Antonin Scalia has died

[JimL]

Each side does their best to obstruct the other Jim. I don't think that's any secret to anyone.

Doing ones best to obstruct within the bounds of the Constitution is one thing, denying the facts of their constitutional responsibility is another.

[seer]

Doing ones best to obstruct within the bounds of the Constitution is one thing, denying the facts of their constitutional responsibility is another.

Jim if memory serves the Supreme Court slapped back Obama something like 10 times for exceeding his constitutional authority, and most of those were 9-0 opinions. I bet you didn't have such anxiety about his violations.

[JimL]

Jim if memory serves the Supreme Court slapped back Obama something like 10 times for exceeding his constitutional authority, and most of those were 9-0 opinions. I bet you didn't have such anxiety about his violations.

Obama believed he was within his constitutional authority, and if he wasn't and the Supreme Court ruled that he exeeded his authority, then so be it. Perhaps the President should turn the tables and have the Supreme Court rule on whether or not the Senate is exeeding its authority by refusing to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

[seer]

Obama believed he was within his constitutional authority, and if he wasn't and the Supreme Court ruled that he exeeded his authority, then so be it. Perhaps the President should turn the tables and have the Supreme Court rule on whether or not the Senate is exeeding its authority by refusing to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.

Just as the Senate believes it is within its constitutional authority. And yes, let him bring it to the court.

[JimL]

Just as the Senate believes it is within its constitutional authority. And yes, let him bring it to the court.

They may have you believing it, but I highly doubt that those who are advocating political obstruction actually believe that such a tactic was the intent of the authors of the constitution. Common sense would tell them otherwise. A year and a half without a functioning S. Court would be bad enough, but, and according to their interpretation, there is no time period, and therefore no real requirement that Congress hold hearings at all if they so choose not to.

[The Thinker]

You know non thinker, I find it funny how you accused Christianity of 'enshrining bigotry' (which, ironically, is itself a bigoted statement), but you keep showing us that you're the biggest bigot of them all. I mean, so far you've insulted an entire belief system, insulted the poor (you know, the kind you seem to claim you care so much about), and made fun of the entire military (FYI I am in the military). Want to keep going and showing everybody that you're the biggest bigot of them all?

Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." By saying Christianity enshrines bigotry, that itself is not a bigoted statement. It is a factual claim. Saying Christians (you know, the followers, not the religion) are bigoted might come close to a bigoted statement, but even then, that would make saying racists are bigoted itself a bigoted statement, which makes little sense. So you're completely incorrect here. Keep up the good work being illogical.

[The Thinker]

No. It was equally illegal for every citizen.

If it wasn't legal than it was unequal.

No, I want you to answer why the Government licenses marriage. Nothing you said involves what the Government is concerned with.

Really? Than what is?

Nor does it offer any benefit to society in and of itself.

It doesn't necessarily have to. But I'm glad you agree that it does no harm.

I never said SSM was unconstitutional. But neither is a state denying it. Something the Constitution is silent on can not be said to be unconstitutional.

The constitution doesn't have to address the issue specifically in order to address the issue. The constitution is silent on interracial marriage, but that still means banning it is unconstitutional. Same thing with SSM. The logic you employ is so flawed.

Toward enemies of the faith, just like I am acting. Learn that we aren't pushovers who will just stand there and take it.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Why? Your mind is already made up on the subject, and history and precedent be damned. Just like the liberal justices.

I want to see if you have an actual argument. So far you don't.

Unless you can substantiate that I am lying per this site's definition of lying, you will be moderated for this comment.

Your strawman was a lie. I clearly did not say that "Everyone else in history was wrong except those 5 justices... " who voted to strike down the SSM ban. Unless you really are that stupid to interpret my words that way. Then I will concede.

Atherton is precedent. It's been cited in dozens of divorce cases. https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=cites%3A95457

It's not a precedent for whether SSM shoulds be legal or not. It simply uses the legal definition of marriage at that time.

In normal debate, that's what is called an argument. Handwaving it away won't change that fact, or strengthen your case.

Except for the fact that it isn't an argument.

[The Thinker]

So the US Army pays in Mexican currency? You're an even bigger idiot than I thought, and your third grade cracker jack box insults are pathetic.

No, you get paid the equivalent of Mexican dollars.

Riiight. Frat buddies giving you $10 to give a Mormon a wedgie doesn't count.

No, but that's a good idea.

It's a classic example of a red herring. No one was talking about this being a Christian country.

I didn't say you did say that. I simply let you know that that gif is exactly how I respond to such claims.

Your red herrings are clear evidence that you have lost the point and you are hoping to shift the argument to something irrelevant and hoping that no one noticed.

No not at all. I want to debate the constitutionality of state SSM bans. So far you have not made an argument for it or made any kind of coherent point.

