GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[Cripplecreek]

@Cripplecreek


Replace "Hitler" in your quote with Trump and you've got "BlackFemaleArmyCaptain"

That clown is so obvious its not funny.

[Jazzhead]

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.

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.   
 

[Jazzhead]

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?

Sure, whether or not to marry is a choice.  But you are being obtuse if you refuse to recognize that most folks marry a sexual partner.   A gay man who is forced to marry a woman to gain the benefits and protections of marriage is not being afforded the equal protection of the law.   

[thackney]

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?

Are you claiming some people don't make that choice then change their mind?

[txradioguy]

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. 

The lie you keep repeating is that gay "marriage" is somehow under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

It's not.  And you lie every time you claim it is.

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.

 

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".

It's not a right for me or for you.  You are advocating for a carve out for a special interest group that the majority of the 320 million Americans do not have.

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. 

They can't now thanks to advocates on the bench disguised as judges and people like you that think it is protected by the Constitution.

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.

Not.any.more.

Because people completely ignorant of the Constitution like yourself and judges who see things in the Constitution that aren't there...the states ability to do things like that..which is afforded to them under the 9th and 10th Amendment has been completely stripped away.

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.   

The ateempt by the gay "rights" mafai in this country to usurp what the 14th Amendment was written for is shameful.

Again let me spell it out for you.

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.

[txradioguy]

Are you claiming some people don't make that choice then change their mind?

JH is part of the "born this way" crowd.

[mirraflake]

Are you claiming some people don't make that choice then change their mind?

Some people, gay or straight switch teams later in life but most people, whether straight or gay are that way their entire lives.

The gay kids I grew up with-classmates or relatives I knew they were different in first or second grade. Chemical imbalance in womb during gestation is my guess

@thackney
@txradioguy

[Jazzhead]

JH is part of the "born this way" crowd.

Well, what say you?  Were you born straight, or was it a choice you made?     

[mirraflake]

Female Lea Delaria....don't even say gays are not born that way. She had too much male hormones pumped into her while in gestation or not enough estrogen. No amount of money spent at Macy's Glamour shots would make her look like a woman

 Notice lesbians tend to be ugly ( too much testostoerine while gay men tend to be attractive  aka Milo Yiounapolis) not all of course. 

[Jazzhead]

 

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".

No, TRG, the comprehension problem is yours.  Here's what I wrote above:

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.

[thackney]

Well, what say you?  Were you born straight, or was it a choice you made?

Do you believe that if people are naturally born a certain way, that way must be acceptable to the rest of society?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Your premise is faulty. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is a choice.  But fine, if you don't like the word "choice" say "preference" "actions" or "behaviors".  The point about Equal Protection applying only to people still stands.

But you are being obtuse if you refuse to recognize that most folks marry a sexual partner.

I'm not being obtuse -- I obviously agree with that.  I'm saying that is irrelevant to the constitutional issue.  You could make the exact same argument with respect to consanguinity laws -- laws that won't let people marry who are too closely related. 

"It is a violation of Equal Protection to force them to marry someone they don't love to gain the benefits of marriage".

No, it isn't.  Because that law is applied to everyone equally.  That just doesn't happen to be your preference.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Do you believe that if people are naturally born a certain way, that way must be acceptable to the rest of society?

I don't think people should be ashamed of who they are.

[mirraflake]

Do you believe that if people are naturally born a certain way, that way must be acceptable to the rest of society?

Could say the same thing about Downs Syndrome kids.

Most gays just want to be left alone and marry who they want. I have no problem with consenting adults having this view

@thackney

[TomSea]

It's a states matter; no matter what, the SCOTUS had no right to impose it on the whole US. That was not Constitutional.

One is also changing our definition of marriage which has stood for thousands of years.

[mirraflake]

Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is a choice.

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.

@Maj. Bill Martin

[thackney]

I don't think people should be ashamed of who they are.

Including pedophiles and rapists?

My point is just because a behavior or desire comes naturally to some people, it isn't sufficient justification to force it as acceptable on all people.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I'd be making sweet, sweet love to Kate Upton every chance I got.



What's your point?

@mirraflake

[TomSea]

Even Sotomayor brought up something about what would keep one from marrying a horse or something. 

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

[thackney]

What is if things were reversed. Homosexuality was normal and being straight was considered pervert land.

Then Humanity would have ceased to exist a very long time ago in that case.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Including pedophiles and rapists?

Idiotic point. Pedophiles and rapists do bad things to other people... why didn't you just throw murders in there?

[thackney]

Idiotic point. Pedophiles and rapists do bad things to other people... why didn't you just throw murders in there?

Yes as a society we agree those are unacceptable actions.  To the individuals committing those acts, it is acceptable.

[TomSea]

Idiotic point. Pedophiles and rapists do bad things to other people... why didn't you just throw murders in there?

Are pedophiles born that way? I think it's a good point and this is something the anti-same-sex marriage lobby has warned against.

[INVAR]

the right that is violated isn't the right to marry, it's the right [to] the equal protection of the law.
 

Bunk.  It is about forcing people to accept an abnormal deviancy as normal and acceptable and just as wholesome and righteous as what was instituted at Creation, even when it flies in the face of nature and nature's God.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Are pedophiles born that way? I think it's a good point and this is something the anti-same-sex lobby has warned against.

   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.