MartinC Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 if most people have left how do you think the bills pass? Strange things happen at local/State level. The politics and views of a certain State body or even the electorate of a State can be very different to the overall national picture. On issues like this you cant be a single nation and travel different roads - the history of 1861-1865 should tell you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 Jurisdiction is a funny thing....like recognition of SSM marriage being imposed in jurisdictions where it was not imposed by legislation if most people have left how do you think the bills pass? it is more like that we travel different roads with different destinations Generally, at periods of social change you see retrenchment and doubling down. Mindsets do not die quickly or easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Strange things happen at local/State level. The politics and views of a certain State body or even the electorate of a State can be very different to the overall national picture. On issues like this you cant be a single nation and travel different roads - the history of 1861-1865 should tell you that. certainly, nor can you have one state impose it's will on another last I checked anyway Now point me at the jurisdiction where laws saying businesses cannot discriminate against gays are being imposed. You know, the rulings that these bills honoring discrimination are supposedly being passed, in response to. play another game? next you are going to tell me citizens of a state that does not recognize SSM are not obligated to recognize them as married,AFTER telling me it is discrimination and illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 certainly, nor can you have one state impose it's will on another last I checked anyway If that State is the United States of America it can impose its collective will on an individual States via the SCOTUS. At least thats my understanding (and I am far from an expert on the US Federal versus State legal system!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 If that State is the United States of America it can impose its collective will on an individual States via the SCOTUS. At least thats my understanding (and I am far from an expert on the US Federal versus State legal system!!) really?...so DOMA sec3 was perfectly fine? odd they left sec2 though this is certainly about separation of powers and asserted rights, to impose the US govt must have authority SCOTUS has a bit of trouble there after using a state's recognition of SSM in justifying SSM federal recognition and then denying the power of the state to decide SSM.....it can only be one way....unless they choose a different justification it will be interesting to see the resolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 certainly, nor can you have one state impose it's will on another And not one has. Now, that pesky US constitution? Yeah, it does apply to the states. (At least, the tiny portion of it that we haven't gotten rid of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 And not one has. Now, that pesky US constitution? Yeah, it does apply to the states. (At least, the tiny portion of it that we haven't gotten rid of). ah yes ,the one that acknowledges/grants powers of the states....such as determining who can marry and recognition of same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 ah yes ,the one that acknowledges/grants powers of the states....such as determining who can marry and recognition of same Unless they are discriminating. Which they are. They have the power to regulate murder. They do not have the right to declare that it's legal for white folks to kill black folks. Not even if the white guy claims his religion says it's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 just to be clear.....are you arguing the state cannot discriminate or the citizens? so far the state can and does lawfully seems a waste of time add I guess I should clarify that 2nd line....they discriminate under your use of the term interestingly enough the individual is being held to a higher standard than the state seems to be(which is the inverse of what the relevant law seems to read) who gets to define the term and apply it by law? it is a bizarre world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 just to be clear.....are you arguing the state cannot discriminate or the citizens? You actually asking if the 14th prohibits the states from discriminating, or individuals? Have you considered reading it? I mean, I know it might interfere with your ability to consistently pretend that it doesn't exits, and all. (While continuing to invent court rulings that don;t exist.) But it might really make things clearer. so far the state can and does lawfully So far, the states have been prohibited from doing so, for over 100 years, and do so unlawfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 So far, the states have been prohibited from doing so, for over 100 years, and do so unlawfully. that will be news to many of them....if true you can simply show them a higher court ruling and resolve this mess I did a add on the other post, but the issue seems to be a bit more complex than you assert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 that will be news to many of them....if true you can simply show them a higher court ruling and resolve this mess This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the constitution. And the lack of a Supreme Court ruling does not mean that the constitution does not exist. (Any more than it means that you get to make up whatever you want, and claim that the Supreme Court has ruled the way you want.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the constitution. And the lack of a Supreme Court ruling does not mean that the constitution does not exist. (Any more than it means that you get to make up whatever you want, and claim that the Supreme Court has ruled the way you want.) So you are saying the law on the books and in use is not controlling otherwise? interesting concept ....almost as interesting as you seemingly believing SCOTUS use of language in a ruling is not affirming facts could it be that for discrimination to be relevant it must be found to be discrimination and not simply allowable qualifications? probably too simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 So you are saying the law on the books and in use is not controlling otherwise? I'm saying that passing an unconstitutional law does not make it constitutional. Nor legal. And the 14th Amendment IS "law on the books". No Supreme Court ruling necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I'm saying that passing an unconstitutional law does not make it constitutional. Nor legal. And the 14th Amendment IS "law on the books". No Supreme Court ruling necessary. reality seems of a different opinion in application in other words the law in force has more force than our opinion., of course even the law obviously doesn't matter if those utilizing it define it differently.(executive privilege ect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 in other words the law in force has more force than our opinion., And the 14th Amendment IS "law on the books". No Supreme Court ruling necessary. I think you mean "the law I want to pay attention to. The law I want to ignore doesn't count." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think you mean "the law I want to pay attention to. The law I want to ignore doesn't count." is claiming it does not apply to it ignoring it? maybe the court could tell us, ...we are paying them is it ripe yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 is claiming it does not apply to it ignoring it? Wow. Two undefined "it"s in the same sentence. I'm going to assume that you've decided to go from pretending that the 14th Amendment doesn't exist, to trying to say it doesn't apply to marriage. Unfortunately, if you go there, then the problem is that not only does it say that it applies to all laws, but there's a pretty famous court ruling that says that yes, it applies to marriage, too. It's called Loving v. Virginia. I think I've mentioned it once or twice. Or perhaps you were intending to try to claim that the 14th doesn't apply to gays? Then there's the pesky fact that it says "All persons . . . ". And another one of those pesky precedents: Lawrence (no relation) v. Texas. See, unfortunately, while there is no specific ruling which says "the 14th applies to gay marriage", it's been well established that the 14th applies to gays, and it applies to marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 See, unfortunately, while there is no specific ruling which says "the 14th applies to gay marriage", it's been well established that the 14th applies to gays, and it applies to marriage. Wow ya solved the issue......that specific part must be what is missing alert the press.....Hell alert SCOTUS to what they are obviously unaware of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 while we await their withheld wisdom do you think the state defined marriage as between a male and a female to discriminate against SSM? I would say the polygamist have a better case under the 14th....of course they run into another issue might this be on to something? http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Wow ya solved the issue......that specific part must be what is missing alert the press.....Hell alert SCOTUS to what they are obviously unaware of I see we're back to "there has not been a Supreme Court ruling that I will acknowledge, therefore I can claim that the Supreme Court agrees with me, with no support whatsoever" again. I'm alerting you to what you are obviously unaware of. ---------- do you think the state defined marriage as between a male and a female to discriminate against SSM? Well, as far as I'm aware, every single state which passed any of the numerous rules on the issue flat out stated that the reason they were doing it, was to not let gays marry. (And then there's the fact that there is no other credible reason for passing such obviously discriminatory laws.) But I confess I have not collected documented statements from every single state covering every single law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The states changed the definition from what is was? are you talking about the mini domas / bans or the marriage law?......is that a situation like DOMA where one can be found unconstitutional and the other left intact? since I have bothered to point out how the rulings fundamentally differ and why they do not seem binding in this matter ya could skip claiming I ignore them....or not we await the court those states granting civil unions certainly opened the door to a 14th challenge.though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Your car broke down driving through the state? Sorry gay person, but no shop within 100 miles will service your car, no tow person is willing to come get you either. Looks like you're stuck, and the law says it's ok! What's that gay person? You and your child are hungry? Keep driving, can't stop anywhere in this town. What's that, you need gas for your car gay person? Aww, it's too bad nobody near by "supports your lifestyle" so nobody will allow you to purchase their gas. Soon you'll be stuck in example 1. But it's ok because the state law says so! Like I said, this is the same kind of crap that occurred under separate but equal and the same justifications are being used, IMO, by twa and others with states rights and business owner rights. Only this time the excuses for bigotry are hiding behind religion. I'm sure the above examples are exactly the type of America our forefathers had in mind. State's rights aren't some infallible entity.They were wrong with separate but equal and IMO this is simply a newer version of that travesty. State's rights shouldn't be an allowance for unequal treatment of citizens, nor should religion, When your ideologies, in this case religion and states rights, have you defending a wrong (discrimination of citizens based on sexual orientation), then it shows that your perspective on those ideologies is flawed. You have to be willing to admit that some times an ideology can be wrong. In this case, some times religion and states rights can be wrong and this is one such case. Discrimination such as what this law will allow, should not be defended on ANY grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I don't think you read the same bills I did elkabong.,,or you are seeing much more in them add the Ariz bill, the other is linked in the op http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I don't think you read the same bills I did elkabong.,,or you are seeing much more in them add the Ariz bill, the other is linked in the op http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf I'm seeing legalized discrimination hiding behind religion. You should see it too but you seem to be allowing ideology to blind that and argue for a side that very much will discriminate against American citizens for petty reasons and essentially recreate separate but equal. I strongly suggest you consider that ideologies from time to time need revision when they have you defending unequal, un-American treatment of fellow citizens. And homosexuals will be the big target of the discrimination, we know this. And just to drive home my point about this being akin to separate but equal, here's lobbyist Jack Burkman http://nesn.com/2014/02/washington-lobbyist-jack-burkman-wants-to-ban-gay-nfl-players/ Wants to put forth a hill that would ban gay players from the NFL (a Republican interfering with business, hmmm), and his defense is the country is losing it's morals and values (religious overtones), and says people shouldn't be forced to shower with gays (same things were said about black players entering MLB). These religious discrimination bills are of the same desire to separate other citizens and in this case very much will target homosexuals and create "separate but equal." Again, discrimination such as what this bill will protect should not be defended on ANY grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.