Idaho Republicans pass resolution urging Supreme Court to end marriage equality

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Green haired teachers waving rainbow flags in Kindergarten classes.
They're screwing our kids up and getting them to cut their boobies and peckers off.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that shit

Because Idaho is the one creating the contract, it's a government provided contract.

Marriage licenses are a State thing, created by State laws.

And the 14th Amendment, among other things extends the bill of rights to the states . Marriage my be largley a "state thing" but as with all state matters they cannot violate federal protections

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Idaho Republicans pass resolution urging Supreme Court to end marriage equality - LGBTQ Nation

I really have to ask…what the hell is wrong with these people ? Why can’t they just leave others alone to live their lives as they choose ? Same sex marriage has been the law of the land in all 50 states for nearly a decade. It has been legal in some states and in other countries for much longer. It’s really not much of an issue anymore . Married same sex couples inhabit nearly every community across the country. They have become part of the fabric of society. They own homes, have families, hold jobs, pay taxes , volunteer in their towns and are good neighbors. Most people don’t even notice them and those who do don’t care . They bother no one

I challenge these people to provide and evidence at all that same sex marriage has in any way been detrimental to society , or to them personally . There is absolutely no reason for them to seek to upend the lives of these people and take from them that which they can take for granted . The only explanation for this is the creeping scourge of Christian Nationalism that seeks to impose their distorted and cruel suede Christian beliefs and values on others .

Selected excerpts from the above link:

 

[martybegan]

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that shit

And the 14th Amendment, among other things extends the bill of rights to the states . Marriage my be largley a "state thing" but as with all state matters they cannot violate federal protections

Yes, but the thing is SSM is not "equal" to traditional marriage, just as race is not the same thing as sex.

If people want it changed, they can change the laws via legislative action.

The only thing Obergfell should have done was make States continue to recognize licenses issued in other States, same as has always been done. It should not have forced all States to issue SSM licenses.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Are you living there. Is it private?

Idaho is where I escaped to when we fled communist California.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Loving fell under equal protection because race makes no difference in a marriage.

Sex does.

The only way to change the marriage contract with regards to sex is via changing the laws in question at the State level.

BOTH cases are based on the equal protection clause. In the case on Loving it was established that interracial couples must enjoy the same protections as other couples

Sex does not make any more of a difference that does race unless you want to invoke some bullshit about procreation which has been tried and failed. Even the most ardent detractors of same sex marriage know that that was a loosing argument and were careful not to rais it in court

In Obergefell, it was established that same sex couple must have the same protections as other couples

You can't logically or legally support one decision and claim that the other is invalid .

As far as state laws go, before gays started to assert their wish to marry, there was nothing in those state laws that specifically forbade it . Only then did states start passing laws. holding referendums and passing amendments to prohibit it. Clearly they ran afoul of the constitution. While only states can legislate marriage , SCOTUS can and did invalidate that legislation

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, but the thing is SSM is not "equal" to traditional marriage,

Bullshit ! Why isn't it?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Idaho is where I escaped to when we fled communist California.

.

Idaho's a great choice, but I've heard too many Idahoans complain about the sensation of taking in the back door by the leftists from Californica, who thought Idaho would welcome them and their sick ideology.

Hope your experience is more positive by the day.


.

 

[martybegan]

BOTH cases are based on the equal protection clause. In the case on Loving it was established that interracial couples must enjoy the same protections as other couples

Sex does not make any more of a difference that does race unless you want to invoke some bullshit about procreation which has been tried and failed. Even the most ardent detractors of same sex marriage know that that was a loosing argument and were careful not to rais it in court

In Obergefell, it was established that same sex couple must have the same protections as other couples

You can't logically or legally support one decision and claim that the other is invalid .

As far as state laws go, before gays started to assert their wish to marry, there was nothing in those state laws that specifically forbade it . Only then did states start passing laws. holding referendums and passing amendments to prohibit it. Clearly they ran afoul of the constitution. While only states can legislate marriage , SCOTUS can and did invalidate that legislation

I sure as hell can think race and sex are not the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit ! Why isn't it?

Can a same sex couple have a child completely on their own?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Idaho is where I escaped to when we fled communist California.

You didn't get the joke.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Can a same sex couple have a child completely on their own?

Can a couple where one is barren? How about two seniors who want to get married?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

.

Idaho's a great choice, but I've heard too many Idahoans complain about the sensation of taking in the back door by the leftists from Californica, who thought Idaho would welcome them and their sick ideology.

Hope your experience is more positive by the day.

Idahoans really despise California and do whatever they can to make them feel unwelcome. Some Californians left. I fit in just fine. No one dislikes Californians as much as I do.
.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You enjoy the feel of a boner in the rectum. I see why you object to marriage defined as a man to a woman. But this is a historical law dating over 2000 years back.

Bullshit ! Marriage has taken many forms over time . It is constantly evolving and same sex marriage is just the next logical step

As far as your stupid shit about my taking a boner ion my butt goes, I think that we have been through that before . It's as stupid as stupid gets to make assumptions about someones sexuality based on their advocacy for LGBT people . Only people with the smallest of small minds think that someone who is not LGBT would go to bat for them. And no, I will not validate your disgusting bigotry by denying or confirming anything about myself because I really don't give a **** what you think

 

[Zincwarrior]

Can a same sex couple have a child completely on their own?

On a public policy basis, what is your argument for Idaho trying to make it illegal?
-What is the positive impact to society?
-What is the positive impact to the persons involved?
-What is the positive impact of children/step children from previous marriages?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I helped you in CA by voting for homosexuals to have a contract that handed them civil rights. We put it in the Constitution. But hell no your pals said, they were like women to their men. We don't accept that at all.

That's right ! Separate but equal does not cut it.. That bullshit was shot down a long time ago so don't be so quick to pat yourself on that back for ostensibly being so magnanimous. You aint.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I sure as hell can think race and sex are not the same thing.

You can think whatever the **** you want. That does not make you right

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.




Just like when the conversation is about religion, your side sends it toward pedo priests.








.

More bullshit!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you saying someone can just declare something a right and that it becomes a right?

"I declare my right to murder people"

False equivalency logical fallacy- which is a desperate attempt to score a point when one has no actual rational or logical argument

Let me try to explain to you how things work on a grade level that you might be able to deal with, Local, state and the Federal government pass many laws, some of which are challenged on constitutional grounds When such challenges occur, the state or body defending the law must explain why the law is necessary and what the justification is for any restrictions on what might be considered your rights.

Those laws are subject to one of two l legal standards for based on certain factors , Those standards are either strict scrutiny or a rational basis review. From my link below:

Google Search

www.google.com

In legal terms, "strict scrutiny" is a much more rigorous standard of judicial review than "rational basis," meaning that when a law is subject to strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate a compelling reason for the law and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, while under rational basis, the government only needs to show a legitimate reason with a rational connection to the law; strict scrutiny is typically used for cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications like race, while rational basis is used for most other cases where no fundamental rights are at stake.

Key differences:

• Burden of proof:

Under strict scrutiny, the government bears a heavy burden to prove the law is necessary, while under rational basis, the burden on the government is much lighter.

• When used:

Strict scrutiny is applied to laws impacting fundamental rights like free speech or suspect classifications like race, while rational basis is used for most other laws where no fundamental rights are involved.

• Government interest required:

To pass strict scrutiny, the government must show a "compelling state interest," while under rational basis, only a "legitimate government interest" is needed.

In the case or marriage, the states that tried to ban same sex marriage were unable to provide a compelling reason for the law, or, even a rational basis. Now why don’t you try to challenge the laws against murder and see what happens.? Ya think that the government just might have a case based on a compelling societal interest for the laws to be upheld?

Please stop being so obtuse > I'm embarrassed for you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

False equivalency logical fallacy- which is a desperate attempt to score a point when one has not actual rational or logical argument

Let me try to explain to you how things work on a grade level that you might be able to deal with, Local, state and the Federal government pass many laws, some of which are challenged on constitutional grounds When such challenges occur, the state or body defending the law must explain why the law is necessary and what the justification is for any restrictions on what might be considered your rights.

Those laws are subject to one of two l legal standards for based on certain factors , Those standards are either strict scrutiny or a rational basis review. From my link below:

Google Search

www.google.com

In the case or marriage, the states that tried to ban same sex marriage were unable to provide a compelling reason for the law, or, even a rational basis. Now why don’t you challenge he laws against murder and see what happens. Ya think that the government just might have a case based on a compelling societal interest for the laws to be upheld?

Please stop being so obtuse > I'm embarrassed for you

Give me a ******* break with your fake news crap https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/ohpleasejustquit.83053/

Seems that you gave that about 10 seconds of thought , if you thought at all. Do you even have a functioning brain?

 

[mudwhistle]

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that shit

And the 14th Amendment, among other things extends the bill of rights to the states . Marriage my be largley a "state thing" but as with all state matters they cannot violate federal protections

It takes a special kind of stupid to think when they tell us that's what they're doing, you refuse to believe them because it blows your cult beliefs all to Hell.

Trans kids' treatment can start younger, new guidelines say

A leading transgender health association has lowered its recommended minimum age for gender transition treatment in teens, including starting sex hormones at age 14 and some surgeries at 15.

apnews.com