Members banned from this thread: Humorme


Page 5 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 264
Thanks Tree145Thanks

Thread: Deplorable People Are Still Trying to Deprive Gays of Hard Won Rights

  1. #41
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks
    1055

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Marriage is not an equal protection of the law matter. Equal protection of the law meant that one law applied to every party, regardless of race, creed, etc., when taken to court. It is the perversion of equal protection that is in play. But we see where this is going, doing away with laws on incest, and the age of consent, those are the next thing to be attacked.

    The Progs can't wait for the new Sodom and Gomorrah.
    If you want to marry your mother or kid sister and feel that's you right, pursue it through the courts or legislation. I guarantee, it will not be the progressives who have your back on that.
    Thanks from Friday13

  2. #42
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    680
    Thanks
    885

    From
    U.S.A.
    Surely you know that this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    [...] lawyers, judges, historians and legal researchers have put forth the proposition that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified [...]
    ...does not constitute a legally-relevant argument when it comes to interpreting the law as it relates to equal protection? Can we point to a vanishingly small group of non-mainstream scholars who assert that the 14th amendment is invalid? No doubt. Do their opinions -- or yours -- carry any legal weight? Not just at the moment they don't. If you want to argue that the 14th amendment was illegally ratified and is therefore invalid, by all means feel free. Good luck with that. In any case, until and unless such arguments are taken seriously by a majority of high court judges, they're just so much talk. In the meantime, the 14th amendment is of course the law of the land and must be recognized as such.

    Cheers.
    Thanks from ProgressivePatriot

  3. #43
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    680
    Thanks
    885

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Marriage is not an equal protection of the law matter. Equal protection of the law meant that one law applied to every party, regardless of race, creed, etc., when taken to court. It is the perversion of equal protection that is in play. But we see where this is going, doing away with laws on incest, and the age of consent, those are the next thing to be attacked.

    The Progs can't wait for the new Sodom and Gomorrah.
    Oh for Pete's sake...

    Hey! The year 2004 called -- they want their wild-eyed, slippery-slope partisan diatribe back. If you could just return it, I'm sure they'll let bygones be bygones.

    You're wrong about "what's next", by the way. Don't worry about it though, I'm sure when the time comes you'll find a way to tailor your Jeremiads to suit the facts on the ground.

    Cheers.
    Thanks from Friday13

  4. #44
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    Are you against interracial marriage?
    Is it relevant to the strategies that the gays supposedly won their right to get married when it's not based on the same law?

  5. #45
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Surely you know that this:



    ...does not constitute a legally-relevant argument when it comes to interpreting the law as it relates to equal protection? Can we point to a vanishingly small group of non-mainstream scholars who assert that the 14th amendment is invalid? No doubt. Do their opinions -- or yours -- carry any legal weight? Not just at the moment they don't. If you want to argue that the 14th amendment was illegally ratified and is therefore invalid, by all means feel free. Good luck with that. In any case, until and unless such arguments are taken seriously by a majority of high court judges, they're just so much talk. In the meantime, the 14th amendment is of course the law of the land and must be recognized as such.

    Cheers.
    Sometimes it takes generations to change the court's opinions, would you not agree? Still, what does an irrelevant 14th Amendment have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage was NOT the issue brought to the table. It may serve as a great deflection, but it doesn't answer the question.

    Do you think it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to create new constitutional rights?

  6. #46
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks
    1055

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Is it relevant to the strategies that the gays supposedly won their right to get married when it's not based on the same law?
    What law? That doesn't make any sense


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    What law? That doesn't make any sense


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Are you reading your own thread? Havelock tried to change the subject in order to help you. Let's do this again.

    The United States Supreme Court weighed in on a supposed "right" to gay marriage. Justice Scalia, in that case:

    "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".

    A nonexistent "right" for gay marriage was invented in the United States Supreme Court in 2003. It is literally the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Shall I repeat George Washington's words OR are you capable of accessing post # 24 on this thread and reading it this time?

    I would not get all that comfortable with the concept of gay marriage if you're afraid to answer the question. When the U.S. Supreme Court creates new law, they can just as easily reverse themselves. Don't you think the right way to get a law passed is via the legislatures so that an actual statute exists? Havelock is trying to introduce a new theory of law - so read his / her posts. It will become clear to you. Take a deep breath. Relax. Breathe. Repeat.

  8. #48
    covfefe knight's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,340
    Thanks
    6690

    From
    Galaxy ZRF
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutional Sheepdog View Post
    Not because I say so, but because it is. One makes a choice to be gay one cannot chose their race. Neither are the same.
    One of the dumbest posts I've ever read on this forum. Totally ignorant.
    Thanks from ProgressivePatriot

  9. #49
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    If you want to marry your mother or kid sister and feel that's you right, pursue it through the courts or legislation. I guarantee, it will not be the progressives who have your back on that.

    So why do you think that heterosexuals should have your back in your fight?

    If you recall, in an earlier post, I told you how gay marriage was invented by the United States Supreme Court. And, bear in mind, you are FOR claiming that the 14th Amendment is legitimate. I'd like to continue from that earlier post with what Supreme Court Justice Scalia stated with regard to this legislating from the bench:

    "Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable."

    Don't you find your position a bit hypocritical given the facts presented? On what grounds would you stand against other sexual choices?
    Last edited by Humorme; 23rd December 2016 at 04:02 AM.

  10. #50
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks
    1055

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Are you reading your own thread? Havelock tried to change the subject in order to help you. Let's do this again.

    The United States Supreme Court weighed in on a supposed "right" to gay marriage. Justice Scalia, in that case:

    "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".

    A nonexistent "right" for gay marriage was invented in the United States Supreme Court in 2003. It is literally the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Shall I repeat George Washington's words OR are you capable of accessing post # 24 on this thread and reading it this time?

    I would not get all that comfortable with the concept of gay marriage if you're afraid to answer the question. When the U.S. Supreme Court creates new law, they can just as easily reverse themselves. Don't you think the right way to get a law passed is via the legislatures so that an actual statute exists? Havelock is trying to introduce a new theory of law - so read his / her posts. It will become clear to you. Take a deep breath. Relax. Breathe. Repeat.
    What? 2003?? WTF George Washington?? I don't give a rodent's hind parts what he said. Completely irrelevant. As for Scalia....He is equally irrelevant, and dead. How can you quote him while ignoring what Justice Kennedy said for the majority and expect to be taken seriously?

    You're just presenting your unsupported opinion that the ruling on same sex marriage represents the creation of a new right out of thin air, and ignore the fact that, as I pointed out, is based of the body of constitutional law.

    You think it will be reversed. How is that going to happen? They can't just revisit the case at will. A new case will have to be brought and make it's way up to the SCOTUS. Never in history has a right that has been established be reversed. Not happening.

Page 5 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 5th April 2016, 09:06 PM
  2. PHONY Cruz slams GAY rights--tape of him telling rich gays, he doesn't care!
    By cpicturetaker12 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 9th January 2016, 05:52 PM
  3. Replies: 95
    Last Post: 3rd May 2015, 02:02 PM
  4. Poll: 70 Percent In Jamaica Oppose Any Rights For Gays
    By freckles in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st June 2008, 10:06 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed