I suppose it depends on how well you can manage or get rid of unfounded anxieties like these.
If you can't, you won't deal well.
As possibly the only Bore member living in the first state to legalize marriage equality:
Fight.
Never stop fighting.
Never stand aside when you see injustice.
Be loud. Be visible. Call elected officials. Campaign. Protest.
That is how. There is no other way.
Stonewall was 1969.
Lawrence v. Texas was 2003.
Obergefell v. Hodges was only year ago.
We will move forward. History bends towards justice. We can be slowed, but never stopped.
As possibly the only Bore member living in the first state to legalize marriage equality:
Fight.
Never stop fighting.
Never stand aside when you see injustice.
Be loud. Be visible. Call elected officials. Campaign. Protest.
That is how. There is no other way.
Stonewall was 1969.
Lawrence v. Texas was 2003.
Obergefell v. Hodges was only year ago.
We will move forward. History bends towards justice. We can be slowed, but never stopped.
What if federal laws start to contradict state laws? I'm sure Federal won't recognize the state as legitimate even though it's from the party of "big givment"
As possibly the only Bore member living in the first state to legalize marriage equality:
Fight.
Never stop fighting.
Never stand aside when you see injustice.
Be loud. Be visible. Call elected officials. Campaign. Protest.
That is how. There is no other way.
Stonewall was 1969.
Lawrence v. Texas was 2003.
Obergefell v. Hodges was only year ago.
We will move forward. History bends towards justice. We can be slowed, but never stopped.
What if federal laws start to contradict state laws? I'm sure Federal won't recognize the state as legitimate even though it's from the party of "big givment"
Depends on the law. If it actually springs up in congress and starts making its way through, that's when to protest and start the calls. We have to be vigilant. It's not enough to check a box every few years.
QuoteHey, instead of being an incredible douchebag for a second, maybe think twice and not post.
I'm sorry, I wouldn't want to interfere in your monopoly on douchebaggery.QuoteMarriage equality isn't going away but trans rights are set to suffer a huge setback right when they were poised to enter the mainstream.
I mean ideally one day Obergefell v. Hodges would be overturned for the ridiculous unconstitutional garbage it is but that's not exactly likely anytime soon.
I mean ideally one day Obergefell v. Hodges would be overturned for the ridiculous unconstitutional garbage it is but that's not exactly likely anytime soon.
Trump is not the goddamn bogeyman and people are being ridiculous.
Of those in the article, I think the most likely is simply the inaction factor, like mentioned not appealing the transgender ruling and not pushing as hard in other court cases.
Do you feel Obergefell v. Hodges is an infringement on someone else's rights, or it should be left to the states or something? I'm not getting the unconstitutionality I guess.
Zero rational or textual basis for the notion that getting married is an enumerated constitutional right ala speech, press, assembly, ownership and use of guns, a trial by jury, etc.
In the absence of text, 10th amendment, always.
I hope for a lot of that inaction myself but he was at least partially elected on the strength of his rhetoric to people who felt they were underrepresented. They're going to expect action, I think.That's always the case. And inaction generally wins, our institutions are built to encourage it. Look at Obama's rhetoric and plans in 2008 and what he little he truly got done right off the bat even with a favorable Congress. It was the GOP wins that made him turn to carrying out executive actions like these mentioned in the article, look at how many mentioned date to 2014 and forward.
Zero rational or textual basis for the notion that getting married is an enumerated constitutional right ala speech, press, assembly, ownership and use of guns, a trial by jury, etc.Or the Ninth:
In the absence of text, 10th amendment, always.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Do you feel Obergefell v. Hodges is an infringement on someone else's rights, or it should be left to the states or something? I'm not getting the unconstitutionality I guess.
Zero rational or textual basis for the notion that getting married is an enumerated constitutional right ala speech, press, assembly, ownership and use of guns, a trial by jury, etc.
In the absence of text, 10th amendment, always.
I promise I'm not playing devil's advocate here because my political swimming pool is on the shallow end, but you're speaking of *all* marriage then? So you'd rather there wasn't any talk of specific marriage protections at all?
I'd rather if people badly want there to be an enumerated constitutional right to marriage that they do what they were supposed to do and support an amendment naming it as such, rather than the Supreme Court just making up new shit from nothing.
Ok, so a constitutional amendment defining marriage as equal to all would be ok then?
It'd be fine by me, I suppose. Broadly, a better amendment might be to defend freedom of contract in general, as that is what marriage ultimately is.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think we actually had this argument before in the politics thread over another topic. :lol
Jay's got a more conservative view (in the non-political sense of the word) of the Constitution, while mine is broader and more liberal (in the non-political sense of the word) that leans heavily on the X+9+10+14 equation. We aren't unique in this regard among the libertarian family!
The Paul's are way way more in line with Jay, for example.
And on that note, the people in these various states impacted by the incorporation of this new "right" clearly did not want their states to make this change, as evidenced by various amendments to their respective state constitutions... until of course this new and magical "right" was found in the United States Constitution and California's state constitution somehow could not be allowed to contain such text, and then none could.But it wasn't a new right. It was merely a right that was being violated by state discrimination.
But it wasn't a "right" yet and pretending that we'd somehow been violating the Constitution, which says nothing about the topic, for 140 years by only allowing dudes and chicks to sign this contract which had traditionally always been between dudes and chicks is absurd on its face.Of course it was a right. Just like interracial marriage was a right. Just like sodomy was a right. Just like not being enslaved was a right. The state just had no interest in protecting those rights until it did. And same thing has been true of the Court.
Listen I'm not saying it's his fault but Tasty is the only member who sucked off a Trump voter:dead
Listen I'm not saying it's his fault but Tasty is the only member who sucked off a Trump voter