Gay marriage ban falls in Nevada
By Dan Levine, Reuters
SAN FRANCISCO — Legal momentum for extending U.S. marriage rights to same-sex couples accelerated on Tuesday as a federal appeals court in San Francisco struck down bans on gay matrimony in Idaho and Nevada a day after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand similar rulings for five other states.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the bans in Idaho and Nevada violated the constitution and said they cannot be enforced, adding to a mounting list of states where same-sex unions are now legal.
The ruling binds all states in the court’s region including three that do not permit gay marriage, Arizona, Montana and Alaska, putting the United States on track for legalized gay marriage in 35 states.
Legal pressure mounted for further expansion of marriage rights in the wake of Monday’s Supreme Court decision that ended bans in five states but left intact 20 others.
good
‘If a gay couple wants to smoke marijuana at their wedding, defend themselves with a fully automatic rifle, drink raw milk, and homeschool their kids, I support that right.
But no one should be forced to bake them a cake.’
You are on the wrong side of history dawg.
I wonder if there is any internal conflict with someone who scrams about the reverence of the Constitution and votes in support of policies that are… unconstitutional.
Probably not.
Do you have a point, Fish? Or is it just more personal bashing? I don’t see how what you just said has anything to do with this issue or what I said about it.
I look forward to a day when we don’t have to distinguish the term “marriage”, regardless of the genders of a couple being wed.
The SCOTUS wouldn’t take this issue on, yet Anthony Kennedy yesterday put a stay on the Appeals Court decision.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.”
Yep, that explains it!
Bravo to the Supreme Court for saying, “enough already!”. Bans against gay marriage are a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. The fact that the bans were, “voted in by the people” is irrelevant. Basic civil rights are not to be decided at the ballot box. The 9th circuit court is absolutely correct in striking those bans down.
I agree with your statement BiggerPicture. I look forward to that day too. I only use the term “gay marriage” to be clear in what the legal issue is here. :-)
Next the polygamy rights of multiple spouses will be affirmed as will the right to wed animals. The court is shopping for a definitive case to define state’s rights to legislate in this matter which is what is being decided and hasn’t found it yet. Everything at the court these days is seemingly decided or passed on with no decision as a political agenda and is divided as much as the country is. What people are missing is that the votes of the people in the states on this issue are being overruled by federal court judges which is taking away the right of the people to decide issues in their states.
It was the Appeals Court that voted to allow the gay marriage. The Supreme Court has already nixed that ruling this morning banning gay marriages again. I wonder how many marriages took place during that 24 hours it was legal? How many will show up at the court house today only to find the ruling has been reversed?
Justice, doesn’t marriage require a consensual agreement between the two parties marrying? How exactly can an animal consent?
Also, do voters have the right to override the equality to all provided by our Constitution?
Level, Article V of the Constitution allows for the amendment of the Constitution in several ways, three ways actually, by the Congress and by the states. This is being considered as more and more votes of the states are taken away by federal decision.
So Justice I take it you are advocating that we amend the Constitution to exclude from equality anyone that you disagree with living a lifestyle that in no way impinges on your own personal rights? What’s next, taking voting rights away from women? Taking voting rights away from non land owners? Making anyone not Caucasian a second class citizen?
Dude, you’re seriously out to lunch!
SeaMoore: Just to clarify, no marriages took place as the ruling was supposed to go in effect today. What Justice Kennedy did was issue a temporary stay of the appeals court decision, putting the issuance of marriage certificates on hold while the plaintiffs are given a chance to respond to the appeals courts ruling. In other words, the state of marriage rights in Idaho and Nevada are currently in limbo; not banned by the Supreme Court. Here is an article that goes into further detail:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/anthony-kennedy-gay-marriage_n_5952750.html
Justice: It saddens me that you apparently feel so threatened by two consenting adult people being able to legally sanction their union. What business is it of yours anyway? Civil rights are just that; rights afforded to us by our constitution. As such, they are not subject to a vote. The appeals court is absolutely right on this one: equal protection.
Wow, Justice…I would hate to be one of your pets! Your dog wagging its tail could be construed as a ‘wink’, and God forbid your cat meows! I hope you don’t have any farm animals.
@Dog…‘If a gay couple wants to smoke marijuana at their wedding, defend themselves with a fully automatic rifle, drink raw milk, and homeschool their kids, I support that right.
But no one should be forced to bake them a cake.’
Who would want such a bitter cake as you would bake, anyway?
Level, your assumptions are incorrect. If you stated I support the right of the people to decide important issues in the state where they live you would be correct. I disagree that a federal judge has any right to nullify a clear vote of the people on any issue or define by a ruling what they alone believe and used as an act of political judicial activism. The Amendment I see is one requiring the vote of the people stands and that is an easy one to see as needed.
Janice, it is you who are mistaken and trying to drag the nation into acceptance of the changing of centuries old beliefs of common law definitions and customs brought here with the founders from England and trying to present a new interpretation for a very small percentage for some people’s chosen lifestyles, by federal court activist decisions that nullify the right of the people to vote on issues in their states. If you believe this is correct by taking away the right of the vote, you are on the way to encouraging the break down of democratic principles of the vote of the people and of trying to write into the Constitution what isn’t there. The equal protection clause applying to this issue is a very recent invention and not stated anywhere and is simply an interpretation by a select few with an agenda this is largely politically motivated.
“I disagree that a federal judge has any right to nullify a clear vote of the people on any issue or define by a ruling what they alone believe and used as an act of political judicial activism.”
So justice, would you view this the same way if the citizens of the state you live in voted to ban guns?
Level, presents an interesting question, the gist being a federal Constitutional Right being voted out at a state level, First this right under the 2nd Amendment, is stated so the federal right is superior, marriage to “whomever” is not stated as a right or Amendment, but is broadly trying to become law by the judicial interpretation of equal protection of a right that never existed, a negative liberty to be applied. The question you present is defeated in most of the state Constitutions that defined their own right to bear arms provisions.
@Level…he walked right into that one. Sometimes it’s like shooting fishing in a barrel.
You can find out where Justice and dogula get their pathetic opposition to the fact that “We the People” have decided that civil society will not tolerate discrimination and bigotry here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org
Justice is just cj in a different slimy candy coating.
Id like to see the 2nd ammendment changed to reflect what is really happening out there.
Justice, your rational that granting a right to something that never existed is the same when gun advocates think their automatic, new fangeled weapons are all ok to have and own when the constitution was written these types of weapons didnt exist, so now that they do they are covered by this 2nd amendment? So its ok for you to have these killing machines but its not ok for my brother to marry the man he loves? Your such a hipocrit, and homophobe, but you got your guns so its all good…
We are discussing a legal precedence question and a short course on the Constitution, some can debate an issue, some can’t and are instant name callers and show their inability to think and learn or have a civil discussion because of their blind anger to anything they disagree with.
In this matter the 10th Amendment should prevail which gave the states the right to decide all issues not stated as rights or restrictions or Amendments in the federal Constitution. This matter will be headed to the US Supreme Court at some point for a final decision.
Justice (or not in your case)
The courts have determined in several cases now, that same-sex marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment – equal protection.
And I quote from the 4th circuit.
“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.”
In other words, the 10th Amendment does not apply in these cases. By the Supreme Court choosing to not hear the case, simply means by the time they do here the case, they will most likely be backed into a corner to accept the the this argument. The majority of the country no longer supports banning same-sex marriage, nor should anyone.
Rick
Thank you Rick!
BREAKING NEWS (good news for Nevada):
Kennedy allows same-sex marriage to commence in Nevada
Associated Press
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has allowed same-sex marriage to begin in Nevada, clarifying that an earlier order blocking gay unions applies only to Idaho.
Kennedy said in a brief order issued Wednesday afternoon that he is temporarily putting on hold same-sex marriage in Idaho, where state officials have asked for the delay. Nevada officials did not make a similar request.
Rick; your quoting an opinion of the federal 4th district court of appeal it sounds like, the US Supreme Court just placed a stay on the issue which means they are re-considering the issue again it appears. Until a final ruling it is an unknown.
I’d like to move this discussion away from arguments about what the constitution does or doesn’t say and what power the voters have or do not have. Let’s get to the heart of the issue. People fear what they do not understand and fear others who they deem as “different” from them. Every person has a choice on how to deal with that fear. The first is to accept that not everyone has to look, live, and believe exactly as they do and respect their right to do so. In other words, “live and let live”. The other choice is to engage in or condone discriminatory and/or violent behavior. Let’s get real here. My marriage to another woman harms nobody. It does not change another person’s individual pursuit of happiness or freedom one iota. Even the prop. 8 lawyers could not provide an answer to that question (how allowing gay people to marry causes harm to society) when it was posed to them. Just as civil rights for women and people of color evolved over time (encountering great and violent resistance along the way) so are the rights of gay and lesbian people. As for the argument that being gay is a “choice” (and, therefore, not comparable to gender or ethnicity), science has proven time and time again that being a gay or lesbian person is not a choice. Behavior is a choice but we do not choose our sexual orientation any more than we choose the color of our hair and eyes. Our only choice in this matter is whether to live our life as the person we are meant to be or whether to live in fear and self-loathing instead. No person should ever have to make such a choice. As for the future of marriage equality being made the law of the land, I quote Arthur Schopenhauer: “All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”. Future generations will look back on the fight for marriage equality and wonder why the heck it was opposed in the first place.
well put, janice. i will add that the dumbing down of our population, a result of the creep of evangelical christianity, is the true threat to personal freedom in our culture. dogma, fear, and judgement are cornerstones of the personal reality of evangelicals, and point to the specious nature of that cult.
Well said Janice. For the life of me there is absolutely no logic in arguing same-sex marriage degrades a heterosexual couples marriage. Two men or two women marrying can in no way affect the continuation or quality of my 30 plus year marriage, now me caught in a video in a compromising position with J. Lo, that would affect my marriage.
Rick
Janice, I would say first your argument about choices to accept gay lifestyles as equal or discriminate is flawed and suffers from personal emotion. This is about if people living in states have a right to have their votes counted or not. Very simple. Under the Constitution states have the right to regulate family issues. I would guess in states where the voters approved this you would have whatever you wanted there. In this state when the will of the people is overturned by a federal judge, the rights of the people have suffered. If a person from a tribal island moves here where polygamy is practiced as it also was with native people here as the norm are you going to try and discriminate against that person? Or should we approve it and not act “out of fear?” Where do you draw a line with this?
Religious right wing zealots need to stop trying to wrap the constitution in a Bible!
bigger picture: yup
So, “Justice” (in this case, an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one),you’re suggesting that the Constitution would permit “sovereign” states to either ban married couples from crossing their borders when their relationship doesn’t conform to their laws, or simply declare them no longer married when they cross the line.
I think the legalities of national civil rights were pretty much settled some years ago (within my lifetime, if not necessarily yours) and the concept of states deciding what limits to place on the rights of their citizens was pretty much dispensed with. Bigotry still survives, but there’s continuing hope and promise for the future.
Biggerpicture, and what do you embrace? The Devil? The Koran? Islamic law? All women should be covered? All non-believers killed? This political correctness B.S. perversion FROM LIBERALS that allows and welcomes this in the country and brought in millions from countries that never should be allowed in is THE biggest problem in this country and threatening the health and safety of all.
‘This is about if people living in states have a right to have their votes counted or not. Very simple.’
Tyranny of the majority. That position was invalid during the civil rights era and will always be invalid.
‘In this state when the will of the people is overturned by a federal judge, the rights of the people have suffered.’
copy-paste from above.
If a person from a tribal island moves here where polygamy is practiced as it also was with native people here as the norm are you going to try and discriminate against that person?
Polygamy is a choice.
Homosexuality is not.
‘Next the polygamy rights of multiple spouses will be affirmed as will the right to wed animals.’
Slippery slope arguments are almost always weak.
dawg
‘Do you have a point, Fish? Or is it just more personal bashing? I don’t see how what you just said has anything to do with this issue or what I said about it.’
Your world view is FUBAR. You can’t say the government needs to stay out of peoples lives, and make an exception because of your religion. Forcing the consequences of your fictional Angry Sky Man on other people violates your central idea. You voted for something that will be ruled unconstitutional, and you voted for it to force your ASM mythology on others. Cognitive dissonance. Look it up. That’s your main problem. And fundamentalism. And in this case your right wing religious fundamentalism makes your constitutional fundamentalism completely laughable.
You are a highly irrational person. If I didn’t have respect for the Constitution I would support a test to determine if a voter is mentally competent to participate in democracy. See how I can’t be for the Constitution *and* for that kind of test? It’s very simple and no different from what you do.
Copper, the patch-work of states that accept this is the current law. You may be still protesting the 1960’s for some reason. Keep marching on and let the pony tail grow.
Awesome! Scratch the veneer of civility off of some people’s ‘non-emotional’ rhetoric and the hateful, rabid little demons within them come frothing and foaming to the surface. What little credibility they may have had-even in alternate universes just went down the toilet. It’s almost amusing to watch their meltdown(note to noone in particular’s family-take their weapons, quick!!)Almost.
I gotta say some peoples hatred of gays and immigrants reminds me of the tactic some bublicans use of trying to hide right out in the open-for example Ted Cruz with his dual citizenship or any one of the family values peoples caught with underage hookers, or male escorts-you know- the stuff that comes under the heading of “you can’t make this stuff up”. I’m not accusing anyone of anything or suggesting anything about anyone in particular…., but if anyone feels the need to come out of the closet, none of us on the left will judge them…
I agree with Mr. Fish that liberals have a long history of trying to ignore the vote of the people. One of the biggest modern examples was the loser Al Gore in 2000.
Biggee and Bap maybe someday you will know the power of God and the forgiveness of Sins.
it’s like that old saying, you can see the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
hey chief…upon reflection, the enlightened individual will conclude that ‘god’ and ‘religion’ (ex. christianity) are two basically unrelated concepts: the former is based on love and freedom, the latter on fear, deceit, and judgemental world view. because i have no use for religion, you apparently assume (incorrectly) that i have no relationship with god. the context of my comment is my observation that fundamental christianity methodically calibrates down personal freedom, including that of the commenter janice eastburn.
Justice, Al Gore won the popular vote in that election (ie. the majority of US voters voted for him). You know, the majority thing you spoke of earlier.
Chief, I’m a happy atheist with no void in my soul, as you Christians seem to feel that any person who isn’t must have a void needing filled. Thanks for the kind words though!
Justice, think its time to up your meds?
Janice Eastburn, Thank you for your commment. Very well put! OLS
Justice, no matter how you wrap it, you are on the losing side of history (like the white males of the South that tried maintain segregation). The evangelical community has shrunk from 66% of the Christian faith to less than 39% in the last few years and they are shrinking fast. Oh btw, there are a number of christian, jewish and even muslim houses of worship in the U.S., that welcome the LGBT community. For example our synagogue welcomes the LGBT community. Bigots often try and cloak themselves in religion (e.g., KKK).
Rick
Thank you OLS for calling my attention to J.E.’s post. I probably wouldn’t have bothered responding to “J’s” had I paid more attention to her prior post.
I sometimes get annoyed with the dangerously ignorant directions and back roads on which the posters here try to take these threads. But you’re right; Janice pretty much put a lid of truthfulness and credibility on the rest of this thread.
‘I agree with Mr. Fish that liberals have a long history of trying to ignore the vote of the people’
beat that straw man.
can’t best me intellectually in the real world, so you just imagine me as your inferior and attribute stupid ideas to me.
pathetic.
address my actual thoughts
Bap, Rick, OLS, and Cooper: Thank you for your kudos re. my previous comment. It is nice to feel heard. :-)
“I agree with Mr. Fish that liberals have a long history of trying to ignore the vote of the people. One of the biggest modern examples was the loser Al Gore in 2000.”
