NationStates

Confederate States of German America wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I've mentioned this before, but the mythification of a war which the South not only lost, but resulted in the stunting of economic development and the loss of political prestige and power is so hillarious and bizarre from my perspective.

You'll lose again, if it comes to arms.

It's no longer 1860, where the South contains just 25% of the White population and 15% of the nation's industry. Around 50% of the oil supply in the U.S. originates in it and Alabama, for just one example, is the third largest car exporter in the Union (South Carolina is #2). Overall, 36% of the nation's population lives in the South nowadays and around 44% of its soldiers originate from these lands; we never really lost that martial ability despite the defeat.

What is the revelance here? And this coming from someone who wants gay bars closed and think LGBT should have no rights and never said what they would do with children of same sex couples.

San Lumen wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:
It's no longer 1860, where the South contains just 25% of the White population and 15% of the nation's industry. Around 50% of the oil supply in the U.S. originates in it and Alabama, for just one example, is the third largest car exporter in the Union (South Carolina is #2). Overall, 36% of the nation's population lives in the South nowadays and around 44% of its soldiers originate from these lands; we never really lost that martial ability despite the defeat.

What is the revelance here? And this coming from someone who wants gay bars closed and think LGBT should have no rights and never said what they would do with children of same sex couples.

Yes, your point is what though?

Confederate States of German America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
What is the revelance here? And this coming from someone who wants gay bars closed and think LGBT should have no rights and never said what they would do with children of same sex couples.

Yes, your point is what though?

Why should LGBT people have no right according to you and what should be done regarding children of same sex couples?
I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. They are the only family he's ever known

Andsed wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:
It's no longer 1860, where the South contains just 25% of the White population and 15% of the nation's industry. Around 50% of the oil supply in the U.S. originates in it and Alabama, for just one example, is the third largest car exporter in the Union. Overall, 36% of the nation's population lives in the South nowadays and around 44% of its soldiers originate from these lands; we never really lost that martial ability despite the defeat.

Okay but you realize the south rising in rebellion is not happening any time soon right? I mean what reason would southerns rebel against the government for?

Apparently to regain the right to treat homosexuals as subhuman.

San Lumen wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:
Yes, your point is what though?

Why should LGBT people have no right according to you and what should be done regarding children of same sex couples?
I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. They are the only family he's ever known

For someone who just asked for the relevance of a point, this is an odd tact.

Confederate States of German America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Why should LGBT people have no right according to you and what should be done regarding children of same sex couples?
I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. They are the only family he's ever known

For someone who just asked for the relevance of a point, this is an odd tact.

Well you never did give an answer in a previous thread

San Lumen wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:
For someone who just asked for the relevance of a point, this is an odd tact.

Well you never did give an answer in a previous thread

I repeatedly did, but this isn't that thread, is it?

Confederate States of German America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Well you never did give an answer in a previous thread

I repeatedly did, but this isn't that thread, is it?

I must have missed it but views on same sex marriage would be covered by this thread

"No one wants to turn back the clock on LGBT rights! You liberals are just bigoted fearmongerers!"

God I hate people.

Conserative Morality wrote:"No one wants to turn back the clock on LGBT rights! You liberals are just bigoted fearmongerers!"

God I hate people.

Well, we also went from California voting in favor of traditional marriage (2008) to the Supreme Court ramming down same-sex marriage on all the states (2015) in a span of seven years. I'm surprised there haven't been more challenges to the ruling.

Hakons wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:"No one wants to turn back the clock on LGBT rights! You liberals are just bigoted fearmongerers!"

God I hate people.

Well, we also went from California voting in favor of traditional marriage (2008) to the Supreme Court ramming down same-sex marriage on all the states (2015) in a span of seven years. I'm surprised there haven't been more challenges to the ruling.

The 14th says the law must apply equally. If you want marriage, you have to let the gays wed.

Thems the rules.

Valrifell wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Well, we also went from California voting in favor of traditional marriage (2008) to the Supreme Court ramming down same-sex marriage on all the states (2015) in a span of seven years. I'm surprised there haven't been more challenges to the ruling.

The 14th says the law must apply equally. If you want marriage, you have to let the gays wed.

Thems the rules.

Thems the rules: (2015-2019)

Thems not the rules: (1789-2015)

Thems not the rules along with the 14th amendment: (1868-2015)

Hakons wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
The 14th says the law must apply equally. If you want marriage, you have to let the gays wed.

Thems the rules.

Thems the rules: (2015-2019)

Thems not the rules: (1789-2015)

Thems not the rules along with the 14th amendment: (1868-2015)

The length of time that a rule has been in force says absolutely nothing regarding its importance or validity. For example, if a new traffic law was implemented and someone broke it in the first week, they couldn't go crying to the court saying that it is only a new-ish law and thus it is somehow less important or valid...

Hakons wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
The 14th says the law must apply equally. If you want marriage, you have to let the gays wed.

Thems the rules.

Thems the rules: (2015-2019)

Thems not the rules: (1789-2015)

Thems not the rules along with the 14th amendment: (1868-2015)

That's not how that works.

Hakons wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
The 14th says the law must apply equally. If you want marriage, you have to let the gays wed.

Thems the rules.

Thems the rules: (2015-2019)

Thems not the rules: (1789-2015)

Thems not the rules along with the 14th amendment: (1868-2015)

To the contrary, those have been the rules since the 14th amendment, the US and states just put some illegal laws in the books.

The New California Republic wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Thems the rules: (2015-2019)

Thems not the rules: (1789-2015)

Thems not the rules along with the 14th amendment: (1868-2015)

The length of time that a rule has been in force says absolutely nothing regarding its importance or validity. For example, if a new traffic law was implemented and someone broke it in the first week, they couldn't go crying to the court saying that it is only a new-ish law and thus it is somehow less important or valid...

Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

Hakons wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:The length of time that a rule has been in force says absolutely nothing regarding its importance or validity. For example, if a new traffic law was implemented and someone broke it in the first week, they couldn't go crying to the court saying that it is only a new-ish law and thus it is somehow less important or valid...

Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

The 14th amendment states no state shall deny any person the equal protection of the law or due process of the law. if you don't allow same marriage and adoption your violating that amendment. On what grounds does the 14th amendment not apply to LGBT people?

Hakons wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:The length of time that a rule has been in force says absolutely nothing regarding its importance or validity. For example, if a new traffic law was implemented and someone broke it in the first week, they couldn't go crying to the court saying that it is only a new-ish law and thus it is somehow less important or valid...

Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

I'm not sure you understand how the rule of law works.

Also, the 2nd Great Awakening was dead by then.

Hakons wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:The length of time that a rule has been in force says absolutely nothing regarding its importance or validity. For example, if a new traffic law was implemented and someone broke it in the first week, they couldn't go crying to the court saying that it is only a new-ish law and thus it is somehow less important or valid...

Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

The letter and spirit of the amendment is rather unambiguous, which is why it's one of SCOTUS' most favorite tools for expanding rights and incorporation.

Hakons wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:The length of time that a rule has been in force says absolutely nothing regarding its importance or validity. For example, if a new traffic law was implemented and someone broke it in the first week, they couldn't go crying to the court saying that it is only a new-ish law and thus it is somehow less important or valid...

Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

So? The 14th Amendment can apply to a multitude of laws. Just because it can be used to enforce a particular law you don't like is a pretty piss-poor reason to rail against it in its entirety.

Hakons wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:"No one wants to turn back the clock on LGBT rights! You liberals are just bigoted fearmongerers!"

God I hate people.

Well, we also went from California voting in favor of traditional marriage (2008) to the Supreme Court ramming down same-sex marriage on all the states (2015) in a span of seven years. I'm surprised there haven't been more challenges to the ruling.

*holds up a doll*

Ok where did the gay person touch you?

Seriously, how are you hurt by gays having the ability to get married?

San Lumen wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

The 14th amendment states no state shall deny any person the equal protection of the law or due process of the law. if you don't allow same marriage and adoption your violating that amendment. On what grounds does the 14th amendment not apply to LGBT people?

The 14th amendment obviously applies to LGBT people. The 14th amendment obviously doesn't mandate a 21st century view of marriage either. I would support LGBT couples having civil unions, so they can get tax credits and whatnot, but I object to the notion that the nature of marriage somehow changes in a single court ruling. I support keeping marriage as it has always been, and so would nearly every American, politician, and justice that has existed in history, besides our thin crust of modern society that has decided to throw it away.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

I'm not sure you understand how the rule of law works.

Also, the 2nd Great Awakening was dead by then.

I'm pretty much paraphrasing Justice Scalia, but I guess he didn't understand how the rule of law works?
Yes, the awakening was dying down, but I'm merely using that as a rhetorical example to demonstrate the absurdity of the 14th amendment writers and ratifiers supporting any notion that the amendment can be used to justify same sex marriage.

Valrifell wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

The letter and spirit of the amendment is rather unambiguous, which is why it's one of SCOTUS' most favorite tools for expanding rights and incorporation.

It is very ambiguous, which is true of a lot of law, making our judges somewhat an unaccountable body of tremendous power.

The New California Republic wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

So? The 14th Amendment can apply to a multitude of laws. Just because it can be used to enforce a particular law you don't like is a pretty piss-poor reason to rail against it in its entirety.

I'm not against the 14th amendment and never even came close to saying that, but okay

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No idea possibly something regarding the Bible saying its not ok.

Well they could in theory overrule that decision but I dont see how you could say the 14th amendment does apply to certain people

Only if you brought up a suit that shows straight people have been harmed by the court’s decision. Otherwise no. This bill is dead anyway

^

The New California Republic wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Yes, it is of course illegal to deny marriages right now. It is not wrong, however, to challenge the historical and constitutional validity of this change. I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically. We have nationwide gay marriage because five justices said so, and not because a group of 2nd Great Awakening infused abolitionists willed it from the mid 19th century to happen almost 150 years later.

So? The 14th Amendment can apply to a multitude of laws. Just because it can be used to enforce a particular law you don't like is a pretty piss-poor reason to rail against it in its entirety.

I'm not harmed, but the institution and tradition of marriage is.

Hakons wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So? The 14th Amendment can apply to a multitude of laws. Just because it can be used to enforce a particular law you don't like is a pretty piss-poor reason to rail against it in its entirety.

I'm not against the 14th amendment and never even came close to saying that, but okay

You came damn close to it in everything but name:

Hakons wrote:I'm arguing that claiming the 14th amendment is a bit of a joke when reviewed historically.