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

[The Rabbi]

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

The law explicitly calls it a "penalty".

And where did it explicitly say the mandate was not a tax.

Thats not how it works, idiot. It didnt say it wasnt a polar bear either. If it calls it a penalty then it is not a tax. A penalty is not a tax. A tax is not a penalty. They are mutually exclusive.
The president and all the Dems in Congress swore up and down it wasnt a tax.

 

[Skylar]

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

The law explicitly calls it a "penalty".

And where did it explicitly say the mandate was not a tax.

Thats not how it works, idiot. It didnt say it wasnt a polar bear either. If it calls it a penalty then it is not a tax. A penalty is not a tax. A tax is not a penalty. They are mutually exclusive.
The president and all the Dems in Congress swore up and down it wasnt a tax.

Um, rabbi....the word 'explicitly' means that the words you're using are written out. So if you say 'The Law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax', then the words you cited should be there. Words like 'not a tax'.

They aren't. You're implying that the citation of a 'penalty' means that it isn't a tax. And implication is the exact opposite of explicitly stating.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

The law explicitly calls it a "penalty".

And where did it explicitly say the mandate was not a tax.

Thats not how it works, idiot. It didnt say it wasnt a polar bear either. If it calls it a penalty then it is not a tax. A penalty is not a tax. A tax is not a penalty. They are mutually exclusive.
The president and all the Dems in Congress swore up and down it wasnt a tax.

Um, rabbi....the word 'explicitly' means that the words you're using are written out. So if you say 'The Law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax', then the words you cited should be there. Words like 'not a tax'.

They aren't. You're implying that the citation of a 'penalty' means that it isn't a tax. And implication is the exact opposite of explicitly stating.

It explicitly states it is a penalty. Ergo it cannot be a tax.
Quit playing stupid word games. You lose.

 

[Skylar]

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

The law explicitly calls it a "penalty".

And where did it explicitly say the mandate was not a tax.

Thats not how it works, idiot. It didnt say it wasnt a polar bear either. If it calls it a penalty then it is not a tax. A penalty is not a tax. A tax is not a penalty. They are mutually exclusive.
The president and all the Dems in Congress swore up and down it wasnt a tax.

Um, rabbi....the word 'explicitly' means that the words you're using are written out. So if you say 'The Law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax', then the words you cited should be there. Words like 'not a tax'.

They aren't. You're implying that the citation of a 'penalty' means that it isn't a tax. And implication is the exact opposite of explicitly stating.

It explicitly states it is a penalty. Ergo it cannot be a tax.

'Ergo' wasn't your claim. You said it explicitly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

Where.

Quit playing stupid word games. You lose.

Unless the meaning of 'explicitly' changed while we were chatting, I win. Again.

 

[The Rabbi]

The law explicitly calls it a "penalty".

And where did it explicitly say the mandate was not a tax.

Thats not how it works, idiot. It didnt say it wasnt a polar bear either. If it calls it a penalty then it is not a tax. A penalty is not a tax. A tax is not a penalty. They are mutually exclusive.
The president and all the Dems in Congress swore up and down it wasnt a tax.

Um, rabbi....the word 'explicitly' means that the words you're using are written out. So if you say 'The Law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax', then the words you cited should be there. Words like 'not a tax'.

They aren't. You're implying that the citation of a 'penalty' means that it isn't a tax. And implication is the exact opposite of explicitly stating.

It explicitly states it is a penalty. Ergo it cannot be a tax.

'Ergo' wasn't your claim. You said it explicitly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

Where.

Quit playing stupid word games. You lose.

Unless the meaning of 'explicitly' changed while we were chatting, I win. Again.

Here's your trophy, champ. Enjoy.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreen.
I was wrong. There are 3 arguments for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really oppressed black people c.1965
2 We're winning in the courts
3) Give us the money.

There is really only one argument

Same gender couples deserve to be treated under the law, exactly the same as my wife and I are.

Why do they deserve that?

Because I believe in the Constitution, and equal protection.

Marriage is a right in the United States

Charles Manson legally has the right to marry- his valid marriage license apparently just expired. Mixed race couples have the right to marry. A parent who owes child support has the right to marry.

A same gender couple differs from my wife and I in only one detail- rather than an X and Y there is an X and an X or a Y and a Y.
I believe that they should be treated exactly the same- exactly equally- as my wife and I are.

Under equal protection and due process, with marriage being a right, States need to provide a compelling reason why a same gender couple should be treated differently than my wife and I. States haven't been able to- and neither have you.

 

[Syriusly]

Those legislatures or the People, simply don't retain the Power to deny and disparage those privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several States, without changing our Constitution, to allow it.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

Obamacare.
The law that Congress passed and the president signed is not the law the SUpreme Court declared constitutional. The law passed explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax. They simply made that up.

The Supreme Court didn't make up the Affordable care act- that was passed by Congress.

The Supreme Court merely ruled upon the Constitutionality of the law.

Care to try again?

 

[kaz]

It does remind me of the civil rights struggle in the 60s. There are some holdouts (and look for the same states to be the holdouts here), but they are just going to wind up hurting a lot of innocent people, looking very foolish and vindictive in the process, and eventually losing anyway.

I know what you mean. Bbeing shot with a water hose and being forced to use different bathrooms and water fountains and having crosses burned in your front yard is pretty much the same as not getting a piece of paper from the government validating you and giving you tax breaks. I always confuse those as well.

