POLL: Nevada's Senate race outcome?

[hotatlboi]

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

Actually no, that's not the reason.

The reason is because the prospects for passing gay marriage through the Senate right now have absolutely nothing to do with Harry Reid's personal opinion on whether it should.

 

[MercuryJones]

Because there is nothing currently in the Constitution about gay marriage.

There is nothing in the Constitution about any 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.

But you said marriage is a basic civil right already.

 

[laikaNYC]

Actually no, that's not the reason.

The reason is because the prospects for passing gay marriage through the Senate right now have absolutely nothing to do with Harry Reid's personal opinion on whether it should.

Oh, well what are these prospects of reasoning?

 

[laikaNYC]

There is nothing in the Constitution about any marriage.



But you said marriage is a basic civil right already. So no amendment is required.

That's just my personal interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling that said plainly "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man". But the opposers would argue otherwise because of the "...fundamental to our very existence and survival" part. The SCOTUS just needs to decide on this once and for all.

 

[MercuryJones]

That's just my personal interpretation of it. Many people would argue otherwise.

Your "personal interpretation" keeps changing. You said marriage is a basic civil right, so Pro8 can only be violating a basic civil right. But you also say there is no case against Pro8.

Which is it? Is Prop8 violating a basic civil right or not?

 

[hotatlboi]

Oh, well what are these prospects of reasoning?

The reasoning is that it does not have any chance of passing the Senate right now, regardless of how Reid felt about it. So bringing it up would be pointless.

 

[opinterph]

… there is nothing currently in the Constitution about gay marriage.

Or any other kind of marriage, for that matter.

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

… the opposers would argue otherwise because of the "...fundamental to our very existence and survival" part.

True. It is possible to reject the idea that marriage (as a basic civil right) also applies to GLBT folks, if its only validation derives from the single snippet in the Loving case …​

Those fighting for same-sex marriage often quote a passage from Loving that asserts marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man” …

Marriage is not fundamental to our “existence” and “survival” merely because it sometimes is marked by expressions of love, commitment, and respect. Marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival because …

[National Review]

 

[laikaNYC]

Your "personal interpretation" keeps changing. You said marriage is a basic civil right, so Pro8 can only be violating a basic civil right. But you also say there is no case against Pro8.

Which is it? Is Prop8 violating a basic civil right or not?

Nothing is changing. I said it is indeed a basic civil right based upon my interpretation of that SCOTUS ruling. But of course whether that applies to gays is debatable to many. I believe it should apply to all men. So yes, there is no case against Prop8 because they can't be guilty of violating a right that the SCOTUS has not yet ruled to show us that we actually have.

 

[hotatlboi]

there is no case against Prop8 because they can't be guilty of violating a right that the SCOTUS has not yet ruled to show us that we actually have.

HUH?

You're saying there is no legal case on something until the SCOTUS rules on it?

That makes no sense. If that were the case nothing would ever get to the SCOTUS. Do you understand that SCOTUS is an appellate court?

 

[MercuryJones]

So yes, there is no case against Prop8 because they can't be guilty of violating a right that the SCOTUS has not yet ruled to show us that we actually have.

And how does SCOTUS make a ruling?

I'll give you a clue: a case goes before the SCOTUS which then rules.

If there's no case, then it can't go before the court. But if it can't go before the court, the court can never rule to make it case.

What a funny little world you've created! As you've described it, there is never any case that goes before the SCOTUS because they SCOTUS hasn't ruled on any of them already.

 

[BostonPirate]

NEWSFLASH:

Starting today, Sharron Angle's words about phasing out SS and Medicare are being used against her in political ads.

I would imagine they are going to hold the good stuff for the last few weeks. if this is already starting, the woman is going to be shred like a coconut.

YAY!

 

[evanrick]

harry reid will win. i have never been wrong in my predictions, yes that could change, but angle is unqualified to be majority leader since she has never held the position.

haha just kidding....political humor.

but i will say that things are looking better for reid every day. are people in nevada dumb enough to boot the majority leader for some flavor of the month wingnut?

this will be reagan v mondale all over, harry just has more ground to make up.

 

[palemale]

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.

And electing more Republican Senators like Sharron Angle or more Republicans as President will result in a more tolerable SCOTUS?

You must have been born to a very rich family and see the Republicans as the ticket to holding onto every last cent of your vast wealth, and you are willing to sacrifice your basic civil rights to hold on to that goal. Of course, you could be like the millions of poor slobs who vote for Republicans against their own self interest because you have drunk the right-wing Kool Aid while listening to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. God knows you advance no coherent argument for your views.

 

[hotatlboi]

harry reid will win. i have never been wrong in my predictions

After Brown won in MA, I don't think anything is certain at this point, but I certainly hope so.

Angle is looking more and more like a clown the more I hear about her.

 

[BostonPirate]

After Brown won in MA, I don't think anything is certain at this point, but I certainly hope so.

Angle is looking more and more like a clown the more I hear about her.

brown won because he was running against a woman with one of the worst reputations in the state.

she litterally went on vacation for two weeks in the final month of the campaign. She assumed that a democrat would get Kennedy's seat, and that assumption of entitlement is revolting to us in massachusetts. He didn't win so much as she lost.

we will see how he does against a real candidate in 2012

If Angle wins then america has not learned the lesson of Bush and our decline is inevitable. You can't be that stupid consistently at the voting box and expect anything to get better.

 

[MercuryJones]

Because there is nothing currently in the Constitution about gay marriage.

Did you think there's something in the Constitution about interracial or any other marriage?

The basic civil rights aspect should be brought into play so that they have a damn good reason to bring forth an amendment.

Who has a damn good reason to "bring forth" what "amendment"? WTF are you talking about?

 

[justright25]

Obama has called for an end to the DOMA, and DADT. He also called for the passage of the ENDA. This unfortunately was not done more publicly but at his speech on gay pride. That is a huge step for a sitting president to take. I say congratulations to him and welcome the steps that he took off the fence.

 

[MercuryJones]

Obama has called for an end to the DOMA, and DADT. He also called for the passage of the ENDA. This unfortunately was not done more publicly but at his speech on gay pride. That is a huge step for a sitting president to take. I say congratulations to him and welcome the steps that he took off the fence.

And then there's Sharron Angle.

Her political career began in the far-right fringe American Independent Party, which in 1994 placed a 16-page advertising insert in Nevada newspapers promoting an amendment to the state constitution that would explicitly permit discrimination against LGBT people by businesses and government.

The flier accuses gay people (aka "sodomites", "perverts") of child molestation, to serial murder, to debasing rodeos, to contaminating the water supply by exuding HIV.

 

[laikaNYC]

Did you think there's something in the Constitution about interracial or any other marriage?



Who has a damn good reason to "bring forth" what "amendment"? WTF are you talking about?

There wasn't anything about interracial marriage, thats why the SCOTUS ruled on it.

 

[MercuryJones]

There wasn't anything about interracial marriage, thats why the SCOTUS ruled on it.

And is there now something about interracial marriage in the Constitution?

The basic civil rights aspect should be brought into play so that they have a damn good reason to bring forth an amendment.

Who should "bring forth an amendment"?