Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[martybegan]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

Equal protection under the law is the civil right, and 'sufficiently similar' satisfies the definition of 'equal'.

in your opinion, and probably only when the situation suits you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

Equal protection under the law is the civil right, and 'sufficiently similar' satisfies the definition of 'equal'.

in your opinion, and probably only when the situation suits you.

No, that's the legal opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

Equal protection under the law is the civil right, and 'sufficiently similar' satisfies the definition of 'equal'.

in your opinion, and probably only when the situation suits you.

No, that's the legal opinion.

No, its your opinion.

 

[Darkwind]

If he goes further right, sly, he does not stand a chance.

If he doesn't we lose the libertarians and we don't stand a chance.

We can't win with only the far right and the losertarians if the center abandons us. This is what the far right does not get: they cannot win presidential elections without the center vote.

I don't like allowing the Liberals define where the center is.

Do one better. Do not allow liberals to define anything..

 

[martybegan]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

Equal protection under the law is the civil right, and 'sufficiently similar' satisfies the definition of 'equal'.

in your opinion, and probably only when the situation suits you.

No, that's the legal opinion.

No, its your opinion.

Well then you tell us how the courts determine what equal means when they are deciding whether equal protection under the law applies,

and then we'll see how much that differs from what I posted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Show me where rights have to be explicitly delineated in the Constitution in order to be rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

 

[martybegan]

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

Equal protection under the law is the civil right, and 'sufficiently similar' satisfies the definition of 'equal'.

in your opinion, and probably only when the situation suits you.

No, that's the legal opinion.

No, its your opinion.

Well then you tell us how the courts determine what equal means when they are deciding whether equal protection under the law applies,

and then we'll see how much that differs from what I posted.

Equal is Equal. Marriage has always been defined as a cross-sex contract, even when involving more than two partners. Denying opposite sex people a marriage contract without a strict reason, i.e. incest, bigamy, etc, is denying equal protection. Denying SSM is not denying equal protection, as marriage contracts never fathomed that.

The only proper way to rectify that is to change the contract legislatively.

 

[bodecea]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Ah...there it is....misogyny on parade.

 

[martybegan]

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

 

[NYcarbineer]

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Ah...there it is....misogyny on parade.

How is asking a question misogyny?

The answer is that is is in the document, but only in reference to voting rights.

 

[martybegan]

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

 

[martybegan]

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

 

[DGS49]

The Ninth Amendment deals with rights that existed at the time of its ratification, for example the right to own property, the right to travel within and among the states, the right to enter into contracts, and so on.

No serious Constitutional analyst even mentions the Ninth Amendment in connection with gay marriage, buggery, pornography, or any of the other plagues that Liberals have imposed on the American public through a willing, ignorant, and/or subversive court system.

 

[DGS49]

Fully-automatic weapons are, and have for a long time been, illegal.

An assault weapons ban, would essentially ban guns that "look scary."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Incorrect.

There is nothing in the text and history of the Constitution during the Foundation Era to today that supports the myth of 'strict constructionism.'

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

The myth of 'strict constructionism' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum in response to Constitutional jurisprudence conservatives disapprove of for subjective, partisan, and ideological reasons, in no way reflecting the original intent of the Framing Generation.