TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Well? What say you now? tahuyamanIt struck down bans on interracial marriage beased on the 14th Amendment, the same as Obergefell
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well? What say you now? tahuyamanIt struck down bans on interracial marriage beased on the 14th Amendment, the same as Obergefell
I guess more Dems will move out of red states. Not sure I'm seeing the downside to that.Once again, you disappoint me. I thought you were smarter than that. "All the Dems have to do"?? Good luck with that in the shit hole red southern states. How long would YOU wait for justice if YOUR rights were denied?
Yeah, why did Bill Clinton sign that thing?As far as Federal law goes, the Defence of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal goverment from recognising same sex marriages performed in the states is still on the books. It is currently unenforcable because of the US V. Windsor decision 0f 2013, but that ruling may also be in jeopardy .
Work harder Democrats! Gay marriage is one issue I agree with you on, and you punted it.The Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognise same sex marriages from other states has passed in the house but is stalled out by the Republican bigots. We need 60 votes
Considering that the US Constitution leaves marriage laws to states it would be. But the full faith and credit clause could be enforced to require them to recognize same sex marriage from other states. I married in a state that requires no blood test, and when I came back to Texas, Texas had to recognize my marriage. The same could work for same-sex marriage if Democrats would stop obsessing about Trump and get to work for their constituents.Furthermore the bill stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses so gay couples. I suppose that would be a bridge too far.
That's life in a federal system. Canada awaits.Those couples would have to travel, perhapps thousands of miles from home, friends and family to get married, and then return to a state that is hostile to their marriage and may or may not actually recognise it.
I never said it was easy. I said it's all they have to do.In short, it is not so simple and easy-peasy as you pretend.
Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google MississippiI guess more Dems will move out of red states. Not sure I'm seeing the downside to that.
Wrong. He signed it because Republicans were threatening to introduce a contitutional amendment declaring that marriage is a man and a woman. It was around the time that the first states were moving towards allowing same sex marriage . In addition, Clinton was promised legislation that provided protection for gays in employment but they reneged on it.Yeah, why did Bill Clinton sign that thing?
Was it because he was from a shit hole red southern state?
Keep all the gals barefoot and pregnant!... separate schools for white children and black children ...
NoBlue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi
You agree? I have not gotten a sense of they from you. How did we punt?Work harder Democrats! Gay marriage is one issue I agree with you on, and you punted it.
The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment . However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights. I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.Considering that the US Constitution leaves marriage laws to states it would be.
Invoking FFC to force states to reccognise gay marriages from elsewhere was tried prior to Obergefell and failed . I forget the details. I'll look it up when I have nothing better to do.But the full faith and credit clause could be enforced to require them to recognize same sex marriage from other states. I married in a state that requires no blood test, and when I came back to Texas, Texas had to recognize my marriage. The same could work for same-sex marriage if Democrats would stop obsessing about Trump and get to work for their constituents.
The good people of Miss sippy were finally improving their lives after decades of Democratic Party led slavery, segregation, and the new slavery of welfare.Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi
Correct.The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment .
In Texas, I could marry one of my first cousins if I wanted (too country for my taste), but in other states, others cannot. I married in Virginia without a blood test, but in other states, I could not have.However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights.
I strongly support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. But the constitution does not require states to do so.I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.
Same thing.I never said it was easy. I said it's all they have to do
That was a different Democratic party and you know it.The good people of Miss sippy were finally improving their lives after decades of Democratic Party led slavery, segregation, and the new slavery of welfare.
You'll have to document thatTrump brought their unemployment rate to the lowest point in history. Then the Dems destroyed it and then flooded the state with illegals to steal entry level jobs.
I doubt that you feel strongly about it at all. If you did, you would not be clinging to the dubious constitional theory of texturalism which few constitutional scholars adhere to .I strongly support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. But the constitution does not require states to do so.
No, the are still racist just in different form.That was a different Democratic party and you know it.
You'd ignore it if I did.You'll have to document that
Why ask me anything if you tjen claim to already be an expert on my feelings?I doubt that you feel strongly about it at all. If you did, you would not be clinging to the dubious constitional theory of texturalism which few constitutional scholars adhere to .
Perhapps it does violate their rights. I have not argued against any of that. However, they all represent different issues with different social and legal ramifications. Anyone who wishes to engage in any of those practices is free to tey to drum up public support and pursue it through the courts or the legislative process life same sex couples did. It would be incumbent upon those seeking stop them to provethat ther is a compelling government interest, or at minimum a rational basis for doing so. The states were unable to in the case of one on one gay marriage. They may or may not be able to in any or all of those casesIs refusing plural marriage to people whose faith allows it violating their individual rights? What about denying a bisexual plural marriage so they can’t have a spouse of each sex? Or denying multiple marriage to those desiring several spouses all of different genders?
Based on my experience with people who take that positionWhy ask me anything if you tjen claim to already be an expert on my feelings?