Shameless example of conservatives using political trickery to limit the will of the people. Still going on with the Republicans limiting access to voting through a variety of shams.
Justice you are either easily deceived by your own party, or you are willingly misrepresenting the truth of things. Either way you are showing yourself to be petty and mean-spirited.
@Fish: I still don’t understand your hostility with my initial comment. I’m suggesting that we should all be free to engage in ANY consensual behaviors we choose. Why do you find fault with that? Your assumptions of my beliefs are clearly false. You believe as you choose, but you are wrong.
And to both you and Hmmmm, yes, the ‘bitter cake’ is the whole point. We should all be free to engage in mutually consensual endeavors, as long as nobody is being coerced against their will. Marry, do drugs, own guns, eat what you choose, as long as you do not hurt anybody else. But why would you WANT to force someone to bake a cake for you if they would rather not? The government is doing that now, at the behest of some ‘civil rights’ organizations. Wouldn’t you rather give your business to someone who WANTS it?
Your rights end where my obligation to provide them begins.
It’s so simple, really.
Enjoying the fruits of a ‘free society’ carries obligations, some of which can be distasteful. Your argument is about as mature as a four year old’s, in my opinion. I think you are trying to justify discrimination on arbitrary grounds. It is two steps away from telling people where they have to sit if they want to ride the bus. A shi-t sandwich is a s-hit sandwich, no matter how much mayo you slather on it. You (and any other regressive Neanderthals who feel it’s their ‘right’ to choose to discriminate against others based on whom they love) are ‘free’ move to Saudi Arabia or Russia.
Dog, I think you may be conflating various rulings and laws and proposed (but vetoed laws). The recent court cases are focused on state’s banning same-sex marriages. If I understand you correctly, you believe who anyone marries is between the two consenting adults. So you do not seem to have a bone to pick with these specific rulings.
The individual being force to serve a gay couple is a separate issue, and I think you are referring to the Colorado baker who, in violation of state law refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. The courts, rightly ruled against the baker as it was a clear violation of a long-standing state law. We are a country of laws, and civil and stable society must abide by the laws. You may choose to work to change the laws, but to clearly violate a law and get caught, requires that you pay the price of your flaunting the legal system.
In Arizona, Governor Brewer (a conservative Republican) vetoed a proposed law, that would have permitted businesses to refuse service to anyone they believed would be in violation of their religious belief. Now for conservatives, this apparently was just fine as long as it was discriminating against gays, but I suspect you would scream bloody murder if a Muslim store owner discriminated against an evangelical Christian family for a birthday cake or if the store-owner refused service to a Jewish Family for a Bat Mitzvah cake?
If you own a business, you are simply not permitted in some states (and frankly it should be all) to discriminate against a perceptive client, based on race, gender, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. There are many legal reasons businesses can choose to not provide serves to someone (inability to pay can be a big one; restaurants – no shirt, no shoes no service; bars can ask patrons to leave who are noisy and unruly, etc.). But, store owners should never be allowed to not serve someone because of their gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. This is plan and simply discrimination and it is ugly.
Rick
Well said Rick! Remember Denney’s and the lawsuit around them refusing to serve African-Americans? This is no different (as you so eloquently illustrated with your examples).
Wouldn’t you rather KNOW if someone doesn’t like you? And that way you can choose whether or not to give them your business and your hard earned cash? Or do you think it’s preferable to force a business owner to hide his feelings behind a phony smile and take your money, seething and resentful against you the whole time?
I know which I would prefer.
The venom that some of you here are spewing at me, as distasteful as it is, at least allows me the option of choosing whether or not I would choose to associate with you. I find it really hard to believe that you hate freedom that much.
And actually, no, I am not free to move to Russia or Saudi Arabia. (talk about a 4-year old’s argument!)
Dog:
If you choose to own a business, you are required to abide by non-discrimination laws. It is as simple as that – not particularly complicated. Failure to do so, is an abomination. I do not have to like all of my clients, but I have to treat them fairly in a non-discriminating manner. To not do so, is an ethical, moral and legal failing.
Now do I choose to buy products from a store-owner I find an a–hole, probably not, unless they happen to be the only game in town that offers the services I need. So if a gay couple choose to buy a cake from a shop in their town that makes cakes, they should expect the same courtesy service that a hetero sexual couple gets. Many state laws make it a crime to not serve that gay couple (like Colorado did) and more states are soon to follow.
So why are you so vested in preserving a discriminatory act?
Rick
As I said earlier; your rights end where my obligation to provide them begins.
If it costs somebody to provide something for someone, it is NOT a natural right.
I have no desire to infringe on your rights. But the more acceptable it is to you that others infringe on mine, the more likely yours will be infringed on eventually as well.
Not only is it discriminatory to deny a product or service you provide to someone you think has a lifestyle you disagree with………it’s just plain STUPID from a business standpoint!
That is not how natural rights are defined.
I have no desire to infringe on your rights.
BS. You voted for Prop 8.
ironic:
‘ I find it really hard to believe that you hate freedom that much.’
