Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[martybegan]

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

I asked you to show me in the laws what equal means.

it sure as hell doesn't mean a court can say SSM is equal, unless the state legislature makes it so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

 

[martybegan]

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The burden is on the government when it comes to denying 'equal protection'. If a state law only allows certain people to marry certain other people,

then it's the state's burden to prove that the people deprived of the marriage right are sufficiently dissimilar to justify denying them equal protection.

You can, for example, deny a blind person a driver's license because he's blind, but you can hardly deny a woman a driver's license because she's a woman.

Actually its the burden to show the feds have standing on this over the state legislatures, which are given everything not given to the federal government, and thus the ability to define a marriage contract. What the feds can do is make sure a marriage given in one State carries over to another (full faith and credit).

They are not given the ability to define a marriage contract in a manner that violates the civil rights of one group of Americans, any more than they can write a labor law that permits hiring discrimination contrary to federal law.

The issue is you seem to think SSM is a civil right, and it isn't. Its allowed by law if a State legislature decides to modify said contract, nothing more.

States can't make unconstitutional laws.

You haven't made the case that Marriage contracts that have been in place for centuries are unconstitutional beyond "because I say so, Equal protection, hur dur durrrr."

The Courts already ruled against anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[martybegan]

Actually its the burden to show the feds have standing on this over the state legislatures, which are given everything not given to the federal government, and thus the ability to define a marriage contract. What the feds can do is make sure a marriage given in one State carries over to another (full faith and credit).

They are not given the ability to define a marriage contract in a manner that violates the civil rights of one group of Americans, any more than they can write a labor law that permits hiring discrimination contrary to federal law.

The issue is you seem to think SSM is a civil right, and it isn't. Its allowed by law if a State legislature decides to modify said contract, nothing more.

States can't make unconstitutional laws.

You haven't made the case that Marriage contracts that have been in place for centuries are unconstitutional beyond "because I say so, Equal protection, hur dur durrrr."

The Courts already ruled against anti-miscegenation laws.

Which is actually correct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are not given the ability to define a marriage contract in a manner that violates the civil rights of one group of Americans, any more than they can write a labor law that permits hiring discrimination contrary to federal law.

The issue is you seem to think SSM is a civil right, and it isn't. Its allowed by law if a State legislature decides to modify said contract, nothing more.

States can't make unconstitutional laws.

You haven't made the case that Marriage contracts that have been in place for centuries are unconstitutional beyond "because I say so, Equal protection, hur dur durrrr."

The Courts already ruled against anti-miscegenation laws.

Which is actually correct.

A correct ruling against a longstanding form of marriage contract which defeats your other claim.

 

[martybegan]

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

 

[guno]

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

When your base is that hateful and ignorant, you must cut them lose and rally the moderates and centrists.

But no, the GOP continue to open their big tent to most hateful and despicable people.

They're just mad that more and more people are realizing Christianity's just a big cult.

They are rightly being mocked, ridiculed and marginalized

 

[martybegan]

The issue is you seem to think SSM is a civil right, and it isn't. Its allowed by law if a State legislature decides to modify said contract, nothing more.

States can't make unconstitutional laws.

You haven't made the case that Marriage contracts that have been in place for centuries are unconstitutional beyond "because I say so, Equal protection, hur dur durrrr."

The Courts already ruled against anti-miscegenation laws.

Which is actually correct.

A correct ruling against a longstanding form of marriage contract which defeats your other claim.

How so? Race requirements were not long standing in marriage contracts, but were a development of the late slave and early post bellum era. Race and sex are not the same thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

States can't make unconstitutional laws.

You haven't made the case that Marriage contracts that have been in place for centuries are unconstitutional beyond "because I say so, Equal protection, hur dur durrrr."

The Courts already ruled against anti-miscegenation laws.

Which is actually correct.

A correct ruling against a longstanding form of marriage contract which defeats your other claim.

How so? Race requirements were not long standing in marriage contracts, but were a development of the late slave and early post bellum era. Race and sex are not the same thing.

You're making the preposterous argument that laws that are wrong can somehow become exempt from being struck down if they are around long enough.

How long has slavery been legal on the planet?

 

[NYcarbineer]

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it. Implied powers and rights are an integral part of the Constitution, and rightly so.

 

[martybegan]

You haven't made the case that Marriage contracts that have been in place for centuries are unconstitutional beyond "because I say so, Equal protection, hur dur durrrr."

The Courts already ruled against anti-miscegenation laws.

Which is actually correct.

A correct ruling against a longstanding form of marriage contract which defeats your other claim.

How so? Race requirements were not long standing in marriage contracts, but were a development of the late slave and early post bellum era. Race and sex are not the same thing.

You're making the preposterous argument that laws that are wrong can somehow become exempt from being struck down if they are around long enough.

How long has slavery been legal on the planet?

you assume that the law was wrong. That is your opinion, and the law can be changed via legislative action, and action I can agree with.

Slavery has been around longer than it has not in history, and removing it was done by vote after a long and bloody civil war.

 

[martybegan]

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it. Implied powers and rights are an integral part of the Constitution, and rightly so.

Only to progressives such as yourself, and only when it suits you.

 

[Spare_change]

Typical liberal hatchet job containing misdirection, misquotes, and downright lies. You ought to be embarrassed to be affiliated with such garbage.

List the misquotes.

Nahhh ... read the text yourself .... being quoted out of context is the same as being misquoted.

I'm not here to try to alleviate your innate stupidity.

The non-retarded who claim something was taken out of context normally show it in context to prove how out of context changed its meaning.

Apparently you're not in the non-retarded category.

Obviously, you were lacking an intelligent rebuttal, huh?

See how uncomfortable facts are.

You never showed any context that was missing that was relevant, despite your claiming so.

No rebuttal of a non-existent point is needed.

See? This is the problem with trying to have an intelligent discussion with an idiot. Had you bothered to actually 1) read the OP, 2) verify its accuracy, and 3) read my rebuttal in Post 344 *(btw - that's over 100 posts that you've brought ignorance to), you wouldn't be standing here now with your dick in your hand looking like a complete fool.

I can't prevent you from looking like a fool - I can only try to guide to the truth.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is literally, NO SUCH THING as "Homophobia".

The word itself as a LIE!

Which follows, given that the advocacy to normalize the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy, is built entirely, on nothing but LIES.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it.

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is Rubio's career over yet? He's still doing pretty good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no such doctrine of strict constructionism.

That is a far right reactionary myth. Just read Keys' boadaciously bungled argument above.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish demonstrates that once again, despite the voting results that Hispanics don't vote for our GOP much, he cannot adapt to reality. Attacking me, Redfish, just demonstrates you have not a clue.

Keep telling them that they are fucked up for not voting GOP is not going to work any better next year than years in the past.

What you and your fellow libs fail to realize is that hispanics are just like the rest of americans, they want freedom to live as they choose, the ability to get good jobs and improve their lives, and worship when and how they choose. Their values are much closer to GOP values than to those of the dems who have moved to the far left under obozo the kenyan messiah.