Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[JakeStarkey]

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The beautiful thing about this is that nobody in the GOP has come out and said ANYTHING about this! Only Ted Cruz and he's a psychopath. So what does that tell us? That opposing gay marriage is no longer an important platform for the republican party.

THAT is what I call progress

 

[Dana7360]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

Sure they did but they did not make sure we had rights to protect perversions.

Just because you say something is a perversion doesn't mean it is a perversion.

It is it's also abnormal

per·ver·sion
pərˈvərZHən/
noun

1. 1.
   the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

ab·nor·mal
abˈnôrməl/
adjective

1. deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.

Then don't get involved in a homosexual relationship. It's as simple as that.

However you don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live their lives.

You can choose for you but no one else. Everyone else gets to choose for themselves.

Freedom. It works.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.

View attachment 32627

One - That simply isn't true, I can legally discriminate except based on certain criteria

Two - Simply untrue , of course states have rights. In this context a power IS a right. They have the right to certain powers.

Three - That is true, when the federal law complies with constitutional authority. If it doesn't then the federal law is invalid and does not supersede a state law. We see federal laws challenged on that basis all the time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.

Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.

 

[jillian]

and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.

States rights are secession are two separate things. To Equate the two is ridiculous. The 10th amendment is still in effect, last I looked.

in case you don't recall, secession was the result of a temper tantrum about states rights

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.

Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.

Jake, I was eminently correct on all three points, AND I also am pro gay marriage.I don't think it's any of the government's business who marries who

 

[jillian]

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.

View attachment 32627

One - That simply isn't true, I can legally discriminate except based on certain criteria

Two - Simply untrue , of course states have rights. In this context a power IS a right. They have the right to certain powers.

Three - That is true, when the federal law complies with constitutional authority. If it doesn't then the federal law is invalid and does not supersede a state law. We see federal laws challenged on that basis all the time.

Federal Law IS the constitutional authority. you're conflating issues. state law can grant greater rights than the federal government. it can never grant fewer rights. I hope that helps.

 

[jillian]

And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.

Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.

Jake, I was eminently correct on all three points, AND I also am pro gay marriage.I don't think it's any of the government's business who marries who

no. you were not correct, eminently or otherwise

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.

States rights are secession are two separate things. To Equate the two is ridiculous. The 10th amendment is still in effect, last I looked.

in case you don't recall, secession was the result of a temper tantrum about states rights

AND if YOU'LL recall Lincoln would have surrendered to the south's demand to keep slavery legal in order to preserve the union, meaning he would have acknowledged states' rights.

 

[jillian]

and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.

States rights are secession are two separate things. To Equate the two is ridiculous. The 10th amendment is still in effect, last I looked.

in case you don't recall, secession was the result of a temper tantrum about states rights

AND if YOU'LL recall Lincoln would have surrendered to the south's demand to keep slavery legal in order to preserve the union, meaning he would have acknowledged states' rights.

interesting....

irrelevant, however. though i'd love to see some credible proof of that.

 

[martybegan]

and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.

States rights are secession are two separate things. To Equate the two is ridiculous. The 10th amendment is still in effect, last I looked.

in case you don't recall, secession was the result of a temper tantrum about states rights

That was the wording they used, but again, people who call for the constitution to be held to as written are not secessionists, which is the link you are trying (and failing) to make.

 

[martybegan]

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.

View attachment 32627

So much dumb in one post.

 

[martybegan]

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Translation:"I know I'm right! Quit trying to confuse me with the facts!!!"

What facts are you referencing? The Reconstruction amendments were created to protect the freedmen from local laws. Its a fact. It was not intended to be a foot in the door for things like gay marriage.

yup...and marriage was supposed to mean "between a man and a woman", even though it never said that until you guys shat yourselves over the "faggoes" getting married.

It never had to say that because everyone knew and accepted that it was between a man and a woman. The Mormons initially contested the restrictions on plural marriage, which I'm sure led to a rash of clarifying marriage laws to make sure that point was made.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.

Wellll...except the states did, until the Federal government said you don't get to. You might remember from your high school history classes that we fought a little war over that.

Well the war wasn't just about that... it was more about federal power, control, and acquisition of the south.

Welllll...actually it was about slavery.

“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.” — Excerpt from South Carolina’s Letter of Secession; Adopted December 24th, 1860

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” — Excerpt from Mississippi’s Letter of Secession; c. January 9th 1861

“And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States” — Excerpt from Alabama’s Letter of Secession; February 4th, 1861
​

I could go on, if you like. There was letter, after letter, after speech, after speech making it abundantly clear that the "State Right" issue in question was clearly the State's right to own other people.

Yet the 14th amendment is not elusively to the issue of slavery is it? The southern states did not secede for just one reason. The number of slavers in the south did not exceed the number of slavers in the north, nor did the south invent slavery, nor did whites invent slavery, nor did the majority of slaves come from the south, nor is slavery limited to the kind with whips and chains. Signing a contract of indentured servitude is not much different, if at all, to income tax.

FYI... taking quotes out of context from a document does not prove that the single quote is proof of the purpose of the entire document.

 

[martybegan]

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You have to PROVE THAT in a court of law.....just like someone would have to PROVE in a court of law that the Founders' intent with the 2nd amendment was that only militia had the right to bear arms.

Thats not a response to the point I just made.

 

[martybegan]

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.

But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.

Yes. We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public. How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)

Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.

Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.

Jake, I was eminently correct on all three points, AND I also am pro gay marriage.I don't think it's any of the government's business who marries who

Glad you are, but that does not make your points any more correct.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln was not surrendering to the South's demands for slavery, because he supported it in the Old South because it was part of the Constitution.

He was demanding the South respect constitutional, electoral process.

The Old South did not so Lincoln executed the Old South.