Same Sex marriage 14th amendment

Page 3 of 5<12345>
July 27th, 2022 at 5:01:46 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Quote: AZDuffman
That is because everyone knew "marriage" was always about one man and one woman. The gay lobby likes to pretend they did not demand it be changed to give them special rights.

If it was not defined, then why were gays not being married to each other in the 1700s? Can you or the gay lobby answer that?


So. Where does the Constitution say same sex marriages can't exist?
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
July 27th, 2022 at 5:06:19 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: rxwine
So. Where does the Constitution say same sex marriages can't exist?


It does not have to. But for them to exist the right way was for legislatures to define it, like any other law. Democrats, however, were cowards and would not get behind doing it.

The Constitution did not say sports books could not exist. SCOTUS ruled they could. But the state legislatures still had to make the rules on them.

I get that you do not grasp how it is supposed to work.
The President is a fink.
July 27th, 2022 at 5:14:26 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Lots of things operate just fine until someone complains for stupid reasons like being a snowflake about the way things don't look natural.

That's practically the definition of being a snowflake.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
July 27th, 2022 at 5:21:14 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: odiousgambit
What a dog's breakfast that whole business was!


I thought that was British slang
Quote: odiousgambit
To just decide that Scott should lose his case because he was now back in a slave state makes sense to me*, but apparently such a simple statement/decision made no sense legally ... maybe you have to understand law generally better than I do


Well, look no further than the dissenting opinions by the two associate justics

Justices McLean and Curtis dissented the majority, both writing separate opinions on why the decision was invalid.

Justice John McLean cited that the Court had no basis for the claim that Blacks were not or could not be citizens.

Justice Benjamin Curtis, dissented with every point the majority made, citing that there are African American citizens in both Northern and Southern states at the time of this cases and therefore they are among the “people of the United States”. In addition Justice Curtis wrote that since the Court had no jurisdiction, no opinion should have been issued on the matter.




Quote: DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD (1857) DISSENTING OPINION (JUSTICE BENJAMIN CURTIS)
One mode of approaching this question is, to inquire who were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors [the right to vote], on equal terms with other citizens...


It is interesting to note that four of justices at the time of the Dred Scott case were appointed by Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) the slaveholding POTUS. By the time Jackson was president, he owned nearly one hundred slaves; an estate inventory following Jackson's death counted 161 slaves, However one of Andrew Jackson's appointee was one of the two dissenting opinions.


List of Justices in the Dred Scott decision and wether they concurred or dissented, and the POTUS that appointed thim.
Majority Opinion (Taney) POTUS Andrew Jackson
Concurring Opinion (Wayne) POTUS Andrew Jackson
Concurring Opinion (Catron) POTUS Andrew Jackson
Dissenting Opinion (McLean) POTUS Andrew Jackson
Concurring Opinion (Nelson) POTUS John Tyler
Concurring Opinion (Grier) POTUS James K. Polk
Concurring Opinion (Daniel) POTUS Martin Van Buren
Concurring Opinion (Campbell) POTUS Franklin Pierce
Dissenting Opinion (Curtis) POTUS Millard Fillmore

Andrew Jackson's supporters founded the Democratic party. He is a troubling Democratic Party Founder since he believed in slavery, no holds barred warfare against Native Americans he was against banks and he felt that paper money would corrupt the nation .

So who did we pick to put on the $20 banknote?
July 27th, 2022 at 5:30:44 PM permalink
ams288
Member since: Apr 21, 2016
Threads: 29
Posts: 12419
Quote: AZDuffman
That is because everyone knew "marriage" was always about one man and one woman. The gay lobby likes to pretend they did not demand it be changed to give them special rights.

If it was not defined, then why were gays not being married to each other in the 1700s? Can you or the gay lobby answer that?


Same reason women couldn’t vote back then.

A bunch of dumb white men were in charge of everything.
“A straight man will not go for kids.” - AZDuffman
July 28th, 2022 at 3:32:27 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Pacomartin


Andrew Jackson's supporters founded the Democratic party. He is a troubling Democratic Party Founder since he believed in slavery, no holds barred warfare against Native Americans he was against banks and he felt that paper money would corrupt the nation .

So who did we pick to put on the $20 banknote?


Does this make him all that different from modern Democrats? Just replace "believing in slavery" to "keeping blacks in poverty" and it all lines up.
The President is a fink.
July 28th, 2022 at 6:34:00 AM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 51
Posts: 4941
Quote: ams288


A bunch of dumb white men were in charge of everything.


Sadly, it seems to be the same today.
At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a detrrent.
July 28th, 2022 at 12:14:40 PM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4156
I just wished there was a way for certain ‘big’ issues to just be voted on at a federal level. Heck, we vote to approve a school budget locally! Put abortion on the ballot, it passes 2-1 at least. Put gay marriage on the ballot, likely the same. And if I’m wrong, then the people will have spoken. I would not be against these votes on a state level. You’d have the majority decide, and if you were unhappy with the result you would be free to move. But at least you’d know what the majority of the citizens wanted.
July 28th, 2022 at 12:18:03 PM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5052
Quote: Pacomartin
I thought that was British slang
I've read a lot of Brit books on WW2 in particular and probably picked it up there

Quote:
So who did we pick to put on the $20 banknote?
I am quite surprised we are not seeing Tubman as of now. That get dropped?
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
July 28th, 2022 at 12:41:51 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: SOOPOO
I just wished there was a way for certain ‘big’ issues to just be voted on at a federal level. Heck, we vote to approve a school budget locally! Put abortion on the ballot, it passes 2-1 at least. Put gay marriage on the ballot, likely the same. And if I’m wrong, then the people will have spoken. I would not be against these votes on a state level. You’d have the majority decide, and if you were unhappy with the result you would be free to move. But at least you’d know what the majority of the citizens wanted.


So, in 1866 vote to see if blacks can remain in the USA. It passes they can stay, it fails they have to leave for Africa?
The President is a fink.
Page 3 of 5<12345>