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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

Texas Supreme Court hears case challenging benefits for same-sex couples

This could be the next marriage case to hit SCOTUS . The state is claiming that :

The meaning and scope of Obergefell remain open to debate,” Mitchell said.

He further argued that the nation’s highest court didn’t declare spousal benefits a fundamental right of marriage, meaning it should be up to the states to decide the legality of offering them. Lawyer Douglas Alexander, appearing on Houston’s behalf, agreed that such benefits weren’t a fundamental right but said that the nation’s high court’s ruling means that all marriages are equal, so anything offered to opposite-sex couples must be offered to same-sex ones as well.

We shall see. Those fucking Texans!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There are a bunch of dumb asses in Arkansas also
Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal

One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

Good luck with that shit!!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Same sex marriage is the same kind of done deal as abortion. It's done, except for carving out niches and exceptions and the rights of others.

 

[JoeB131]

The whole story.

They lost. They believed based on gay propaganda that they could force me into painting their portrait the same way they could force that baker to bake wedding cakes. They were wrong. That's the whole story.

I don't think that's the whole story... but okay.

 

[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.

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.

First of all, any survey being called "factual" is a stretch at best.

Here is a critique of one of their previous polls.

The Public Religion Research Institute Strikes Again: The "Unaccompanied Children" Poll, Pt. 1

As usual, its all in how you ask the question.

 

[martybegan]

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

There is a difference between a small step and a big one. Scalia was well aware of that. And no, there are rights beyond those enumerated in the constitution. State's can have rights that the feds don't cover, as long as those rights don't contradict the Federal Constitution.

The issue is enshrining rights "just because" with no hard basis.

 

[martybegan]

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

Exactly that, we CHANGED the law. Just like we changed the law on gay marriage. Fucking 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.

Except no laws were changed. They were overridden by over-reaching judical fiat.

There is no connection between sodomy laws and changing the marriage contract.

Again, your bigotry shows, and your answer is lacking.

Stop being lazy and quote each person with a separate post.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

There is a difference between a small step and a big one. Scalia was well aware of that. And no, there are rights beyond those enumerated in the constitution. State's can have rights that the feds don't cover, as long as those rights don't contradict the Federal Constitution.

The issue is enshrining rights "just because" with no hard basis.

Right, no hard basis....READ OBERGEFELL!

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, respond to each person in kind, stop being lazy.

Most americans support RKBA, but of course you will ignore that because it doesn't suit your interests.

The whole idea of federalism is that the US isn't some monolithic one size fits all giant.

 

[martybegan]

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

There is a difference between a small step and a big one. Scalia was well aware of that. And no, there are rights beyond those enumerated in the constitution. State's can have rights that the feds don't cover, as long as those rights don't contradict the Federal Constitution.

The issue is enshrining rights "just because" with no hard basis.

Right, no hard basis....READ OBERGEFELL!

I did. As Scalia put it, "Jiggery Pokery"

have you read the dissents?

 

[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.

First of all, any survey being called "factual" is a stretch at best.

Here is a critique of one of their previous polls.

The Public Religion Research Institute Strikes Again: The "Unaccompanied Children" Poll, Pt. 1

As usual, its all in how you ask the question.

First of all, you are no authority on polls.

The fact of the matter is that most of America's prominent religions support LGBTQ marriage and civil rights and the majority of Christian Americans do support it.

Can't get around it.

 

[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.

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.

First of all, any survey being called "factual" is a stretch at best.

Here is a critique of one of their previous polls.

The Public Religion Research Institute Strikes Again: The "Unaccompanied Children" Poll, Pt. 1

As usual, its all in how you ask the question.

First of all, you are no authoreity on polls.

The fact of the matter is that America's prominent religions support LGBTQ marriage and civil rights.

Can't get around it.

So the Catholic Church Supports SSM?

And if you go with the Episcopalians and Presbyterians you do realize there is serious internal infighting and possibly schisms over it, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good points, Marty. Catholicism and Mormonism do not support LGBTQ marriage in their denominations. And there are some minorities that agitate against it. However, most of the major denominations do support it, almost all of their members support it as a majority, and the American people as a majority support it.

You say you are a Constitutional federalist. Let the people rule, yes.

 

[martybegan]

Good points, Marty. Catholicism and Mormonism do not support LGBTQ marriage in their denominations. And there are some minorities that agitate against it. However, most of the major denominations do support it, almost all of their members support it as a majority, and the American people as a majority support it.