No it doesn't. The "principle of equality" was never violated by denying SSM any more than a brother and sister marrying, or marrying a foreigner just for the benefits and citizenship. But, I'll bet you are against those, aren't you ya ol bigot!?

Yes it was violated because it banned gay people from marrying their partners, who are the same gender. That is as clear as day. It discriminates against gay people and SS relationships who are entitled to the same legal protection as hetero-relationships if they want to get married.

[seer]

A year and a half without a functioning S. Court would be bad enough, but, and according to their interpretation, there is no time period, and therefore no real requirement that Congress hold hearings at all if they so choose not to.

But the Court is still functioning, they are hearing new cases this week I believe.

[Cow Poke]

But the Court is still functioning, they are hearing new cases this week I believe.

Yes, there is no constitutional crisis.

[Bill the Cat]

If it wasn't legal than it was unequal.

You mean "then", not "than"... and no, it was equally illegal for you to marry another man just as it was for any other man in the US. And Skinner makes it clear that the Constitution need not treat things the same that are fundamentally different, and Tignor states that there is a fundamental difference between men and women. Together, these were used in Baker v. Nelson to show that the 14th Amendment was not violated in denying SSM because of the fundamental difference between a man and a woman with regard to the state's interest in a marriage.

Really? Than what is?

Then, not than. And that's what I am asking you. Why does the government care about licensing marriage?

It doesn't necessarily have to. But I'm glad you agree that it does no harm.

It doesn't. But providing benefit to society is why the government licenses marriages.

The constitution doesn't have to address the issue specifically in order to address the issue. The constitution is silent on interracial marriage, but that still means banning it is unconstitutional. Same thing with SSM. The logic you employ is so flawed.

Not true. As I stated earlier, anti-miscegenation laws could not stand up under scrutiny because they failed to give a reason why interracial couples couldn't meet the state's interest in licensing marriage. It wasn't until this current court that things like "love" and "dignity" were brought into the discussion.

I want to see if you have an actual argument. So far you don't.

It's been successfully made, and your handwaving is far from a rebuttal.

Your strawman was a lie. I clearly did not say that "Everyone else in history was wrong except those 5 justices... " who voted to strike down the SSM ban. Unless you really are that stupid to interpret my words that way. Then I will concede.

If you can't understand simple hyperbole, then maybe I'll have to dumb things down for you. My point in the context of my argument is that EVERY Supreme Court decision on SSM up to this current court's decision was unanimously in favor of it being not an option.

It's not a precedent for whether SSM should be legal or not. It simply uses the legal definition of marriage at that time.

It was cited as precedent a number of times, so yes it was.

Except for the fact that it isn't an argument.

No wonder you suck so bad at this. You don't even know what constitutes an argument...

[Bill the Cat]

No, you get paid the equivalent of Mexican dollars.

Keep trying. Maybe one of those childish insults will make the laugh track go off...

I didn't say you did say that. I simply let you know that that gif is exactly how I respond to such claims.

Which had not been brought up in this thread. Hence... red herring.

No not at all. I want to debate the constitutionality of state SSM bans. So far you have not made an argument for it or made any kind of coherent point.

You've yet to defend what value it will bring to society in the way traditional marriages can. It was never a consideration in this country, and every time it was brought up, the ban was upheld as Constitutional. The only thing that changed was the makeup of the court finally leaned in favor of it.

Yes it was violated because it banned gay people from marrying their partners, who are the same gender.

Then they could have picked another partner that wasn't the same gender. Or they could have gone to a church that supported same sex nuptuals and had their ceremony. No, it is about something completely different than "marrying their partners". No one can marry whomever they want. There are restrictions on who your partner can legally be. Changing that definition still discriminates against those who still fail the criteria.

That is as clear as day. It discriminates against gay people and SS relationships who are entitled to the same legal protection as hetero-relationships if they want to get married.

No they are not entitled to the same legal protections because they offer none of the reasons the government legally protects marriage in the first place.

[The Thinker]

You mean "then", not "than"... and no, it was equally illegal for you to marry another man just as it was for any other man in the US. And Skinner makes it clear that the Constitution need not treat things the same that are fundamentally different, and Tignor states that there is a fundamental difference between men and women. Together, these were used in Baker v. Nelson to show that the 14th Amendment was not violated in denying SSM because of the fundamental difference between a man and a woman with regard to the state's interest in a marriage.

That's not equal. That's like saying that if interracial marriage was banned nationwide, then it would be "equally illegal for you to marry another race just as it was for any other race in the US." Once you acknowledge this, the precedent banning SSM doesn't hold constitutionally. Baker v. Nelson didn't show that the 14th Amendment wasn't violated in denying SSM because the fact that men and women are different is irrelevant. And what ever you think the state's interest in marriage is can always change, and it's probably misguided anyway.

