Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Seawytch]

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House ******* suing the President instead of legislating.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House ******* suing the President instead of legislating.

Or the President suing Arizona instead of administering the law.

Oh look at you ignoring your wrongness on sodomy laws.

Oh look, me not embarassing you.

Hardwick became hostile and threatened to have officers fired for entering his home.[citation needed] Both men were placed under arrest for sodomy, which was defined in Georgia law to include both oral sex and anal sex between members of the same or opposite sex.[5] The local district attorney elected not to present the charge to the grand jury, which would have been a prerequisite to any trial or punishment for the offense. Hardwick then sued Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia, in federal court for a declaration that the state's sodomy law was invalid. He charged that as an active homosexual, he was liable to eventually be prosecuted for his activities.]

You understand they were not enforced, right? The only reason they became an issue is because the fags ginned up a case they could bring. OTherwise no one cared. Fags, causing trouble and disease wherever they go.

Um, you jumped from Texas to Georgia? Texas outlawed only gay anal and oral sex, not heterosexual and yes, someone was arrested for it, hence Lawrence v Texas.

 

[kaz]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

False analogy

 

[kaz]

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

Your reading skills are atrocious. The sad thing is they let people graduate from high school with so little reading comprehension.

Allegedly she was in the military. How would you like that makng decisions on life and death for you?

"That" did for 20 years and you seem to have survived.

Now my legal spouse gets all the benefits of being married to a military retiree. Thanks SCOTUS!

Milk the taxpayers. It's all gays really are about.

Red herring fallacy.

You either don't know that means or you didn't understand what he said, you tell me which it is

 

[Seawytch]

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House ******* suing the President instead of legislating.

Did you whine when the president sued the state of Arizona?

No? Then STFU!

He didn't, the Justice Department did...which is their job.

The Justice Department works for the president. Or did you think the Lying African had nothing to do with Eric Holder's appointment?

Of course he appointed him, but anyone appointed to the Justice Department would have done the same thing. Oh, and the JD won, by the way. Arizona was found to have overstepped its bounds. That's what really pissed you off isn't it racist?

 

[kaz]

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

 

[kaz]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Yet you can't think of specific examples of Republican judicial activism, you just know it happened...

 

[Seawytch]

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

 

[kaz]

Oh look at you ignoring your wrongness on sodomy laws.

Oh look, me not embarassing you.

You couldn't turn a beet red...

 

[kaz]

.

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.

I don't agree with you gay sodomy laws are the same as man/woman marriage though. As I said before literally you are right. But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage. Gay sodomy laws were created with the intention of targeting gays. Be honest about that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Yet you can't think of specific examples of Republican judicial activism, you just know it happened...

Conservative Judicial Activists Run Amok -- NYMag

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage..

That's irrelevant.

Why didn't women get the right to vote in the original founding of this country. Didn't it 'occur' to them that women's suffrage was a core component of equal rights?

Just because something has been done wrong for a very long time does not magically transform it into being right.

 

[kaz]

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

We're a democracy of judges, the majority of judges wins now...

1/3rd of our government....checks and balances. Read up on it sometime.

1/3rd of our government with a defined role, exactly. They are not 1/1 of the government with ubiquitous power as you believe. Checks and balances. read up on it sometime.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Yet you can't think of specific examples of Republican judicial activism, you just know it happened...

Harry Blackmun - Roe v Wade

 

[kaz]

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

We're a democracy of judges, the majority of judges wins now...

We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws designed to deny gay Americans their civil rights are proof of that.

And when the people err and enact measures that disadvantage a class of persons merely as a consequence of who they are, those disadvantaged have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the merits of their case is determined in accordance with the rule of law.

Judges rule on these cases pursuant to the Constitution and its case law, as authorized by Articles III and VI. Measures found to be un-Constitutional are appropriately invalidated.

Therefore, it's incumbent upon the people, state lawmakers, and officers of the state to know Constitutional jurisprudence, to obey and follow the Constitution and its case law, as when a measure is indeed determined to be un-Constitutional, the fault lies solely with the state, not the judges who follow the law.

Yes it is their responsibility, their responsibility is not to engage in criminal actions and control the other branches to make life fair. Their role is to do their job, no less, and no more. You oppose the latter of those requirements.

 

[kaz]

Yet you can't think of specific examples of Republican judicial activism, you just know it happened...

Harry Blackmun - Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade? Those damn Republicans forcing abortion on everyone. Great point, if you are the village idiot.

Blackmum was nominated by Nixon who had to get any judge past a Senate with 120 democrats and -20 Republicans. He was also one justice.

Seriously, Roe v. Wade? Right wing activism? Seriously, what is wrong with you? You clearly do have a dog in the fight, and that dog is named Karl.

Roe. v. Wade, wow...

 

[kaz]

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

We're a democracy of judges, the majority of judges wins now...

And that is an example of a fallacy.

That was an example of sarcasm, idiot.

 

[kaz]

She's not political and says what you want to hear, you can live with that. But if she said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the *****...

Wow- so you think that Mildred Loving is a '*****'.

Is it because she is black?

Or because she supports marriage equality?

Or because she married a white man?

Yet another liberal without cognitive reasoning or reading comprehension. Get someone to explain to you what I said and get back to me.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yet you can't think of specific examples of Republican judicial activism, you just know it happened...

Harry Blackmun - Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade? Those damn Republicans forcing abortion on everyone. Great point, if you are the village idiot.

Blackmum was nominated by Nixon who had to get any judge past a Senate with 120 democrats and -20 Republicans. He was also one justice.

Seriously, Roe v. Wade? Right wing activism? Seriously, what is wrong with you? You clearly do have a dog in the fight, and that dog is named Karl.

Roe. v. Wade, wow...

Sorry, to hurt that butt so darn bad there dude - you asked for an example of a Republican justice demonstrating judicial activism. I gave it to you.

In writing the majority opinion, Blackmun broke two cardinal rules that traditionally restrain justices. He sought his own evidence that was not presented by either side and he he extended his ruling to apply beyond the case at hand. Two HUGE over-reaches. And that's just one I can name right off the top of my head.

 

[kaz]

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

 

[nodoginnafight]

[ But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage..

That's irrelevant.

Why didn't women get the right to vote in the original founding of this country. Didn't it 'occur' to them that women's suffrage was a core component of equal rights?

Just because something has been done wrong for a very long time does not magically transform it into being right.

You often see folks on the far right try to trot that one out: "We've always done it that way...."

It's NEVER a very compelling argument, so you know that if they are falling all the way back to THAT one, their argument is sinking fast.