You say you are a Constitutional federalist. Let the people rule, yes.

I notice you aren't providing any links to back your stuff up....

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did above. So did Progressive Patriot several times.

Accept you are on the losing side of this one.

 

[martybegan]

I did above. So did Progressive Patriot several times.

Accept you are on the losing side of this one.

Again "surveys". I have already questioned the methodology of these and of others.

You are using opinion in place of fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did above. So did Progressive Patriot several times.

Accept you are on the losing side of this one.

Again "surveys". I have already questioned the methodology of these and of others. You are using opinion in place of fact.

You are no authority at all on surveys. Check Zogby Analystics if you want to check "facts" and fact collecting. Until you can disprove the material, you are wrong.

 

[martybegan]

I did above. So did Progressive Patriot several times.

Accept you are on the losing side of this one.

Again "surveys". I have already questioned the methodology of these and of others. You are using opinion in place of fact.

You are no authority at all on surveys. Check Zogby Analystics if you want to check "facts" and fact collecting. Until you can disprove the material, you are wrong.

No, until you can show that opinion based surveys on complex questions can be considered "facts", you are wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I did above. So did Progressive Patriot several times.

Accept you are on the losing side of this one.

Again "surveys". I have already questioned the methodology of these and of others.

You are using opinion in place of fact.

Lets forget about surveys and studies then. Consider this:

Business leaders come out in support of gay marriage in Illinois

Dozens of Illinois business leaders and several companies publicly endorsed gay marriage Sunday in an attempt to reignite the issue after a proposed bill failed to get traction in Springfield this month. State lawmakers aren't scheduled to be at the Capitol much until early February, and sponsors of a measure to grant gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry are likely to need some time to win over dozens of rookie colleagues. But in an open letter issued Sunday, business executives stated their case to lawmakers that marriage equality would strengthen the Illinois workforce and boost economic development.

And this:
Texas religious leaders gather in support of pro-gay marriage ruling

AUSTIN, Texas — Faith leaders rallied for marriage equality Tuesday at the Texas Capitol, seeking to convince lawmakers that expanding rights to gay, bisexual and transgender couples won't compromise their religious beliefs.

"We demand equality!" chanted attendees, many of whom wore colorful liturgical vestments and held signs stating they were Methodist, Jewish, Unitarian, Baptist and Presbyterian. About 150 people traveled to the Capitol for the rally, sponsored by the advocacy group the Texas Freedom Network.

More:

Meet The Evangelicals Who Cheered The SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling | HuffPost

About 100 evangelical pastors and leaders signed an online letter published Friday supporting the ruling, and then went one step further by calling on Christians around the country to continue to work for LGBT rights in other areas — like bullying in schools and employment and housing discrimination.

And finally:

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

 

[martybegan]

I did above. So did Progressive Patriot several times.

Accept you are on the losing side of this one.

Again "surveys". I have already questioned the methodology of these and of others.

You are using opinion in place of fact.

Lets forget about surveys and studies then. Consider this:

Business leaders come out in support of gay marriage in Illinois

Dozens of Illinois business leaders and several companies publicly endorsed gay marriage Sunday in an attempt to reignite the issue after a proposed bill failed to get traction in Springfield this month. State lawmakers aren't scheduled to be at the Capitol much until early February, and sponsors of a measure to grant gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry are likely to need some time to win over dozens of rookie colleagues. But in an open letter issued Sunday, business executives stated their case to lawmakers that marriage equality would strengthen the Illinois workforce and boost economic development.

And this:
Texas religious leaders gather in support of pro-gay marriage ruling

AUSTIN, Texas — Faith leaders rallied for marriage equality Tuesday at the Texas Capitol, seeking to convince lawmakers that expanding rights to gay, bisexual and transgender couples won't compromise their religious beliefs.

"We demand equality!" chanted attendees, many of whom wore colorful liturgical vestments and held signs stating they were Methodist, Jewish, Unitarian, Baptist and Presbyterian. About 150 people traveled to the Capitol for the rally, sponsored by the advocacy group the Texas Freedom Network.

More:

Meet The Evangelicals Who Cheered The SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling | HuffPost

About 100 evangelical pastors and leaders signed an online letter published Friday supporting the ruling, and then went one step further by calling on Christians around the country to continue to work for LGBT rights in other areas — like bullying in schools and employment and housing discrimination.

And finally:

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Amazing you all of sudden trot out a few capitalists when they agree with your position.

As for the others: