POLL: Nevada's Senate race outcome?

[opinterph]

... any given state constitution must also conform to the US Constitution.

^That is a correct statement:​

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Link]

 

[palemale]

That's your opinion. Your definition of being "harshly anti-gay" needs to be better defined because jailing and executing us solely for being gay could also be considered "harshly anti-gay". While I don't agree with her LGBT rights, I support the large majority of her other issues. But like I said before, I don't consider supporting tradtional marriage as being "harshly anti-gay".

Like I said before, Harry Reid is a traditional marriage supporter as well.

I don't understand why you are having such a difficult time with such an easy concept. Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia" often said, "tell it to me like I'm a three year old." So, I'll try to tell it to you like you are a three year old.

I never said people who support traditional marriage are harshly anti-gay. No one is against traditional marriage. I am saying that people who try to define marriage -- in the US Constitution, or the laws or constitutions of any state -- as only valid if it is between a man and woman, are harshly anti-gay. In doing so, they are doing nothing to advance traditional marriage, they are attempting to forever prevent same sex couples from marrying each other. Do you understand the distinction?

Therefore, people who support traditional marriage are not harshly anti-gay. Everyone who supports same sex marriage supports traditional marriage, they just want gays and lesbians to have the right to have a traditional marriage. People who want to prevent gays and lesbians from have the full benefits of traditional marriage by enshrining anti-gay marriage sentiments in law are bigots.

Some Democrats, like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, et al, who oppose gay marriage do so out of expediency. What distinguishes them from your precious anti-gay, bigoted Republicans is that they do not want to enshrine bigotry in the US Constitution. Do you understand the distinction now? Also, do you understand that the people you hope are elected to office will, if they have their way, forever prevent you from having a traditional marriage?

 

[laikaNYC]

Expediency....oh the excuses some will go to to defend their precious liberal politicians.

 

[hotatlboi]

Some Democrats, like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, et al, who oppose gay marriage do so out of expediency. What distinguishes them from your precious anti-gay, bigoted Republicans is that they do not want to enshrine bigotry in the US Constitution. Do you understand the distinction now?

I'm surprised by how many people fail to make this distinction and simply advance "well so and so is against gay marriage too" arguments.

Obama supported gay marriage in 1996. He probably still does on a personal level. But he understands that the time has not yet come when it is easy to win the presidency with that position, so he advances gay rights where he can (repealing DADT, etc) and buys time where he can't (gay marriage). This is completely different than the operating method of a bigot, who would be in opposition to any measure granting equality to gays and support any measure that would deny them equality in the future.

 

[laikaNYC]

Funny then that you seemed to think Prop 8 couldn't or wouldn't be overturned.

And more funny that you acknowledge marriage as a civil right, but think states can constitutionally deny citizens what you acknowledge as a civil right.

I said it wouldn't be, correct.

 

[hotatlboi]

When the Supreme Court struck down the long-held prohibitions on inter-racial marriage, the Supreme Court said plainly marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man

Amazing that:

1. you recognize marriage as "one of the basic civil rights of man"

2. you are gay

3. you don't think gay people should have "one of the basic civil rights of man"

just amazing.

 

[laikaNYC]

I'm surprised by how many people fail to make this distinction and simply advance "well so and so is against gay marriage too" arguments.

Obama supported gay marriage in 1996. He probably still does on a personal level. But he understands that the time has not yet come when it is easy to win the presidency with that position, so he advances gay rights where he can (repealing DADT, etc) and buys time where he can't (gay marriage). This is completely different than the operating method of a bigot, who would be in opposition to any measure granting equality to gays and support any measure that would deny them equality in the future.

He supported it in 1996, that is correct. And two years later when he ran for re-election in the Illinois State Senate in 1998, he flip-flopped.

 

[laikaNYC]

Amazing that:

1. you recognize marriage as "one of the basic civil rights of man"

2. you are gay

3. you don't think gay people should have "one of the basic civil rights of man"

just amazing.

1. correct

2. correct

3. false

please don't put words in my mouth. and I understand in your eyes Obama can do no wrong, but he's clearly stated what his idea of marriage is. just another phony politician pandering for votes.

 

[MercuryJones]

3. false

please don't put words in my mouth.

Did you not argue against challenging Prop8 to get this basic civil right recognized?

