Conservatives take another L this week; same sex marriage passes

[BaggerofTea]

Arguing that gay marriage should be left to the states isn't the same as arguing that slavery should be left to the states. The 10th Amendment argument is basically conceding that while marriage is fundamental (as has been held by the SC), the definition of marriage should be left to the states. It literally has nothing to do with the argument for or against slavery

The concept of "states rights" is much broader then you think. Ultimately granting equal rights based on race and granting equal rights based on sexual orientation are one in the same. If you are going to give state's the right to govern who gets married then you should give them right to govern who gets equal rights

You can't have it both ways

 

[BaggerofTea]

Did anybody listen to talk radio yesterday? I still remember Michael Savage's reaction to the first Obamacare ruling.

This dude is flat out nuts, he od on his meds that morning

 

[hashmander]

he's a criminal ... and his gang ... god damn no subtlety whatsoever. IN YO FACE N!GGER.

 

[BaggerofTea]

he's a criminal ... and his gang ... god damn no subtlety whatsoever. IN YO FACE N!GGER.

I wished they would just come out and just say it

 

[MAKAVELI25]

The concept of "states rights" is much broader then you think. Ultimately granting equal rights based on race and granting equal rights based on sexual orientation are one in the same. If you are going to give state's the right to govern who gets married then you should give them right to govern who gets equal rights

You can't have it both ways

The concept of slavery is incompatible with the constitution itself, it's not a state's right issue. Only through bullshyt mental gymnastics and a bullshyt classification of blacks as 3/5ths of a person could slavery be legalized in the face of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights, if taken at face value, should have been an insurmountable obstacle to the existence of slavery on American soil. Marriage in itself is different. Even if the 'Right to Marry' itself is fundamental, which I believe it is, the definition of marriage isn't necessarily so. Scalia does make some credible points about how earlier court decisions explicitly referred to marriage as the union between a man and a woman

 

[Fervid]

Good. Now when can I legally get some quality weed?

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Same line of thinking was used to repress black and women equal rights for a century

jesus christ are you guys missing the point of my statement. that's why I asked the law student.

 

[BaggerofTea]

The concept of slavery is incompatible with the constitution itself, it's not a state's right issue. Only through bullshyt mental gymnastics and a bullshyt classification of blacks as 3/5ths of a person could slavery be legalized in the face of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights, if taken at face value, should have been an insurmountable obstacle to the existence of slavery on American soil. Marriage in itself is different. Even if the 'Right to Marry' itself is fundamental, which I believe it is, the definition of marriage isn't necessarily so. Scalia does make some credible points about how earlier court decisions explicitly referred to marriage as the union between a man and a woman

You can't go by court cases, Plessy vs Ferguson was ruled "separate but equal"

I do agree with you view of the Bill of Rights and where it should have stood on slavery, that also applies to homosexuals getting married

If interracial marriage ban is considered a violation of the bill of rights then so should intrasexual marriage. The right to marry is right there with freedom speech, assembly etc etc

 

[BaggerofTea]

jesus christ are you guys missing the point of my statement. that's why I asked the law student.

I didnt miss anything, you view law in a purely objective frame work forgetting that their are human beings with a various set of agendas and biases behind it.

States have been on record for being woefully inconsiderate of the right of a persons living in their state. Letting the states have the finally say on such an elementary right such marriage is throwing the U.S constitution and Bill of Rights out of the window when it really is the strongest document in the land

fukk that


Also the whole "states rights" stuff is a proven to be complete bullshyt by this man

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

I didnt miss anything, you view law in a purely objective frame work forgetting that their are human beings with a various set of agendas and biases behind it.

States have been on record for being woefully inconsiderate of the right of a persons living in their state. Letting the states have the finally say on such an elementary right such marriage is throwing the U.S constitution and Bill of Rights out of the window when it really is the strongest document in the land

fukk that

there we go. you actually addressed my question and like I said I'm for this and I don't really have an opinion on states rights vs. federal government, I just wanted to hear the opinion of someone studying law.

 

[Pesci]

The concept of slavery is incompatible with the constitution itself, it's not a state's right issue. Only through bullshyt mental gymnastics and a bullshyt classification of blacks as 3/5ths of a person could slavery be legalized in the face of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights, if taken at face value, should have been an insurmountable obstacle to the existence of slavery on American soil. Marriage in itself is different. Even if the 'Right to Marry' itself is fundamental, which I believe it is, the definition of marriage isn't necessarily so. Scalia does make some credible points about how earlier court decisions explicitly referred to marriage as the union between a man and a woman

Are you a lawyer or something? Because this seems pretty wrong

 

[BaggerofTea]

Are you a lawyer or something? Because this seems pretty wrong

I think he meant in the purely conceptual wording of the the constitution. It never explicated argued about in the original writing of the Constitution whether equality did or did not apply to blacks.

In a vacuum he is correct, however we know what happened

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Are you a lawyer or something? Because this seems pretty wrong

Explain how a Constitution:

(1) that starts with the statement "All men are created equally"

(2). Has a Due Process Clause that mandates: Men cannot have their life, LIBERTY, or property taken away without Due Process of Law

and (3). has an Equal Protection Clause mandating Equal treatment of all similarly situated peoples

would allow for slavery if taken literally. Don't worry I'll wait

 

[88m3]

Did anybody listen to talk radio yesterday? I still remember Michael Savage's reaction to the first Obamacare ruling.

oh lord...

 

[Pesci]

Explain how a Constitution:

(1) that starts with the statement "All men are created equally"

(2). Has a Due Process Clause that mandates: Men cannot have their life, LIBERTY, or property taken away without Due Process of Law

(3). and has an Equal Protection Clause mandating Equal treatment of all similarly situated peoples

would allow for slavery if taken literally. Don't worry I'll wait

Slaves were considered to be chattel, though.

Are you saying that the constitution was misinterpreted for the first 75 years of its existence?