- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,743
- Reaction score
- 12,285
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Arguing that you can't do something new because of what currently exists isn't a winning argument. States would simply have to pass legislation removing themselves from the marriage licensing business and eliminating all State tax and other State benefits that accrue to holding that license. That does not impinge on the feds ability to issue licenses or for States to recognize those licenses or licenses from other States for other purposes.
Clearly, we disagree. But I'll defer to your apparent credentials as a jurist in order to close the argument.
No less than 14 times SCOTUS has determined marriage to be a right. And now 15 times.
A fair degree of proof... for what? A constitutional crisis? Lmao. This isn't the first 5-4 vote or for that matter a rare one. It's not a constitutional crisis.
You can do that, however, you'll still be going against the majority of those learned words.
Well, I can't help that you chose to ignore the words of Supreme Court Justices.
Emotional jibber jabber from the side that lost. Get serious, this isn't a constitutional crisis anymore than Loving v. Virginia was. :shrug:
You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to know animus is a basic principle of constitutional law. I will also predict the future for you:
1. If clerks in Texas refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, they will be sued.
2. The will lose in court.
3. The social conservatives then will bitch about activist judges ignoring the fact that those clerks were violating a basic tenant of constitutional law.
That's good. Since I've had my eyes on these 14 year old Asian twins for a while now.
They're both female so you'll probably disapprove. But, how does my marrying them affect you?
One and two may be correct, but number three? We are so far from constitutional law here it isn't even funny. This is the very definition of pyrrhic victory.
Emotional jibber jabber from the side that lost. Get serious, this isn't a constitutional crisis anymore than Loving v. Virginia was. :shrug:
Stupid argument. A 14 year old, just like a dog, chimp, or inanimate object, cannot consent. Legal consent by both parties is a legal prerequisite for any marriage.
Constitutional law 101: What is an is not constitutional is determined by the federal court system, not by some dude going by the name of clownboy on an internet forum.
LOL.
I rest my case.
Your case was you pretending that the words of 1 justice who was never going to vote in favor of gay marriage somehow implies a crisis is afoot. It doesn't. Hell, you could add Thomas, Scalia and Alito to the mix and all you'd have is 4 Conservative justices who were never going to side with gay marriage. That does not reflect a constitutional crisis. :lol: Are you even trying?
There was more than one Justice's quotes there Hatuey.
And again, your unqualified amateur opinion has been noted.
You can keep pretending this is some sort of constitutional crisis, however it simply isn't and I'd be surprised if this was still in discussion beyond minutia by the end of the month. :shrug:
That's why I mentioned Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
*and supported by more justices and lawyers than yours.
You can keep pretending this is some sort of constitutional crisis, however it simply isn't and I'd be surprised if this was still in discussion beyond minutia by the end of the month. :shrug:
Yeah, the announcement by the SCOTUS that the constitution no longer matters in their decision making process is met by the sound of crickets. And you think this is a good thing? Of course you do.
Stupid argument. A 14 year old, just like a dog, chimp, or inanimate object, cannot consent. Legal consent by both parties is a legal prerequisite for any marriage.
That's not an argument I'm making. The Feds could, arguably should, take over licensing. Or better get the government out of the licensing business altogether. The only real role for the state is to insure that both sides don't misrepresent themselves - i.e. if someone says they aren't married that they really aren't married, to adjudicate cases where the marriage contract isn't complied with and to insure that minors are cared for. Outside of that people should be able to craft their own marriage agreement - even if it's to say "we'll use a government drafted template contract."
The reality is that it won't happen. Any state stupid enough to suspend issuing all marriage licenses is going to get its ass kicked both by the Feds and it's own citizens. I know if I was looking to marry and NY indefinitely halted issuance of marriage licenses over this my next stop after the NY clerk's office would be the courthouse.
[h=1]Paxton: State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples[/h]
Here we go the first actual decent from the Joy. I think this is doomed before it starts. There is no end to hate and judgement IMO. Thoughts.
Oh, I'm sorry. What was I thinking consulting a dictionary when discussing the definition of a word? :roll:
Great comeback, by the way. This way you don't actually have to address the fact most of those who are in opposition to same sex marriage are trying to redefine marriage to subjugate others in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Notice Countryboy didn't offer any other definition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?