Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Haha. Powers That Shouldn't Be. (as opposed to the usual "powers that be.")

Inferior People in Superior Positions

We have wannabes and has-beens, but a word like "shouldntabeen" is needed even more.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rainbow Bows Out

Straights not only have half a chance, we have more than half of the Supreme Court. Your disgusting Mommy and Daddy play-acting is going down the tubes.

Not sure what you're blubbering on about, numbnuts. My wife and I raised daughter who's now a very successful woman.

Or are you so stupid that you just assume heterosexuals will be opposed to same sex marriage?

 

[Jarlaxle]

The question is not whether they can marry, the real question is should they get state perks for being married?

So let me ask you, when two people, or more, get married, why should they ask permission from the state? I mean really, who cares what idiots like Pelosi think about virtually anything? And why should they then have to pay for a license to be recognized by the state for their special perks?

Why should married folk have any more rights than people who are not married?

Hmm?

Why are people so insistent that the state be involved and give their approval?

Things like being able to visit them in a hospital. Power of attorney. Health insurance. Ability to adopt.

It's a matter for the state to decide. It is not a federal issue and the Supreme Court, mostly that traitor Kennedy, betrayed their oaths of office to appease a bunch of queers. Pathetic. It will be overturned for the horrendous miscarriage of justice it was and returned to the states, over which 30 of them have already amended their constitutions to ban that foul and disgusting abomination.

Matters not. The moment ONE state recognized it, it was legal in all states.

In my state marriage was defined as between a man and a woman, and amended the state constitution accordingly. There is no need to reference any holy texts or bring religion into the matter at all. It was only after states neared the federal amendment level that the queers started seeking salvation from our sick and twisted activist judges.

Bla...bla...bla...

No one will answer this, because it really is about the special legal benefits afforded to married people. There shouldn't be any, IMHO, but there was a time when the government felt it had a vested interest in promoting marriage to increase the tax base and populating the military. Of course, gay marriage accomplishes none of that, but they want the benefits, regardless.

Next of kin rights.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Rainbow Bows Out

Straights not only have half a chance, we have more than half of the Supreme Court. Your disgusting Mommy and Daddy play-acting is going down the tubes.

Bullshit.

 

[Flopper]

Is there anything in the constitution that says gays should be allowed to marry each other? What stupid point.

the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities, is guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Again, you remain massively stupid. No.

Where the Federal government as they authority to address an issue via legislation, it may proceed accordingly. So, as to the companies they hire or the military etc, their laws are absolutely valid and effective.

But when they write a law directed at the states or the people on a matter over which they don’t have actual jurisdiction (think about limited government and ENUMERATED powers), their attempts are not valid.

This is why they DO have valid authority over a problem like the denial of equal protection on the basis of racial discrimination. But you seem unwilling and unable to point to which Constitutional provision gives them such authority over a claimed denial of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation “discrimination.”

And again, I think this is unfortunate in. This case. But it is curable. Pass a state of federal constitutional amendment or pass a state law which will have to be then applied equally to all in that State.

Derp…You’re talking in circles.
It’s the exact same thing as the civil rights law that already says people cannot be discriminated against based on sexual preference regardless of state laws , dope. There is no such thing as separate but equal. That is why it must be codified.

By your logic, anything not specifically enumerated is invalid and a federal overreach. That is the reasoning for overturning Row.
That would put a whole lot on the chopping block if challenged.

 

[BackAgain]

Derp…You’re talking in circles.
It’s the exact same thing as the civil rights law that already says people cannot be discriminated against based on sexual preference regardless of state laws , dope. There is no such thing as separate but equal. That is why it must be codified.

By your logic, anything not specifically enumerated is invalid and a federal overreach. That is the reasoning for overturning Row.
That would put a whole lot on the chopping block if challenged.

Shithead, you’re just not grasping the very basics. Then again, you have never been able to do that.

You get one notion buried in your thick skull and can’t adapt to learning that the one notion of yours is erroneous. Maybe it would help you if you could pluck your pin head outta your ass.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t provide for equal protection of the laws in a vacuum, stupid. Instead, It provides for equal protection against racial discrimination. It even says so! Despite your insistence on ducking it, you have no ability to point to any similar protection against discrimination based on sexual identity.

And to address your last astonished contention, congrats. You’re starting to get it. The feds have authority over those matters within their authority. The feds lack authority over matters not within those enumerated grants of power. This is why the Feds can pass a criminal law like a prohibition against marijuana sales INTERSTATE. But their prohibition doesn’t disallow NY State (for example) to even set up licensed marijuana dispensaries for purely recreational use.

Is but your belief that the US either has or should have authority over that purely in-state marijuana use and sales law?

[edited to correct the highlighted word “against “ — inadvertently omitted previously]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Instead, It provides for equal protection racial discrimination. It even says so!

would you be so kind as to provide the exact words

 

[BackAgain]

would you be so kind as to provide the exact words

Are you kidding? Even a dopey liberal knows how to use Google.

Far be it from me to be an enabler of your laziness.

 

[Flopper]

Well in the Sup Ct has no problem with states passing laws that can only affect women because only they get pregnant, why would the Sup Ct have any problem with passing laws that only affect gay people?

For a court to make a ruling you have to provide details as to what the law is.

