Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[rightwinger]

What states are discriminating against gay people? Please list them.

Florida

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok, but the point is that you point to all these states who have not changed their civil rights laws, but our federal government hasn't even changed the national Civil rights laws to include sexual orientation. My point was, we don't know why the states haven't included them, but that doesn't stop you from automatically inferring that it must be because they are all 27 of them just waiting for the time when they can start discriminating against gay people...

You re so pathetically confused! You don't seem to understand tah there are two sperate issues here. Let me try to help

1. The current issue is that there are 27 states that do not provide certain protections against various forms of discrimination OTHER THAN the right to marry. Regardless of why, and regardless of what the feds have or have not done, that remains a fact-plain and simple. The botton line is that AT THIS TIME they allow discrimination! \

2. You are referring to a time when "they can start to discriminate" and from yiur previous posts that seems to mean the time when Obergefell might be overturned, That has NOTHING to do with discrimination in those other areas. What are you doing? Trying to convince me that you are stupid? You're doing a good job of that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And in bostock, the case was about firing someone based on their sexual orientation, and the court ruled that title 7 of the civil rights act, in the term "sex" would apply to same sex couples. If they decided that for employment, surely they would also apply that definition to civil rights in general.

You're just making that shit up. Another point scored for convincing me that you are stupid

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What states are discriminating against gay people? Please list them.

Holy fucking shit! After all of this you are asking me that again?? There is something seriously wrong with you!! Did you forgt those 27 states already? You are really racking up those stupid points.

Or, You are a discrimination denier. You know that there is discrimination but will not admit it. It is a ploy to try to convince people that there is no problem and that there is nothing to worry about, when you know damned well that is a lie. That is actually worse that those who are overt and unabashed bigots who promote discrimination. At least they are honest.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same. SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.

They all have to abide by the constitution

 

[Redfish]

You really don't seem to understand much about constitutional law. The 14th is also silent on interracial marriage. Was that also a bad decison.?

The entire constitution is silent on marriage. Any kind of marriage. But the fact is that marriage for opposit sex, consenting adults who are not too closely related had been treated as a right. And that right was denied to gay people while the states were unable to articulate a compelling government reaason or even a rational basis for doing so

your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality to be a normal human condition. It would be easy if it was, but it is not. homosexuality is an aberration that most likely results from a chemical imbalance in the brain.

But having said that, I strongly believe that every human being should have the same rights and equality under the law. So if gays want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, that should be allowed and recognized. Whether it is called a marriage or some other social construct is a discussion for another time.

 

[Redfish]

They all have to abide by the constitution

yes they do and the issues we are discussing are not federal constitutional issues, thereby reserved for the individual states (per the constitution). The SC has affirmed that interpretation so the issue is legally over.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality to be a normal human condition. It would be easy if it was, but it is not. homosexuality is an aberration that most likely results from a chemical imbalance in the brain.

What is normal?. There are many theories as to why people are homosexual. They include hormonal and other chemical factors as well as epigenetic markers (no not a gay gene) Having said that, one can adopt a “disease model” which only serves to stigmatize them or you can look at it a just a variation on the biology of humans that determines or influences their sexuality. Therefor that variation on sexuality naturally exists along a continuum from straight, through the various shades of bisexuality, to gay.

While it may be interesting to speculate about the causes of homosexuality for academic purposes, doing so serves no useful purpose when it comes to social and legal issues. It is interesting to note that all throughout the protracted legal battles over gay marriage-from the state courts, to the lower federal court and up to SCOTUS-the issue of why people are gay never came up. The courts accepted as fact that homosexuality is an innate and immutable aspect of the human condition. In addition, while those arguing in favor of state bans on gay marriage were desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with some valid justification for those bans- to the best of my knowledge, they never once brought up the issue of why people are gay or referred to it as an aberration. They knew better.

So no, your opinion that it is an aberration does not invalidate my argument that bans on gay marriage are discriminatory and therefor, Obergefell was within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and correctly decided. It is actually not my argument. It is the argument made on behalf of gay people and acceped by numerous Federal courts

Lastly, being statistically rare only makes it an “aberration” only in terms of those statistics. It does not make it an aberration in the pejorative social sense. Left handedness is rare and used to be considered an aberration-something that needed to be “cured” My mother was born left handed in 1912. In school, she was forced to write and do everything with her right hand. The trauma that she experienced left her with lifetime mental scars. I am sure that the day will come when treating homosexuality as an aberration will be seen a just as stupid and primitive

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But having said that, I strongly believe that every human being should have the same rights and equality under the law. So if gays want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, that should be allowed and recognized. Whether it is called a marriage or some other social construct is a discussion for another time.

Yes I see this a lot. After twisting one's self into a pretzel trying to justify allowing discrimination, and arguing states rights- knowing full well that some states would never grant those rights without federal intervention- they claim to support gay rights. Oh, and it does have to be called marriage. Not “something else” Separate but equal is bullshit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yes they do and the issues we are discussing are not federal constitutional issues, thereby reserved for the individual states (per the constitution). The SC has affirmed that interpretation so the issue is legally over.

