Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights

[jillian]

See post 51, et al
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

um... because it isn't.
and no offense, but i'll go with the wisdom of that court over your unsubstantiated opinion.

Another lie, as my "opinion" was clearly substantiated, and proves that the statement is unsound.

the justices of the supreme court disagree with you.

i'll go with them.

thanks.

 

[drsmith1072]

No, what I stated was fact.
Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.

If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument

wrong... it is only the state that can confer and protect rights. your "rights" do not exist absent state sanction.

This is abject ignorace, or an outright lie.
Given that you are a known liar and an outright fraud, my bet is the latter - but feel free to argue that you are simply ignorant.

No law creates the right to life; no law creates the right to free speech; these righst exist w/o any state sanction whatsover - and thus, you are wrong.

GIven that, my argument stands, and continues to prove that the statement made in Loving is unsound.

Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

Everyone who dares disagree with m14 even the SCOTUS is wrong merely because he says so. LOL

Hey m14 do you realize that all anyone has to do to counter your opinion based rant is say "nope, I disagree" and your opinions have been countered. It takes SUBSTANCE to make a substantial argument and your OPINIONS are lacking in that respect. That tied to the fact that the SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a right shows that you've got NOTHING.

 

[drsmith1072]

See post 51, et al
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

um... because it isn't.
and no offense, but i'll go with the wisdom of that court over your unsubstantiated opinion.

Another lie, as my "opinion" was clearly substantiated, and proves that the statement is unsound.

WOW you really are delusional aren't you? So your claim that your opinions was substantiated soley based on your opinion that it has been substantiated. LOL

m14 is apaprently part of the group that believes repetition makes it true because he is arguing that his opinions now substantiate his previous opinions which are even further substanitated by his repetition of those opinions...LOL

 

[jillian]

No, what I stated was fact.
Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.

If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument

wrong... it is only the state that can confer and protect rights. your "rights" do not exist absent state sanction.

This is abject ignorace, or an outright lie.
Given that you are a known liar and an outright fraud, my bet is the latter - but feel free to argue that you are simply ignorant.

No law creates the right to life; no law creates the right to free speech; these righst exist w/o any state sanction whatsover - and thus, you are wrong.

GIven that, my argument stands, and continues to prove that the statement made in Loving is unsound.

Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

you might want to discuss the "abject lie" with people who were interned during WWII... they were second generation americans who had no rights because the government said so.

you might want to discuss the "abject lie" with people who lived under jim crow laws til Brown v Bd of Ed.

they'll tell you how full of it you are.

and the only ones who say i'm a "fraud" are people with sixth grade educations who think they are constitutionalists.

i can live with that.

negged for that btw... because you're a slimeball.

 

[M14 Shooter]

um... because it isn't.
and no offense, but i'll go with the wisdom of that court over your unsubstantiated opinion.

Another lie, as my "opinion" was clearly substantiated, and proves that the statement is unsound.

the justices of the supreme court disagree with you.
i'll go with them.
thanks.

I am completely unsurprised that, beng a liar, a fraud and a partisan bigot, you prefer to accept an demonstrably unsound statement that you happen to agree with over a demonstrably sound positon that you do not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wrong... it is only the state that can confer and protect rights. your "rights" do not exist absent state sanction.

This is abject ignorace, or an outright lie.
Given that you are a known liar and an outright fraud, my bet is the latter - but feel free to argue that you are simply ignorant.

No law creates the right to life; no law creates the right to free speech; these righst exist w/o any state sanction whatsover - and thus, you are wrong.

GIven that, my argument stands, and continues to prove that the statement made in Loving is unsound.

Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

you might want to discuss the "abject lie"...

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

 

[jillian]

This is abject ignorace, or an outright lie.
Given that you are a known liar and an outright fraud, my bet is the latter - but feel free to argue that you are simply ignorant.

No law creates the right to life; no law creates the right to free speech; these righst exist w/o any state sanction whatsover - and thus, you are wrong.

GIven that, my argument stands, and continues to prove that the statement made in Loving is unsound.

Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

you might want to discuss the "abject lie"...

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

you still haven't responded to the HOLDING (that means it's law) of Loving v Virginia and the dozen other cases that say marriage is a fundamental right.

your throwing around insults and saying you disagree doesn't count.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you might want to discuss the "abject lie"...

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

you still haven't responded to the HOLDING (that means it's law) of Loving v Virginia and the dozen other cases that say marriage is a fundamental right.

I see that now only are you a fraud, a liar and a partisan bigot, you are fully lacking in reading comprehension skills. I guess what what happens when you drop out before you reach middle school. No wonder you scrub public toilets for a living.

Nothing I have posted here in any way shape or form necessitates that I address anything in Loving other than the statement I did address, as that statememt, brought up in an attempt to counter the argument that I made, was the full extent of the involvement of the case in the discussion.

your throwing around insults and saying you disagree doesn't count.

Another lie.
I clearly described my argument as to why the statement in Loving is unsound. You have done nothing to refute that argument; the fact that you haven't made your usual half-assed attempt to do so means you know you cannot.

 

[jillian]

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

you still haven't responded to the HOLDING (that means it's law) of Loving v Virginia and the dozen other cases that say marriage is a fundamental right.

I see that now only are you a fraud, a liar and a partisan bigot, you are fully lacking in reading comprehension skills. I guess what what happens when you drop out before you reach middle school. No wonder you scrub public toilets for a living.

Nothing I have posted here in any way shape or form necessitates that I address anything in Loving other than the statement I did address, as that statememt, brought up in an attempt to counter the argument that I made, was the full extent of the involvement of the case in the discussion.

your throwing around insults and saying you disagree doesn't count.

Another lie.
I clearly described my argument as to why the statement in Loving is unsound. You have done nothing to refute that argument; the fact that you haven't made your usual half-assed attempt to do so means you know you cannot.

your purported argument fails because, once again, you refuse to accept the basic premise that a dozen supreme court cases, most notably Loving v Virginia, have found marriage to be a fundamental right.

your insults are amusing and only serve to prove how truly vapid you are.

if that word is difficult for you, feel free to look it up. google is your friend.

I am not interested, nor is anyone else, really, in why you think the determination in Loving was unsound. It is law and it has to establish the basic perameters of any discussion. just as i think the determination in Miller or Citizens United are jokes, but no discussion of those issues can be had without accepting that both cases are law.

Loving however, has been law for more than 40 years.

marriage is a fundamental right. no one can be divested of that right because you don't approve of them.

final note before i go take 3 advil because i'm getting floaters which means a migraine is coming on that i need to nip in the bud....

calling me stupid... or a liar... only makes you look ridiculous to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about... because they know exactly what i know... even if they were to disagree with my politics or my opinion.

another hint: the supreme court issues a lot of 5 to 4 decisions... do you think half the court is stupid?

don't answer that... rhetorical question... (you can look up that word as well)

now figure out how to write an intelligent legal analysis and i'll look at it when i can.

 

[Ravi]

This is abject ignorace, or an outright lie.
Given that you are a known liar and an outright fraud, my bet is the latter - but feel free to argue that you are simply ignorant.

No law creates the right to life; no law creates the right to free speech; these righst exist w/o any state sanction whatsover - and thus, you are wrong.

GIven that, my argument stands, and continues to prove that the statement made in Loving is unsound.

Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

you might want to discuss the "abject lie"...

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

If the US government were disbanded, you'd not have the rights you now enjoy. So yes, she is correct and you are incorrect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you still haven't responded to the HOLDING (that means it's law) of Loving v Virginia and the dozen other cases that say marriage is a fundamental right.

I see that now only are you a fraud, a liar and a partisan bigot, you are fully lacking in reading comprehension skills. I guess what what happens when you drop out before you reach middle school. No wonder you scrub public toilets for a living.

Nothing I have posted here in any way shape or form necessitates that I address anything in Loving other than the statement I did address, as that statememt, brought up in an attempt to counter the argument that I made, was the full extent of the involvement of the case in the discussion.

your throwing around insults and saying you disagree doesn't count.

Another lie.
I clearly described my argument as to why the statement in Loving is unsound. You have done nothing to refute that argument; the fact that you haven't made your usual half-assed attempt to do so means you know you cannot.

your purported argument fails because, once again, you refuse to accept the basic premise that a dozen supreme court cases, most notably Loving v Virginia, have found marriage to be a fundamental right.

You cannot possibly comprehend the logical fallacy you present here, so I shant waste time trying to explain it - but, suffice it to say that what you present here is no different than argung that 1+1=3, not 2, because the court says so.

-My- premise is sound because of the strength of the argument that support it; you have done nothing to weaken those arguments, so it remains sound and shall rmeian so until those supprting arguments are negated.

google is your friend.

Yes... like when you were forced to google "strict scrutiny" and STILL got it wrong.


Now, go back to cleaning those restrooms as your sub-GED education has nothing of value to offer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you might want to discuss the "abject lie"...

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

If the US government were disbanded, you'd not have the rights you now enjoy.

False

1: Those rights existed before the US government was formed
2: Nowhere does the US government grant those rights.

So, I -am- right, and you are -both- wrong.

 

[Ravi]

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

If the US government were disbanded, you'd not have the rights you now enjoy.

False

1: Those rights existed before the US government was formed
2: Nowhere does the US government grant those rights.

So, I -am- right, and you are -both- wrong.

No. We the people grant those rights to ourselves. We the people are the government.

You fail.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the US government were disbanded, you'd not have the rights you now enjoy.

False

1: Those rights existed before the US government was formed
2: Nowhere does the US government grant those rights.

So, I -am- right, and you are -both- wrong.

No. We the people grant those rights to ourselves. We the people are the government.

I really hate to say it, but even Jillian, with her backwater MIssissippian grade-school education, is smart enough to see how you just disproved your original statement.

 

[Ravi]

False

1: Those rights existed before the US government was formed
2: Nowhere does the US government grant those rights.

So, I -am- right, and you are -both- wrong.

No. We the people grant those rights to ourselves. We the people are the government.

I really hate to say it, but even Jillian, with her backwater MIssissippian grade-school education, is smart enough to see how you just disproved your original statement.

Are you saying that we aren't the government or that we didn't grant ourselves rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. We the people grant those rights to ourselves. We the people are the government.

I really hate to say it, but even Jillian, with her backwater MIssissippian grade-school education, is smart enough to see how you just disproved your original statement.

Are you saying that we aren't the government or that we didn't grant ourselves rights?

That "we grant ourselves rights" means that they didn't come from the government, and so government is not necessary for those rights to exist.

Note that "we grant ourselves rights" isn't exactly how it works - I'm just pointing out that you only disprove your original statement by saying that "we grant ourselves rights".

 

[Ravi]

I really hate to say it, but even Jillian, with her backwater MIssissippian grade-school education, is smart enough to see how you just disproved your original statement.

Are you saying that we aren't the government or that we didn't grant ourselves rights?

That "we grant ourselves rights" means that they didn't come from the government, and so government is not necessary for those rights to exist.

Note that "we grant ourselves rights" isn't exactly how it works - I'm just pointing out that you only disprove your original statement by saying that "we grant ourselves rights".

It's funny that you seem to see the government as separate from we the people....I'm pretty sure the founders didn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you saying that we aren't the government or that we didn't grant ourselves rights?

That "we grant ourselves rights" means that they didn't come from the government, and so government is not necessary for those rights to exist.

Note that "we grant ourselves rights" isn't exactly how it works - I'm just pointing out that you only disprove your original statement by saying that "we grant ourselves rights".

It's funny that you seem to see the government as separate from we the people....I'm pretty sure the founders didn't.

Its even MORE funny that you mention the ideological tenets held by the Founders as something worthwhile and then think that we'd have no rights if the government disssolved.

You may have read something to the effect that Governments are instituted by man to protect those rights endowed upon by us by our creator. Nothing in any of that supports the idea that our the existence of our rights is dependant on government.

 

[hjmick]

It's a states issue.

 

[BluePhantom]

WASHINGTON – On the same day that President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage, the House Armed Services Committee backed measures prohibiting the practice on U.S. military bases.

The panel stepped into the gays in the military issue as it considered a sweeping, $642 billion defense bill for next year that buys new weapons, ships and aircraft, increases military pay by 1.7 percent and sets policies for the Pentagon. The committee worked through the day Wednesday and into the early morning Thursday on the legislation that adds billions of dollars to the president's budget request.

The committee fleshed out a blueprint for next year that calls for a base defense budget of $554 billion, including nuclear weapons spending, plus $88 billion for the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts. That compares with the administration's proposal of $551 billion, plus $88 billion.

Conservative Republicans still angry with the end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military pressed two measures."The president has repealed `don't ask, don't tell' and is using the military as props to promote his gay agenda," said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who is running for Senate.

The committee, on a vote of 37-24, backed an amendment that barred same-sex marriages or "marriage-like" ceremonies on military installations. The panel also endorsed an Akin amendment that said the services should accommodate the rights of conscience of members of the services and chaplains who are morally or religiously opposed to expressions of human sexuality.

Read more: House panel votes to ban same-sex marriages on US military bases | Fox News

Well....obviously I disagree with their decision....but I will say this. The vote was 37-24 and if you look at the membership of that committee....the GOP didn't do it alone. They got some help from the Democrats on this one. Not much.....but some.