 

[Flopper]

Why is that? Because you say so? Uhm gee. No. That’s not how it works.

Your rejoinders are fails.

If a state defines a marriage as being between a man and woman. It would be declared unconstitutional.

First because it violates the equal protection clause. In this case the protection under the law of a same sex couple barred from marriage would receive would not be equal to the protection that is afforded to opposite sex couples allowed to married. It is a clear violation of equal protection.

Second, denying marriage to anyone is depriving a lot of American citizens the freedom to marry without due process of law; that is there is no legal process the couple can follow for reconsideration. Laws like bans on same sex marriage, bans on interracial marriage, and most of segregation laws are all violations of due process.

Unlike Roe v Wade, the gay marriage ruling has a strong legal foundation and I doubt it will every be overturned.

 

[Flopper]

Can an employer discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. State laws in 21 states protect employees from Sexual orientation discrimination.

 

[Flopper]

So, out of 13 Senators, a majority has said it'll oppose the bill BEFORE they're even seen it.

Also that poll said it's margin of error was 5%. Which has a potential for a 50/50. Though I guess it depends of how much they want to get something out of this, or how much they want to be accurate. They only asked 1,000 people and we know how much that can vary

The sampling error is 4% which means support by republicans could be as high as 59% or as low as 51%. Sampling error in a statistical analysis arises from the unrepresentativeness of the sample taken. The sample size is determined by sampling error. In short, sample size only needs to be as large as necessary to reach the tolerable statistical error. Most scientific polls only use a thousand or so participants in their sample.

This survey is important because of the trend it reveal in the acceptance of gay marriage. In 1997, only 28% supported gay marriage. Today that is 70%.

 

[BackAgain]

If a state defines a marriage as being between a man and woman. It would be declared unconstitutional.

Says who? And why? The US Constitution doesn’t say that. The US Constitution doesn’t address marriages. That’s a State law legal matter.

First because it violates the equal protection clause.

Wrong. I’ve been through this already today. The Equal Protection rights of were created to prohibit the Federal government and the State Governments from denying equal protection based in racial discrimination.

In this case the protection under the law of a same sex couple barred from marriage would receive would not be equal to the protection that is afforded to opposite sex couples allowed to married. It is a clear violation of equal protection.

No. It isn’t. Because the Amendment doesn’t address anything about the denial of equal protection based on sexual orientation discrimination. Saying it and wishing it were so doesn’t make it so.

Second, denying marriage to anyone is depriving a lot of American citizens the freedom to marry without due process of law

But not on the basis of race.

that is there is no legal process the couple can follow for reconsideration. Laws like bans on same sex marriage, bans on interracial marriage, and most of segregation laws are all violations of due process

The latter two are prohibited because such discrimination is based on race. The first on that list is not. Therefore, you’re wrong as to that one

Unlike Roe v Wade, the gay marriage ruling has a strong legal foundation and I doubt it will every be overturned.

Roe has no Constitutional basis. But neither does Obgerfell. And I don’t like the idea of overruling it — but as a matter of purely Constitutional Law analysis, it is at risk. And it need not be. We can and should Amend the Constitution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are you kidding? Even a dopey liberal knows how to use Google.

Far be it from me to be an enabler of your laziness.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The sampling error is 4% which means support by republicans could be as high as 59% or as low as 51%. Sampling error in a statistical analysis arises from the unrepresentativeness of the sample taken. The sample size is determined by sampling error. In short, sample size only needs to be as large as necessary to reach the tolerable statistical error. Most scientific polls only use a thousand or so participants in their sample.

This survey is important because of the trend it reveal in the acceptance of gay marriage. In 1997, only 28% supported gay marriage. Today that is 70%.

Well, it's a poll and sometimes polls are not always right, and it's only one poll.

What's important is whether this is representative of reality or not. I hope, and many others do, that this is true. Though some might be skeptical based on what we know of people and their politics.

 

[BackAgain]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I have to now concede that I was mistaken.

I spent spent several posts today making my argument based on my incorrect memory of the words in the 14th Amendment.

My bad.

So, I’m happy to report that there now seems to me to be no reason to worry about Obgerfell being overruled at all. Sometimes being wrong is a pleasant event.

 

[Flopper]

Nope. It’s forbidden by law.
How is racial discrimination forbidden in the 14th when there was 100 subsequent years of “states rights” Jim Crow, dope?

1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Flopper]

Well, it's a poll and sometimes polls are not always right, and it's only one poll.

What's important is whether this is representative of reality or not. I hope, and many others do, that this is true. Though some might be skeptical based on what we know of people and their politics.

There is several others and they are pretty close. A Pew Study done 3 years ago showed 61% supported gay marriage which was pretty close to Gallup at about 65%. The tide is clearly turning with 47 republicans in the House voting for a Bill to protect Gay Marriage. There are about half dozen senators who said they will vote for the bill but most are undecided.

Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage

In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%. Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Flopper]

And I said that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination, you obtuse imbecile.

That makes a denial of equal protection on the basis of race illegal and unconstitutional.

Then I proceeded to challenge you to show me (or anyone for that matter) what Constitutional provision provides similar protection against “discrimination” based on sexual orientation.

I see you’re still dodging the question. It’s ok. We all know why.

The same, equal protection.