Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[rcfieldz]

Could it be another sign of the Apocalypse?

 

[Skylar]

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all;

Of course it is. Note you couldn't answer any of my immediately germane questions regarding it. Does Article 4, section 2 mean that any law made in any state must be recognized in all states? Does it mean that any law applied federally must apply in all states? Which privileges and immunities are being referred to specifically?

And how does this relate to gay marriage? You've never been able to say.

The issue is obviously debatable as demonstrated by 2 centuries of debate on the topic and a litany of different interpretations. You imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some silly conspiracy. But like your main assertion, you have exactly dick to back any of that up.

....the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

Says you offering us your personal opinion as irrefutable fact. And you're nobody.

You can't carry your argument with evidence, you can't offer a factual rebuttal to the litany of different interpretations of that passage, nor can eve you even explain your own interpretation, or answer the simplest question about the passage.

When you have more than you citing yourself as an infallible legal arbiter, find us.

 

[Skylar]

Could it be another sign of the Apocalypse?

Well that just raised the bar on the 'slippery slope' fallacy.

 

[MaryL]

Let me see here: The PEOPLE elect WHOMEVER. Presidents or minor state officials. Gay rights, poodle hair cuts or how trim your Cessna isn't in the bill of rights or Constitution. We ALL should have a right to chime up and say what we think, shouldn't matter if we offend someone. Seems like all that matters is NOT offending people, being right is secondary...

 

[Skylar]

Let me see here: The PEOPLE elect WHOMEVER. Presidents or minor state officials. Gay rights, poodle hair cuts or how trim your Cessna isn't in the bill of rights or Constitution. We ALL should have a right to chime up and say what we think, shouldn't matter if we offend someone. Seems like all that matters is NOT offending people, being right is secondary...

Yeah, but WHOMEVER are elected poodle hair, you still must trim your Cessna or minor state official with a right to chime up. Otherwise, all that matters hair cuts while being right is secondary. And that isn't the bill of rights or Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me see here: The PEOPLE elect WHOMEVER. Presidents or minor state officials. Gay rights, poodle hair cuts or how trim your Cessna isn't in the bill of rights or Constitution. We ALL should have a right to chime up and say what we think, shouldn't matter if we offend someone. Seems like all that matters is NOT offending people, being right is secondary...

You have the right to offend anyone you want, so long as you dont' harm them or interfere with them.

But you don't have the right to be free from criticism for being offensive.

 

[Syriusly]

Could it be another sign of the Apocalypse?

Isn't everything?

 

[danielpalos]

Could it be another sign of the Apocalypse?

No, unless it is just the right soothsaying doomsdays for free or on contingency.

Some on the left don't even bother to get worried, unless there is the fiscal responsibility and fiscal sincerity, of doomsday tax rates to meet the exigency.

 

[Silhouette]

No, unless it is just the right soothsaying doomsdays for free or on contingency.

Some on the left don't even bother to get worried, unless there is the fiscal responsibility and fiscal sincerity, of doomsday tax rates to meet the exigency.

When Ancient Greece acquiesced to powerful homosexual lobbiests of the day, it was the beginning of that culture's Swansong. It's happened with other cultures too. And weirdly, history tells us that once men decriminalize sodomy with each other, it's a matter of a few short years or decades before its legal for them to sodomize 8 year old boys. Like it was in Greece awhile back.

It's the darndest thing..

 

[Syriusly]

No, unless it is just the right soothsaying doomsdays for free or on contingency.

Some on the left don't even bother to get worried, unless there is the fiscal responsibility and fiscal sincerity, of doomsday tax rates to meet the exigency.

When Ancient Greece acquiesced to powerful homosexual lobbiests of the day, it was the beginning of that culture's Swansong. It's happened with other cultures too. And weirdly, history tells us that once men decriminalize sodomy with each other, it's a matter of a few short years or decades before its legal for them to sodomize 8 year old boys. Like it was in Greece awhile back.

It's the darndest thing..

You are both ignorant of history and delusional.

And a homophobic bigot too.

 

[Skylar]

No, unless it is just the right soothsaying doomsdays for free or on contingency.

