Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

For the same reason that mixed race marriages didn't lead to incestuous or polygamous marriages either.

 

[Montrovant]

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.

Not entirely true. Marriage gains benefits from federal tax law. There are also immigration laws which deal with marriage I believe. There was DOMA as well.

The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.

It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care.

We don't have universal health care. The ACA is more of a bastardized mix of universal health coverage and private coverage. Not everyone has or is required to have health coverage.

This sounds like your usual rebuttal to any argument I present at USMB. A meandering nit-picking of select terms and obtuse myopic focus on what those terms can mean when taken entirely in another context. Boss says "we have no federal marriage law" and so you have to find some examples of laws which mention or are affected by marriage to prove Boss wrong! Boss says "universal health care" and so you have to make an argument that it's not universal because it's not mandated... you can pay a "tax" and avoid coverage. Oh... and let's see if we can borrow a pronoun from another sentence to infer some unintended meaning on a different sentence, while we're playing fast and loose with context and distorting the hell out of his argument! Let's construct some more straw men and throw a few more monkey wrenches into the discussion in order to complicate the dialogue and detract from any point he may have been trying to get across. THATs what Montro is all about.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

No, I want them to go by intent. I don't want illiterate morons like you determining what it says because you don't seem to grasp context. You also seem to think we can change meanings of words willy-nilly to fit our agenda at the time. This kind of liberalism when it comes to language is a danger to the intentions of our Constitution. So I want them to study the Federalist papers, understand the context in which various arguments were made and what was intended when the final law was settled as part of the Constitution. Finally, I want them to understand their job is not to redefine institutions or redefine laws and rights, but to uphold what is established by the people... whether it fits their personal viewpoint or not.

You just refuse to admit even the slightest mistake, don't you?

I pointed out that there are and have been federal laws dealing with marriage. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

I pointed out that the ACA is not universal healthcare. It is not. No everyone must have insurance, nor do all those without insurance have to pay a 'tax'. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

You say you want the justices on the USSC to follow what the constitution says, and follow that up by pointing out something you think it intended but did not say. That's pretty contradictory. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

If by we you mean society can change the meanings of words willy-nilly, yes, it can. If you mean the court can do so, it's been pointed out again and again that same sex marriage existed years before the Obergefell ruling. The court did not create a new meaning where none previously existed. You might argue that the Massachusetts court did so.

The problem is not my 'nit-picking'. Rather it is your unwillingness to admit a mistake and seeming offense at having any mistakes pointed out.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

You said in the United States. Massachusetts is not the united states. Your geography seems as bad as your civics.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

Why hasn't it?

Incest is illegal numbnuts.

Think beyond your vibrator.

Good god you folks will do anything to deflect from your hatred of equality.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

You said in the United States. Massachusetts is not the united states. Your geography seems as bad as your civics.

Your geography seems out of date- Massachusetts has been part of the United States since our Founding.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage

 

[Syriusly]

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

Why hasn't it?

Incest is illegal numbnuts.

Think beyond your vibrator.

Good god you folks will do anything to deflect from your hatred of equality.

And once again- Pops is the one to insist on talking about incest.

 

[Pop23]

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

You said in the United States. Massachusetts is not the united states. Your geography seems as bad as your civics.

Your geography seems out of date- Massachusetts has been part of the United States since our Founding.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage

Your continued deflection is expected by a radical racist.

Your post was specific that same sex marriage existed in the United States for 10 years. It existed in 1 state for that period for that time period. Which means it was non existent in 49.

A logical statement was that same sex marriage only existed in one single state during that time period.

Your argument appears to be the same used by the John Birch Society, you Racist Bigot.

 

[Pop23]

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

Why hasn't it?

Incest is illegal numbnuts.

Think beyond your vibrator.

Good god you folks will do anything to deflect from your hatred of equality.

And once again- Pops is the one to insist on talking about incest.

Racist bullshit

Syriously....proud member of the KKK

 

[Syriusly]

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

You said in the United States. Massachusetts is not the united states. Your geography seems as bad as your civics.

Your geography seems out of date- Massachusetts has been part of the United States since our Founding.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage

Your continued deflection is expected by a radical racist.