OK everyone quick poll, who here hates freedom?
No one. Guess which logical fallacy you used.
You are very ignorant, and worse, you choose to remain ignorant. Many people don’t care for ignorant people, especially when their ignorance contaminates the world. You should be adapted to the consequences of it by now.
It really sucks that your vote counts as much as mine.
Of COURSE it’s stupid from a business standpoint. That’s exactly why you should let the market work it out instead of letting politicians fix it.
Fish, quit telling me what I voted for or against. You are freakin’ clueless.
Dog you simply fail at logic. You are morally bankrupt, if you believe you can simply deny a common service your business provides simply because someone is gay – that is discrimination. Do you provide clients questionnaire to find out what religion they are. Would you refuse service to a Muslim or an atheist?). What about a liberal? Or a liberal Methodist minister? Or a gay Methodist minister? How about someone who doesn’t own guns, or rides their bike on the road, or drives a Prius, maybe a Tesla? Is Hispanic, black, Indian, maybe a black, lesbian, gun owning Methodist minister? What metrics do you use to discriminate?
All I have to say it must be exhausting to be a bigot.
Rick
Rick, Janice, Copper, Hhhmm, Pescado and all the rest of you folks!!! There are always good comments here on LTN…some are just … well(?), lets just say their interesting!!!
May get cold tonight so break out the wool blankets and put another log on the fire!
Stay warm and make sure the furry four legged ones are inside. Be happy! It’s Fall, one of the best times of the year in Tahoe! OLS
Any person that sees this as a bad thing is simply and utterly un-American and un-patriotic as it pertains to our Constitution and Bill of Rights!
You guys just don’t get it. I am not a bigot. But I don’t believe in forcing people to do things they believe is morally wrong.
How many of you old folks believed that those who burned their draft cards as consciencious objectors against the Viet Nam war were morally solid? You need to be consistent, and I don’t think most of you are.
But go ahead and pile on me with your viciousness. You clearly don’t believe that anybody has a right to believe differently from yourselves.
And you call ME morally bankrupt.
Dog, you don’t get it. Society has every right to administer laws that force people not to be bigots in their business practices. You can be a bigot if you so desire, but your business cannot discriminate. Plain and simple, it is not only legal, but it is morally and ethically correct. To not do so is to advocate for a society that permits discriminatory behavior. We tried that experiment for the first couple hundred years in the Country and it was an abject failure. Get a clue, your libertarian ideology is a failure – it is no better then believing in communism. In both cases you can catch a unicorn before you can create a desirable society based on these seriously flawed ideologies.
Rick
Rick
Dog:
PS, while I did not burn my draft card, I was completely against the war. Those of us against the war, finally forced our government to stop such an ill-conceived venture. Sadly, 60,000 Americans had to die and countless others forever changed (for the worse) for no real benefit. Can you say Cheney’s silly war that help to destabilize the Middle East – wow, we didn’t learn a thing. Like I said before, we are a Country of laws and I believe that if you fail to follow them, then you must suffer the consequences. Sadly, if you are a person of color, you pay the price far more then we whites.
Rick
And how about mr. obama’s current war? Is that better than Cheney’s? If you say it is, then I know it’s all politics with you.
By the way, forcing people to behave in a way that YOU consider morally and ethically correct is still force.
I believe in the NAP.
Dog I have one question for you. Off topic, but you took it there.
What would you have liked to see Obama do in this situation that would make you come out and openly endorse his actions?
Bap believing in Jesus is how you cleanse your soul from the effects of guilt.
there used to be a local guy named Herb Codington his God was the stop lights on lake Tahoe blvd.
that didn’t work out so well for him.
I didn’t take it there, Level. Rick did.
And that is a whole different discussion.
gee, chief, you provide only the finest low hanging fruit: i rest my case.
Dog:
You are right, Obama could have done more to end the war started by the previous administration before he did, but he has attempted to pull us out. The destabilization we are facing was due in large part by the Bush/Cheney fiasco.
I find it interesting, that you claim (from what I gather) to be a Christian, against a women’s right to choose (a true adherent to your philosophy would allow women to make their own choice not government), yet you are comfortable setting up a society where bigotry is legal. We tried that it was called the Jim Crow laws – how did that turn out? Societies since the beginning of time legislate behavior. Sometimes they do poorly and sometimes they do well. Most folks (as do I) these days believe outlawing discriminatory practices in hiring, retention, pay, providing services, and housing is a good thing. You as a good christian women believe government should intervene in a women’s right to choose, but if a business wants to discriminate who are we to stop them. Sorry if I am horrified (you are in a clear minority) by your lack of moral fiber.
Rick
“The lessons of our constitutional history are clear: inclusion strengthens, rather than weakens, our most important institutions,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote. “When we integrated our schools, education improved. When we opened our juries to women, our democracy became more vital. When we allowed lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly in uniform, it enhanced unit cohesion. When same-sex couples are married, just as when opposite-sex couples are married, they serve as models of loving commitment to all.”
How fortunate we are to have a trio of “Genuine Judges” that can see through all the local and state level rhetoric and decide to apply constitutional rights to protect individuals rights under the law !
Well said Toxic
Rick
Wonderful quote Toxic! Thank you for posting it.
My lack of moral fiber? You think I’m a jellyfish for standing up to all of you who are piling on me with your self-righteous support of what is currently popular with the ruling class? How much courage does it take to go along with popular culture? smh
My objection to abortion has nothing to do with denying a woman her rights. Nor have I said the government should intervene, as you claim. You and Fish keep making stuff up. I AM against abortion. And I believe it is unconscionable for my tax dollars to pay for it. To abort a future woman is supposedly supporting women?? I believe the unborn child is a human, and that the child has rights. The non aggression principle applies here.
And those Jim Crow laws? They were written and enforced by Democrats.
@Dog-Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself in front of all these people.
Your cheap shot about Jim Crow laws being written and enforced by conservative Southern Democrats is almost amusing, given that many those said laws are quite similar to the policies enacted by today’s Republicans. You, like your old buddy CJ of posts past, are being disingenuous and hoping no-one calls you on it. Boom.
Democrats long history of support of all things they deny now and accuse the right of is simply an attempt to rewrite history that they want covered up from slavery to the Civil War and beyond. They depend on what isn’t taught anymore as it produces an assembly line of dunces who have no idea of past history with political parties alone and think the teaching of new rewritten politically correct history should be all that is taught. Throwing out the race card for gay marriage as an equal struggle to any other issue is the new one they use and it is not surprising to see but very predictable. This new equivalent must be thrown out at every discussion. This is in large part thanks to their disgraced dear leader in DC who has made this country into a new divided ever increasing angry have versus have nots from economic status and marital status to words being defined by demand of a very few, like changing what is marriage, and a new dangerous growing welfare state of the nation and for what passes for leadership now is a joke. There is a new low standard, it is incompetence at all levels and a growing danger across the world from a lack of any coherent foreign policy. This cultural rot in this country and constant leftist demand for their definition of “tolerance” of all actions they desire and cultures they want brought in and supported is an attempt to take away any ability of this country to define the traditional values here and what is right or wrong and in this instance using judges to even throw out the votes of the states. This also includes the new demands for “tolerance” for dangerous radical religions that seek to wipe out this country and are foreign to the values in the country. These are the biggest dangers and threats to liberty for all.
‘And those Jim Crow laws? They were written and enforced by Democrats.’
You have already been made aware of the history of political parties and how the platforms changed while the names stayed the same. You ignore it, because of your willful ignorance.
‘ I am not a bigot. But I don’t believe in forcing people to do things they believe is morally wrong.’
If you think homosexuals do not deserve equal rights, and think that being born a certain way is morally wrong, you are a bigot. You’ve promoted Islamophobic propaganda, do not understand that homosexuality is not a choice. All because of your stupid fundamentalist reading of a fictional religious text.
‘Fish, quit telling me what I voted for or against. You are freakin’ clueless’
You voted for Prop 8. Don’t lie. Angry Sky Man is always looking to spite sinners. The fact that you have not been turned into salt is evidence that there is no Angry Sky Man.
Oh and Justice, you displayed blatant racism a few weeks ago. We would all laugh at you, if you weren’t so disgusting.
Ever notice that most bigots are conservative?
Jesus thinks you’re a jerk.
Fish, enough. Your THEORY on the two parties changing platforms is hysterical. That’s what you WANT to believe. Tell me, whose great plan was it, and exactly when and how did the parties switch places? It’s an extremely common argument made by leftists who hate the truth of their own history.
And quit calling me a conservative/islamophobe/bigot.
None of that is correct. And most of it is totally irrelevant to this “discussion.”
Why the hysteria? I agreed with the basic premise and support most of the things you say you want. Because I don’t support forcing people to perform services they don’t want to, you go all ballastic. Seems to me that forcing people to do stuff they don’t want to do used to be called “slavery”. Are you for that??
Never mind. You’ve made it clear that you are.
Dog, it is not really all that germane who wrote the Jim Crow laws, but simply laws were written and enforced to “legally” discriminate. Now folks are arguing that states should be able to have laws on the books that discriminate against someone who is gay or lesbian. As the Jim Crow laws were morally wrong (though Rand Paul did step in it last year when he said he was against discrimination but was not so sure the Civil Rights laws should have been passed – he has since tried to walk that one backwards as that went over like the proverbial **** in the punchbowl).
Now on the separate matter who was behind the Jim Crow laws. You are absolutely correct that the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats)were behind and supported those laws as did the white churches (good christian folk). The KKK was (and still is) of christian origin of the white christian racists. Now what happen to all of those Dixiecrats in the 1960s after Johnson forced through the Civil Rights laws you might ask? Well the vast majority moved to the Republican Party that welcomed them with open arms. So the general level of racism in the parties shifted. Virtually overnight, Southern racists politicians went from Democrats to Republican; the Republicans welcomed them with open arms – sadly I might add. It would have been better if they ended up with nowhere to go. The average level of racism in the South amongst the average white citizen in those days was pretty pervasive, regardless of party. While racism in the South has declined, particularly in the larger Cities, the level of racism in the small towns to still overwhelming.
Now as to hatred and discriminatory behavior aimed at the LGTB community. The Republican Party has a platform that is virulently hateful toward the LGTB community and same-sex marriage, while the Democrats do not. On average, by a wide margin, more people who identify themselves as Dems are supportive of same-sex marriage then those who identify as Rep (that is a fact). This is largely due to evangelical Christians being almost the exclusive domain of Republicans. Barry Goldwater famously warned about making a packed with the christian right – I think he was rather prophetic.
What is interesting, is this is really an old person problem. The young, regardless of party affiliation is not at all troubled by same-sex marriage – thank gawd for that. So as the old – (largely white) crowd disappears from the Republican Party, so will this issue.
Rick
“As far as the ‘bigot’ statement above, I think most people are aware that it is the left wing extremists that bring the bigotry and hate to the discussion. Slander and personal attacks and outright lies tend to come from leftists, honest people see that.
Across America people are realizing how much damage has been done by the lies and viciousness of leftists that are in power, Obama, Reid and Pelosi have done great damage to our country and with the coming elections I think many will change their positions and vote the leftists out.”
Hypocritical statements….ans a crock
It is not a theory. It is a well known event in the history of political parties in the US. You are dumb enough to think that the ideas associated to the names haven’t changed.
I’ve linked you scholarly articles that explain it very simply. It is a well accepted observation. And you didn’t read it. And choose to remain ignorant.
Who is forcing you to do anything regarding homosexuals?
You are just being told that your discrimination is no longer tolerable. And you can’t accept that, because the charlatans that told you all about Angry Sky Man told you that it isn’t discrimination because the gays are immoral.
For the record, your understanding of homosexuality is that it is a choice. Correct? And you did vote for Prop 8. Correct? And you believe the earth is a few thousand years old. Correct?
You worldview is ignorant and you are on the wrong side of history. The Cult of The Angry Sky Man has poisoned your mind.
And just who, Little Fish, has poisoned yours so thoroughly with such hatred?
Did I wake up in an alternate Universe or did CJ troll this post this morning?
Hmmm, Yes, it looks like that glorious fountain of knowledge,CJ, is back! I kinda missed him as my neighbor with the constantly barking crazy dog moved away.
So now with the return of the gentelman from Bend Or., the barking and and whining can resume.
Welcome back, CJ! Old “leftist” Long Skiis
The bottom line is that by using a federal judge, liberals believe in discriminating against the majority of voters in states that passed laws defining marriage. They don’t want democracy they want a concept that is wrecking this country called liberal political correctness disguised as “tolerance” for all things they want to have promoted and all cultures brought in and supported by tax payers who desire to come in even those from open borders with no screening of any kind. This also includes Ebola patients who are not blocked by much and are coming in freely for a first in history and this might really take a turn for the worse and even people who fight for ISIS and have US passports are not blocked from coming back here as stated by Bummer’s employees. This is a crazy train going off the rails unless people wake up.
“The strongest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter”-Sir Winston Churchill.
@Dog…Let’s take a look at the argument that you keep screeching…that person “X’s” rights end where person “Y” becomes obliged to honor them, played out to some logical conclusions…… police can do as they will, not bound by the maxim ‘to protect and to serve’; your doctor is not obligated to give you accurate information regarding the status of your health, or treatment; the pharmacist who fills your meds is not required to put the right dosage, or the right med…into the bottle, because your right to receive the proper med ends where you oblige someone to accurately fill them; the mechanic fixing your vehicle isn’t required to do anything other than give you a some used parts and a bill; the bank isn’t required to deposit the money you give them, or accurately account for it, or give it back to you when you want to withdraw it. How about ______’s assertion that he will soon have the right to marry a farm animal? Makes me a bit nervous but the sheep down the road are downright scared. How about the religious fundamentalist of any faith who feels it is morally wrong to allow a non-believer to live- are they justified in beheading that non-believer? Or burning them at the stake? Or in a huge gas oven? THAT is your argument taken to it’s logical, irrational conclusion, and it is absurd. If you are going to be consistent-as you tell others to be-each freedom/obligation cuts both ways…and mob rule is the result. Since you promote the Chaos that ensues, calling it freedom and democracy, to my way of thinking your argument puts you firmly in the camp of your biblical ‘Satan’. Personally, I think you are insane.
Justice, what you are calling democracy is mob rule. “This is a crazy train going off the rails unless people wake up.” Yup. And you sir appear to be the Conductor.
Hmmm, none of what you assert is even remotely rational.
It is in a businessman’ s self interest to do an honest job if he wants to continue to make a profit. Government regs and enforcement don’t totally eliminate the bad apples now! Yelp does a pretty good job spreading the word on bad services. For a much lower price than government.
Fish, read this and maybe you’ll understand.
http://willsmith.liberty.me/2014/10/11/lgbt-libertarianism/?refer=libertyme
Dog is now the arbiter of what is rational and what is not. God help us all.
‘And just who, Little Fish, has poisoned yours so thoroughly with such hatred?’
You won’t answer direct reasonable questions.
Don’t expect me to answer your silly question.
People of average intelligence are aware that in many situations they are dumb. Taking action to correct that is what makes the difference.
You aren’t even aware that you are dumb.
“Yelp does a pretty good job spreading the word on bad services. For a much lower price than government.’
Dog, are you actually comparing Yelp an online review site, open to use by anyone not just critiquing a business establishment or service provider but also open to those that may have a personal vendetta against that business or business owner, to government regulations that help to insure safe and fair practices in business?
Things haven’t changed much with the delusional, selfish, greedy John Birch Society people that daddy Koch founded in the 50s. I remember my parents saying how they seemed to be nice but wow what jerks they really are.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/connor-kilpatrick-its-hip-its-cool-libertarianism.html
Brilliant. Logical. Rational. Why didn’t we all think of it?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-the-yelp-lawsuit-over-a-bad-review-means-for-you-195542730.html;_ylt=AwrTcdD
That’s why.
Dog says “If a gay couple wants to do -something- I support that right. But no one should be forced to bake them a cake.”
Yes, basically she believes anyone or business should NOT BE FORCED to provide goods & services to a Gay couple (or person.) Let’s see how that equates to nuts and bolts.
First. What is the point of being able to refuse Gay people goods & services, if you can’t tell who is Gay? Ex. would a person know that Samantha Fox is Gay by appearance only? No. The sole proprietor or online corporation would need to KNOW that a person is Gay via some sort of identification protocol for segregation purposes.
Second. Since Gay people might have the ability to cross State Lines from Pro Gay States to a Non Gay State, there would need to be a screening process setup Nationally to register the Gay person/couple for identification. This would make it difficult to simply lie to the company at the point of service; brick & mortar or online in a different State. You could also make the act of lying to the enterprise illegal.
Third. Since they could simply try to circumvent the whole ID process by paying cash anonymously, there would need to be some sort of physical identification placed on the Gay persons body; perhaps a tattoo or even better an imbedded ID chip that that is difficult to remove via surgery.
Problem solved. Now, the business or proprietor would have the protocols necessary to deny goods or services to a potential Gay consumer for segregation purposes.
I find it ironic that Dogula “claims” to dislike the Fascist/NAZI protocols, YET this is similar to the protocols used about a hundred years ago to segregate the Jewish population in Germany.
*sigh* I thought this thread had died long ago.
The “fascist/Nazi protocols” I detest are those that YOUR team uses constantly: coercion. Force. Primarily through use of government. It’s classic bullying: YOU want something, but you’re too cowardly to get it yourself, so you use government to force others to bend to your will.
My other point is not that any business shouldn’t be forced to provide goods/services to gay people specifically. They shouldn’t be FORCED to provide goods/services to ANYONE. For any reason they choose. Sure, it might be stupid. But forcing someone to provide something for someone else is, quite simply, akin to slavery.
Which apparently, you approve of.
Dog now says “My other point is not that any business shouldn’t be forced to provide goods/services to gay people” Glad you changed your mind.
And what do you know about slavery exactly as it was written in the US Constitution and ratified in 1787… Nothing.
so Dog, you are saying you support a business owner to deny providing goods/services to someone of a different race or religion or the opposite sex? Wow, just wow….
Thanks for providing proof that there are still people like you out there that require the necessity of these types of laws.
Wow, Dogula, it’s interesting (but not surprising) that you don’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which made it illegal for a private business to discriminate against customers based on their race, religion, or national origin.
“My other point is not that any business shouldn’t be forced to provide goods/services to gay people specifically. They shouldn’t be FORCED to provide goods/services to ANYONE. For any reason they choose. ”
If Dogula had her choice, we’d still be sitting at segregated lunch counters. History has simply passed her by, and she’s clearly very angry about it.
This has gone on too long. The last 3 posts are repeating old claims. Read my previous posts if you actually care what I think.
But I know you don’t. You just want to judge me and make yourselves feel like you’re better than I.
I don’t believe morality can or should be legislated. And clearly, legislation doesn’t fix stupid. . .
‘I don’t believe morality can or should be legislated.’
And yet you supported Prop 8.
I think the admin should give you an experience in discrimination from banning you from this website. Not because so many people disagree with you. Just because, no real reason.
‘ And clearly, legislation doesn’t fix stupid’
You are clearly the least intelligent person here.
And you, Fish, are a fascist. So?
according to wikipedia, fascism includes
“””Italian Fascism pursued what it called “moral hygiene” of youth, particularly regarding sexuality.[195] Fascist Italy promoted what it considered normal sexual behaviour in youth while denouncing what it considered deviant sexual behaviour.[195] It condemned pornography, most forms of birth control and contraceptive devices (with the exception of the condom), homosexuality, and prostitution as deviant sexual behaviour, although enforcement of laws opposed to such practices was erratic and authorities often turned a blind eye.[195] Fascist Italy regarded the promotion of male sexual excitation before puberty as the cause of criminality amongst male youth, declared homosexuality to be a social disease, and pursued an aggressive campaign to reduce prostitution of young women.[195]
“””
and
“””Fascist as an insult
Main article: Fascist (insult)
Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word,[56] often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.[57] George Orwell wrote in 1944 that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless … almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist'”.[57] Richard Griffiths said in 2005 that “fascism” is the “most misused, and over-used word, of our times”.[25] “Fascist” is sometimes applied to post-war organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term “neo-fascist”.[58]
“””
Define the word, and make a case for how that word aptly describes me.
You lack a basic understanding of the words you use.
As usual… another strawdog logical fallacy.
Teach dawg about discrimination. Ban them.
And for the record, you did support Prop 8, an attempt to legislate morality, a concept that you recently disparaged.
Dog and justice. BARF
Denying any group their right to the pursuit of happiness is wrong.
There’s nothing to debate. Just wrong or right. This is a black and white issue. I’m glad the courts are siding with the correct side.