Say what? The SCOTUS affirmed WHAT? That marriage is not a Federal constitutional issue? Where are you getting that from.

In addition to ruling on Obergfelle there was also Loving V Virgina ( Interracial marriage-I had asked if if you disapprove of that ruling as well) in which they overruled state's discriminatory laws. There are about a dozen other cases involving marriage that also went to SCOTUS including the invalidating of a state law that prevented someone who owed child support from remarrying and one that barred prison inmates from marrying. They said numerous times that marriage is a fundamental right. So, no. States cannot do whatever the hell they want just because marriage is primarily a state matter

If you are going to refer to the constitution in support of your inane theories, you should first reakl the whole constitution, not just the 10th Amendment

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same. SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.

They ruled on what exactly? What case was that??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality to be a normal human condition. It would be easy if it was, but it is not. homosexuality is an aberration that most likely results from a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Holy shit! I just realized something else. There is really something fishy about your so called argument, Red. You seem to be confused. You made two contradictory arguments.

1. You sated that banning same sex marriage is discriminatory and therefor unconstitutional if homosexuality were considered “normal”

1. And AT THE SAME TIME, insisted that same sex marriage is NOT A CONSTITUTION ISSUE at all.

So what the fuck is you argumet?

 

[JusticeHammer]

Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage

The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”

Good. Gay is abnormal.

 

[Redfish]

What is normal?. There are many theories as to why people are homosexual. They include hormonal and other chemical factors as well as epigenetic markers (no not a gay gene) Having said that, one can adopt a “disease model” which only serves to stigmatize them or you can look at it a just a variation on the biology of humans that determines or influences their sexuality. Therefor that variation on sexuality naturally exists along a continuum from straight, through the various shades of bisexuality, to gay.

While it may be interesting to speculate about the causes of homosexuality for academic purposes, doing so serves no useful purpose when it comes to social and legal issues. It is interesting to note that all throughout the protracted legal battles over gay marriage-from the state courts, to the lower federal court and up to SCOTUS-the issue of why people are gay never came up. The courts accepted as fact that homosexuality is an innate and immutable aspect of the human condition. In addition, while those arguing in favor of state bans on gay marriage were desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with some valid justification for those bans- to the best of my knowledge, they never once brought up the issue of why people are gay or referred to it as an aberration. They knew better.

So no, your opinion that it is an aberration does not invalidate my argument that bans on gay marriage are discriminatory and therefor, Obergefell was within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and correctly decided. It is actually not my argument. It is the argument made on behalf of gay people and acceped by numerous Federal courts

Lastly, being statistically rare only makes it an “aberration” only in terms of those statistics. It does not make it an aberration in the pejorative social sense. Left handedness is rare and used to be considered an aberration-something that needed to be “cured” My mother was born left handed in 1912. In school, she was forced to write and do everything with her right hand. The trauma that she experienced left her with lifetime mental scars. I am sure that the day will come when treating homosexuality as an aberration will be seen a just as stupid and primitive

opinions, not a fact in your long post. Normal is what society as a whole defines as normal. Or what biology finds as normal.

 

[rightwinger]

opinions, not a fact in your long post. Normal is what society as a whole defines as normal. Or what biology finds as normal.

There are no laws requiring everyone to be the same

 

[Redfish]

Holy shit! I just realized something else. There is really something fishy about your so called argument, Red. You seem to be confused. You made two contradictory arguments.

1. You sated that banning same sex marriage is discriminatory and therefor unconstitutional if homosexuality were considered “normal”
2. And AT THE SAME TIME, insisted that same sex marriage is NOT A CONSTITUTION ISSUE at all.

So what the fuck is you argumet?

you ignored the IF. Include it and my position is logical and constitutional.

 

[Redfish]

There are no laws requiring everyone to be the same

of course not. no one ever said there were. But mammalian biology, not society, defines males and females

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

you ignored the IF. Include it and my position is logical and constitutional.

What "if" did I ignore? If they were "normal" ? I tried to school you on why and how that is completely Irrelevant for legal purposes. It is subjective crap.

Your position-that the ruling on same sex marrige was inproper- in neither logical or constitutional. I clearly demonstrated why.

You seem to think that know more about constitutional law than dozens of fedeal judges as well as a majority if the Supreme Court.

You still have not explaided the decrepancy that I pointed out above. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. You have got to poick one position

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

opinions, not a fact in your long post. Normal is what society as a whole defines as normal. Or what biology finds as normal.

Is that supposed to be a rebuttle? Pretty damnd lame! "Society" for the most part is no talking or even thinking about whether or not homosexuality is "normal" Theye just are who they are and that is that. While most of "society" has moved on, you are stuck in the mud. Get over it

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search

Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.

www.newsweek.com

-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.

Rightwingers: Relax bro, nobody is going after gay marriage....


SCOTUS overturns same-sex marriage decision...

Rightwingers: Lol, of course we were lying...you guys should have codified it in the law...get over it losers