Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[The Rabbi]

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

No one has argued that homosexuals are really blacks. That is a patently absurd claim.

And same gender couples are winning in the courts- that is when you folks keep arguing "Its up to the majority' or my favorite 'black robed fascists'

Youjust made exactly that claim in your previous post.
next

 

[Skylar]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

No one has argued that homosexuals are really blacks. That is a patently absurd claim.

And same gender couples are winning in the courts- that is when you folks keep arguing "Its up to the majority' or my favorite 'black robed fascists'

Youjust made exactly that claim in your previous post.
next

Then he must have refuted your absurd claim that homosexuals are really blacks in his previous post too.

So what else have you got?

 

[Syriusly]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

No one has argued that homosexuals are really blacks. That is a patently absurd claim.

And same gender couples are winning in the courts- that is when you folks keep arguing "Its up to the majority' or my favorite 'black robed fascists'

Youjust made exactly that claim in your previous post.
next

Feel free to quote me- otherwise I will just assume that is just your usual bullshit.

 

[kaz]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else.
You know just because you pull something out of your ass doesn't mean you have to show it to us. Where do you get your material? The local playground?

And how does that even make sense? I'm supposedly a conservative who doesn't want government marriage? I'm an anarchist who wants marriage but not if gays get it? I'm too confused to be insulted. Maybe you could clarify what your drivel even means and I'll give it a go though.

 

[kaz]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are not a democracy- where do you get that bizarre idea?

We are a constitutional republic.

There is no direct vote- no 'Democracy' at a federal level- there is representative Democracy- where our elected representatives vote- sometimes based upon what the majority wants- sometimes not- and all of it is subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Seems you don't give a shit about the Constitution, you just want your way.

I'm curious, are you too arrogant to acknowledge you are being mocked or just too stupid to realize it?

 

[Skylar]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else.
You know just because you pull something out of your ass doesn't mean you have to show it to us. Where do you get your material? The local playground?

And how does that even make sense? I'm supposedly a conservative who doesn't want government marriage? I'm an anarchist who wants marriage but not if gays get it? I'm too confused to be insulted. Maybe you could clarify what your drivel even means and I'll give it a go though.

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of your anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

 

[kaz]

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

So far the courts disagree with you.

And even though you hate the Constitution, you are stuck with courts deciding whether laws are constitutional or not.

So far most courts have determined that denying same gender couples the same access to marriage that my wife and I enjoy is not equal treatment under the law.

Now it goes to the Supreme Court.

I may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision- but regardless, I will consider it the legal decision.

A liberal telling me I "hate" the Constitution, that's classic. You couldn't find your ass with both hands and a road map.

 

[Syriusly]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

So far the courts disagree with you.

And even though you hate the Constitution, you are stuck with courts deciding whether laws are constitutional or not.

So far most courts have determined that denying same gender couples the same access to marriage that my wife and I enjoy is not equal treatment under the law.

Now it goes to the Supreme Court.

I may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision- but regardless, I will consider it the legal decision.

A liberal telling me I "hate" the Constitution, that's classic. You couldn't find your ass with both hands and a road map.

You demonstrate that hatred of the Constitution every time you advocate that it should be ignored when it comes to the 'will of the majority'

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

So far the courts disagree with you.

And even though you hate the Constitution, you are stuck with courts deciding whether laws are constitutional or not.

So far most courts have determined that denying same gender couples the same access to marriage that my wife and I enjoy is not equal treatment under the law.

Now it goes to the Supreme Court.

I may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision- but regardless, I will consider it the legal decision.

A liberal telling me I "hate" the Constitution, that's classic. You couldn't find your ass with both hands and a road map.

You probably just hate the Equality part, and the Freedom of Religion Part eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

So far the courts disagree with you.

And even though you hate the Constitution, you are stuck with courts deciding whether laws are constitutional or not.

So far most courts have determined that denying same gender couples the same access to marriage that my wife and I enjoy is not equal treatment under the law.

Now it goes to the Supreme Court.

I may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision- but regardless, I will consider it the legal decision.

A liberal telling me I "hate" the Constitution, that's classic. You couldn't find your ass with both hands and a road map.

You demonstrate that hatred of the Constitution every time you advocate that it should be ignored when it comes to the 'will of the majority'

Everyone loves Mob Rule, when they are part of the mob.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else..

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

 

[kaz]

[
You keep whining about discrimination, but the reality is I want to end it and you just want to move the line.

The reality is that you only inject yourself in the argument when homosexuals want equal access to legal marriage.

You want to end legal marriage? Go for it.

But you arguing against extending equal rights to gay couples because you are against legal marriage is just an argument for discrimination.

LOL, I want all citizens to be treated the same by government, which you call "discrimination."

 

[kaz]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Still too stupid to know when you are being mocked. I don't know what to do with that, and if I did, you wouldn't get that either, would you?

 

[Seawytch]

[
You keep whining about discrimination, but the reality is I want to end it and you just want to move the line.

The reality is that you only inject yourself in the argument when homosexuals want equal access to legal marriage.

You want to end legal marriage? Go for it.

But you arguing against extending equal rights to gay couples because you are against legal marriage is just an argument for discrimination.

LOL, I want all citizens to be treated the same by government, which you call "discrimination."

But what you "want" is akin to finding leprechaun gold, civilly married guy.

 

[kaz]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

More accurately, gays are challenging the restrictions placed on marriage as a violation of the 14th and 5th amendments. As the restrictions themselves must be constitutionally valid. They must serve a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Romer v. Evans reiterated this explicitly in reference to laws targeting gays.

And gay marriage bans can't meet either standard.

Everyone has the right to be left alone, no one has the right to demand anything from anyone, including government. Those are completely different things.

 

[kaz]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The minority are to be protected? That from the guy who advocates people who put everyone's bills on the backs of a tiny minority. I'm not feeling protected...

 

[kaz]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else.
You know just because you pull something out of your ass doesn't mean you have to show it to us. Where do you get your material? The local playground?

And how does that even make sense? I'm supposedly a conservative who doesn't want government marriage? I'm an anarchist who wants marriage but not if gays get it? I'm too confused to be insulted. Maybe you could clarify what your drivel even means and I'll give it a go though.

Well, since we aren't going to abolish all government recognition of marriage and render void all marriage certificates in pursuit of your anarchist ideal, do you have any comments that might be relevant to any plausible outcome in this case?

I'm not an anarchist, moron

 

[kaz]

A liberal telling me I "hate" the Constitution, that's classic. You couldn't find your ass with both hands and a road map.

You probably just hate the Equality part, and the Freedom of Religion Part eh?

I hate the equity part because I want government to treat all citizens the same. Yeah, you're a rocket scientist...

And you lost me on the religion completely. I doubt you knew what it meant anyway...

 

[kaz]

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

So far the courts disagree with you.

And even though you hate the Constitution, you are stuck with courts deciding whether laws are constitutional or not.

So far most courts have determined that denying same gender couples the same access to marriage that my wife and I enjoy is not equal treatment under the law.

Now it goes to the Supreme Court.

I may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision- but regardless, I will consider it the legal decision.

A liberal telling me I "hate" the Constitution, that's classic. You couldn't find your ass with both hands and a road map.

You demonstrate that hatred of the Constitution every time you advocate that it should be ignored when it comes to the 'will of the majority'

Everyone loves Mob Rule, when they are part of the mob.

So in my question to slash government I want mob rule. Again, does any of this even make sense to you?

 

[kaz]

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed.

My opposition to government marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, you just made that up like you do everything else..

Yet- you only seem to care when government may give homosexuals the same benefits and protections of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

IF you want to end government recognized marriage- go for it.

But you are only arguing against government recognition of marriage when marriage equality for homosexuals is being discussed

Repeating what you pulled out of your ass. Now we're getting somewhere...