GOP Senator Celebrates His Vote Against Gay Marriage By Attending Son's Gay Marriage

[pknopp]

the tax code? you are really comparing the tax code to regulating marriage? yes the feds can regulate the tax code

It's sad how so few will be honest in discussions. As long as there are federal benefits in marriage, marriage is a federal issue. I'm perfectly fine with ending them.

 

[struth]

It's sad how so few will be honest in discussions. As long as there are federal benefits in marriage, marriage is a federal issue. I'm perfectly fine with ending them.

haha how am i being dishonest? Art 1 Sect 8 does not give congress the power to regulate marriage

i didn’t say anything about the tax code or there being issues in regards to it that impact federal benefits such as taxes, medicare and social security, or other employee benefits

but you don’t get a marriage license from the federal govt, because the federal govt can’t marry you.

i don’t think you are being dishonest just grossly misinformed

 

[pknopp]

haha how am i being dishonest? Art 1 Sect 8 does not give congress the power to regulate marriage

i didn’t say anything about the tax code or there being issues in regards to it that impact federal benefits such as taxes, medicare and social security, or other employee benefits

but you don’t get a marriage license from the federal govt, because the federal govt can’t marry you.

i don’t think you are being dishonest just grossly misinformed

If they can grant benefits they have to grant them equally. No discrimination.

 

[struth]

If they can grant benefits they have to grant them equally. No discrimination.

agreed….

 

[Couchpotato]

If they can grant benefits they have to grant them equally. No discrimination.

The law wasn't being applied discriminatorily. Just because you can't get married to whoever you want doesn't mean the law is being applied discriminatorily. If it does then the law still is. You still cant marry whoever you want. "Marriage" has to be legally defined. Some states defined it in a way some people didn't like so they used the power of the Federal Government to overrule those will of the people in those states. Take away all the emotional shit and that's what happened.

 

[Polishprince]

The law wasn't being applied discriminatorily. Just because you can't get married to whoever you want doesn't mean the law is being applied discriminatorily. If it does then the law still is. You still cant marry whoever you want. "Marriage" has to be legally defined. Some states defined it in a way some people didn't like so they used the power of the Federal Government to overrule those will of the people in those states. Take away all the emotional shit and that's what happened.

Exactly right. You still can't legally marry your sibling or parent or your family dog for that matter.

Even in a same-sex marriage- where the issue of genetic problems of offspring isn't a question.

 

[22lcidw]

It's sad how so few will be honest in discussions. As long as there are federal benefits in marriage, marriage is a federal issue. I'm perfectly fine with ending them.

There are many scenarios...Just one and you can come up with some back...A hetero couple with children...some struggling and also have to raise the children to adulthood...... The we go to a a gay person...successful in employment and parties at the clubs with many partners in personal life with few responsibilities. So, who is the positive and who is the negative in all of this pure equality? Who is the slave? When we started federal taxation with the fiat currency, the floodgates opened. State, local and city taxes have even risen more in the last century or so.

 

[pknopp]

The law wasn't being applied discriminatorily. Just because you can't get married to whoever you want doesn't mean the law is being applied discriminatorily. If it does then the law still is. You still cant marry whoever you want. "Marriage" has to be legally defined. Some states defined it in a way some people didn't like so they used the power of the Federal Government to overrule those will of the people in those states. Take away all the emotional shit and that's what happened.

Odd, when interracial couples couldn't it was ruled discrimination.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is your problem. Your views on this singular subject are clouding your judgement on the larger issue of whether the court should be ruling on things of this nature which do not fall under the purview of the Federal Government. Its the same with the Roe decision. So many people are so caught up in what Roe decided they cant stop to think whether the court had any business deciding it in the first place. And that applies regardless of whether you ultimately agree with the outcome or not.

We should expect our justices to rule on the law and the Constitution regardless of the blow back or popular sentiment at the time of the ruling.

My judgement is clouded??!! That's hysterical! Especially comming from someone who repeatedly claims that laws banning gay marriage do not discriminate because gays can marry someone of the opposite sex.

You know, throughout the years of lower court fights leading up to Obergefell, those trying to defend the bans on same sex marriage came up with all sorts of idiotic reasons for those bans. But, as far as I know, none of them were ever so stupid as to try "They already have equality" bullshit. But here you are desparetly clinging to that bullshit

As far as "the wider issue" goes. The courts authority has been well established. It acted via the 14th Amendment as a matter of a civil right, as it had prior to obergefell on many other issue pertaining to marriage

One of those cases was Loving V. Virginia on interracial marriage which was decided in much the same way as Obergefell. But none of you people who screem about Obergfell will dare touch Loving for fear of being call racist.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

i am not sure where i was ever clear i didn’t support that. It wa correctly decided…and it was dealing with a state law regulating marriage that violated the constitutional rights of individuals. it has nothing to do with an act of congress or the president…because the federal govt

You need to work on your writing and organizational skills because you are still comming in garbled

You previously said:

Courts review laws, federal courts can review state law, because state have to follow the US Constitution…

Got it and agree

States don’t have limited power via art 1 sec 8, but are limited by the amendments.

Not sure what that means

So states can regulate marriages, but they can’t violate the constitution in doing so

Again I got it and agree. Now you say:

and it was dealing with a state law regulating marriage that violated the constitutional rights of individuals.

What the hell does that mean? And

it has nothing to do with an act of congress or the president…because the federal govt

Thats not even a sentence. What are you talking about? And you repeatedly invoke Artical 1 Sec. 8 to define the powers of the federal government which does not include marriage yet you claim to support thr federal governments intervention in marriage issues under certain circumstances

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Some states defined it in a way some people didn't like so they used the power of the Federal Government to overrule those will of the people in those states.

The"will of the people" has no role in what consenting adults do or who they marry

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Take away all the emotional shit and that's what happened.

It appears that that is you problem. You feel nothing

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That marriage being something that isnt in the Constitution is something that individual States must pass laws on. Or not pass laws on as they see fit.

Within the perameters of the constitution. Rights reserved to the states are not absolute. Still waiting to hear your comment on Loving

 

[Couchpotato]

My judgement is clouded??!! That's hysterical! Especially comming from someone who repeatedly claims that laws banning gay marriage do not discriminate because gays can marry someone of the opposite sex.

You know, throughout the years of lower court fights leading up to Obergefell, those trying to defend the bans on same sex marriage came up with all sorts of idiotic reasons for those bans. But, as far as I know, none of them were ever so stupid as to try "They already have equality" bullshit. But here you are desparetly clinging to that bullshit

As far as "the wider issue" goes. The courts authority has been well established. It acted via the 14th Amendment as a matter of a civil right, as it had prior to obergefell on many other issue pertaining to marriage

One of those cases was Loving V. Virginia on interracial marriage which was decided in much the same way as Obergefell. But none of you people who screem about Obergfell will dare touch Loving for fear of being call racist.

Cool. This convo isnt interesting anymore . So you're right and Im wrong. We good now?

 

[struth]

You need to work on your writing and organizational skills because you are still comming in garbled

You previously said:

Got it and agree


Not sure what that means



Again I got it and agree. Now you say:


What the hell does that mean? And


Thats not even a sentence. What are you talking about? And you repeatedly invoke Artical 1 Sec. 8 to define the powers of the federal government which does not include marriage yet you claim to support thr federal governments intervention in marriage issues under certain circumstances

i suppose i am not a teacher..

but maybe you should learn some civics…

maybe beyond 8th grade

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

i suppose i am not a teacher..

but maybe you should learn some civics…

maybe beyond 8th grade

Thats it? Learn civics? You have no idea what I have learned in my long life. I don't need a teacher. I need someone who is literate to converse with and that is not you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Cool. This convo isnt interesting anymore . So you're right and Im wrong. We good now?

Really? So you're caving in? Good. I was getting bored with you anyway. But I don't belivefor a second that you actually believe that I;m right. I'll be watching you and calling you on your bullshit in the future

 

[BackAgain]

What a dipshit thread.

 

[Couchpotato]

Really? So you're caving in? Good. I was getting bored with you anyway. But I don't belivefor a second that you actually believe that I;m right. I'll be watching you and calling you on your bullshit in the future

LOL. ok Is that supposed to scare me or something?

Heres a tip. Life’s short you should probably get one vs worry about what some random person you dont know posts on a message board.