• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I understand the purpose. You don't. You want it to apply narrowly, only to race. Don't know why you think unequal protection based on other characteristics was ever desired by anybody, and I don't know why you desire unequal protection. But I don't care.

You are arguing against individual liberty and trying to twist the constitution to fit your belief. The original intent of the birth of this country was to stop people like you.

Really? I know you know more about the founding of this country than you display with this post Deuce. No, the birth of this country was to ensure equal representation and ownership for the white, male people doing the work. Some at the time argued that all races (males only) should have stake in that too. Sexual freedom was not even close to being on the radar.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Oh, well then it must also an argument for forced castration. Castration makes anal sex impossible, as any of the left-wingers here will tell you. The wholesale reduction in the rate of anal sex reduces the spread of disease. Yet another state interest in forced castration of MSM.

:roll:

You are right to roll your eyes at your absurd extrapolation.

Did you somehow get the impression that naming an interest inherently justifies any state action? Is that how you think the 14th amendment works? Because nobody else here thinks that's how the 14th amendment works.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Really? I know you know more about the founding of this country than you display with this post Deuce. No, the birth of this country was to ensure equal representation and ownership for the white, male people doing the work. Some at the time argued that all races (males only) should have stake in that too. Sexual freedom was not even close to being on the radar.

They established the principles of individual liberty. They weren't perfect, this nation wasn't perfect, and we're still not perfect, so it has taken a long time to expand that principle. And we still have more to go.

But the principle is sound. Unless you disagree with that principle.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

You are right to roll your eyes at your absurd extrapolation.

Did you somehow get the impression that naming an interest inherently justifies any state action? Is that how you think the 14th amendment works? Because nobody else here thinks that's how the 14th amendment works.
Nobody else thinks that a simple statement of fact constitutes an argument (or one of a million such arguments one might come up with that might use that fact). For more information on this, please take an "intro to logic" course at your local cc.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

They established the principles of individual liberty. They weren't perfect, this nation wasn't perfect, and we're still not perfect, so it has taken a long time to expand that principle. And we still have more to go.

But the principle is sound. Unless you disagree with that principle.

The expansion of that principle can happen in only one way, amendment to the Constitution. NOT by judicial fiat. Otherwise, it's a retraction of that principle and expression of federal power over the will of the people.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The expansion of that principle can happen in only one way, amendment to the Constitution. NOT by judicial fiat. Otherwise, it's a retraction of that principle and expression of federal power over the will of the people.

Obviously you are wrong and there is about a century of precedent or more to back me up and not likely to get overturned by the original intent constitutional type.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Nobody else thinks that a simple statement of fact constitutes an argument (or one of a million such arguments one might come up with that might use that fact). For more information on this, please take an "intro to logic" course at your local cc.

I turned it into an argument. I thought that was obvious. You aren't arguing that, but now I am.

Still waiting on that legitimate state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But it doesn't exist, so I wont hold my breath.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The expansion of that principle can happen in only one way, amendment to the Constitution. NOT by judicial fiat. Otherwise, it's a retraction of that principle and expression of federal power over the will of the people.

No, upholding individual liberty is not retracting the principle of individual liberty. What a silly thing to suggest.

Unless you are referring to your individual liberty to suppress somebody else's individual liberty. In that case, I really don't know what to tell you.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Oh, good, if you only destroy a few people's lives and life work that makes it okay. I'm so pleased.

BTW, I don't do things on the job I don't like, I enjoy my job, but then, I'm not you.

Bigots would destroy the lives and have been destroying the lives of LGBT for millenia. I will shed no tears for them when fined for violating equal protection laws.

btw, if you never had a job with duties and customers you disliked you are definitely in the minority
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Moderator's Warning:
Enough with the thread diversions. Discuss the OP, which is not each other or various ways of contracting HIV. If you want to talk about that, start a thread about it.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The expansion of that principle can happen in only one way, amendment to the Constitution. NOT by judicial fiat. Otherwise, it's a retraction of that principle and expression of federal power over the will of the people.

They did - see the 14th

Funny how principles like due process and equal protection are only objectionable when they expand the rights of groups we dislike
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Obviously you are wrong and there is about a century of precedent or more to back me up and not likely to get overturned by the original intent constitutional type.

That we have suffered from a judicial rewrite of the Constitution and judicial misconduct now used as precedent does not mean I am wrong. It is simply a measure of how much liberty we're willing to sacrifice before we stand up and say enough.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

That we have suffered from a judicial rewrite of the Constitution and judicial misconduct now used as precedent does not mean I am wrong. It is simply a measure of how much liberty we're willing to sacrifice before we stand up and say enough.

Yes. Stand up and say "enough." Demand your right to suppress someone else's rights! That's real American values right there!
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

They did - see the 14th

Funny how principles like due process and equal protection are only objectionable when they expand the rights of groups we dislike

Yes, to bring black males into the fold. The 14th did not deal with sexuality or gender. It took another amendment to deal with gender. Thus far, no such amendment for sexual orientation.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Yes. Stand up and say "enough." Demand your right to suppress someone else's rights! That's real American values right there!

Nope, entirely wrong on wording. There is no "right" here to suppress.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

That we have suffered from a judicial rewrite of the Constitution and judicial misconduct now used as precedent does not mean I am wrong. It is simply a measure of how much liberty we're willing to sacrifice before we stand up and say enough.

This judicial rewrite occurred during the era of the founding fathers.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

In that last, yeah I've seen that, we all have. Doesn't make ignoring original intent any more valid. And no on the first. Cite those unjust laws that were overturned using the 14th where it wasn't about race.

Here you go:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reed v Reed - case concerning inheritance ruled that it was unconstitutional to have a law stating "males must be preferred to females" in such decisions.

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan - case involving single sex admission into college, not constitutional in a public school

United States v Virginia - can't only allow men in the military academy

These are just those that deal with equal protection. There have been others where the 14th was the main Amendment used in the ruling, including Lawrence v Texas.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

This judicial rewrite occurred during the era of the founding fathers.

Indeed, opposed by said founding fathers. The court gave itself the power, went quiet until all the FFs were dead and then invoked their decision as precedent. Handy trick.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Well we're not talking about Africa now are we? I was referring to the US and western societies, and it is a FACT, incontrovertible that if you stay away from homos and intravenous drug use, you have a statistically zero chance of getting HIV if you're a heterosexual, PERIOD!

Tim-

Complete nonsense. Heterosexuals can and do give each other HIV.

You have heterosexual sex with a woman had sex with an IV drug user in her past. She has a non zero chance of getting HIV as do you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I turned it into an argument. I thought that was obvious. You aren't arguing that, but now I am.

Still waiting on that legitimate state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But it doesn't exist, so I wont hold my breath.
Certainly don't hold your breath for me, I don't believe same-sex marriages are being "banned."
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Here you go:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reed v Reed - case concerning inheritance ruled that it was unconstitutional to have a law stating "males must be preferred to females" in such decisions.

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan - case involving single sex admission into college, not constitutional in a public school

United States v Virginia - can't only allow men in the military academy

These are just those that deal with equal protection. There have been others where the 14th was the main Amendment used in the ruling, including Lawrence v Texas.

Those were decided AFTER the 19th have brought women into protection. Before then, the 14th did not apply to them.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

So Rogue or anyone else confused about the subject of HIV transmission and risk factors, take this scenario to make easy for you to understand.

Heterosexual man has sex with gay man.
Uses a condom
No alcohol no drugs
Heterosexual man has a significant statistical chance of acquiring HIV due to breakage, or anal blood exchanged between them.

Take the same scenario with heterosexual man has sex with heterosexual woman
Uses a condom.
No alcohol no drugs.
Heterosexual man has statistically zero chance (Statistically zero does not mean zero, zero) of acquiring HIV even if the condom breaks and/or there is an exchange of vaginal fluids or anal bleeding.

Does it make sense to you now, Rogue? ;)

Tim-

And that would still require the other person to have HIV. If the status of the person's health is unknown to you, then you are practicing unsafe sex, no matter if you have protection or not.

Plus, which position is the guy in? If you are saying that the guy penetrating has the same potential as the guy being penetrating but only in the case of when he is having sex with a man but not a woman, then you are severely uneducated about how that works. Opposite sex couples can have anal sex.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Indeed, opposed by said founding fathers. The court gave itself the power, went quiet until all the FFs were dead and then invoked their decision as precedent. Handy trick.

John Marshall was the one who gave the judicial branch the power you despise.

And since John Marshall was a distant relative of Thomas Jefferson, I can safely say that he was a founding father.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Yes. Stand up and say "enough." Demand your right to suppress someone else's rights! That's real American values right there!
With this "living constitution," they're only someone's rights until someone decides that they're not.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Those were decided AFTER the 19th have brought women into protection. Before then, the 14th did not apply to them.

That's not what I was asked. Go back and look. You didn't reference the 19th, and some of those others had nothing to do with gender. Plenty of other decisions have been made based using the 14th that had to do with other characteristics, including citizenship or noncitizenship, blood relation vs adopted relation, ability to pay for defense, and others. The 14th extended the US Constitution as being applicable in whole to the states, meaning that if the federal government could not infringe upon a person's right due to the Constitution, then neither could the state government, whether this was religion, speech, due process, unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom