home bbs files messages ]

Just a sample of the Echomail archive

05174047:

<< oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]

 Message 19,946 of 20,883 
 Josh Rosenbluth to Jeff Strickland 
 Re: [O'Reilly Factor] The Supreme Court  
 08 Jul 15 17:01:59 
 
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor
From: noway@nowhere.com

On 7/8/2015 1:54 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message
> news:mn6q3e$n7b$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/3/2015 1:17 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>> When LEGISLATION is judged against the constitution, the result is pass
>>> or fail. If pass, nothing else. If fail, then the legislation is
>>> reworked or abandonded. But when the voters of a state pass an amendment
>>> to the constitution, then that is a higher hurdle to knock down than
>>> mere legislation passed by a governing body.
>>
>> When it comes to whether it is constitutional under the federal
>> constitution, it makes no difference how it was passed.  Ordinary
>> legislation and a state constitutional amendment have to overcome the
>> same hurdle.
>>
>>> Everything in marriage is available through the legal system to gays.
>>
>> That's not true.  For example, you can't collect spousal Social
>> Security benefits if you are not married.
>>
>>
> That's a specious argument, Josh. Lots of straight couples actively
> avoid marriage for a variety of reasons, and they forego spousal SS
> benefits. Yes, they _can_ get married but for personal reasons they do not.
>
> Are we now supposed to create a new class of unmarried people to give SS
> benefits to in the name of treating them equally? I think not.

I agree (it was Peter's idea).  And now that marriage equality is the
law of the land, we don't have to.

>>> nothing says gays cannot marry, so they must be
>>> allowed to. More dumb is that anybody bought the argument, and now we
>>> have gay marriage.
>>
>> Yes, that's a dumb argument.  But, The Court did not use that argument.
>
> It's the argument made (one of them) by gay rights advocates -- There is
> no specific ban on gay marriage, therefore it must be allowed. It is
> precisely the argument made in all states where the state courts imposed
> gay marriage.

That's nonsense.  Please provide citations to back your claim.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

<< oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca