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

[AnybodyButaDem]

The worst part is if the GOPe Senate and House leadership had any sort of integrity they would have demanded Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves from this case since they had officiated gay marriages prior to ruling on this case.

I get it, though.  Luis and the GOPe believe that for the most part, federal governance is better than federalism and the 10th Amendment.

It's been that way for a long time in the GOPe.

[Frank Cannon]

You don't like homosexuals.  We get it.

You had best come to terms with homosexual rights and gay marriage.  They're done deals and will remain done deals.

I couldn't agree more. I also think that people had better getting their minds right on Pedophilia between consenting folks and Bestiality.

We have got to let people be people and get to the important stuff like fighting against the Trilateralists and making the new Apple Phone more affordable for everyone.   

[sinkspur]

No I will never.  It is a hideous perversity that has robbed the majority of our citizens of their many freedoms and rights to decide these things for themselves.  And it is getting worse and worse. The government has no right to do this.  I will fight it until my last breath.  It is evil.  You may be fine with it, but lots of other people agree with me.

The SCOTUS has made many errors.  Some have required correction.  This is one more. 

Don't EVEN give me that it is not a federal issue when one of the branches of the federal government took upon itself to legislate it for the entire nation -- only 5 of them.  Four of them saw it as a very wrong decision.

Where is your call for federalism?  Shouldn't you at least favor the issue to be returned to the states?  Or are you just liberal on this issue and happy the courts are forcing the corrupting of everyone's minds and morals on this?

I just don't think this is something worth going to the mat for.   My marriage with my wife is not affected in the least by some gay guy wanting to marry another gay guy. 

This is about civil marriages. If you and your denomination don't want to recognize religious or sacramental marriages of gays, that's fine. My Church will never recognize gay marriage and I'm fine with that.

But a civil recognition of gay marriage?  Not a big deal to me.

[AnybodyButaDem]

The only reason the federal DOMA was brought up -- passing nearly unanimously, was because of the SCOTUS overreach on the sodomy case.  If the founders only knew they had written an invisible "right" to do such a nasty and unnatural thing, giving no state a say in the matter. 

Frankly, anti-bigamy laws have been federal and Utah was not allowed to join the union until they banned polygamy.  So there has been precedent for Congress to handle the issue.  NOT THE COURTS!!!!!

I find your position revolting.

States can violate federal law if their citizens decide they want to smoke herb.  Liberalism is funny in how selective and hypocritical it is whether or not they agree or disagree with a law. 

[sinkspur]

The only reason the federal DOMA was brought up -- passing nearly unanimously, was because of the SCOTUS overreach on the sodomy case.  If the founders only knew they had written an invisible "right" to do such a nasty and unnatural thing, giving no state a say in the matter. 

Frankly, anti-bigamy laws have been federal and Utah was not allowed to join the union until they banned polygamy.  So there has been precedent for Congress to handle the issue.  NOT THE COURTS!!!!!

I find your position revolting.

DOMA was passed in 1996.  Lawrence was decided in 2003.  So you've got your dates mixed up.

Do you really believe that homosexual activity behind closed doors should be a crime?  You do know, don't you, that sodomy can be performed by heterosexuals.

[sinkspur]

I couldn't agree more. I also think that people had better getting their minds right on Pedophilia between consenting folks and Bestiality.

We have got to let people be people and get to the important stuff like fighting against the Trilateralists and making the new Apple Phone more affordable for everyone.

Whoa.  Minors can't consent to sexual activity.   So pedophilia is not the issue here.

[Bigun]

I have a question for you all.

If the courts were intended to RULE why were they given no powers to enforce their "rulings"?  And why do we even have a legislative and executive branch? Why didn't we just make judges kings ad be done with it?

[sinkspur]

I have a question for you all.

If the courts were intended to RULE why were they given no powers to enforce their "rulings"?

Enforcement is given to the Executive Branch.  Neither the Legislative nor Judicial branches have enforcement powers.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Whoa.  Minors can't consent to sexual activity.   So pedophilia is not the issue here.

Sure they can.  The age of consent varies depending on the state.  A minor in Wisconsin (age of consent 18) is an adult in West Virginia (16).  Who decides the appropriate age of consent?  Liberals are trying to give 16 year old kids the right to vote.

Hell, in some Muslim nations, there is no age of consent, and in some Sharia Law areas in the West, age of consent isn't even an afterthought.

[Frank Cannon]

Whoa.  Minors can't consent to sexual activity.   So pedophilia is not the issue here.

What the hell is it to you who is in love with each other? It's none of your goddam business. Your a bigot and a creep.

Enough of the social issues. They are killing the party. We need to stay focused on protecting the US from attacks and cutting taxes. Nothing more.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Enforcement is given to the Executive Branch.  Neither the Legislative nor Judicial branches have enforcement powers.

That wasn't what he asked.

[Bigun]

Enforcement is given to the Executive Branch.  Neither the Legislative nor Judicial branches have enforcement powers.

I thought all the branches were coequal.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No I will never.  It is a hideous perversity that has robbed the majority of our citizens of their many freedoms and rights to decide these things for themselves.  And it is getting worse and worse. The government has no right to do this.  I will fight it until my last breath.  It is evil.  You may be fine with it, but lots of other people agree with me.

The SCOTUS has made many errors.  Some have required correction.  This is one more. 

Don't EVEN give me that it is not a federal issue when one of the branches of the federal government took upon itself to legislate it for the entire nation -- only 5 of them.  Four of them saw it as a very wrong decision.

Where is your call for federalism?  Shouldn't you at least favor the issue to be returned to the states?  Or are you just liberal on this issue and happy the courts are forcing the corrupting of everyone's minds and morals on this?

Bunk.

Same-sex marriage has existed in the US for over a decade now, and nothing has substantially changed.

Let's discuss the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case.

Article 1, Section 20 Oregon's Bill of Rights:

“No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms, which shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The Oregon Equality Act and the Oregon Family Fairness Act were passed in 2007, and established a State-wide ban on any discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Both these laws were in full effect when the Kleins began operating Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

A business, any business, is subject to all applicable and prevailing laws. If the Kleins didn't want to bake cakes for same-sex couples, they should have opened up their bakery in some place other than Oregon.

[sinkspur]

What the hell is it to you who is in love with each other? It's none of your goddam business. Your a bigot and a creep.

Enough of the social issues. They are killing the party. We need to stay focused on protecting the US from attacks and cutting taxes. Nothing more.

OK. I can see I've touched the third rail here. I'll withdraw.

[Frank Cannon]

OK. I can see I've touched the third rail here. I'll withdraw.

You shouldn't have to withdraw from a Border Collie if you don't want to. It's a free country. Keep the politicians out of our kennels.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I have a question for you all.

If the courts were intended to RULE why were they given no powers to enforce their "rulings"?  And why do we even have a legislative and executive branch? Why didn't we just make judges kings ad be done with it?

They don't "rule", no one rules, which is why the SCOTUS is there to make certain that no laws deemed to be unconstitutional passed by any level of government are allowed to stand.

Once a law is overturned, Congress is free to try and craft a new law that will pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Bigun]

That wasn't what he asked.

You are so right!

But it's IS about what I expected.

[Bigun]

They don't "rule", no one rules, which is why the SCOTUS is there to make certain that no laws deemed to be unconstitutional passed by any level of government are allowed to stand.

Once a law is overturned, Congress is free to try and craft a new law that will pass Constitutional muster.

 

Then how do we get all of these "rulings"?

Or to simply ignore the courts "OPINION" and move on!

[Luis Gonzalez]

The four most conservative justices who sat on this case believe you are wrong.  You sided with the liberal faction of SCOTUS.  Congrats, but that doesn't make it right or wrong because 5 liberal judges outnumber 4 conservative judges.  You support Kasich, though, so you're no conservative, either.  It's why it's called an Supreme Court OPINION.

... and they lost, and the nation has survived.

I will always default to a position of greater freedom over one of lesser freedom.

I am a far stronger conservative than you are.

You appear to be a run-of-the-mill authoritarian who believes that bigger government is fine, so long as it supports your beliefs and imposes them on others

[HonestJohn]

Then how do we get all of these "rulings"?

Or to simply ignore the courts "OPINION" and move on!

How do we get court rulings?  Because someone files a lawsuit.

[AnybodyButaDem]

... and they lost, and the nation has survived.

I will always default to a position of greater freedom over one of lesser freedom.

I am a far stronger conservative than you are.

You appear to be a run-of-the-mill authoritarian who believes that bigger government is fine, so long as it supports your beliefs and imposes them on others

My strict belief in the 10th Amendment giving states authority over the federal government for rights not mentioned in the Constitution means that I'm for bigger government?  Hell, you're the one who wants to force people to bake gays cake or get out of the business.

Your thought process is all over the place.  You seem very confused.  I suppose you also think you're a far stronger conservative than Scalia was, and Thomas and Alito are today.  I don't think you know what that word actually means.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Or to simply ignore the courts "OPINION" and move on!

Yet, they never have. Not once since the nation was formed.

"The Constitution of the United States having divided the powers of government into three branches, legislative, executive, and judiciary, and deposited each with a separate body of magistracy, forbidding either to interfere in the department of the other, the executive are not at liberty to intermeddle in [a] question [that] must be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hellstedt, 1791. ME 8:126

A "question that must be decided by the Supreme Court.

So you would have a nation where Obama was free to ignore the SCOTUS "OPINION" on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and have all the Hobby Lobby owners and Executives arrested for not providing contraception to their employees as mandated by The Affordable Care Act?

Is that the nation you'd live in?

Or maybe Clinton would have just ignored the SCOTUS "OPINION" in Bush v Gore and declared Gore the winner in the 2000 election.

[HonestJohn]

You are right about the dates.  It was passed because state courts were deciding the issue and Congress wanted to protect the rights of other states.  My mistake.

Yes I think sodomy should be a crime.  No I do not think the government should go into homes and check it out.  Keeping it a crime, at least in some states, actually protected us from this ridiculous marriage ruling or from all the anti-discrimination nonsense that is forcing everyone to give their approval of a profoundly immoral act.  So it's not that I want them jailed.  I want it to stay private and disapproved of.  It's gross.  Disgusting.  Nasty.  Unnatural. 

Read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas.  If it should not be illegal, persuade your fellow citizens.  It was not the right of the court to decide.  By doing so, they set the stage for the rest of this garbage.  Now we cannot even say a man is a man if he decides he feels like a woman.  It is so ridiculous and getting worse by the minute.  And the full force of government is being used to punish those who disagree  -- precisely because the courts decided it is a "right."  Not only is it a right, but the anti-discrimination garbage that goes with it robs everyone else of their rights.


You can play the liberal game of "We get that you do not like homosexuals" all you like.  I am not going to fall for that.  I could say "I get that you do not like adulterers."  It would be the same.  Or any other immoral act where a person could be accused of "not liking" the person.  I do not and will never approve of homosexuality.  It is not equal to heterosexuality.  It is a perversion.  That is so self-evidently clear that I cannot even believe they have been so successful.  Hello?  Why do lesbians have wombs?  Why do they ovulate?  Why do they have to purchase a fake make part to have intercourse?  Why do gay men have sperm?  It is so obviously unnatural that this should be a very bad joke.

As for your shock at the idea that the same argument could apply to pedophilia, as though the fact that it is now illegal makes a difference:  Sodomy was illegal.  Gay marriage was illegal.  That's not a valid argument.

You keep conflating sexual reproduction with marriage, why?

[Luis Gonzalez]

My strict belief in the 10th Amendment giving states authority over the federal government for rights not enumerated in the Constitution means that I'm for bigger government?  Hell, you're the one who wants to force people to bake gays cake or get out of the business.

Your thought process is all over the place.  You seem very confused.

The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, paragraph 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

No State has a right to pass a law that violates an individual's rights under the Supreme Law of the Land.

Obergefell found that laws banning same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution f the United States, A.K.A. "the supreme law of the land".

The ship has sailed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are right about the dates.  It was passed because state courts were deciding the issue and Congress wanted to protect the rights of other states.  My mistake.

Yes I think sodomy should be a crime.  No I do not think the government should go into homes and check it out.  Keeping it a crime, at least in some states, actually protected us from this ridiculous marriage ruling or from all the anti-discrimination nonsense that is forcing everyone to give their approval of a profoundly immoral act.  So it's not that I want them jailed.  I want it to stay private and disapproved of.  It's gross.  Disgusting.  Nasty.  Unnatural. 

Read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas.  If it should not be illegal, persuade your fellow citizens.  It was not the right of the court to decide.  By doing so, they set the stage for the rest of this garbage.  Now we cannot even say a man is a man if he decides he feels like a woman.  It is so ridiculous and getting worse by the minute.  And the full force of government is being used to punish those who disagree  -- precisely because the courts decided it is a "right."  Not only is it a right, but the anti-discrimination garbage that goes with it robs everyone else of their rights.

You can play the liberal game of "We get that you do not like homosexuals" all you like.  I am not going to fall for that.  I could say "I get that you do not like adulterers."  It would be the same.  Or any other immoral act where a person could be accused of "not liking" the person.  I do not and will never approve of homosexuality.  It is not equal to heterosexuality.  It is a perversion.  That is so self-evidently clear that I cannot even believe they have been so successful.  Hello?  Why do lesbians have wombs?  Why do they ovulate?  Why do they have to purchase a fake make part to have intercourse?  Why do gay men have sperm?  It is so obviously unnatural that this should be a very bad joke.

As for your shock at the idea that the same argument could apply to pedophilia, as though the fact that it is now illegal makes a difference:  Sodomy was illegal.  Gay marriage was illegal.  That's not a valid argument.

Who is them exactly?

If you want to make sodomy a crime, the number of heterosexuals charged would outpace homosexuals by about a million to one.