Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2012 8:35:00 PM (view original):
I think after nearly 3 1/2 years, people are realizing that Obama's promises of "Hope!!" and "Change!!" was just empty rhetoric.

I thought you closed this discussion, tec?

What about #1 killer of minority babies?    Is Bush no longer at the top of the list?  Where's Kanye when you need him?

I've never argued that.  Bush was a horrible president, we don't really need to say things like he killed minority babies to show it.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/23/2012 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2012 8:35:00 PM (view original):
I think after nearly 3 1/2 years, people are realizing that Obama's promises of "Hope!!" and "Change!!" was just empty rhetoric.

I thought you closed this discussion, tec?

I closed the SSM discussion.

Obama bashing is still open.

Did you?  It seemed like you just ran out of gas after you lost that last point you labored 10 pages to try to make.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/23/2012 10:18:00 PM (view original):
Did you?  It seemed like you just ran out of gas after you lost that last point you labored 10 pages to try to make.

I see that you're still delusional.  Have you considered seeking therapy?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/23/2012 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2012 8:28:00 AM (view original):
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Second Amendment rights in the case of "District of Columbia vs. Heller" in 2008.

An interesting part of their ruling was:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Now take that statement and apply it to marriage.  The "right" to marriage is not unlimited.  It does not necessarily mean that anybody can marry anybody else, i.e. same-sex marriage.

Here is the specific Supreme Court ruling.  At the top of page 55, they say:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.   Miller  said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

So again with respect to rights (such as marriage), limitations based on historic tradition are OK.

Sounds like this discussion can be

CLOSED.

That's great.  There are requirements to marry. I never said there couldn't be.

Dragging out the dead horse once again, same sex couples had the right to marry in California.  For the state to take that right away from just same sex couples without violating the 14th amendment, there has to be a compelling governmental reason to do so.

There isn't one.

This is the exact point I'm referring to.

Same sex couples had a legal right to marry in California.  Whether they had an inalienable, fundamental right to marry is questionable.  

Currently, they are not allowed to marry in California.  That is a fact.

You seem 100% convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court should and will uphold the currently suspended overturning of Proposition 8.  I've pointed out that at least one Supreme Court precedent indicates that "rights" can be limited by historic tradition.  Which certainly could be the case here.

Did they really have a "legal right"? Was this bestowed upon them by the California SC? (honestly - no idea)

Or were they taking advantage of local activit officials who just decided that they were going to do things as they wanted? (again - honestly - I have no ia)

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2012 10:36:00 PM (view original):
Same sex couples had a legal right to marry in California.  Whether they had an inalienable, fundamental right to marry is questionable.  

Currently, they are not allowed to marry in California.  That is a fact.

You seem 100% convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court should and will uphold the currently suspended overturning of Proposition 8.  I've pointed out that at least one Supreme Court precedent indicates that "rights" can be limited by historic tradition.  Which certainly could be the case here.

It doesn't matter if marriage is a fundamental right, prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  Which is why it has been overturned twice.

Posted by wrmiller13 on 5/23/2012 10:41:00 PM (view original):
Did they really have a "legal right"? Was this bestowed upon them by the California SC? (honestly - no idea)

Or were they taking advantage of local activit officials who just decided that they were going to do things as they wanted? (again - honestly - I have no ia)

The CA supreme court originally overturned the ban on same sex marriage and gave same sex couples the right to marry.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/23/2012 10:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2012 10:36:00 PM (view original):
Same sex couples had a legal right to marry in California.  Whether they had an inalienable, fundamental right to marry is questionable.  

Currently, they are not allowed to marry in California.  That is a fact.

You seem 100% convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court should and will uphold the currently suspended overturning of Proposition 8.  I've pointed out that at least one Supreme Court precedent indicates that "rights" can be limited by historic tradition.  Which certainly could be the case here.

It doesn't matter if marriage is a fundamental right, prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  Which is why it has been overturned twice.

Whether it violates the 14th amendment is a question for the Supreme Court, not something to be determined by you.

Yes and I'm confident prop 8 will remain overturned. There isn't a legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

** yawn **

Did you lose again?