Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?

[martybegan]

You know...the stupid forms are computerized...have a drop down.

The form I had to fill out was paper, and had Spouse A, Spouse B, which caters solely to a small class of people who seem to get butthurt over every little thing they don't like.

 

[Seawytch]

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

The right to marry has been established...then reiterated three or four times. Was this right invented in Loving or recognized?

Again you compare race to sex, and the two are not the same. You also ignore that miscegenation laws were a temporary creation due to inherent required discrimination found in slavery, and its after effects.

SSM on the other hand, is a recent construct, and laws against it were a recent response.

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

 

[martybegan]

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

The right to marry has been established...then reiterated three or four times. Was this right invented in Loving or recognized?

Again you compare race to sex, and the two are not the same. You also ignore that miscegenation laws were a temporary creation due to inherent required discrimination found in slavery, and its after effects.

SSM on the other hand, is a recent construct, and laws against it were a recent response.

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

 

[Seawytch]

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

The right to marry has been established...then reiterated three or four times. Was this right invented in Loving or recognized?

Again you compare race to sex, and the two are not the same. You also ignore that miscegenation laws were a temporary creation due to inherent required discrimination found in slavery, and its after effects.

SSM on the other hand, is a recent construct, and laws against it were a recent response.

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

 

[martybegan]

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

The right to marry has been established...then reiterated three or four times. Was this right invented in Loving or recognized?

Again you compare race to sex, and the two are not the same. You also ignore that miscegenation laws were a temporary creation due to inherent required discrimination found in slavery, and its after effects.

SSM on the other hand, is a recent construct, and laws against it were a recent response.

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

States don't have to recognize out of state marriage licenses, but it is either recognize them equally or recognize none.

Can you identify any state that discriminates based on gender in the recognition of an out of state carry permit? If a state recognizes your states permit, don't they accept them all or none?


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The right to marry has been established...then reiterated three or four times. Was this right invented in Loving or recognized?

Again you compare race to sex, and the two are not the same. You also ignore that miscegenation laws were a temporary creation due to inherent required discrimination found in slavery, and its after effects.

SSM on the other hand, is a recent construct, and laws against it were a recent response.

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

 

[martybegan]

Again you compare race to sex, and the two are not the same. You also ignore that miscegenation laws were a temporary creation due to inherent required discrimination found in slavery, and its after effects.

SSM on the other hand, is a recent construct, and laws against it were a recent response.

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

 

[PratchettFan]

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree. I think you should file a suit.

Why ? I don't plan to go to NJ of NY. My permit is valid in the states that I go to. But the principle is valid, drivers licenses are accepted in all states, now SSM licenses must be accepted in all states, so CC permits should also be. But I will let the NRA handle any suits.

So long as there is no SCOTUS opinion which says all states must recognize the permit, then all states don't have to recognize it Until a suit is filed and it works its way through the system, then just saying that is the way it should be means nothing.

 

[Redfish]

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

States don't have to recognize out of state marriage licenses, but it is either recognize them equally or recognize none.

Can you identify any state that discriminates based on gender in the recognition of an out of state carry permit? If a state recognizes your states permit, don't they accept them all or none?


>>>>

what does gender have to do with it? my drivers license is accepted in all states, isn't yours?

 

[Redfish]

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree. I think you should file a suit.

Why ? I don't plan to go to NJ of NY. My permit is valid in the states that I go to. But the principle is valid, drivers licenses are accepted in all states, now SSM licenses must be accepted in all states, so CC permits should also be. But I will let the NRA handle any suits.

So long as there is no SCOTUS opinion which says all states must recognize the permit, then all states don't have to recognize it Until a suit is filed and it works its way through the system, then just saying that is the way it should be means nothing.

Oh, I see. So now you are all for states rights. You are saying exactly what the confederacy said before the civil war.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

Providing the precedent. Showing you that the right for gays to marry each other was not created out of whole cloth but from precedent. Three cases, only one dealing with race.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

 

[martybegan]

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

Providing the precedent. Showing you that the right for gays to marry each other was not created out of whole cloth but from precedent. Three cases, only one dealing with race.

In your mind, maybe. Appeal to authority (i.e., people more powerful than me say it is OK, so its OK) is a weak way of arguing.

 

[martybegan]

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

States don't have to recognize out of state marriage licenses, but it is either recognize them equally or recognize none.

Can you identify any state that discriminates based on gender in the recognition of an out of state carry permit? If a state recognizes your states permit, don't they accept them all or none?


>>>>

what does gender have to do with it? my drivers license is accepted in all states, isn't yours?

The gender of the couples in a legal Civil Marriage was the basis for non-recognition. But you knew that right?

If a man and a woman were married and went to a different state - it was recognized. If a man and a man (or woman and a woman) were legally married and went to a different state - it was not recognized.

Man and woman is a gender (or sex) classification.

**************************************************

No state that I know of discriminates on the recognition of out of State licenses for carry permits or drivers licenses for that matter, based on the gender.

Do you know of any? Then you would have a valid comparison. Carry permits - not so much.


>>>>

 

[PratchettFan]

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree. I think you should file a suit.

Why ? I don't plan to go to NJ of NY. My permit is valid in the states that I go to. But the principle is valid, drivers licenses are accepted in all states, now SSM licenses must be accepted in all states, so CC permits should also be. But I will let the NRA handle any suits.

So long as there is no SCOTUS opinion which says all states must recognize the permit, then all states don't have to recognize it Until a suit is filed and it works its way through the system, then just saying that is the way it should be means nothing.

Oh, I see. So now you are all for states rights. You are saying exactly what the confederacy said before the civil war.

No, I'm just explaining legal reality. If you don't believe me, walk up to a cop in NYC and explain that you have a concealed weapon and they have to honor your CC permit. I'm sure they will be impressed.

 

[PratchettFan]

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

No, but if you want me to accept what I consider to be a completely fallacious statement as anything more than that, then you're going to have to do more than just give me an unsupported opinion. Don't ask me to expand if you aren't willing to.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not comparing race to sex any more than I'm comparing race to divorce or incarceration status. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Was the right established or recognized.

The case did not establish a blanket right to marriage, it said that states couldn't ban marriage between people of different races.

Why do you keep ignoring the other two cases. That was rhetorical...I know why.

It was recognized and reaffirmed at least three times.

You already know my opinion of the current and most recent supreme courts and their decisions. it's not ignorance, it's rejection of the extrapolation being done.

Right...your opinion goes against the majority...and against the precedent set in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. It was reiterated in Obergefell v Hodges.

Right to Marry

Running right back to those unelected lawyers again....

That is why they are there.

 

[martybegan]

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

With the exception of the death penalty, all cases before SCOTUS relate to some portion of the Constitution. Saying it relates to this amendment or that section rather than that amendment or this section is pointless. All you are really saying is that it is ok when you agree with the claim but not ok when you don't. It is the nature of cases that there are always two sides.

So it is on you to back up your claim with actual facts, rather than subjective opinion. Break down all of the SCOTUS cases in the last few years by whether they were presented by conservatives or progressives and showing whether it was to maintain existing rights rather than create new ones. You will also have to establish objective criteria to support your definitions of "maintain" and "create". We will also need objective criteria on what constitutes "conservative" and "progressive".

So basically, unless I do hours of work, you want me to shut up.

Simple answer. No. My opinion is my opinion, and making a case for you isn't needed for me to state it. you may accept or reject it on its face.

No, but if you want me to accept what I consider to be a completely fallacious statement as anything more than that, then you're going to have to do more than just give me an unsupported opinion. Don't ask me to expand if you aren't willing to.

Again, reject or accept my position. Unlike a lot of progressives, I don't have an issue with being told by someone my views are wrong.