2016 Election

Quote: TomG

Under any definition, giving rights to some people

Excuse my pedant.

The government doesn't "give" us rights. We have rights that are inalienable. Sometimes they put ink to parchment and acknowledge some law or decision which they deem themselves within their powers to dish out as they see fit. Meanwhile the slaves are all in a dither about what their owners will or won't allow.

Technically we own the government, lol.

It is not like they have a sack or box full of rights that they will give us one at a time. Americans have always had rights, but for some reasons decide to give their sovereignty over to a bunch of parasitical bureaucrats? Beats me, I guess it's easier then taking personal responsibility.

This was not a personal attack, just sayin it's a pet peeve of mine, when the .gov supposedly gives me something. They only take it from somewhere else, charge a vig and distribute the rest how they choose, which usually supports their positions.

Quote: TomG

I would have thought anyone who supported polygamy also supported gay marriage, but it seems to almost be the exact opposite. Is that just faulty perception or is there something I'm missing about why this is happening?

Most people who actually support polygamy - bar a few religious nuts - are pro-gay-marriage, but a it's become a right-wing talking point to use polygamy as a "poison pill."

Quote: SanchoPanza

Presuming that was a question in search of punctuation and not a purely rhetorical one, the answer would be moot if the necessary provision was found in the Constitution.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this? Proper interpretation of the 14th amendment is proper provision. It clearly lays out that the states are not allowed to have discriminatory laws in place, Loving V Virginia showed that applied to marriages the only question then became are these laws discriminatory and the obvious answer was yes. It is the job of the court to interpret the constitution. I mean are you arguing that everything not specifically laid out in the constitution is not a right? If not then the courts didn't do anything unconstitutional. If so that leads into a very odd path.

Quote: Twirdman

I don't know exactly what you mean by this? Proper interpretation of the 14th amendment is proper provision. It clearly lays out that the states are not allowed to have discriminatory laws in place, Loving V Virginia showed that applied to marriages the only question then became are these laws discriminatory and the obvious answer was yes. It is the job of the court to interpret the constitution. I mean are you arguing that everything not specifically laid out in the constitution is not a right? If not then the courts didn't do anything unconstitutional. If so that leads into a very odd path.

The Loving decision is one that dealt with the legally described crime of interracial marriage. No criminality was involved with Obergefell.

There is an interesting difference to the polygamy question, differing from other examples of marriage.

It's a question of volume. Because it's the volume, not thing being done prohibited.

It's like being over the limit laws. That is different than prohibition of something. There's plenty of examples of things limited by amount by law for various reasons.

Not sure this is useful distinction as far as rights, just think it is interesting.

I suppose the law could say, we allowed you the thing but are controlling the amount and call it non-discrimination?

Like 5 grams of marijuana is legal, but more is illegal. Or something? We didn't say you couldn't have it, just how much?

I think some of you guys are looking at this ruling incorrectly. You are thinking and saying that 5 unelected judged changed what marriage is. I don't think that is right. The public through public opinion decided this change. A judge can rule either way and justify it by an interpretation of the constitution. There is a lot of latitude there.

If public opinion has not drastically changed on this issue as dramatically as it did in such a short time, I don't believe you would have seen this change, even with these same 9 judges. Changing public opinion was the force behind this decision. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate something similar will occur with polygamy.

Quote: kewlj

Changing public opinion was the force behind this decision. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate something similar will occur with polygamy.

The rationale for both is the same. Why should one class of people be covered by the "right" while others are not?

Quote: kewlj

Ya know any of you 'righties' who are still obsessing over this gay marriage thing, really should wake up and move on. As 'righties' you have much bigger issues you should be concerned about, like how one guy who can't and won't win either the nomination or presidency is single handedly sinking your parties chances for the presidency. Not only is the situation becoming a disaster for this cycle, but it may take a REAL long time for 'ya'll' to recover from this clown.

I personally think he is a plant for the democrats, not sure if he is working on his own or who's idea this is/was. But I do know the Repubs have been caught totally of guard. In the beginning they just thought it would be an issue and story for a few days and then he would fade away as always, so they just tried to ignore him. Now they are not sure how to stop him from making a real mess of things.

You sound like that Maddow dude on MSNBC and her famous 1 hour story in 2009 on why the GOP will never win the House or Senate again because of the changing demographics in America and that the GOP is quickly becoming a minor party. Funny how they don't replay or discuss that one anymore.

Liberal advise on how Trump is "ruining" the GOP chances is worthless, but keep dreaming. After all, your side never wants to discuss issues if someone's feelings are going to get hurt by realities. Unless of course the feelings being hurt are people getting more taxes pulled out of their pockets for more liberal spending.

And I will admit, I never will be able to understand someone like you who it appears works hard for everything you have can be a liberal. Does the "Gay" thing override all others, and if so, that I might be able to understand because the GOP has missed the boat on that one. The other reason I see with successful liberals is the superiority complex thing where they feel most others are NOT capable of making the sacrifices in life needed to have things like they did. Note from a distance I don't see you as that type liberal at all.

Again, its just easy for me to simplify it to hard work and personal choices in life versus people wanting handouts and feeling like victims. And while there are more complicated issues than that out there, it does come down to that with many people on both sides.

Quote: Twirdman

We've redefined plenty of institutions and I hardly thing the world has devolved into bedlam like the conservatives keep claiming this redefinition will.

That is because you expect "bedlam" like some movie with the streets gong crazy. What really happens is disaster becomes "normal" and you accept it around you as such. Lets look at an example.

25 years ago, Dan Qyayle mentioned how "Murphy Brown" was a bad example and gave young girls the idea that it is a fine idea to have a kid out of wedlock and be a single mom. He got attacked by the radical feminists and lamesteram media. HOW DARE HE! was the cry. "Family Values" was made to be a bad thing.

Fast forward to now. The illegitimacy rate has gone way up. It has flat-out collapsed the black community. Whites will be next. Out of wedlock birth is the surest ticket to a live in poverty that there is. Remove it and black poverty and crime rates drop to normal with whites. Some schools have almost all kids getting subsidized lunches. Once a source of shame, single parenthood is now so common it is or will be the majority of schoolkids.

The "bedlam" has become normal and accepted. Many people cannot even handle the truth about the relationship to crime and poverty. But look without blinders and it is clear as day.

Quote: AZDuffman

That is because you expect "bedlam" like some movie with the streets gong crazy. What really happens is disaster becomes "normal" and you accept it around you as such. Lets look at an example.

25 years ago, Dan Qyayle mentioned how "Murphy Brown" was a bad example and gave young girls the idea that it is a fine idea to have a kid out of wedlock and be a single mom. He got attacked by the radical feminists and lamesteram media. HOW DARE HE! was the cry. "Family Values" was made to be a bad thing.

Fast forward to now. The illegitimacy rate has gone way up. It has flat-out collapsed the black community. Whites will be next. Out of wedlock birth is the surest ticket to a live in poverty that there is. Remove it and black poverty and crime rates drop to normal with whites. Some schools have almost all kids getting subsidized lunches. Once a source of shame, single parenthood is now so common it is or will be the majority of schoolkids.

The "bedlam" has become normal and accepted. Many people cannot even handle the truth about the relationship to crime and poverty. But look without blinders and it is clear as day.

The issue is that Liberals have no idea how to address the issue besides dumping more government money into failing programs. Conservatives don't find a compassionate voice to address the problem, so no one listens.

The losers? All of us to some extent, but the biggest losers are the ones we are supposedly trying to help.