(July 16, 2018 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 11:29 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: What majority view?  You're talking out of your ass, Steve.  Obergefell v. Hodges was in mid-2015.

What was Obergefell v. Hodges about? A ruling that overturned state-level bans/ballot initiatives/laws on gay marriage. It also struck down portions of DOMA (passed by a veto-proof majority of democratically-elected congressmen/senators). Do we run our country by opinion polls coupled with judicial activists or do we run it according to a democratic process? It's not clear anymore.

What exactly were you hoping for, Steve? That a minority would end up deciding marriage rights for the majority? Isn't that the exact sort of thing you've been yammering against in this very thread? When majority rule is in your favor, it's right as rain, but reverse the positions and suddenly it's hold up, Martha, we've got a problem here! Or perhaps you thought that there was a knife edge wherein the right to marriage was so fundamental as to deserve enshrinement in the very constitution itself, but not sufficiently fundamental to trigger the relevant fourteenth amendment protections? In the end, a majority of the Supreme Court justices found, contrary to ham-fisted legal opinions otherwise, that no such knife edge where you could comfortably rest your tuckus existed. So out come the charges of judicial activism. Do you know what judicial activism is, Steve? It's code among conservatives for, "opinions that we don't like." When it comes to Obergefell, it's called judicial activism. When it comes to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, why then it's just called "good old fashioned jurisprudence." It's nothing more than a shibboleth, Steve, plain and simple.

(July 16, 2018 at 4:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: What was Obergefell v. Hodges about? A ruling that overturned state-level bans/ballot initiatives/laws on gay marriage. It also struck down portions of DOMA (passed by a veto-proof majority of democratically-elected congressmen/senators). Do we run our country by opinion polls coupled with judicial activists or do we run it according to a democratic process? It's not clear anymore.

What exactly were you hoping for, Steve?  That a minority would end up deciding marriage rights for the majority?  Isn't that the exact sort of thing you've been yammering against in this very thread?  Or perhaps you thought that there was a knife edge wherein the right to marriage was so fundamental as to deserve enshrinement in the very constitution itself, but not sufficiently fundamental to trigger the relevant fourteenth amendment protections?  In the end, a majority of the Supreme Court justices found, contrary to ham-fisted legal opinions otherwise, that no such knife edge where you could comfortably rest your tuckus existed.  So out come the charges of judicial activism.  Do you know what judicial activism is, Steve?  It's code among conservatives for, "opinions that we don't like."  When it comes to Obergefell, it's called judicial activism.  When it comes to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, why then it's just called "good old fashioned jurisprudence."  It's nothing more than a shibboleth, Steve, plain and simple.

Here here 

That's his real gripe his opinions are not law .

(July 16, 2018 at 4:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: What was Obergefell v. Hodges about? A ruling that overturned state-level bans/ballot initiatives/laws on gay marriage. It also struck down portions of DOMA (passed by a veto-proof majority of democratically-elected congressmen/senators). Do we run our country by opinion polls coupled with judicial activists or do we run it according to a democratic process? It's not clear anymore.

What exactly were you hoping for, Steve?  That a minority would end up deciding marriage rights for the majority?  Isn't that the exact sort of thing you've been yammering against in this very thread?  When majority rule is in your favor, it's right as rain, but reverse the positions and suddenly it's hold up, Martha, we've got a problem here! Or perhaps you thought that there was a knife edge wherein the right to marriage was so fundamental as to deserve enshrinement in the very constitution itself, but not sufficiently fundamental to trigger the relevant fourteenth amendment protections?  In the end, a majority of the Supreme Court justices found, contrary to ham-fisted legal opinions otherwise, that no such knife edge where you could comfortably rest your tuckus existed.  So out come the charges of judicial activism.  Do you know what judicial activism is, Steve?  It's code among conservatives for, "opinions that we don't like."  When it comes to Obergefell, it's called judicial activism.  When it comes to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, why then it's just called "good old fashioned jurisprudence."  It's nothing more than a shibboleth, Steve, plain and simple.

What Stevenumber2 and Roadkill do not get, is that our system isn't based on one holy book, but the protection of all. 

What we are currently seeing now is a regression, a bullshit fear of change.

(July 16, 2018 at 9:55 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 9:41 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: What does it matter what it was called if it was a communal recognition of rightful union of two people? What do you suppose the word for that would be translated as?

Even back in whatever culture you might find a mention, the concept that it was different would still be clear. You cannot argue that traditional marriage was not one of the primary pillars of every culture. There is no argument that could be made that the few cultures that allowed open same-sex relationships viewed them on par with traditional marriage within the fabric of their society.

So what? How is that an argument to not allow them? You seem to be literally saying it shouldn't be allowed because gay people are a minority.

(July 16, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 9:55 am)SteveII Wrote: Even back in whatever culture you might find a mention, the concept that it was different would still be clear. You cannot argue that traditional marriage was not one of the primary pillars of every culture. There is no argument that could be made that the few cultures that allowed open same-sex relationships viewed them on par with traditional marriage within the fabric of their society.

So what? How is that an argument to not allow them? You seem to be literally saying it shouldn't be allowed because gay people are a minority.

And I am an atheist, I still got married. Do I give one fuck that Stevenumber2 or Roadkill worry that Jebus wasn't part of my LEGAL ceremony? If they do, their GPS must be broken because the road to "give a fuck" isn't at my location.

But everyone we have to respect the fact that the old definition was really old because being really old means we can't change it and we have to respect that lots of people don't like the definition because they don't like it and we also have to respect that marriage use to be structured in one way so we can't change it because Steve says so .

Oh and you not a ideological bigot if your ideology  considers a loving relationship between two people is equal to rape and murder and adultery and that it was a okay for a god to kill them  as long as your nice to gays to their face and believe your also a piece of shit .  

It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution. I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court. Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States. Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists". The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution. Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs. We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals. We base them on the US constitution. Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote: It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

Of course his side argue that gays had no right to marriage in the first place thus their not being denied . Because antiquity says so .Yes it's stupid but that par for the course with Steve's views . And Roadkill will make absurd comparisons to married bachelors or some stupid shit.

Of course mixed with smatterings of  the "i have gay friends defense"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument

(July 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 2:52 pm)Astreja Wrote: Nope.  I know enough Christians in RL -- literally hundreds -- to know that the vast majority of them are very nice people who are too polite to comment on other peoples' sexuality.  

You have said that the belief is hateful, but you just admitted that it is not. 

Stop prooftexting me.  Not all Christians see homosexuality as sinful, and as anyone can tell if they read the your link, I specifically referenced the "homosexuality is sinful" belief.  It is not universal in Christianity.

How do you suppose your LGBT friends would feel if they knew how you felt about gay marriage?  If they don't know now, I think they should find out so that they can make an informed choice about whether or not to continue the friendship.

(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote: It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

I wonder if he would be this keen if America were a majority Anti Theist

---

(July 16, 2018 at 6:47 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm)SteveII Wrote: You have said that the belief is hateful, but you just admitted that it is not. 

Stop prooftexting me.  Not all Christians see homosexuality as sinful, and as anyone can tell if they read the your link, I specifically referenced the "homosexuality is sinful" belief.  It is not universal in Christianity.

How do you suppose your LGBT friends would feel if they knew how you felt about gay marriage?  If they don't know now, I think they should find out so that they can make an informed choice about whether or not to continue the friendship.

True not all Christians are regressive bigots so better we say Steve and roads interpretation is hateful because it makes marriage exclusive and makes a loving monogamous  relationship between consenting adults  equivalent to adultery . Just like in some interpretations of Islam marrying a Christian is seen the same both are hateful .

---

(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote: It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

Indeed DOMA was unconstitutional as are same sex marriage bans no matter if states vote on it .

---

(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote: It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

It didn't just violate the 14th DOMA violated the 5th