Your post was specific that same sex marriage existed in the United States for 10 years. It existed in 1 state for that period for that time period. Which means it was non existent in 49.

A logical statement was that same sex marriage only existed in one single state during that time period.

Your argument appears to be the same used by the John Birch Society, you Racist Bigot.

The only one focusing on race here is you- citing you- quoting you.

And despite your attempts at deflection to make this about race- my posts were all accurate- your understanding as usual is not.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

So much butt hurt from you- just because gay couples can now legally marry in all 50 states.

 

[Syriusly]

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

Why hasn't it?

Incest is illegal numbnuts.

Think beyond your vibrator.

Good god you folks will do anything to deflect from your hatred of equality.

And once again- Pops is the one to insist on talking about incest.

Racist bullshit

Syriously....proud member of the KKK

Lying Bullshit from Pops

Pops- pulling crap out of his ass again and flinging it at USMB.

 

[Pop23]

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

Why hasn't it?

Incest is illegal numbnuts.

Think beyond your vibrator.

Good god you folks will do anything to deflect from your hatred of equality.

And once again- Pops is the one to insist on talking about incest.

Racist bullshit

Syriously....proud member of the KKK

Lying Bullshit from Pops

Pops- pulling crap out of his ass again and flinging it at USMB.

Then why do you fight so hard and not produce that Compelling State interest that you claim exist? And why haven't you produced that societal safety net that Judge Crabb spoke about, but didn't elaborate on?

Hmmmmm, makes you wonder

 

[Boss]

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.

Not entirely true. Marriage gains benefits from federal tax law. There are also immigration laws which deal with marriage I believe. There was DOMA as well.

The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.

It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care.

We don't have universal health care. The ACA is more of a bastardized mix of universal health coverage and private coverage. Not everyone has or is required to have health coverage.

This sounds like your usual rebuttal to any argument I present at USMB. A meandering nit-picking of select terms and obtuse myopic focus on what those terms can mean when taken entirely in another context. Boss says "we have no federal marriage law" and so you have to find some examples of laws which mention or are affected by marriage to prove Boss wrong! Boss says "universal health care" and so you have to make an argument that it's not universal because it's not mandated... you can pay a "tax" and avoid coverage. Oh... and let's see if we can borrow a pronoun from another sentence to infer some unintended meaning on a different sentence, while we're playing fast and loose with context and distorting the hell out of his argument! Let's construct some more straw men and throw a few more monkey wrenches into the discussion in order to complicate the dialogue and detract from any point he may have been trying to get across. THATs what Montro is all about.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

No, I want them to go by intent. I don't want illiterate morons like you determining what it says because you don't seem to grasp context. You also seem to think we can change meanings of words willy-nilly to fit our agenda at the time. This kind of liberalism when it comes to language is a danger to the intentions of our Constitution. So I want them to study the Federalist papers, understand the context in which various arguments were made and what was intended when the final law was settled as part of the Constitution. Finally, I want them to understand their job is not to redefine institutions or redefine laws and rights, but to uphold what is established by the people... whether it fits their personal viewpoint or not.

You just refuse to admit even the slightest mistake, don't you?

I pointed out that there are and have been federal laws dealing with marriage. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

I pointed out that the ACA is not universal healthcare. It is not. No everyone must have insurance, nor do all those without insurance have to pay a 'tax'. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

You say you want the justices on the USSC to follow what the constitution says, and follow that up by pointing out something you think it intended but did not say. That's pretty contradictory. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

If by we you mean society can change the meanings of words willy-nilly, yes, it can. If you mean the court can do so, it's been pointed out again and again that same sex marriage existed years before the Obergefell ruling. The court did not create a new meaning where none previously existed. You might argue that the Massachusetts court did so.

The problem is not my 'nit-picking'. Rather it is your unwillingness to admit a mistake and seeming offense at having any mistakes pointed out.

What you are doing is not pointing out anything or making any sort of relevant point. You are demonstrating a rather sad and pathetic side of your personality. It's rare, but you and I have engaged in meaningful dialogue before. I've even given you credit for making well-thought-out and reasoned arguments in the past... when is the last time you gave me any credit? Don't take that wrong, I am not asking for recognition or anything, I don't need your praise. I already know you value what I have to say to some degree because you spend the time to respond.

But you have this really immature and nasty habit of trying to derail the conversation when you can't think of a good reply. You fancy yourself as being 'clever' at this.. like a little F. Lee Bailey, pointing out my errors and flaws. Here I am, thinking we are mutually sharing our opinions and hopefully gaining insight into what the other is saying and you are nit-picking my usage of informal pronouns. And quite frankly, on a message board wrought with barely coherent grammar on a regular basis. It is frustrating to me because I know you are capable of better dialogue. You don't come across as F. Lee Bailey... you come across as Peter Griffin doing a bad impression of F. Lee Bailey.

I just wish there was a way I could convey to you how much respect you lose from me when you resort to that. This is not about me admitting errors. I can admit when I make a mistake or say something incorrectly. I've done that with you before. This is all you baby. This is your pathetic and sad cry for attention. You've heard my opinion, you've told me yours, and you can't really change my mind so you decide to run from the conversation and nit pick my grammar errors or take things out of context or obtusely try to distort them in some way.

Now that has become a game that you can play really good. Like my little sister when we were kids. Mom would give us paper and crayons to draw a picture. We'd work on our art a while until sister got frustrated with her work and looked over at mine, which was obviously brilliant... then she'd proceed to take her ugliest crayon and go to ripping it back and forth across my masterpiece in a fit of rage. Then she would start crying when I yelled at her... mom would come in and feel sorry for her and she'd get a treat while I got time out. She was a master at that game, all through us growing up.

But... I digress.

 

[Montrovant]

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.

Not entirely true. Marriage gains benefits from federal tax law. There are also immigration laws which deal with marriage I believe. There was DOMA as well.

The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.

It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care.

We don't have universal health care. The ACA is more of a bastardized mix of universal health coverage and private coverage. Not everyone has or is required to have health coverage.

This sounds like your usual rebuttal to any argument I present at USMB. A meandering nit-picking of select terms and obtuse myopic focus on what those terms can mean when taken entirely in another context. Boss says "we have no federal marriage law" and so you have to find some examples of laws which mention or are affected by marriage to prove Boss wrong! Boss says "universal health care" and so you have to make an argument that it's not universal because it's not mandated... you can pay a "tax" and avoid coverage. Oh... and let's see if we can borrow a pronoun from another sentence to infer some unintended meaning on a different sentence, while we're playing fast and loose with context and distorting the hell out of his argument! Let's construct some more straw men and throw a few more monkey wrenches into the discussion in order to complicate the dialogue and detract from any point he may have been trying to get across. THATs what Montro is all about.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

No, I want them to go by intent. I don't want illiterate morons like you determining what it says because you don't seem to grasp context. You also seem to think we can change meanings of words willy-nilly to fit our agenda at the time. This kind of liberalism when it comes to language is a danger to the intentions of our Constitution. So I want them to study the Federalist papers, understand the context in which various arguments were made and what was intended when the final law was settled as part of the Constitution. Finally, I want them to understand their job is not to redefine institutions or redefine laws and rights, but to uphold what is established by the people... whether it fits their personal viewpoint or not.

You just refuse to admit even the slightest mistake, don't you?

I pointed out that there are and have been federal laws dealing with marriage. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

I pointed out that the ACA is not universal healthcare. It is not. No everyone must have insurance, nor do all those without insurance have to pay a 'tax'. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

You say you want the justices on the USSC to follow what the constitution says, and follow that up by pointing out something you think it intended but did not say. That's pretty contradictory. Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

If by we you mean society can change the meanings of words willy-nilly, yes, it can. If you mean the court can do so, it's been pointed out again and again that same sex marriage existed years before the Obergefell ruling. The court did not create a new meaning where none previously existed. You might argue that the Massachusetts court did so.

The problem is not my 'nit-picking'. Rather it is your unwillingness to admit a mistake and seeming offense at having any mistakes pointed out.

What you are doing is not pointing out anything or making any sort of relevant point. You are demonstrating a rather sad and pathetic side of your personality. It's rare, but you and I have engaged in meaningful dialogue before. I've even given you credit for making well-thought-out and reasoned arguments in the past... when is the last time you gave me any credit? Don't take that wrong, I am not asking for recognition or anything, I don't need your praise. I already know you value what I have to say to some degree because you spend the time to respond.

