Republicans and the Affordable Care Act

[dblack]

...
And we are discussing it, even if it does not go in the direction you wish, which I'll speculate trends toward the Libertarian Postulate:

Concoct a theory on how stuff you don't want to pay for should not be, since the theory purports it to be unconstitutional or only a state's right. Fine. But I disagree.

Moreover, it's wrong. We have a process in place which governs it. If it's happening, and no ruling has barred it on constitutional grounds, it is what it is: An American policy and law of our land. Period.

Nor do I wish it to change, it being the process. I happen to believe that the American form of government is the best mankind has yet created. Call me America-centric, since I am ... disrespect to folks in Central America who think Simon Bolivar worthy of sainthood, nor Chinese who adore Chairman Mao's memory. We all have our heros, and mine are the Founding Fathers, even if they marginalized Blacks and Women ... since they also gave us the power to amend those shortcomings.

??? Sorry. I'm not getting anything coherent out of this. Can you rephrase?

 

[Koios]

...
And we are discussing it, even if it does not go in the direction you wish, which I'll speculate trends toward the Libertarian Postulate:

Concoct a theory on how stuff you don't want to pay for should not be, since the theory purports it to be unconstitutional or only a state's right. Fine. But I disagree.

Moreover, it's wrong. We have a process in place which governs it. If it's happening, and no ruling has barred it on constitutional grounds, it is what it is: An American policy and law of our land. Period.

Nor do I wish it to change, it being the process. I happen to believe that the American form of government is the best mankind has yet created. Call me America-centric, since I am ... disrespect to folks in Central America who think Simon Bolivar worthy of sainthood, nor Chinese who adore Chairman Mao's memory. We all have our heros, and mine are the Founding Fathers, even if they marginalized Blacks and Women ... since they also gave us the power to amend those shortcomings.

??? Sorry. I'm not getting anything coherent out of this. Can you rephrase?

No. You'll have to come up to my level, or let it go. Sorry.

 

[dblack]

Empasis added:

In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?

On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.

And how would that be unconstitutional?

 

[dblack]

No. You'll have to come up to my level, or let it go. Sorry.

C'mon. I've tried to be nice, but you're really not making much sense here. Just kind of rambling. I suspect you can do better.

 

[Koios]

Empasis added:

In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?

On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.

And how would that be unconstitutional?

It (the Con) requires equal treatment under law. It's the so-called "Equal Treatment Clause."

 

[Koios]

No. You'll have to come up to my level, or let it go. Sorry.

C'mon. I've tried to be nice, but you're really not making much sense here. Just kind of rambling. I suspect you can do better.

Cheesy "I don't get it" tactics are not nice. They're lame. And I'm not so daft as to fall for such folly.

Respond or don't. But do not lamely attempt to diminish the merits of what I'm saying by claiming it to be non-understandable. It's English, except for "Bolivar" and "Mao," which you can google (verb) if you're confused.

Okie doke?

 

[dblack]

Cheesy "I don't get it" tactics are not nice. They're lame. And I'm not so daft as to fall for such folly.

Respond or don't. But do not lamely attempt to diminish the merits of what I'm saying by claiming it to be non-understandable. It's English, except for "Bolivar" and "Mao," which you can google (verb) if you're confused.

Okie doke?

Sure. I'm not attempting any 'tactics' or aiming to diminish anything. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I'm particularly interested in the issue of unlimited majority rule, and it's still not clear to me what your view on that is. Frankly, you seem to be avoiding answering direct questions on the issue. Again, if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Empasis added:


On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.

And how would that be unconstitutional?

It (the Con) requires equal treatment under law. It's the so-called "Equal Treatment Clause."

So then you can agree that laws can be unconstitutional and yet remain. The can remain, and they can also be formed. Which leads the document to be of no merit in the first place. It's simply a system for people to go through arbitrary motion in. It is not a true protection of inalienable rights. As they can be removed or infringed upon in a legislative and decision process.

Back to the original point with this in mind, it is the same thing here with requiring people to act or be penalized on something they may do later on. Which some would say is unconstitutional. The courts however, decided it was, based on tax law though. Forever squelching the idea that congress doesn't have the authority through the commerce clause to mandate participation in said commerce on any level. At least it will "forever" remain until a new mind challenges this and it is changed. Maybe. Doubtful.

 

[Koios]

Sure. I'm not attempting any 'tactics' or trying to diminish anything. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I'm particularly interested in the issue of unlimited majority rule, and it's still not clear to me what your view on that is. Frankly, you seem to be avoiding answering direct questions on the issue. Again, if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine.

Read it and let me know which words or phrases are over your head. I'd be happy to clue you in. And you needn't call me Sensei or anything ... which in Japanese generally means "teacher," since folks born previous to us are our elders and assumed wiser.

Or did you already know that word?

 

[Koios]

And how would that be unconstitutional?

It (the Con) requires equal treatment under law. It's the so-called "Equal Treatment Clause."

So then you can agree that laws can be unconstitutional and yet remain. The can remain, and they can also be formed. Which leads the document to be of no merit in the first place. It's simply a system for people to go through arbitrary motion in. It is not a true protection of inalienable rights. As they can be removed or infringed upon in a legislative and decision process.

Back to the original point with this in mind, it is the same thing here with requiring people to act or be penalized on something they may do later on. Which some would say is unconstitutional. The courts however, decided it was, based on tax law though. Forever squelching the idea that congress doesn't have the authority through the commerce clause to mandate participation in said commerce on any level. At least it will "forever" remain until a new mind challenges this and it is changed. Maybe. Doubtful.

No. If they're unconstitutional (ruled thus) then they never remain.

Do I think we can all have our theories on it and yell it from mountain tops? Sure. I think 1A covers that, and has been ruled a right, time and time again.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Empasis added:

In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?

On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.

And how would that be unconstitutional?

Where, in YOUR constitution, does it say 'everyone is equal except gays'? (Or women, blacks, Hispanics, etc)

 

[emilynghiem]

Empasis added:

On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.

And how would that be unconstitutional?

Where, in YOUR constitution, does it say 'everyone is equal except gays'? (Or women, blacks, Hispanics, etc)

Dear Luddly: It goes both ways. Marriage laws must either be agreed upon by everyone within that jurisdiction, or else remain PRIVATE through the churches, where everyone has equal religious freedom under the Constitution. That would be equal protection.

Civil unions or contracts through the State can be done without discriminating.

Marriage in terms of a spiritual or religious institution cannot be mandated or regulated one way or another by the State, the people can decide on a policy and have the state reflect that policy they agree to give authority to the state to administer over. But not vice versa. Technically it would be equally unconstitutional for the state to impose a policy either for or against including same-sex relationships as long as part of the population affected dissents.
Otherwise it is infringing on those people's religious beliefs, and should be kept private.

NOTE: gay relationships are NOT the same as race or gender. Some gay people are born that way, that's true, and their orientation may be natural to them and remain for life; but there are cases where people who were healed of abuse CHANGED and no longer have the same sexual attractions as before, whether homosexual or heterosexual, if these were NOT natural to them but reactions to the abuse and not permanent. I have NEVER heard of people changing race or gender "naturally" after they were healed of past abuse, but I am aware there are many people attesting to changing their orientation after healing.

If you do not believe in discrimination, then groups that support gay lesbian transgender and bisexual/transgender also should EMBRACE and not reject former members who become heterosexual, claiming they are lying and were never really gay to begin with!

 

[Koios]

And how would that be unconstitutional?

Where, in YOUR constitution, does it say 'everyone is equal except gays'? (Or women, blacks, Hispanics, etc)

Dear Luddly: It goes both ways. Marriage laws must either be agreed upon by everyone within that jurisdiction, or else remain PRIVATE through the churches, where everyone has equal religious freedom under the Constitution. That would be equal protection.

Civil unions or contracts through the State can be done without discriminating.

Marriage in terms of a spiritual or religious institution cannot be mandated or regulated one way or another by the State, the people can decide on a policy and have the state reflect that policy they agree to give authority to the state to administer over. But not vice versa. Technically it would be equally unconstitutional for the state to impose a policy either for or against including same-sex relationships as long as part of the population affected dissents.
Otherwise it is infringing on those people's religious beliefs, and should be kept private.

NOTE: gay relationships are NOT the same as race or gender. Some gay people are born that way, that's true, and their orientation may be natural to them and remain for life; but there are cases where people who were healed of abuse CHANGED and no longer have the same sexual attractions as before, whether homosexual or heterosexual, if these were NOT natural to them but reactions to the abuse and not permanent. I have NEVER heard of people changing race or gender "naturally" after they were healed of past abuse, but I am aware there are many people attesting to changing their orientation after healing.

If you do not believe in discrimination, then groups that support gay lesbian transgender and bisexual/transgender also should EMBRACE and not reject former members who become heterosexual, claiming they are lying and were never really gay to begin with!

Wrong. It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines. So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it. DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC. Time will tell.

And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.

 

[Annie]

Where, in YOUR constitution, does it say 'everyone is equal except gays'? (Or women, blacks, Hispanics, etc)

Dear Luddly: It goes both ways. Marriage laws must either be agreed upon by everyone within that jurisdiction, or else remain PRIVATE through the churches, where everyone has equal religious freedom under the Constitution. That would be equal protection.

Civil unions or contracts through the State can be done without discriminating.

Marriage in terms of a spiritual or religious institution cannot be mandated or regulated one way or another by the State, the people can decide on a policy and have the state reflect that policy they agree to give authority to the state to administer over. But not vice versa. Technically it would be equally unconstitutional for the state to impose a policy either for or against including same-sex relationships as long as part of the population affected dissents.
Otherwise it is infringing on those people's religious beliefs, and should be kept private.

NOTE: gay relationships are NOT the same as race or gender. Some gay people are born that way, that's true, and their orientation may be natural to them and remain for life; but there are cases where people who were healed of abuse CHANGED and no longer have the same sexual attractions as before, whether homosexual or heterosexual, if these were NOT natural to them but reactions to the abuse and not permanent. I have NEVER heard of people changing race or gender "naturally" after they were healed of past abuse, but I am aware there are many people attesting to changing their orientation after healing.

If you do not believe in discrimination, then groups that support gay lesbian transgender and bisexual/transgender also should EMBRACE and not reject former members who become heterosexual, claiming they are lying and were never really gay to begin with!

Wrong. It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines. So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it. DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC. Time will tell.

And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.

I'm confused. Are you now arguing for civil contracts?

 

[emilynghiem]

Wrong. It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines. So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it. DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC. Time will tell.

And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.

The first step, then is to resolve the issue over the term "marriage"
If the point IS to impose religious views and status then that authority does not belong with the state, unless the people consent.

And with civil unions, if ALL people get this through the state, and reserve marriage for their respective churches, then all civil unions can be respected equally, and all marriages through churches of people's choices are up to them to respect by their own beliefs.

So if people cannot agree on marriage through the state, then ALL people should granted civil unions or contracts so at least it is fair. It is not the state's job to sanctify if someone's spiritual relation in marriage is this or that, it is only to oversee contracts affecting civil matters, not spiritual standing in the eyes of others which is a personal religious issue, not something the govt can decide for us.

 

[Koios]

Wrong. It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines. So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it. DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC. Time will tell.

And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.

The first step, then is to resolve the issue over the term "marriage"
If the point IS to impose religious views and status then that authority does not belong with the state, unless the people consent.

And with civil unions, if ALL people get this through the state, and reserve marriage for their respective churches, then all civil unions can be respected equally, and all marriages through churches of people's choices are up to them to respect by their own beliefs.

So if people cannot agree on marriage through the state, then ALL people should granted civil unions or contracts so at least it is fair. It is not the state's job to sanctify if someone's spiritual relation in marriage is this or that, it is only to oversee contracts affecting civil matters, not spiritual standing in the eyes of others which is a personal religious issue, not something the govt can decide for us.

Nah; marriage is fine. We all know what it is. We just need to make it more inclusive of same-sex partners. Easy. No convoluted nonsense needed.

Cool, yeah?

 

[emilynghiem]

Nah; marriage is fine. We all know what it is. We just need to make it more inclusive of same-sex partners. Easy. No convoluted nonsense needed.

Cool, yeah?

Sure, if people agree. If not, it isn't any more fair or constitutional to use the govt to endorse a policy that others disagree with religiously, whether the issue is to include or exclude same sex partners. If the problem could be solved by just having govt issue civil unions and contracts to everyone, then offer that. If people really want to have marriage under the state, I AGREE that it should be equal access and opportunity; but they also have the option of removing it completely out of state jursidiction and reserve to the churches.

 

[dblack]

Empasis added:


On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.

And how would that be unconstitutional?

Where, in YOUR constitution, does it say 'everyone is equal except gays'? (Or women, blacks, Hispanics, etc)

It doesn't. it also doesn't say anything about the federal government's power to regulate marriage.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dear Luddly: It goes both ways. Marriage laws must either be agreed upon by everyone within that jurisdiction, or else remain PRIVATE through the churches, where everyone has equal religious freedom under the Constitution. That would be equal protection.

Civil unions or contracts through the State can be done without discriminating.

Marriage in terms of a spiritual or religious institution cannot be mandated or regulated one way or another by the State, the people can decide on a policy and have the state reflect that policy they agree to give authority to the state to administer over. But not vice versa. Technically it would be equally unconstitutional for the state to impose a policy either for or against including same-sex relationships as long as part of the population affected dissents.
Otherwise it is infringing on those people's religious beliefs, and should be kept private.

NOTE: gay relationships are NOT the same as race or gender. Some gay people are born that way, that's true, and their orientation may be natural to them and remain for life; but there are cases where people who were healed of abuse CHANGED and no longer have the same sexual attractions as before, whether homosexual or heterosexual, if these were NOT natural to them but reactions to the abuse and not permanent. I have NEVER heard of people changing race or gender "naturally" after they were healed of past abuse, but I am aware there are many people attesting to changing their orientation after healing.

If you do not believe in discrimination, then groups that support gay lesbian transgender and bisexual/transgender also should EMBRACE and not reject former members who become heterosexual, claiming they are lying and were never really gay to begin with!

Wrong. It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines. So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it. DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC. Time will tell.

And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.

I'm confused. Are you now arguing for civil contracts?

That's all that marriage is. A civil contract.

Its true that some choose to add a religious aspect to it but legally, the various religions have nothing to do with marriage.

 

[Annie]

Wrong. It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines. So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it. DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC. Time will tell.

And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.

I'm confused. Are you now arguing for civil contracts?

That's all that marriage is. A civil contract.

Its true that some choose to add a religious aspect to it but legally, the various religions have nothing to do with marriage.

No argument here.