March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell

[Meathead]

That is "tens" Not tens of thousands. TENS!! These people need to just give it up and get a life.

March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell | Right Wing Watch

There has to be something really wrong with them!!The National Organization for Marriage has struggled in recent years to populate its annual anti-marriage-equality March for Marriage, with especially dismal turnout last year for the first march since the Supreme Court effectively made marriage equality the law of the land. But this year’s march reached a new low, as waning enthusiasm for the cause and what NOM president Brian Brown said were scheduling and permit troubles combined to produce a crowd of about 50.

And this is really absurd!! Comparing this to the fight for abolition!! To civil rights!!!!

Brown told the crowd not to be discouraged by their small numbers, comparing their cause to that of abolitionists in the 18th and early 19th century.

“We are on the side of truth,” he said. “We are on the side of true human rights, we are on the side of true civil rights

Are you a ***?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.

no, it isn't. its saying that they are overreaching their article III powers by legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench" Just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want .The fact is that what is also called case law or court made law is an important and rcognized part of constitutional law .

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts.Higher courts uphold or overturn lowe cour decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not when may they legitimatly overturn a decision?

If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench too? Maybe not since you would have approved.

What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decied and turned it back to them? In each of these senerios , case law-or binding precidents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like, but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what-exactly- can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.

I believe that you said awhile back that you were "thrilled" when New Yourk state legislated same sex marriage. Thrilled? Really? Would you have us believe that you care so much as to be thrilled, but at the same time, be willing to let gays in many other states wait decades longer for equality, if it fact it would ever happen ? SCOTUS has a role in upholding the constitution and when states violate it, SCOTUS must step in.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

You did not answer the question. If decision by the court become part of the body of constitution law , when are those decision NOT legislating from the bench?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is "tens" Not tens of thousands. TENS!! These people need to just give it up and get a life.

March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell | Right Wing Watch

There has to be something really wrong with them!!The National Organization for Marriage has struggled in recent years to populate its annual anti-marriage-equality March for Marriage, with especially dismal turnout last year for the first march since the Supreme Court effectively made marriage equality the law of the land. But this year’s march reached a new low, as waning enthusiasm for the cause and what NOM president Brian Brown said were scheduling and permit troubles combined to produce a crowd of about 50.

And this is really absurd!! Comparing this to the fight for abolition!! To civil rights!!!!

Brown told the crowd not to be discouraged by their small numbers, comparing their cause to that of abolitionists in the 18th and early 19th century.

“We are on the side of truth,” he said. “We are on the side of true human rights, we are on the side of true civil rights

Are you a ***?

Why do you ask?? Looking for a date?

 

[martybegan]

Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.

no, it isn't. its saying that they are overreaching their article III powers by legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench" Just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want .The fact is that what is also called case law or court made law is an important and rcognized part of constitutional law .

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts.Higher courts uphold or overturn lowe cour decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not when may they legitimatly overturn a decision?

If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench too? Maybe not since you would have approved.

What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decied and turned it back to them? In each of these senerios , case law-or binding precidents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like, but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what-exactly- can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.

I believe that you said awhile back that you were "thrilled" when New Yourk state legislated same sex marriage. Thrilled? Really? Would you have us believe that you care so much as to be thrilled, but at the same time, be willing to let gays in many other states wait decades longer for equality, if it fact it would ever happen ? SCOTUS has a role in upholding the constitution and when states violate it, SCOTUS must step in.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

You did not answer the question. If decision by the court become part of the body of constitution law , when are those decision NOT legislating from the bench?

Legislating from the bench is when you create new concepts that are not simply interpretation of existing concepts.

Think "separate but equal" and things like SSM and Abortion being "rights" simply based on the court saying so.

interpretation is things like extending speech protections to bloggers and such.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes that is true. However his statement that "almost all" of them support SSM is a blatant lie.

The blatant lie is yours. Marty, I can back up what I say. You often cannot other than it is your opinion.

Here is the correction to your lie.

Most Mormons and evangelicals no longer support businesses that refuse to serve gays, new survey shows

Read the whole article and weep.

 

[martybegan]

Yes that is true. However his statement that "almost all" of them support SSM is a blatant lie.

The blatant lie is yours. Marty, I can back up what I say. You often cannot other than it is your opinion.

Here is the correction to your lie.

Most Mormons and evangelicals no longer support businesses that refuse to serve gays, new survey shows

Read the whole article and weep.

A survey from an unknown site as source?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I'm not clicking on that shit. Nice try.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes that is true. However his statement that "almost all" of them support SSM is a blatant lie.

The blatant lie is yours. Marty, I can back up what I say. You often cannot other than it is your opinion.

Here is the correction to your lie.

Most Mormons and evangelicals no longer support businesses that refuse to serve gays, new survey shows

Read the whole article and weep.

A survey from an unknown site as source?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I'm not clicking on that shit. Nice try.

