How has your marriage been hurt?

[DBA]

I actually agree with you on this.
CCA should be like a Drivers License and recognized in all states.
Just like you have to comply with another states driving laws, you would have to comply with their gun laws

But heavily blue states would simple pass laws that would make it useless and impractical to posses a gun. You are arguing that same-sex married couples should be treated the same in each state, which they are because of the SC ruling. I am arguing that the same should be for guns. Have a federal standard that upholds the second ammendment that allows me to carry and posses a gun no matter how blue the city/state may be. My guess is this is a case where Democrats will decide it is better left up to the states. I am not necessarily saying that I don’t want to left up to the states, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[rightwinger]

But heavily blue states would simple pass laws that would make it useless and impractical to posses a gun. You are arguing that same-sex married couples should be treated the same in each state, which they are because of the SC ruling. I am arguing that the same should be for guns. Have a federal standard that upholds the second ammendment that allows me to carry and posses a gun no matter how blue the city/state may be. My guess is this is a case where Democrats will decide it is better left up to the states. I am not necessarily saying that I don’t want to left up to the states, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

I would agree to a Federal Regulation for gun laws
Red States that allow open carry with no background checks, training or licensing may not like it

 

[rightwinger]

Of course it matters. Obergfell is up there with Roe and Plessey in making stuff up because some Justices felt like it.

14th amendment is not made up.

 

[martybegan]

14th amendment is not made up.

14th amendment doesn't apply. Equal protection is based on something being Equal.

 

[Curried Goats]

14th amendment doesn't apply. Equal protection is based on something being Equal.

Like the rights of people....

 

[martybegan]

Like the rights of people....

There is no right to a same sex marriage. There is a right to have your issued marriage be recognized under full faith and credit by all the other States.

 

[Curried Goats]

There is no right to a same sex marriage. There is a right to have your issued marriage be recognized under full faith and credit by all the other States.

There is a right to same sex marriage dumb dumb. Join us back in reality.

 

[martybegan]

There is a right to same sex marriage dumb dumb. Join us back in reality.

No, there isn't Not enumerated, and the Obergfell decision just made it up without any Constitutional basis.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, there isn't Not enumerated, and the Obergfell decision just made it up without any Constitutional basis.

The previous poster explained to you that the constitutional basis is the 14th Amendment. Where in the constitution does it say your fee fees are superior to the rulings of the Supreme Court?

 

[there4eyeM]

It was ridiculous that the word had to be identical for homosexual unions as with what everyone had always recognized as heterosexual. Radicals insisted upon it in order to subvert language and common understanding. For some reason, the majority submitted. So be it. Words only mean what the majority accepts as meaning, after all.
Firearm extremists need to keep that in mind when they tout "infringed" all the time.

 

[martybegan]

The previous poster explained to you that the constitutional basis is the 14th Amendment. Where in the constitution does it say your fee fees are superior to the rulings of the Supreme Court?

Where does it say SSM and traditional marriage are equal?

SSM is a new concept, last 2-3 decades or so. No historical context at the time of the Constitution or the 14th amendment.

If the States want to implement it by legislative action or referendum, so be it. I am on record saying I would vote OK for it. It's just not something the courts can impose on States not willing to issue SSM licenses.

They can be forced to recognize SSM licenses issued in other States via full faith and credit, as well as centuries of precedence, but that's it.

 

[Curried Goats]

It was ridiculous that the word had to be identical for homosexual unions as with what everyone had always recognized as heterosexual. Radicals insisted upon it in order to subvert language and common understanding. For some reason, the majority submitted. So be it. Words only mean what the majority accepts as meaning, after all.
Firearm extremists need to keep that in mind when they tout "infringed" all the time.

Subvert language?

What an emotionally frail sentiment. Languages and words are entirely made up. How does one subvert them?

 

[Curried Goats]

Where does it say SSM and traditional marriage are equal?

SSM is a new concept, last 2-3 decades or so. No historical context at the time of the Constitution or the 14th amendment.

If the States want to implement it by legislative action or referendum, so be it. I am on record saying I would vote OK for it. It's just not something the courts can impose on States not willing to issue SSM licenses.

They can be forced to recognize SSM licenses issued in other States via full faith and credit, as well as centuries of precedence, but that's it.

Again. Where in the constitution does it say your fee fees are superior to the rulings of the Supreme Court?

 

[martybegan]

Again. Where in the constitution does it say your fee fees are superior to the rulings of the Supreme Court?

Obergfell was all about feelings, just like Roe and Plessey, and just as wrong.

Feeling are not material to Constitutional arguments, and I've already said I'm OK with SSM as long as it's passed legislatively or by referendum at the State level.

 

[DGS49]

Which is, of course, HILARIOUS.

Divorce in the US is at huge rates.

"In 2021, a total of 689,308 divorces occurred across the 45 U.S. states that report this statistics."

So, more than 1.3 million people a year are getting divorced.

"So, what about the famous statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce? That’s true, but only when it comes to first marriages, half of which are dissolved. Second and third marriages actually fail at a far higher rate."

So, you've got a 50% chance your marriage will fail, based on pure statistics. Obviously the people getting divorced include people who will almost certainly get divorced because that's the kind of people they are. They're in professions that lead to divorce, or they just can't deal with marriage and be trustworthy.

but let's blame gay people.

The 50% failure rate is a statistical myth, only accepted by Leftists. Marriage is a life-long commitment, so it is IMPOSSIBLE TO STATE, for example, THE FAILURE RATE OF MARRIAGES IN 1973 until all of those people are dead.

50% is probably a fairly accurate estimate, but that's all it can be until all of the marriages in a given timeframe are ended by either death or divorce.

I am currently in year 52.

 

[Curried Goats]

Obergfell was all about feelings, just like Roe and Plessey, and just as wrong.

Feeling are not material to Constitutional arguments, and I've already said I'm OK with SSM as long as it's passed legislatively or by referendum at the State level.

I don't care what you said about that. I want to know where in the constitution it says your fee fees are superior to the rulings of the Supreme Court.

 

[martybegan]

I don't care what you said about that. I want to know where in the constitution it says your fee fees are superior to the rulings of the Supreme Court.

I've never claimed that. You are making that shit up because you can't argue the mechanics of the Constitution, nor the mechanics for interpreting it.

The SC has been shown to be wrong in the past. Plessey is the example everyone agrees on.

 

[Curried Goats]

I've never claimed that. You are making that shit up because you can't argue the mechanics of the Constitution, nor the mechanics for interpreting it.

The SC has been shown to be wrong in the past. Plessey is the example everyone agrees on.

You are claiming that every time you pretend your opinion matters more to the rule of law than the ruling of the Supreme Court. I don't care how you feel about the ruling. I only care that you and yours are losers. Literally. How you feel about that is your business.

 

[martybegan]

You are claiming that every time you pretend your opinion matters more to the rule of law than the ruling of the Supreme Court. I don't care how you feel about the ruling. I only care that you and yours are losers. Literally. How you feel about that is your business.

I am debating my position, you are just bitching about me having a position, and not even trying to counter it.

Then why do you keep responding and why are you part of a messageboard, dumbfuck?

 

[Curried Goats]

I am debating my position, you are just bitching about me having a position, and not even trying to counter it.

Because I don't care about your opinion. I'm only interested to see if you are emotionally capable of accepting objective reality. Do you recognize, despite your hilariously impotent opinion to the contrary, that homosexual couples have a legal right to same sex marriage? Yes or no?

Then why do you keep responding and why are you part of a messageboard, dumbfuck?

Because you're a hilarious cosplayer of emotional fragility, that's why.