Conspiracy Theorists Justice Scalia: "this court's threat to American democracy."

a reply to: introvert

That line has been a convenient fall-back argument for those that disagrees with gay marriage. Heard it too many times.

That line is truth, the gov shouldnt be involved at all.........but its cute that you automatically assume im against gay marriage, which I am not......

Funny how assumptions work when youre being snarky

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Citizens shut down those bakeries and pizza joints, the citizens did NOT force the government to shut it down. If anything, it was capitalism at it's finest. That point is flawed.

The gov has been fining businesses who wouldnt marry gay people, and shutting them down.........

So yes the gov is.........google is your friend

a reply to: kaylaluv

Gotta love how Progressives will invoke the constitution when it's convenient, but still have no clue how it actually reads.

Nothing in the constitution or its amendments pertains to marriage. Period.
That's what this thread is about, people. Not homosexuality, not marriage. It's about the Supreme Court overreaching its constitutional bounds.

originally posted by: JBRiddle
I can see where Justice Scalia see this as a threat to democracy. In 30 states, the question of gay marriage had been put to the voters and 30 times the people rejected gay marriage. And 30 times the Federal Court Over turned a decision the people had chosen.

Under the Constitution if 3/4 of the states can get an Amendment ratified it becomes law. So with 30 states having passed a ban on gay marriage you were only 4 states of way from getting to the 3/4 threshold for a Constitutional Amendment. So in theory if the states pushed for it you could still get a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

So Justice Scalia is correct in saying that democracy is under threat. If the people decide they want things a certain way (wither you agree with them or not) and a few people in robes we call Judges can over rule the will of the people, what's the point of voting at all.

There in lays the threat to Democracy.

Let me see if I got this right.

30 states don't want gay marriage. (Actually, It's 30 state legislatures don't want gay marriage.)

It takes ratification by 3/4 of the states, (which happens to be 37 states according to my Jethro Bodine book on higher mathematics). to enact a constitutional amendment, which means you're 7 states short, not 4.

And you think the fact that our SCOTUS just made a ruling on the law, (as it currently stands) without considering the remote possibility that someone might propose a C.A. and garner the support of 37 states needed to ratify it, (none of which has even been started, much less actually happened) and that somehow represents a threat to democracy?

I got some bad news for you, both you and Scalia are delusional.

I can't even begin to imagine the ludicrous rulings that would come from a court that made their decisions based on what they thought future laws might look like.

Talk about a threat to Democracy.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: introvert

That line has been a convenient fall-back argument for those that disagrees with gay marriage. Heard it too many times.

That line is truth, the gov shouldnt be involved at all.........but its cute that you automatically assume im against gay marriage, which I am not......

Funny how assumptions work when youre being snarky

The trouble is, being married affords people special protections and status under the government. I'd agree with you if those perks and responibilities of marriage disappeared.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: introvert

But the federal government should only protect the rights of people you agree with, right?

No. It should protect the rights of all people, whether I agree with it or not. Why would you assume that I wouldn't?

You see, I know very well that I have to protect the rights of all people or I jeopardize my rights. In order for me to be free, I have to let others be free.

Would you agree with that?

a reply to: introvert

What progressive agenda? Do you continually regurgitate the same propaganda you are fed?

No im just not blind.......but you can keep up with the personal attacks if you like.....doesnt phase me a bit, truth is truth

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: introvert

That line has been a convenient fall-back argument for those that disagrees with gay marriage. Heard it too many times.

That line is truth, the gov shouldnt be involved at all.........but its cute that you automatically assume im against gay marriage, which I am not......

Funny how assumptions work when youre being snarky

I did not say that you were against gay marriage. I said that I've heard it used many times by those that disagree with gay marriage.

Funny how reading comprehension is so difficult these days.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: JBRiddle

You nailed it. Regardless of stance on gay marriage, everyone who values freedom should find this troubling. Looks like celebration will drown out any rational concern, though.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy and irony in what you posted?

So everyone who values freedom should find it troubling that we are allowing people to have their freedoms?

Everyone who values to keep the gov out of things like marriage should be concerned.......

I find it troubling that the gov is involved at all

and yet state governments ruled against it, which pitted state against state, and somehow you don't find that troubling?

Again the gov shouldnt be involved at all.......that includes state gov..........

Why is this so hard for people to understand........its not a broad subject or even difficult to grasp.......

the problem is people dont like this idea because then the state cant MAKE people accept certain marriages......

THATS why people are confused or dont like the idea of the gov not being involved at all......

They WANT the gov to be able to force things............until it comes to having their own rights violated

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: introvert

That line has been a convenient fall-back argument for those that disagrees with gay marriage. Heard it too many times.

That line is truth, the gov shouldnt be involved at all.........but its cute that you automatically assume im against gay marriage, which I am not......

Funny how assumptions work when youre being snarky

The trouble is, being married affords people special protections and status under the government. I'd agree with you if those perks and responibilities of marriage disappeared.

the perks shoudl be the same no matter who is married........there for there would be no need for the gov to mandate who can be married..........its really really simple

a reply to: introvert

I recognize that you are hung up on how this issue looks on the surface, and that you are the one deflecting and derailing. Maybe you're just missing the point of the thread. If you want to discuss the actual topic then I will respond in kind.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: introvert

What progressive agenda? Do you continually regurgitate the same propaganda you are fed?

No im just not blind.......but you can keep up with the personal attacks if you like.....doesnt phase me a bit, truth is truth

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation of your thinking/writing process. You continually make comments that appear to indicate that you have been exposed to specific propaganda.

The use of the "progressive" agenda BS is part of that. People use the term quite a bit, but no actual agenda has ever seemed to surface. It's a myth propagated by the right wing propaganda outlets.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: introvert

That line has been a convenient fall-back argument for those that disagrees with gay marriage. Heard it too many times.

That line is truth, the gov shouldnt be involved at all.........but its cute that you automatically assume im against gay marriage, which I am not......

Funny how assumptions work when youre being snarky

The trouble is, being married affords people special protections and status under the government. I'd agree with you if those perks and responibilities of marriage disappeared.

the perks shoudl be the same no matter who is married........there for there would be no need for the gov to mandate who can be married..........its really really simple

Who then, if not government, says the perks apply to all?

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

A marriage license is a civil issue, as it is a license provided by the state. All legal citizens of "consenting age" have access to said marriage license. Heterosexuals had the freedom in being able to choose the adult of consenting age they wanted to legally marry. Homosexuals did not have this same freedom. Now they do. They are protected from the discriminatory act of being denied their choice of consenting adult to marry. Equal protection under the laws. It's a civil right.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yes, equal protection under the law. So why does a religious ceremony get governmental benefits? Take that away and give them to people who want a family. Not a religious ceremony.

And true, they've just denied numerous people those governmental benefits by refusing to marry them.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: introvert

I recognize that you are hung up on how this issue looks on the surface, and that you are the one deflecting and derailing. Maybe you're just missing the point of the thread. If you want to discuss the actual topic then I will respond in kind.

I was only responding to the question you posed. Agree, disagree or refute my statement.

It appears to me that you are deflecting because my comment was rooted in sound logic and you do not want to be seen agreeing with me. That's fine. But I'm not some idiot that falls for the sort of tripe you're trying to pull here.

Try that with someone else.

a reply to: framedragged

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You don't need a religious ceremony to get a marriage license. You must have a marriage license to get governmental benefits. Plenty of atheists get marriage licenses with NO religious ceremonies.

Again, you can get government benefits without a religious ceremony in a church.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Exactly, that is the thing, why people are getting so riddle up about churches been forced to perform same sex marriages when a church marriage is a choice, getting a state marriage license is the law in order to make marriage legal.

I married in a church still I had to apply for my license with the state.

Yea for a win for equality and love.twitter is buzzing world wide, great job america, you should be proud.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Oh, hah I can see the confusion.

I just mean that people are gonna keep shouting "marriage is defined as between man and woman!" and that if we move the goalposts it goes back to "gay people are sinful!" and we can ignore them much easier since it comes off as hate and not concern for the sanctity of Webster's.