Who should have the greater burden?

[kaz]

If I get my way, leftists still have their own choices intact. If they get their way, my choice is eliminated, I am forced to their view. Should those who remove the rights of others have a greater onus to justify that removal of rights? Or do we just vote and that's it? You disagree, you're screwed?

 

[Pogo]

Pineapple.

Daffuck are you on about now?

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

Simply going to another vendor is less intrusive than forcing a business to provide off premises services to anyone they disagree with.

Any child who demands that piece of cake when there are others available should be spanked and not coddled just because they throw a tantrum.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

Simply going to another vendor is less intrusive than forcing a business to provide off premises services to anyone they disagree with.

Any child who demands that piece of cake when there are others available should be spanked and not coddled just because they throw a tantrum.

I didn't vote 'cause it never said what the fuck it's talking about. Didn't mention marriage or any other issue.
Next thing this site needs to work on is write-in spaces for the polls.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

Simply going to another vendor is less intrusive than forcing a business to provide off premises services to anyone they disagree with.

Any child who demands that piece of cake when there are others available should be spanked and not coddled just because they throw a tantrum.

I didn't vote 'cause it never said what the fuck it's talking about. Didn't mention marriage or any other issue.
Next thing this site needs to work on is write-in spaces for the polls.

I just used a couple of examples, not necessarily because the OP mentioned them.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

 

[kaz]

Pineapple.

Daffuck are you on about now?

Well, I'm not on stupid and clueless like you are

 

[kaz]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

banana

 

[kaz]

First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest

First difference between us, you care about government's interest, I care about the people's. And what planet are you on that you think there is any scrutiny to remove our rights must less "strict" scrutiny?

 

[Skylar]

First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest

First difference between us, you care about government's interest, I care about the people's. And what planet are you on that you think there is any scrutiny to remove our rights must less "strict" scrutiny?

You don't seem to care about having a point. What right are you referring to? Your posts seem intentionally, systematically and uselessly vague.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.

 

[Pogo]

First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest

First difference between us, you care about government's interest, I care about the people's. And what planet are you on that you think there is any scrutiny to remove our rights must less "strict" scrutiny?

You don't seem to care about having a point. What right are you referring to? Your posts seem intentionally, systematically and uselessly vague.

Vague? Wait 'til you ask him/her its gender.

 

[OKTexas]

First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest

First difference between us, you care about government's interest, I care about the people's. And what planet are you on that you think there is any scrutiny to remove our rights must less "strict" scrutiny?

That's the established standard established by SCOTUS, take it up with them, if you can afford it.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.

States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?

The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).

There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.

 

[Skylar]

First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest

First difference between us, you care about government's interest, I care about the people's. And what planet are you on that you think there is any scrutiny to remove our rights must less "strict" scrutiny?

That's the established standard established by SCOTUS, take it up with them, if you can afford it.

For individual rights. Not state powers. And its the state powers that the States are arguing. Not that anyone's rights are violated by allowing gays to marry.

You've either mixed up rights and powers.....or you've misunderstood the arguments being made by the States defending gay marriage bans.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.

States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?

The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).

There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.

States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.

States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?

The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).

There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.

States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.

Why do you even bother with this nonsense when you know it's not true and the battle has been lost?

 

[Skylar]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.

States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?

The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).

There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.

States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention.

The 'power', huh? Then all talk of the 'strict scrutiny' standard goes out the window. As it applies only to the abrogation of rights of actual people. There is no 'strict scrutiny' standard for state powers. Making your references to it irrelevant. Now that that is settled.....lets move onto your new claims.

States powers are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windor v. US

And marriage is a constitutionally recognized right. Both are well established precedent.

Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States.

Equal protection is the most common basis for overturning state gay marriage bans. So that would be the 14th amendment.

Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.

The standards restricting marriage must meet constitutional muster as well. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. Likewise, same sex marriage bans must also meet constitutional standards.

Ironically, this is where the 'strict scrutiny' standard kicks in. Read Romer v. Evans on discrimination against gays.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.

Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.

States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?

The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).

There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.

States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.

Why do you even bother with this nonsense when you know it's not true and the battle has been lost?

OK prince harry what ever you say.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?

Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.

States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?

The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).

There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.

States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.

Why do you even bother with this nonsense when you know it's not true and the battle has been lost?

OK prince harry what ever you say.

Not even an honest answer eh? Fine.