 

[MercuryJones]

I said it wouldn't be, correct.

Did you also not say Prop8 shouldn't be overturned because it was "legal"?

 

[laikaNYC]

I argued against challenging a losing battle. As hotatlboi pointed out, the time has not come yet.

 

[hotatlboi]

just another phony politician pandering for votes.

I don't deny that is what his current position is based on.

Since I consider that far from a perfect behavior, you can consider this proof that I certainly do not in fact believe that "he can do no wrong".

 

[MercuryJones]

I argued against challenging a losing battle. As hotatlboi pointed out, the time has not come yet.

I believe you said there was no case.

By what rationale do you think there can be no case when a state law/constitution deprives citizens of basic civil rights?

And if there is no case now for the SCOTUS, how would there be a case later?

 

[hotatlboi]

I argued against challenging a losing battle. As hotatlboi pointed out, the time has not come yet.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the time has not come for gay marraige to be legal. Since as you agree it is a "basic civil right of man", it should have been legal yesterday.

I merely said it was presently difficult for candidates for national office to get elected while supporting it since it does not have majority support.

What you are missing is that since it is a "basic civil right of man" whether it has majority support really should be irrelevant.

 

[laikaNYC]

I believe you said there was no case.

By what rationale do you think there can be no case when a state law/constitution deprives citizens of basic civil rights?

And if there is no case now for the SCOTUS, how would there be a case later?

When there is a more tolerable SCOTUS and maybe a more tolerable number of California voters in 2012.

I mean since most Democrats won't even support it and won't back us up then we definitely aren't ready for a fight.

 

[MercuryJones]

When there is a more tolerable SCOTUS and maybe a more tolerable number of California voters in 2012.

The number of CA voters in 2012 is irrelevant to the merits of the SCOTUS case.

And you've changed your tune. You previously wrote:

* "The idea that this state law violates the US Constitution is a matter of your opinion. There is no valid merit in this case for it to be challenged"

*"I'm sorry Jones but this doesn't violate the US Constitution, therefore there is no reason for it to be challenged"

But now you say marriage is a basic civil right, that states must conform to the Constitution, and that state laws that do not can be overturned.

You then add that it would be a case with a more "tolerable SCOTUS".

Your statements do not conform to one another.

 

[laikaNYC]

Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader who has brought gay legislation up for consideration in the Senate numerous times.

Under Republican leadership, LGBT legislation won't see the light of day and you know it.

So go ahead and ally yourself with bigotry. It suits you.

Has he brought up legislation for gay marriage? Of course not. Because he's clearly stated his opinion on what marriage is.

 

[BostonPirate]

Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader who has brought gay legislation up for consideration in the Senate numerous times.

Under Republican leadership, LGBT legislation won't see the light of day and you know it. I'm not just talking about marriage, I mean ENDA, DADT, UAFA, Family medical leave Act, Education non-discrimination, and any and all other LGBT legislation currently pending before Congress. So don't just make this argument about marriage. There is a whole host of other legislation working its way through Congress, and with Democratic majorities, it is getting done.

So go ahead and ally yourself with bigotry. It suits you.

do you notice laika never responds to facts?

thanks for this info.

 

[MercuryJones]

Has he brought up legislation for gay marriage? Of course not. Because he's clearly stated his opinion on what marriage is.

Harder to understand your opinion on it, since it changes from thread to thread.

In one you say there is no case for overturning Prop8, but in another you say it violates a basic civil right.

 

[laikaNYC]

The number of CA voters in 2012 is irrelevant to the merits of the SCOTUS case.

And you've changed your tune. You previously wrote:

* "The idea that this state law violates the US Constitution is a matter of your opinion. There is no valid merit in this case for it to be challenged"

*"I'm sorry Jones but this doesn't violate the US Constitution, therefore there is no reason for it to be challenged"

But now you say marriage is a basic civil right, that states must conform to the Constitution, and that state laws that do not can be overturned.

You then add that it would be a case with a more "tolerable SCOTUS".

Your statements do not conform to one another.

Because there is nothing currently in the Constitution about gay marriage. The basic civil rights aspect should be brought into play so that they have a damn good reason to bring forth an amendment. And then something like Prop 8 would fall flat as being unconstitutional.