Some on the left don't even bother to get worried, unless there is the fiscal responsibility and fiscal sincerity, of doomsday tax rates to meet the exigency.

When Ancient Greece acquiesced to powerful homosexual lobbiests of the day, it was the beginning of that culture's Swansong. It's happened with other cultures too. And weirdly, history tells us that once men decriminalize sodomy with each other, it's a matter of a few short years or decades before its legal for them to sodomize 8 year old boys. Like it was in Greece awhile back.

It's the darndest thing..

Laughing.....virtually every culture has done its 'swansong'. If they embraced homosexuality. If they violently opposed it. If they didn't care either way. Virtually every culture that has ever existed is gone. Your 'effect' exists regardless of the existence of your 'cause'.

Its the darndest thing...its almost like you don't have the slightest clue how causation works.

 

[Silhouette]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

 

[Syriusly]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

 

[Silhouette]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

Please list how those protect lifestyles repugnant to the majority charged with protection of children who cannot vote? Then list all the possible lifestyles who would have access to this theoretical federal "marriage equality". If you omit any of them, please explain, in great detail, how you would disqualify them.

 

[Skylar]

Please list how those protect lifestyles repugnant to the majority charged with protection of children who cannot vote? Then list all the possible lifestyles who would have access to this theoretical federal "marriage equality". If you omit any of them, please explain, in great detail, how you would disqualify them.

It prevents this:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives......

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

The court clearly recognizes the harm cause to children by the denial of same sex marriage. You ignore it. You're irrelevant.

The court clearly recognizes the constitutional guarantees that all marriage laws are subject to. You ignore them. You're irrelevant.

And the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans were not decided by Windsor, discussed, or even mentioned. As Justice Roberts made comically clear:

"The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion doesnot decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

Justice Roberts
Dissenting Windsor v. US

Your interpretation of the Windsor ruling is so pointlessly inaccurate, even Justice Scalia contradicts you. And he opposes gay marriage;

"In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status."

Justice Scalia
Dissenting Windsor v. US

But you know better, huh? No, you don't.

 

[Syriusly]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

Please list

Subject to constitutional guarantees.

You keep wanting to ignore that from Windsor.

But we won't and neither will the court.

 

[danielpalos]

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all;

Of course it is. Note you couldn't answer any of my immediately germane questions regarding it. Does Article 4, section 2 mean that any law made in any state must be recognized in all states? Does it mean that any law applied federally must apply in all states? Which privileges and immunities are being referred to specifically?

And how does this relate to gay marriage? You've never been able to say.

The issue is obviously debatable as demonstrated by 2 centuries of debate on the topic and a litany of different interpretations. You imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some silly conspiracy. But like your main assertion, you have exactly dick to back any of that up.

....the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

Says you offering us your personal opinion as irrefutable fact. And you're nobody.

You can't carry your argument with evidence, you can't offer a factual rebuttal to the litany of different interpretations of that passage, nor can eve you even explain your own interpretation, or answer the simplest question about the passage.

When you have more than you citing yourself as an infallible legal arbiter, find us.

Nope: never was, never has been, from Inception. Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States, should the People have to quibble, with the Judicature upon appeal to the supreme law of the land of the Union.
Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States and is no longer a States' right, upon appeal to the general government, and that body of laws.

 

[danielpalos]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

Just the judicature finding Things to do on the Peoples' dime. Our Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years, when they created Article 4, Section 2.

 

[Stephanie]

it should always be STATES rights. when you keep allowing this Federal government to encroach on that right. You are allowing for an oppressive and Fascist Fed. government. they are already FOCING you to purchase a product with the little tyrants name attached to it, (OscamCare) and if you don't they WILL FINE you. where is that in their job description of protecting and serving our country from an enemy foreign and domestic?

People better wake up and soon

 

[danielpalos]

it should always be STATES rights. when you keep allowing this Federal government to encroach on that right. You are allowing for an oppressive and Fascist Fed. government. they are already FOCING you to purchase a product with the little tyrants name attached to it, (OscamCare) and if you don't they WILL FINE you. where is that in their job description of protecting and serving our country from an enemy foreign and domestic?

People better wake up and soon

Article 4, Section 2 limits States' rights upon appeal to that body of laws.