The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[unofan]

I will have to go back and re-read the amendment, but my recollection is that it specifically states the cases where discrimination cannot take place and sexul preference isn't one of them. This is why I believe that this should be a legislative solution. I personally don't care one way or the other on gay marriage. I just firmly believe that we should not be looking to the courts to create social change (especially on something that is a state issue).

Section 1.*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You're confusing statutory law with the constitution

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I don't disagree that you speak your mind at your own risk. Hence my signature.

But the battle over gay marriage is being aggressively pushed by both sides, whether it's a push to legalize it, or a push to pass a consitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

People aren't being forced out of jobs and such for supporting gay marriage, only for opposing and/or voting against it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I just firmly believe that we should not be looking to the courts to create social change (especially on something that is a state issue).

They've been doing it regularly in recent decades, so I don't expect they'll suddenly stop now.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

People aren't being forced out of jobs and such for supporting gay marriage, only for opposing and/or voting against it.

Tell that to the Iowa judges.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

hmmm....

I'm just guessing, but unofan is probably blowing a gasket at me. Thankfully I don't see a word of it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

hmmm....

I'm just guessing, but unofan is probably blowing a gasket at me. Thankfully I don't see a word of it.

You know what? Shut the **** up about it. Seriously. The only thing worse than people worth blocking (and unofan is not one of them) are people who endlessly preen about blocking people.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

hmmm....

I'm just guessing, but unofan is probably blowing a gasket at me. Thankfully I don't see a word of it.

If you're going to ignore me, then ignore me. Posting on multiple occasions about how much you're ignoring me makes you seem like a whining teenage girl.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You know what? Shut the **** up about it. Seriously. The only thing worse than people worth blocking (and unofan is not one of them) are people who endlessly preen about blocking people.

I have him on ignore as well, but once in a while peek in. Typically, I will block someone if it is obvious that they are making zero attempt to actually comprehend my words and have a meaningful discussion about something. If they want to have a meaningful discussion, then let's have a meaningful discussion. I'm all for it, and will show the same respect to the person. If they want to knuckledragger this and GOP that, then I won't bother.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I have him on ignore as well, but once in a while peek in. Typically, I will block someone if it is obvious that they are making zero attempt to actually comprehend my words and have a meaningful discussion about something. If they want to have a meaningful discussion, then let's have a meaningful discussion. I'm all for it, and will show the same respect to the person. If they want to knuckledragger this and GOP that, then I won't bother.

I have similar views and have a few people on USCHO blocked. Sometimes I click to unhide a post but I rarely respond. There's a reason I blocked them and I feel it's inappropriate to respond to them or even reference that I've blocked them.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I have similar views and have a few people on USCHO blocked. Sometimes I click to unhide a post but I rarely respond. There's a reason I blocked them and I feel it's inappropriate to respond to them or even reference that I've blocked them.

Heck, I was honoured to find out at least one person put me on the ignore list!

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

They might not be trying to change things, but they are activists, Bob. Injecting millions into political battles is almost the definition of being politically active.

Quoted, so Bob will see it, but I absolutely disagree with unofan on this - introducing constitutional restrictions on citizens' rights is definitely a change, a HUGE change at that, and there's only one side trying that.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Quoted, so Bob will see it, but I absolutely disagree with unofan on this - introducing constitutional restrictions on citizens' rights is definitely a change, a HUGE change at that, and there's only one side trying that.

Eh, to the extent that gay marriage is new and was unthinkable even 10 years ago, he's correct. Because honestly, gay marriage has really come out of nowhere, and public opinion has shifted far quicker than it did on any previous civil right (like interracial marriage or women's sufferage, which took decades).

But to say they're not activists just because they're pushing for the status quo rather than something new is still incorrect. They are advocating for the status quo as vehemently as any gay marriage supporter is pushing for change.

 

[joecct]

So what is the overriding state's interest in banning gay marriage?

For the same reason that the liquor stores are shut on Sundays. It is not in the public's best interest to do so.

If you want to buy booze on Sunday you either go to the next jurisdiction that does or you petition the legislature to get it changed.

 

[Jon]

You know what? Shut the **** up about it. Seriously. The only thing worse than people worth blocking (and unofan is not one of them) are people who endlessly preen about blocking people.

I like Bob, but that's phenomenal.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

For the same reason that the liquor stores are shut on Sundays. It is not in the public's best interest to do so.

If you want to buy booze on Sunday you either go to the next jurisdiction that does or you petition the legislature to get it changed.

I don't claim to be knowledgable on the subject, but I don't think the closing of liquor stores triggers the strict scrutiny applicable to equal protection claims involving suspect classes. Unless I miss my guess, gay choice laws have also not been reviewed based on the suspect class standard (strict scrutiny) outside a few federal districts, like northern California.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

For the same reason that the liquor stores are shut on Sundays. It is not in the public's best interest to do so.

Not remotely analogous nor constitutionally applicable.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Let's be candid. The idea that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, etc..., stems entirely from religious teachings. It's not just something we're born with. You don't find it in the Magna Carta. It is, first and foremost, religious doctrine.

Even here, its rather soft.

Homosexuality is not a significant message in Jesus' teaching. Acceptance of others and the reservation of judgement is. Hostility towards homosexuality is buried in the old testament. Evangelicals may feel its a big deal as they usually place a heavy emphasis on the old testament.

I am of the opinion that Christian doctrine has a far greater reach on societal norms than is given credit. And not just from an evangelical point of view. Western society throughout history has adopted Jesus' perspective as the top social compass and very subtly/indirectly conformed society in the direction of His ideas. Its hard to say whether homosexuality would have been acceptable if it was unacceptable as a top plank from Jesus (but then again, Christianity may not have caught on to any extent if a core position of Jesus was that he was critical of homosexuality).

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I am of the opinion that Christian doctrine has a far greater reach on societal norms than is given credit.

Only when it's positive of course.

The rest... well that's where apologetics comes in.

Now I must be off, I have a war on xmas to fight!

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Only when it's positive of course.

The rest... well that's where apologetics comes in.

Now I must be off, I have a war on xmas to fight!

There was a quote in some movie... "I do not question the Word, only what man has made of it..."

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

There was a quote in some movie... "I do not question the Word, only what man has made of it..."

I'm trying to figure out what that leaves not to question.