 

[kaz]

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Kaz...feel free to work your internet fingers to the bone telling people about the evils of Civil marriage. Actually DO something about your ideals and stand with a sign outside the marriage registrars office "Down with gubmit marriage". Do everything in your powerlessness to get rid of civil marriage and the hundreds of benfits that go with it. We'll still want to marry (Some STR8 would set up a citizens registry I'm sure). We were marrying before we could do it legally and we would do it if you ever managed to pry civil marriage from the fingers of you heterosexuals. Let us know how the campaign goes...you'll know how OUR fight goes.

Begging the question. I told you what I am doing.

 

[kaz]

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

Strawman, I'm not reluctant. I'm glad it makes my spouse happy. When you grasp that, maybe you can move past government marriage just being collective validation and start to get the real thing. Gays are not all like you BTW. My VP of sales for my business is gay. She has worked for me about three years. She has been in a serious committed relationship for about one. She and her partner very much do things for each other's interest. Isn't it interesting? You have the paper, she doesn't want it, but I consider her far more married than you are.

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreen.
I was wrong. There are 3 arguments for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really oppressed black people c.1965
2 We're winning in the courts
3) Give us the money.

I think you mean show me the money...

 

[kaz]

Strawman, I'm not reluctant. I'm glad it makes my spouse happy. When you grasp that, maybe you can move past government marriage just being collective validation and start to get the real thing. Gays are not all like you BTW. My VP of sales for my business is gay. She has worked for me about three years. She has been in a serious committed relationship for about one. She and her partner very much do things for each other's interest. Isn't it interesting? You have the paper, she doesn't want it, but I consider her far more married than you are.

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreeny.

Argument #2
"Gays just want to marry to sponge off of others"

By having the same rights as a heterosexual married couple....

I want married heterosexual couples, married homosexual couples and singles to pay the same, flat tax rates.

You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

Get off your high horse, you have nothing to be condescending about. You're a hypocrite.

 

[Seawytch]

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Kaz...feel free to work your internet fingers to the bone telling people about the evils of Civil marriage. Actually DO something about your ideals and stand with a sign outside the marriage registrars office "Down with gubmit marriage". Do everything in your powerlessness to get rid of civil marriage and the hundreds of benfits that go with it. We'll still want to marry (Some STR8 would set up a citizens registry I'm sure). We were marrying before we could do it legally and we would do it if you ever managed to pry civil marriage from the fingers of you heterosexuals. Let us know how the campaign goes...you'll know how OUR fight goes.

Begging the question. I told you what I am doing.

Great, keep talking. I'm sure there are dozens of people jumping on that "no civil marriage" bandwagon.

 

[kaz]

There is really only one argument

Same gender couples deserve to be treated under the law, exactly the same as my wife and I are.

And **** single people

 

[Seawytch]

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreeny.

Argument #2
"Gays just want to marry to sponge off of others"

By having the same rights as a heterosexual married couple....

I want married heterosexual couples, married homosexual couples and singles to pay the same, flat tax rates.

You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

Get off your high horse, you have nothing to be condescending about. You're a hypocrite.

Which is a completely separate issue from our civil marriages being treated exactly like yours. Start a thread.

 

[kaz]

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Those legislatures or the People, simply don't retain the Power to deny and disparage those privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several States, without changing our Constitution, to allow it.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Strawman.

Yes, when you address a liberal, you need to keep their liberal spin

 

[kaz]

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me.

Also known as comprimise.....

You may want to google that word since you don't know what it means.

 

[kaz]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would require her to grasp the concept of heterosexual marriage where you can put your partner's interest before your own and do something you don't want because it's more important to your partner. She isn't capable of putting someone else's needs before her own. She sees a relationship as a negotiation and compromise, and if something is important to her she demands her way and if she doesn't get it shows them the door.

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me. If you're with the right person, that is a far better system than splitting everything down the middle. That is beyond her comprehension, and she keeps telling us that. She got the government validation she craves, but she is just playing the part of a "spouse." She doesn't comprehend what it means.

So you want to pretend to know what Sea's marriage is like, just like she assumed she knew about your marriage.

You are both wrong.

The only thing I know about her marriage is what she tells me to do, which is to not compromise with my partner but insist I get my way.

Are you saying she's not sincere, she's a liar? You're probably right, I actually observed that before. She doesn't do what she tells me to do.

 

[kaz]

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

In other words- she wants to be treated legally the same as you and your wife- and you resent that she and her partner will be able to get the same 'tax benefits' as you enjoy.

In other words, she wants to not be treated like single people, she wants them to be reamed with higher taxes then get out of paying them. Actually those are not "other" words, they are actually what she advocates...

 

[kaz]

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

People may have not been thinking about the possibility of homosexuals marrying when marriage was legally created in California, but people were specifically excluding the possibility of homosexuals marrying when they passed laws against same gender marriage:


On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. The decision was the first in the United States to establish sexual orientation as asuspect classification.[2] On June 4, 2008, the court denied a request for rehearing and a request to put a hold on the ruling, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[3] The writ of mandate directing the state government to comply with the ruling and grant same-sex marriages was issued by the Superior Court of California on June 19, 2008.[4]

And then my fellow citizen's changed our Constitution specifically to ensure that homosexuals could not legally marry.

Californians passed 2 laws, and one Amendment from 1977 on to prevent homosexuals from marrying- those laws were directed specifically at homosexuals.

From 1991 to 2008, you're headed the wrong direction...

Oh we have already arrived at the right destination.

People in love are getting married.

Equivocation

No- celebration- people in love are getting married.

You object to that- I celebrate it.

That's a logical fallacy referred to as, "the ***** be trippin..."

 

[kaz]

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Those legislatures or the People, simply don't retain the Power to deny and disparage those privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several States, without changing our Constitution, to allow it.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

You quoted my answer to the question, moron