But you have this really immature and nasty habit of trying to derail the conversation when you can't think of a good reply. You fancy yourself as being 'clever' at this.. like a little F. Lee Bailey, pointing out my errors and flaws. Here I am, thinking we are mutually sharing our opinions and hopefully gaining insight into what the other is saying and you are nit-picking my usage of informal pronouns. And quite frankly, on a message board wrought with barely coherent grammar on a regular basis. It is frustrating to me because I know you are capable of better dialogue. You don't come across as F. Lee Bailey... you come across as Peter Griffin doing a bad impression of F. Lee Bailey.

I just wish there was a way I could convey to you how much respect you lose from me when you resort to that. This is not about me admitting errors. I can admit when I make a mistake or say something incorrectly. I've done that with you before. This is all you baby. This is your pathetic and sad cry for attention. You've heard my opinion, you've told me yours, and you can't really change my mind so you decide to run from the conversation and nit pick my grammar errors or take things out of context or obtusely try to distort them in some way.

Now that has become a game that you can play really good. Like my little sister when we were kids. Mom would give us paper and crayons to draw a picture. We'd work on our art a while until sister got frustrated with her work and looked over at mine, which was obviously brilliant... then she'd proceed to take her ugliest crayon and go to ripping it back and forth across my masterpiece in a fit of rage. Then she would start crying when I yelled at her... mom would come in and feel sorry for her and she'd get a treat while I got time out. She was a master at that game, all through us growing up.

But... I digress.

What I do is respond to your posts. If I see things you have said in error I will point them out. I'm sorry if that is a problem for you. You have certainly pointed out various things in my posts which you have considered to be in error.

I made a pretty short post responding to a few items I saw which were incorrect. Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place. Maybe it's residual resentment from getting in trouble as a child, I don't know.

I find your unwillingness to admit error or accept someone pointing out errors in your post just as annoying as you seem to find having those errors brought up. You may not like it but I will continue to point out errors in your posts as I perceive them.

 

[Boss]

If I see things you have said in error I will point them out .. Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place.

Nonsense. My dander is low and lovely. It's nice to see you admit that you are here to point out errors, I am here to have meaningful conversations. I would rather hear you address some of the points that have been made with regard to "strict scrutiny" versus "rational basis" test when it comes to constitutional rights versus collective societal values. We can't have that conversation if you are nit-picking over usage of informal pronouns.

I realize it's a more difficult topic for you to converse about, especially since it destroys your idea that Obergefell doesn't have any ramification other than to allow gays to marry. I understand that if you face this reality it also pretty much destroys your moral "societal viewpoint" arguments regarding age of consent, sibling marriage and all kinds of other things you are in denial about having to face in the future. And so, it's just easier for you to take the pinhead way out and start nit-picking minutia.

Like I said earlier... Respect-O-Meter is declining rapidly.

 

[Montrovant]

If I see things you have said in error I will point them out .. Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place.

Nonsense. My dander is low and lovely. It's nice to see you admit that you are here to point out errors, I am here to have meaningful conversations. I would rather hear you address some of the points that have been made with regard to "strict scrutiny" versus "rational basis" test when it comes to constitutional rights versus collective societal values. We can't have that conversation if you are nit-picking over usage of informal pronouns.

I realize it's a more difficult topic for you to converse about, especially since it destroys your idea that Obergefell doesn't have any ramification other than to allow gays to marry. I understand that if you face this reality it also pretty much destroys your moral "societal viewpoint" arguments regarding age of consent, sibling marriage and all kinds of other things you are in denial about having to face in the future. And so, it's just easier for you to take the pinhead way out and start nit-picking minutia.

Like I said earlier... Respect-O-Meter is declining rapidly.

I am not particularly concerned about your Respect-O-Meter.

It's unfortunate for you that you cannot have a meaningful conversation and have errors in that conversation pointed out at the same time. Some of us are able to do both.

I actually already brought up that, from what I've read, cases involving gender and sexual orientation tend to fall under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict or rational. However, since the courts already established marriage as a fundamental right prior to Obergefell, it would make sense to use strict scrutiny.

Whatever the case, I don't see how Obergefell changed how marriage cases will be viewed as far as scrutiny is concerned. Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before. If you want to blame the fact that marriage cases may full under strict scrutiny on anything, blame it on Loving. I believe that is the first time the court described marriage as a fundamental right.

Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws. The idea that same sex marriage somehow makes age of consent irrelevant is your own disturbing belief.

I haven't said that Obergefell cannot have any ramifications other than to allow gays to marry. I have rejected your claims that it requires all other forms of marriage be made legal. Those are not the same thing.

Care to whine some more about nit-picking now?

 

[Boss]

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.

I disagree. It was stated in an opinion brief, it was not ensconced into law... ie.; "established". The case won on the merits of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, marriage did not have to be a fundamental constitutional right. Besides that, Marriage is something entirely different than Gay Marriage. So even IF it IS a fundamental constitutional right, it isn't same-sex unions.

Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.

Well that's because you don't seem to understand that Obergefell used the Loving opinion brief to create a new fundamental right to marriage (as defined by the pairing) that didn't previously exist under the law. Now it does. That's not Loving's fault. So now, marriage becomes a fundamental constitutional right that can be defined by whatever criteria cranks your tractor, basically. The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.

 

[Montrovant]

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.

I disagree. It was stated in an opinion brief, it was not ensconced into law... ie.; "established". The case won on the merits of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, marriage did not have to be a fundamental constitutional right. Besides that, Marriage is something entirely different than Gay Marriage. So even IF it IS a fundamental constitutional right, it isn't same-sex unions.

Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.

Well that's because you don't seem to understand that Obergefell used the Loving opinion brief to create a new fundamental right to marriage (as defined by the pairing) that didn't previously exist under the law. Now it does. That's not Loving's fault. So now, marriage becomes a fundamental constitutional right that can be defined by whatever criteria cranks your tractor, basically. The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.

On multiple occasions before Obergefell, including Loving, the USSC described marriage as a fundamental right. From my reading previous cases involving marriage have used strict scrutiny because of that determination. I will give you an example : Zablocki v. Redhail. From section a of the syllabus, "(a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.". Here is a link to the full text : Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978) . So here we see the court describing marriage as a fundamental right and applying strict scrutiny based on that.

There may not have a been a law written defining marriage as a fundamental right.....but there still is no such law. Obergefell did not create a new law; you will find no new statutes where none previously existed. The USSC has apparently considered marriage a fundamental right for years and made decisions based on that classification a dozen or more times before Obergefell.

Arguing that the fundamental right described by the courts in previous years was based on the idea that marriage was for opposite sex couples is a much stronger argument. Although I have read that in none of those cases did the justices mention opposite genders when discussing marriage, it can likely be assumed for most of them.

 

[Montrovant]

The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.

I have never said anything about arguing against a type of marriage because it is 'icky'. You (and perhaps Pops, although I don't remember for certain) created that argument yourself.

As I pointed out in the previous post, the USSC considered marriage a fundamental right prior to Obergefell and applied strict scrutiny in other cases based on that.

 

[Boss]

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.

I disagree. It was stated in an opinion brief, it was not ensconced into law... ie.; "established". The case won on the merits of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, marriage did not have to be a fundamental constitutional right. Besides that, Marriage is something entirely different than Gay Marriage. So even IF it IS a fundamental constitutional right, it isn't same-sex unions.

Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.

Well that's because you don't seem to understand that Obergefell used the Loving opinion brief to create a new fundamental right to marriage (as defined by the pairing) that didn't previously exist under the law. Now it does. That's not Loving's fault. So now, marriage becomes a fundamental constitutional right that can be defined by whatever criteria cranks your tractor, basically. The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.

On multiple occasions before Obergefell, including Loving, the USSC described marriage as a fundamental right. From my reading previous cases involving marriage have used strict scrutiny because of that determination. I will give you an example : Zablocki v. Redhail. From section a of the syllabus, "(a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.". Here is a link to the full text : Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978) . So here we see the court describing marriage as a fundamental right and applying strict scrutiny based on that.

There may not have a been a law written defining marriage as a fundamental right.....but there still is no such law. Obergefell did not create a new law; you will find no new statutes where none previously existed. The USSC has apparently considered marriage a fundamental right for years and made decisions based on that classification a dozen or more times before Obergefell.

Arguing that the fundamental right described by the courts in previous years was based on the idea that marriage was for opposite sex couples is a much stronger argument. Although I have read that in none of those cases did the justices mention opposite genders when discussing marriage, it can likely be assumed for most of them.

Monty, you're having trouble with words again, "Of fundamental importance" is not saying "a fundamental right". And again, stating something to that effect is not establishing a law based on it. Finally... even IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still the union of two genders, with numerous other qualifiers like consent, age, relation, etc.... not same sex unions.

So we have two deceptions happening here... we have the inclusion of same sex unions as marriage, which no one agreed was marriage on a national level... we didn't have a vote... it has not been established... AND, the insistence this newly created type of "marriage" is somehow a fundamental right the framers failed to include in the Bill of Rights.

Is there anyone here who honestly thinks, if we went back in time and asked Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin.,... Do you think two men in a relationship with each other constitutes "marriage"... they would AGREE with that?

 

[Montrovant]

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.

I disagree. It was stated in an opinion brief, it was not ensconced into law... ie.; "established". The case won on the merits of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, marriage did not have to be a fundamental constitutional right. Besides that, Marriage is something entirely different than Gay Marriage. So even IF it IS a fundamental constitutional right, it isn't same-sex unions.

Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.

Well that's because you don't seem to understand that Obergefell used the Loving opinion brief to create a new fundamental right to marriage (as defined by the pairing) that didn't previously exist under the law. Now it does. That's not Loving's fault. So now, marriage becomes a fundamental constitutional right that can be defined by whatever criteria cranks your tractor, basically. The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.

On multiple occasions before Obergefell, including Loving, the USSC described marriage as a fundamental right. From my reading previous cases involving marriage have used strict scrutiny because of that determination. I will give you an example : Zablocki v. Redhail. From section a of the syllabus, "(a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.". Here is a link to the full text : Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978) . So here we see the court describing marriage as a fundamental right and applying strict scrutiny based on that.

There may not have a been a law written defining marriage as a fundamental right.....but there still is no such law. Obergefell did not create a new law; you will find no new statutes where none previously existed. The USSC has apparently considered marriage a fundamental right for years and made decisions based on that classification a dozen or more times before Obergefell.

Arguing that the fundamental right described by the courts in previous years was based on the idea that marriage was for opposite sex couples is a much stronger argument. Although I have read that in none of those cases did the justices mention opposite genders when discussing marriage, it can likely be assumed for most of them.

Monty, you're having trouble with words again, "Of fundamental importance" is not saying "a fundamental right". And again, stating something to that effect is not establishing a law based on it. Finally... even IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still the union of two genders, with numerous other qualifiers like consent, age, relation, etc.... not same sex unions.

So we have two deceptions happening here... we have the inclusion of same sex unions as marriage, which no one agreed was marriage on a national level... we didn't have a vote... it has not been established... AND, the insistence this newly created type of "marriage" is somehow a fundamental right the framers failed to include in the Bill of Rights.

Is there anyone here who honestly thinks, if we went back in time and asked Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin.,... Do you think two men in a relationship with each other constitutes "marriage"... they would AGREE with that?

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right. I also pointed out that there is still no such law. However, marriage is treated as a fundamental right by the USSC and has been since well before Obergefell.

Also, although you could easily see this for yourself with little effort, if you go to Page 434 U. S. 381 of the Zablocki case you will see, "On the merits, the three-judge panel analyzed the challenged statute under the Equal Protection Clause and concluded that "strict scrutiny" was required because the classification created by the statute infringed upon a fundamental right, the right to marry.". For someone who complains about nit-picking as much as you do, it strikes me as pretty hypocritical to be complaining about the wording difference between fundamental right and of fundamental importance.

Of course if we went back in time the founders would consider marriage between a man and a woman. They might have considered marriage between members of the same race, as well. Are you arguing that court decisions be based on what the founders would have believed at the time and ignore the changes in society in the intervening years? I think it's a bit late for that.