Then, not than. And that's what I am asking you. Why does the government care about licensing marriage?

Many reasons, it's mostly for legal purposes.

It doesn't. But providing benefit to society is why the government licenses marriages.

And SSM couples are not part of society?

Not true. As I stated earlier, anti-miscegenation laws could not stand up under scrutiny because they failed to give a reason why interracial couples couldn't meet the state's interest in licensing marriage. It wasn't until this current court that things like "love" and "dignity" were brought into the discussion.

Same is true for anti-SSM laws. SS couples are part of society and they are benefited from legal SSM. Therefore benefiting them benefits society in general and we both agree there is nothing negative to society about SSM. So right there your whole "argument" has fallen apart.

It's been successfully made, and your handwaving is far from a rebuttal.

If you think that's a good "argument" your standards are really low.

If you can't understand simple hyperbole, then maybe I'll have to dumb things down for you. My point in the context of my argument is that EVERY Supreme Court decision on SSM up to this current court's decision was unanimously in favor of it being not an option.

No, in fact you should intellectualize things instead. You've already been dumbing down things with your childish uncalled for name calling. My counterpoint is that all those previous SCOTUS decisions on SSM were unconstitutional because they smuggled in bad logic and reasoning in their process. The mere fact that two people getting married are the same gender is not a logical reason to ban SSM.

It was cited as precedent a number of times, so yes it was.

What matters is the logic behind the decision, and I just destroyed your "logic" above.

No wonder you suck so bad at this. You don't even know what constitutes an argument...

I don't suck at this, that's in your imagination. I've just logically refuted your claim against SSM. You've never had an argument to begin with.

[The Thinker]

Keep trying. Maybe one of those childish insults will make the laugh track go off...

Childish insults? Your name calling isn't childish?

Which had not been brought up in this thread. Hence... red herring.

No red herring. It was not supposed to detour this conversation one bit. I want to focus on your reasons why it is constitutional to ban SSM.

You've yet to defend what value it will bring to society in the way traditional marriages can. It was never a consideration in this country, and every time it was brought up, the ban was upheld as Constitutional. The only thing that changed was the makeup of the court finally leaned in favor of it.

There are no good secular arguments against SSM. They're all religious ones, and as a secular democracy, religious justifications are automatically exempt. SS couples are part of society, and allowing them to legally wed, benefits them, and that benefits society in general. And this doesn't harm hetero-couples at all. It's not zero sum. The main reason why it wasn't a consideration for most of US history, is because SS couples were in the closet most of the time and there were false beliefs that SS relationships hurt society promoted in large part by religious fundamentalism. We know that's not true. And so the whole argument against it crumbles.

Then they could have picked another partner that wasn't the same gender. Or they could have gone to a church that supported same sex nuptuals and had their ceremony. No, it is about something completely different than "marrying their partners". No one can marry whomever they want. There are restrictions on who your partner can legally be. Changing that definition still discriminates against those who still fail the criteria.

Why would they pick an opposite sex partner if they're gay? And what matters is whether the government recognizes the SSM because if it doesn't then their marriages are not equal. That's the whole point. No one's arguing that people should be able to marry whomever they want. The argument is that there is no logical or legal basis for banning SSM.

No they are not entitled to the same legal protections because they offer none of the reasons the government legally protects marriage in the first place.

I've already refuted that false claim so try again. Still waiting for a legitimate argument from you. I predict you won't ever offer one because there are no good arguments against SSM.

[lilpixieofterror]

Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." By saying Christianity enshrines bigotry, that itself is not a bigoted statement. It is a factual claim. Saying Christians (you know, the followers, not the religion) are bigoted might come close to a bigoted statement, but even then, that would make saying racists are bigoted itself a bigoted statement, which makes little sense. So you're completely incorrect here. Keep up the good work being illogical.

Sorry non thinker, but you keep showing that you're a hateful bigot that deserves to be called upon your bigotry. Go ahead, give us example of this 'enshrined bigotry'? Before you rant, "WAAA! CHRISTIANITY SAYS GAYS ARE LIVING IN SIN!" it says that ALL have sinned and ALL have fallen short of the glory of God, which includes everybody, including me and every Christian. Do you even know the difference between a Christian and non Christian, in Christianity theological thought? I doubt it, based upon your extreme ignorance you've shown so far because homosexuality (for example) is no more worse of a sin than any other sin. Your second part of your rant is you trying to get yourself out of your bigotry because racism is the idea that one race is superior to another race. Sounds like bigotry to me, while on the other hand, Christianity teaches nothing of the sort and in fact, teaches the opposite. Do keep trying and keep showing why you earn your title of 'non thinker' since you keep showing you lack any sort of thought. Keep up the good work of being a total and complete moron that is an embarrassment to atheism. Do all of atheism a favor and stop talking. They don't need a moron like you making them all look bad.