Same sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional in Michigan

[tumscalcium]

I'm liberal in the social sense yes, not fiscally.

I posted the 'cute video' because you asked "isn't that why we vote?". Had you been aware of how our laws work, you'd have realized that America is a republic, not one of a 'majority rules' democracy. We may vote on issues/bills where the majority typically wins, but the bill must be constitutional on it's face.

Over and over, (bipartisan) judges are recognizing that the 'popular' discrimination of some American citizens is being violated. This fly's in the face of a basic tenant of being protected equally under the law.

In other words and perhaps more simply, the law trumps the wishes of the majority.

Was that easier to digest?

What did religion have to do with it? I'm wondering why you brought religion into it.

No, you're across the board liberal which makes your video even more ironic. I bet you enjoyed the end.

I never asked that. You quoted nothing that was said. Increase your comprehension.
The bills should be constitutional prior to voting rather than 10 years later have some judge (1) person, which makes your video funnier still, decide what's right or wrong a decade ago. I'm still trying to find gay marriage in the constitution. When you find it can you cite the parts regarding polygamy, marriage within the family and bestiality-marriage? Thanks.

It would be easier to digest if the constitution were administered across the board. How can areas ban guns? Thanks for playing.

Magandang gabi.

 

[Danl]

Your original question was if some states would be against desegregation and women's rights RIGHT NOW. Not 1960, right now. It's been answered.

I asked two questions. Why won't you answer the second one? It is a really easy answer.

 

[tumscalcium]

I'm suggesting that without equal protection under the 14th amendment that these two groups would have had ZERO recourse under the law.

Super simple stuff man.

You said still. Real simple word dude.

Now, magandang gabi for real.

 

[Septic]

I can't.....I don't get a rise from dudes

Nor do I, but that wasn't the point.

I, like a growing number of civilized rational Americans are able to look past the back woods, bible thumpin', chaw spittin' hayseed bigotry and see that gay people are still.....people.

Calling me gay face to face 20 years ago would have earned you a black eye for your trouble. Today, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Homophobia exposes your insecurity as a man. Keep that in mind next time you shirk your faith and pass judgment on a gay person.

 

[volprof]

If you were honest with yourself you would realize you do have a simplistic understating of everything.

My god, you're right! Why didn't I think of that before!

Anything else original you got?

 

[volprof]

Turn your sarcasm meter ^

This forum expends my sarcasm capacity. My apologies.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

I asked two questions. Why won't you answer the second one? It is a really easy answer.

I'm well aware of the answers to both of your questions, and they're no and yes, respectively.

My turn- Do you really think any states would vote against desegregation and women's rights right now?

 

[MercyPercy]

The usual suspects come in and show their asses. Like clockwork..

 

[Septic]

What did religion have to do with it? I'm wondering why you brought religion into it.

No, you're across the board liberal which makes your video even more ironic. I bet you enjoyed the end.

I never asked that. You quoted nothing that was said. Increase your comprehension.
The bills should be constitutional prior to voting rather than 10 years later have some judge (1) person, which makes your video funnier still, decide what's right or wrong a decade ago. I'm still trying to find gay marriage in the constitution. When you find it can you cite the parts regarding polygamy, marriage within the family and bestiality-marriage? Thanks.

It would be easier to digest if the constitution were administered across the board. How can areas ban guns? Thanks for playing.

Magandang gabi.

LOL because I said "Jeezus weeps"? Is that what you're huffing and stammering on about? It was a joke cool breeze, lighten up...

You clearly needed to watch the video. I'd suggest watching it again and taking notes. Refer to them prior to posting questions like "isn't that why we vote?" when commenting about the constitutionality of laws.

I should also point out that I will probably lose sleep tonight with you thinking I'm "an across the board" liberal.

 

[govols/cc]

Nor do I, but that wasn't the point.

I, like a growing number of civilized rational Americans are able to look past the back woods, bible thumpin', chaw spittin' hayseed bigotry and see that gay people are still.....people.

Calling me gay face to face 20 years ago would have earned you a black eye for your trouble. Today, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Homophobia exposes your insecurity as a man. Keep that in mind next time you shirk your faith and pass judgment on a gay person.

It's not homophobia. Who cares what people do but it still doesn't permit them to get married so they'll feel better about themselves. Not everybody is entitled everything. Btw I could call you a *** today or 20 years ago & you'd still get your ass whipped.

 

[Danl]

I'm well aware of the answers to both of your questions, and they're no and yes, respectively.


And how many states that had discriminatory laws on their books in 1960 voted to change them vs. how many had their discriminatory laws overturned by the courts?

My turn- Do you really think any states would vote against desegregation and women's rights right now?

Almost no states would today, if for no other reason, the USSC has already ruled on it.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

The usual suspects come in and show their asses. Like clockwork..

How gay of you to notice.

 

[govols/cc]

The usual suspects come in and show their asses. Like clockwork..

Yay dopey found us.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

Almost no states would today, if for no other reason, the USSC has already ruled on it.

You keep bringing up the past on a question that deals only with the present time.

And you said "almost no states would today." Which do you think would?

 

[Septic]

It's not homophobia. Who cares what people do but it still doesn't permit them to get married so they'll feel better about themselves. Not everybody is entitled everything. Btw I could call you a *** today or 20 years ago & you'd still get your ass whipped.

First, you're very clearly homophobic.

Second, you care what other people do or you wouldn't be whining about it in this thread.

Lastly, don't try to out "internet tough guy" me. I'm a three time world champion of cyber Wig Splitting. My furious typing would unquestionably leave you bloodied, urine soaked and in the fetal position.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

First, you're very clearly homophobic.

Second, you care what other people do or you wouldn't be whining about it in this thread.

Lastly, don't try to out "internet tough guy" me. I'm a three time world champion of cyber Wig Splitting. My furious typing would unquestionably leave you bloodied, urine soaked and in the fetal position.

.

 

[Danl]

They do know it, it's one reason why the 'will of the people' is being overridden.

Laws shouldn't be based on a popularity contest. If that were the case women still wouldn't be voting and blacks would still be at the back of the bus.

You're suggesting that right now the majority of Americans are against women and blacks? Interesting....

You keep bringing up the past on a question that deals only with the present time.

And you said "almost no states would today." Which do you think would?

I think that Septic's quote above was alluding to the fact that there were laws on the books of many states that discriminated against blacks and/or women. Then, the USSC stepped in and nullified those laws. I think you would agree that the USSC did the right thing then.

The current laws being overturned are analogous per the USSC via the equal protection clause.

Believe it or not, our past does have a bearing on our present.

 

[govols/cc]

First, you're very clearly homophobic.

Second, you care what other people do or you wouldn't be whining about it in this thread.

Lastly, don't try to out "internet tough guy" me. I'm a three time world champion of cyber Wig Splitting. My furious typing would unquestionably leave you bloodied, urine soaked and in the fetal position.

You're clearly gay. The law would punish me worse for stomping you. You & your gay buds could lynch me though & be good.


Cave for gays, let them get married, yet it's really not marriage because that's between a man & woman, convenient way to get benefits though. Cave for minorities, throw in affirmative action to ban more qualified folks from whatever, blame whitey for their enormous crime rate etc. Cave for women, lower standards to allow them a chance to do something they really can't.

YAY FOR EQUALITY!

 

[Septic]

.

Hmm. I'm guessing this isn't the first time you've had to pull that out. Perhaps you'd benefit from a little introspection.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

Hmm. I'm guessing this isn't the first time you've had to pull that out. Perhaps you'd benefit from a little introspection.

You get two more guesses. Seeing as how there's only one other answer, I'm hoping you get it right.

 

[Rockytoptalker]

I think that Septic's quote above was alluding to the fact that there were laws on the books of many states that discriminated against blacks and/or women. Then, the USSC stepped in and nullified those laws. I think you would agree that the USSC did the right thing then.

The current laws being overturned are analogous per the USSC via the equal protection clause.

Believe it or not, our past does have a bearing on our present.

Please, for the love of all that is good, please say which states would be against desegregation and women's rights.

 

[Septic]

You're clearly gay. The law would punish me worse for stomping you. You & your gay buds could lynch me though & be good.


Cave for gays, let them get married, yet it's really not marriage because that's between a man & woman, convenient way to get benefits though. Cave for minorities, throw in affirmative action to ban more qualified folks from whatever, blame whitey for their enormous crime rate etc. Cave for women, lower standards to allow them a chance to do something they really can't.

YAY FOR EQUALITY!

Lol, OK there tough guy, settle down there Mr Insecure.

On a side note,
please don't tell my wife about your insights, it would make our encounter this morning really awkward in hindsight.

For the record, you still haven't defined "straw man argument" for me.

 

[govols/cc]

Lol, OK there tough guy, settle down there Mr Insecure.

On a side note,
please don't tell my wife about your insights, it would make our encounter this morning really awkward in hindsight.

For the record, you still haven't defined "straw man argument" for me.

You never answered mine.

Ps: insecure is having to insinuate your boyfriend is a wife.

 

[Septic]

I think that Septic's quote above was alluding to the fact that there were laws on the books of many states that discriminated against blacks and/or women. Then, the USSC stepped in and nullified those laws. I think you would agree that the USSC did the right thing then.

The current laws being overturned are analogous per the USSC via the equal protection clause.

Believe it or not, our past does have a bearing on our present.

At some point you'll realize you're trying to reason with the unreasonable. Is suggest baiting them with cleverly disguised taunts.

 

[Danl]

Please, for the love of all that is good, please say which states would be against desegregation and women's rights.

No comments on how many states had their discrimination laws overturned by the federal courts? Why did the feds have to step in and do that? Why didn't the states do that without the feds?

I answered your question before. No states would because it is illegal, now, to do so.

Now answer my questions.