Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Awww The Nineteenth Amendment. That's actually a really good example of how something should be changed/added to The Constitution. Unlike what SCOTUS just did by interpreting something that isn't even there.
One Solution To The Gay Marriage Issue
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I want government out of most things. Not quite libertarian style though. If they'd simply follow The Constitution I'd be a happy camper. Even if that means they amend it in ways I don't like. At least they'd be doing it the right way. Unlike now.
Damn conservative court!
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
We need one. A true conservative would follow The Constitution to the letter. I'd take 9 democrat judges if they would do the same. Activist judges have no place in a courtroom.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
example ; Boston's South End , was a collection of run down townhouses with little to none functioning stores . The gays moved in and over the years it became a trendy place to live . Now families have moved in and the gays are leaving . Thus losing the very community that they created .
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Mike Huckabee: Conservatives can ignore gay marriage ruling like Lincoln ignored Dred Scott
“They can do same thing that Abraham Lincoln did about the Dred Scott decision of 1857,” Mr. Huckabee said at the Western Conservative Summit. “The Dred Scott decision said that African-Americans were not fully human, that they need not be treated as fully human.”
“He [Lincoln] simply ignored the ruling and said, ‘That’s not correct,’ ” Mr. Huckabee said. “And by the way, it may sound like, ‘Oh, that’s an extreme position.’ Actually, it’s a constitutional position. Here’s why: If we acquiesce immediately without review, without the other branches of government, it goes back to my point, that this is judicial tyranny.”
“They can do same thing that Abraham Lincoln did about the Dred Scott decision of 1857,” Mr. Huckabee said at the Western Conservative Summit. “The Dred Scott decision said that African-Americans were not fully human, that they need not be treated as fully human.”
“He [Lincoln] simply ignored the ruling and said, ‘That’s not correct,’ ” Mr. Huckabee said. “And by the way, it may sound like, ‘Oh, that’s an extreme position.’ Actually, it’s a constitutional position. Here’s why: If we acquiesce immediately without review, without the other branches of government, it goes back to my point, that this is judicial tyranny.”
If the republican candidates turn this election into a referendum on gay marriage they're gonna get their butts handed to them because it's not a winning issue, a majority of americans now support gay marriage and that number will continue to grow. They might have more luck focusing on the ACA especially if they can come up with an alternative plan.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Agreed but that doesn't mean they won't use it as raw meat to feed the fundamentalist base to keep them in line.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
They don't have an alternative plan, which is why they're collectively heaving a sigh of relief...
If the SC had ruled the other way on the ACA, Republicans would be in a world of doo-doo.
Now, they can just sit back and rail against Obamacare, without having to actually do anything about it.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Republican candidates have to walk such a fine line...the 'base' you speak of has no relation to the rest of the country, yet they need to placate that base in order to win in the primaries.
Is this what Jeb meant when he said he'd lose the primaries to win the general election?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
The more interesting thing that bares watching is the number of people that are openly saying "to hell with both political parties."
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
I agree to a certain extent. But how many of those will still vote their line come election day?
I will. There's no realistic third option. At this point 'not voting' equals giving your vote to the crazies that do vote, and vote against your interests.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for not voting, but from my perspective, unless or until that ideal is illustrated as an effective means toward a proscribed end, it's just 'jiggery-pokery', as Scalia says.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
The good thing about giving it to the crazies is that the whole thing implodes faster instead of the slow route which is the course being taken now. Once the whole thing lay in rubble which it's going to get there anyway, then whoever is left can clear away the debris and maybe, just maybe for once we might just get it right for the future.
And let's be honest, the simple fact is, you and your friends ain't been able to make this stuff work either and the "blame the other side, political party or the crazies" is running out of steam because what you call "the crazies" are and have always been a real minority to begin with. What we got don't come from those crazies but the so-called respectable folk. The pillars of so-called society. Those who tell us this is the only way or this is always how it has been.
Or, Or the respectable folk, the pillars, those who set the rules of the construct are themselves the crazies.
So this is the best civilization can do? Has to offer? Like John Trudell, maybe we should question that civilization is in truth a great lie just like it's the great lie that the crazies might some day take over should we not vote to maintain the civilization. To realize the truth is to realize the crazies have run everything all along and it was the crazies who built the civilization to begin with.
And let's be honest, the simple fact is, you and your friends ain't been able to make this stuff work either and the "blame the other side, political party or the crazies" is running out of steam because what you call "the crazies" are and have always been a real minority to begin with. What we got don't come from those crazies but the so-called respectable folk. The pillars of so-called society. Those who tell us this is the only way or this is always how it has been.
Or, Or the respectable folk, the pillars, those who set the rules of the construct are themselves the crazies.
So this is the best civilization can do? Has to offer? Like John Trudell, maybe we should question that civilization is in truth a great lie just like it's the great lie that the crazies might some day take over should we not vote to maintain the civilization. To realize the truth is to realize the crazies have run everything all along and it was the crazies who built the civilization to begin with.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Mississippi's attorney general, Jim Hood, declared that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right would not be observed in the Magnolia State.
Hood said the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling would not be effective until the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals gives gay weddings the go-ahead. Nobody knows when or even if that will happen, leaving same-sex couples and court clerks in limbo.
Hood said the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling would not be effective until the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals gives gay weddings the go-ahead. Nobody knows when or even if that will happen, leaving same-sex couples and court clerks in limbo.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
What evidence says that the majority supports gay marriage? What u do have is a lot of court rulings which now allow it. Every time it was voted on it lost. Of course none of that matters now does it. But I agree with WK in that it seems more and more people are irritated with both parties. Who even cares what Republicans do? They aren't interested in what their voters want anyway
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Texas AG: County clerks can refuse gay couples
County clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on religious objections to gay marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Sunday.
Paxton noted that clerks who refuse to issue licenses can expect to be sued, but added that “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs,” in many cases without charge.
“Friday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live,” Paxton said.
County clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on religious objections to gay marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Sunday.
Paxton noted that clerks who refuse to issue licenses can expect to be sued, but added that “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs,” in many cases without charge.
“Friday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live,” Paxton said.
"A record-high 6 in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage and a similar share say individual states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman"
click
It's been steadily trending this way for a few years now, support among younger people is over 70% and they represent the future. There are still plenty of local races where you can win on an anti gay platform but for national races it's a loser.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
They're only "activist" when they don't follow your agenda. My guess is that even Clarence Thomas knows more about the Constitution than you do.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
All I can say is that, in either case, voting or not-voting, it only works if everyone does it.
This is my biggest problem with libertarianism (not sure if you're a libertarian or not):
What's next? What's the play? What is the solution?
It's not enough to not-participate. There should be an end-game to make non-participation worthwhile. (We should distinguish non-participation on purpose vs. non-participation out of...laziness? disenfranchisement?)
Not-voting, in and of itself, isn't a solution to anything.
Like I said, if no one voted, that would send a message.
If everyone voted, that would send a different message.
Similar threads