The site is well known, and you just got your butt kicked (again) in debate.

This finding from a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute survey is a first, said Robert P. Jones, CEO of the nonprofit research group.

Your opinion does not change the factual findings. Run along.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why do these fake christians believe they belong in other people's private business? They've become Peeping Tom's, a giant hate group.

It's the same with so many of the world's woes - race, equality, women's rights, marriage equality. The world would be a much better place without christians meddling.

What pusses me off us they ignore child refugees, American children, etc. now they're in favor of taking health care away from children, elderly, handicapped, veterans.

Christians are pretty shitty people.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.

no, it isn't. its saying that they are overreaching their article III powers by legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench" Just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want .The fact is that what is also called case law or court made law is an important and rcognized part of constitutional law .

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts.Higher courts uphold or overturn lowe cour decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not when may they legitimatly overturn a decision?

If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench too? Maybe not since you would have approved.

What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decied and turned it back to them? In each of these senerios , case law-or binding precidents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like, but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what-exactly- can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.

I believe that you said awhile back that you were "thrilled" when New Yourk state legislated same sex marriage. Thrilled? Really? Would you have us believe that you care so much as to be thrilled, but at the same time, be willing to let gays in many other states wait decades longer for equality, if it fact it would ever happen ? SCOTUS has a role in upholding the constitution and when states violate it, SCOTUS must step in.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

You did not answer the question. If decision by the court become part of the body of constitution law , when are those decision NOT legislating from the bench?

Legislating from the bench is when you create new concepts that are not simply interpretation of existing concepts.

Think "separate but equal" and things like SSM and Abortion being "rights" simply based on the court saying so.

interpretation is things like extending speech protections to bloggers and such.

Yes I've heard this all before. The only rights are those that are enumerated and equal protection under the law, and privacy rights do not exist when applied to new ideas and issues that the founders did not think of. Fortunately, most legal minds don't buy that. You know, even your hero Scalia was not a strict constructionist

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.

no, it isn't. its saying that they are overreaching their article III powers by legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench" Just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want .The fact is that what is also called case law or court made law is an important and rcognized part of constitutional law .

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts.Higher courts uphold or overturn lowe cour decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not when may they legitimatly overturn a decision?

If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench too? Maybe not since you would have approved.

What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decied and turned it back to them? In each of these senerios , case law-or binding precidents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like, but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what-exactly- can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.

I believe that you said awhile back that you were "thrilled" when New Yourk state legislated same sex marriage. Thrilled? Really? Would you have us believe that you care so much as to be thrilled, but at the same time, be willing to let gays in many other states wait decades longer for equality, if it fact it would ever happen ? SCOTUS has a role in upholding the constitution and when states violate it, SCOTUS must step in.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

You did not answer the question. If decision by the court become part of the body of constitution law , when are those decision NOT legislating from the bench?

Legislating from the bench is when you create new concepts that are not simply interpretation of existing concepts.

Think "separate but equal" and things like SSM and Abortion being "rights" simply based on the court saying so.

interpretation is things like extending speech protections to bloggers and such.

I'm not the constitutional scholar you say you are but I do remember 6th grade civics/gumt class.

Seriously, I say this a lot but you would really benefit from reading the SCOTUS blog.

For now however, suffice it to say, you're wrong.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JoeB131]

and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil ******* war to get over the blacks as property thing.

Exactly that, we CHANGED the law. Just like we changed the law on gay marriage. ******* Progress!! It's awesome dude.

The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.

The courts determine if laws meet constitutional muster. Once the sodomy laws were found unconstitutional, there was no reason that the gay marriage laws could stand constitutional muster.

There were definitely white/black marriages, even if they were kept on the down low. Mostly in the North or in isolated rural areas.

That also doesn't include the blacks that were "passing"

There are a lot of gays who pretend to be straight. There are even gay couples where one partner dresses like the opposite sex. Nobody should keep who they love on the "Down-low"... ever.

For the happy day when religious bigots have to keep their hate on the "down low".

No, it's you being an idiot. You can call to see what services are offered ahead of time or email them. Ever heard of email?

Except that Mrs. Klein INVITED Them to their shop and tried to sell them a gay wedding cake. It was only when her wife-beating husband got into the act that there was a problem. So she already knew what services were offered. What she wasn't expecting was a religious asshole screaming bible verses at her mother.

 

[JoeB131]

What about the bi-sexuals? Why should a bi man be able to marry a woman and a man. Never saw a good argument against it. The slippery slope has been set by tyrannical authoritarians of the court so it makes no sense to pretend marriage is meaningful to the state. It is whatever an activist group says it is. Time to step out.

Yawn, Weasel, nobody is really interested in your opinion on polygamy.

If a majority thinks that polygamy should be legal, it should be. But there's no real support for that.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet you have no more proof that this man beats his wife than I proof that you beat yours. Since you immediately go to wife beating first thing, it is a subject close to you.

Except I'm not married...

Homosexuals are proving over and over that for all their real faults, islam might be on to something in throwing these compulsive obsessives off rooftops.

Yes, you don't have a problem. Maybe you should have just painted that picture for the nice ladies...

 

[JoeB131]

Legislative action means states imposed this atrocity on the people whether they liked it or not.

Now it is the law which should not mean stripping the freedom and rights from everyone else.

I'm not sure how it's being imposed on you. Nobody is going to make you marry another woman.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

I think you are a bit deluded. Plessey just confirmed what was already going on, because that's what the majority wanted at that time.

Similarly, when Roe was decided, abortion was already being practiced by most OB/GYN's and the states weren't enforcing the laws.

By the time Obergefell was decided, a majority already supported gay marriage.

The Supreme court never gets ahead of where the people are, just ahead of where the legislators are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not always, JoeB, though in no way am I supporting Marty's misrepresentations.

The American public was not ready for Brown in 1954, I believe.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And yet you have no more proof that this man beats his wife than I proof that you beat yours. Since you immediately go to wife beating first thing, it is a subject close to you.

Except I'm not married...

Homosexuals are proving over and over that for all their real faults, islam might be on to something in throwing these compulsive obsessives off rooftops.

Yes, you don't have a problem. Maybe you should have just painted that picture for the nice ladies...

Oh no. I wanted them to fight and fail. I got a thrill out of telling them to get the **** out of my shop knowing that the tresspassers could do nothing about it. My only regret was that I was not more abusive.

I must have had an off day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And yet you have no more proof that this man beats his wife than I proof that you beat yours. Since you immediately go to wife beating first thing, it is a subject close to you.

Except I'm not married...

Homosexuals are proving over and over that for all their real faults, islam might be on to something in throwing these compulsive obsessives off rooftops.

Yes, you don't have a problem. Maybe you should have just painted that picture for the nice ladies...

Oh no. I wanted them to fight and fail. I got a thrill out of telling them to get the **** out of my shop knowing that the tresspassers could do nothing about it. My only regret was that I was not more abusive. I must have had an off day.

^^ an AltRat Right lie.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Legislative action means states imposed this atrocity on the people whether they liked it or not.

Now it is the law which should not mean stripping the freedom and rights from everyone else.

I'm not sure how it's being imposed on you. Nobody is going to make you marry another woman.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

I think you are a bit deluded. Plessey just confirmed what was already going on, because that's what the majority wanted at that time.

Similarly, when Roe was decided, abortion was already being practiced by most OB/GYN's and the states weren't enforcing the laws.

By the time Obergefell was decided, a majority already supported gay marriage.

The Supreme court never gets ahead of where the people are, just ahead of where the legislators are.

How was participating in a same sex marriage imposed on bakers, florists and photographers? Forcing acceptance has even been forced on psychologists.

Gays should leave people alone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Legislative action means states imposed this atrocity on the people whether they liked it or not.

Now it is the law which should not mean stripping the freedom and rights from everyone else.

I'm not sure how it's being imposed on you. Nobody is going to make you marry another woman.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

I think you are a bit deluded. Plessey just confirmed what was already going on, because that's what the majority wanted at that time.

Similarly, when Roe was decided, abortion was already being practiced by most OB/GYN's and the states weren't enforcing the laws.

By the time Obergefell was decided, a majority already supported gay marriage.

The Supreme court never gets ahead of where the people are, just ahead of where the legislators are.

How was participating in a same sex marriage imposed on bakers, florists and photographers? Forcing acceptance has even been forced on psychologists. Gays should leave people alone.

Let people live their lives, Tipsy.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Legislative action means states imposed this atrocity on the people whether they liked it or not.

Now it is the law which should not mean stripping the freedom and rights from everyone else.

I'm not sure how it's being imposed on you. Nobody is going to make you marry another woman.

Yes, i supported changing the marriage law via legislative action. What I cannot support is Justices who think up bullshit to get what they want. I am a strict constructionist, and by that viewpoint SSM is something to be handled via the States. The best the feds can do is force all States to recognize any marriage license from any other State, the same they do now.

Wishful thinking is what got us Plessey, and that lead to decades of discrimination. Wishful thinking got us Roe, and decades later we are still fighting over it.

I think you are a bit deluded. Plessey just confirmed what was already going on, because that's what the majority wanted at that time.

Similarly, when Roe was decided, abortion was already being practiced by most OB/GYN's and the states weren't enforcing the laws.

By the time Obergefell was decided, a majority already supported gay marriage.

The Supreme court never gets ahead of where the people are, just ahead of where the legislators are.

How was participating in a same sex marriage imposed on bakers, florists and photographers? Forcing acceptance has even been forced on psychologists. Gays should leave people alone.

Let people live their lives, Tipsy.

Just as soon as the pervs let everyone else live their lives.

That's where the problems come from.