movements.
2. I didn't vote for Trump so I have no need to Trumpsplain away his lack of faithfulness.
Exactly - I'm ok with the gays getting married, but Trump said the SCOTUS ruling is settled law, while in the same breath advocating for a reversal of Roe vs Wade. He did not attempt to explain when pressed, and it just made him look random and unprepared, as usual.
Great point. They're either settled law or the court has the power to take rights away. This is not theoretical - folks have changed position in response to these rights, women have forty years of reliance in the case of the choice right. And marriage equality has formed families.
So tell me - should unelected judges be forcing these genies back in their bottles, or should the dirty work be done by the peoples' elected representatives? The answer to me seems obvious. But I also recognize that the courts are the easy way out of this nagging responsibility to govern ourselves.
Or maybe we could just learn to live with each other.
Slavery lasted 300 years, it was in our country at birth. I guess now I know it was okay because it was settled law.
Slavery lasted 300 years, it was in our country at birth. I guess now I know it was okay because it was settled law.
You don't see a difference between a law that suppresses liberty, and one that extends it?
The peaceable community's law is never settled when it comes to oppression. But a liberty extended attracts its constituents.
Take it up with Donald. He's the guy thats good with 'settled law'.
So is Donald wrong?
You don't see a difference between a law that suppresses liberty, and one that extends it?
The peaceable community's law is never settled when it comes to oppression. But a liberty extended attracts its constituents.
1. If you don't know that Baptists, some at least, Fundamentalists, see drinking and dancing as sins, you sure haven't been around.
2. Trump is not the only person to have multiple marriages, I understand it is quite common. But I guess he makes a good scapegoat to pop off at someone.
You don't see a difference between a law that suppresses liberty, and one that extends it?
As said, Trump is smart enough to not pick a fight with the LGBT lobby.
That would be a distraction to everyone.
As said, Trump is smart enough to not pick a fight with the LGBT lobby.
That would be a distraction to everyone.
And you don't think they said the same thing when slavery was legal?That fight they picked over slavery turned out to be a four-year, extremely bloody civil war and a decade-long, tension-filled "reconstruction" in which the South was basically coerced into adopting the 13th through 15th Amendments in exchange for self-government.
All the legal aspects you believe homosexuals are excluded from are available in different forms, be it trusts or other documents.
Gays cannot pass their estate to their partner tax free unless they are married. No trust or legal document allows it. Period
Well, I am sure the law can be changed to accomodate for that without having to change the definition of marriage.
Gays cannot pass their estate to their partner tax free unless they are married.
No trust or legal document allows it. Period
@thackney
Gays cannot pass their estate to their partner tax free unless they are married. No trust or legal document allows it. Period
Gays cannot pass their estate to their partner tax free unless they are married. No trust or legal document allows it. Period
@thackney
Really? Civil unions didn't do that?
I believe the problem was at the federal level. The feds should have acted proactively and granted anyone in a state-sanctioned civil union the full rights of a spouse under the Internal Revenue Code. That would have muted the equal protection argument, and caused marriage equality advocates to have to argue something more ephemeral than the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars paid in taxes. Which they did, successfully, in the pivotal California Supreme Court opinion, which in my view is the case that first articulated why gay marriage was inevitable.
I support civil unions that give the legal status to same sex couples as heterosexual couples.
Also I see inheritance tax as an abuse of governmental power and should not exist for anyone.
You don't see a difference between a law that suppresses liberty, and one that extends it?
But a liberty extended attracts its constituents.
Not the Feds job. Thisnis clearly a state issue. See 9th and 10th Amend!ents.
And again...there is NOT any kind of Equal Protection violation.
Stop lying.
Homosexual marriage is not liberty.
It's LICENSE.
Big difference.
Malarkey. A gay couple that wants to marry must make the same commitment that you have with your spouse - 'til death (or the divorce court) do us part.
Marriage is an institution for legal recognition of the family. A gay couple has as much right to that recognition as you do.
How God feels about it is irrelevant.
Homosexual marriage is not liberty.
It's LICENSE.
Big difference.
Malarkey. A gay couple that wants to marry must make the same commitment that you have with your spouse - 'til death (or the divorce court) do us part.
Marriage is an institution for legal recognition of the family. A gay couple has as much right to that recognition as you do.
How God feels about it is irrelevant.
How about the feelings and deeply held beliefs of devout Christians? Are they or should they be irrelevant?
How God feels about a religious covenant is irrelevant? Well...ok then.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does a government contract change the belief of a Christian? A good case I saw made was that the government contract of marriage is not the religious sacrament of marriage- and that sacrament actually varies based on faith and denomination.
Too many of faith (not just Christians) try to replace God with Government and want Government to become the blessing of their personal religious sacrament.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does a government contract change the belief of a Christian?
How God feels about a religious covenant is irrelevant? Well...ok then.
How about the feelings and deeply held beliefs of devout Christians? Are they or should they be irrelevant?
Then they should call it something else besides "marriage"
soon enough those who support same-sex "marriage" will support kiddie porn and kiddie sex
A child molester is as much entitled to the law's equal protection as you and your spouse. Live your own life and let others live theirs.
That's a stupid and offensive thing to say.
How is religious belief, no matter how deeply held, relevant to the question of the application of the law's equal protection respecting the state's extension of valuable benefits to the parties to a legal contract?Some examples will suffice:
I guess baby killing is also "settled law"
I guess baby killing is also "settled law"
I am not surprised to see many briefers take the leftist side.
Marriage is an institution for legal recognition of the family. A gay couple has as much right to that recognition as you do.A family requires a mother and a father.
That's a stupid and offensive thing to say.
A gay couple is as much entitled to the law's equal protection as you and your spouse. Live your own life and let others live theirs.
legalising sodomy won't lead to same-sex "marriage", they said
They[ll be marrying their own minor children soon.
I'm curious. Does your libertarian attitude extend to muslim genital mutiliation, of minors?
They do that supposedly for religious reasons. Keep the state out of their religion?
“Most Singaporeans have little idea of the procedure’s existence in the city-state, but it is observed, typically among Malay Muslims, who make up some 13% of the total resident population.
Sunat Perempuan, as it is known in Malay, is usually carried out on girls before the age of two, who normally have the tip of the clitoris cut, with a tiny piece of skin sometimes removed.”
- BBC http://theindependent.sg/some-malay-muslims-take-issue-with-bbcs-report-on-female-genital-mutilation-in-singapore/
Senior Muslim Cleric: Universal Female Genital Mutilation ‘Would Be Very Good’
Breitbart: A senior Muslim cleric in Russia has suggested that universal female genital mutilation (FGM) would be a positive development, after a rights group released a report denouncing the practice earlier this week.
Female genital mutilation does not pose health risks and “does not contradict the dogmas of Islam,” said Mufti Ismail Berdiyev, the head of the North Caucasus Muslim Coordination Center.
http://iotwreport.com/senior-muslim-cleric-universal-female-genital-mutilation-would-be-very-good/
Marriage is an institution for legal recognition of the family.
A family requires a mother and a father.
I'm curious. Does your libertarian attitude extend to muslim genital mutiliation, of minors?
They do that supposedly for religious reasons. Keep the state out of their religion?
Likewise child-wives, polygamy etc? For religion's sake?
Now that gays have the right to marry, . . .
You keep saying that. Gays have always had the right to marry. Sexual preference has nothing to do with this. It's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage.
Yes, I keep saying that. Because the way you'd prefer things to be, only straights could marry if they wanted the person they marry to be a sexual partner.
Is your sexual relationship with your spouse important to you?
why force a gay man to marry a woman?
Do you think that makes things better for the woman, who will also be deprived of a sexual relationship within the bounds of marriage?
Your view of equal protection is an insult to anyone who considers marriage to be a lifetime commitment to a sexual partner.
I don't need marriage to have sexual partners. You are injecting one preference into this argument while denying others. Your equal protection of preference argument is completely bogus.
Absolutely. It is the physical and spiritual culmination of two becoming one under the covenant that G-d has created for us. It is a covenant that the Supreme Court decision completely discounts.
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I am not the one wearing the black robe here, remember? Besides, this isn't about gay marriage, it's about same-sex marriage.
Within the bounds of marriage? Did you really just say that? Because it is ludicrous to cite the bounds of marriage as some sort of standard at the same time that you are destroying that standard.
My view of equal protection is also an insult to anyone considering polygamy, marrying their pets, marrying minors without parental consent, or marrying close relatives. However, it is equal protection since it does not inject preference into the argument and is applied equally.
That's what equal protection is. Applying the law equally to everyone. You simply don't like the law.