YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

[xBiffx]

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeeha...y-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

Love him or hate him, Allen West always comes out swinging with great points. I would be interested to see if this goes anywhere. The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution whereas marriage, regardless of makeup, is not. Unintended consequences will always be the bane of any liberal's existence. When you want to expand rights, you have to take the good with the bad. Everything in life has its trade-offs.

Challenges, literal (as in the court case) and virtual, likely lie ahead now that the SC has made its decision. It will be interesting to see where things end up.

 

[dank69]

Refusing to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex. Attempting to frame it as anything else is doomed to failure.

They didn't redefine marriage.

 

[xBiffx]

Refusing to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex. Attempting to frame it as anything else is doomed to failure.

They didn't redefine marriage.

Thread isn't about same sex marriage. Go find one of the other threads that is and post this in there.

The decision has more implications, that is the topic.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hurfity-burfity-burf!

 

[waggy]

Thread isn't about same sex marriage. Go find one of the other threads that is and post this in there.

you can huff and puff all you want' it's not going to change the the fact its still discrimination and won't work.


anyway nto the same issue so no can't just slide it over. edit: or the same would apply to after the ACA ruling

 

[fskimospy]

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeeha...y-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

Love him or hate him, Allen West always comes out swinging with great points. I would be interested to see if this goes anywhere. The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution whereas marriage, regardless of makeup, is not. Unintended consequences will always be the bane of any liberal's existence. When you want to expand rights, you have to take the good with the bad. Everything in life has its trade-offs.

Challenges, literal (as in the court case) and virtual, likely lie ahead now that the SC has made its decision. It will be interesting to see where things end up.

lol. Good luck with that. It seems his argument would have been equally valid using the precedent of Loving v. Virginia.

It's actually very difficult for me to think of a single time Allen West has articulated 'great points' on any contentious issue. Can you point us to some others? Allen West is not a smart man, he's just a representation of a screaming cultural id of the right.

 

[xBiffx]

you can huff and puff all you want' it's not going to change the the fact its still discrimination and won't work.

I'm not going to argue that here. Like I said, this thread isn't about same sex marriage. Discuss that topic and its merits in one of the other threads.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm far too lazy and uninterested in clicking the link could someone give me a summary what will explode heads?

 

[dank69]

I'm not going to argue that here. Like I said, this thread isn't about same sex marriage. Discuss that topic and its merits in one of the other threads.

You claim that this is a side effect of the SSM ruling right in your fucking title. So go ahead and show us the link between this and SSM. If it doesn't have anything to do with what I first posted, there is no link. You are welcome.

 

[xBiffx]

lol. Good luck with that. It seems his argument would have been equally valid using the precedent of Loving v. Virginia.

It's actually very difficult for me to think of a single time Allen West has articulated 'great points' on any contentious issue. Can you point us to some others? Allen West is not a smart man, he's just a representation of a screaming cultural id of the right.

Saying Allen West is not a smart man pretty much tells me all I need to know about getting into a discussion with you. Allen West is a brilliant individual. Perhaps you don't like his position on issues, or even his delivery, but to question his intelligence is pretty telling.

Have fun convincing people he is an idiot. Of course, now that liberals have equated agreement with intelligence I'm not surprised to see you try. It might be surprising but you can disagree with someone without that person being an idiot.

 

[Jaskalas]

you can huff and puff all you want' it's not going to change the the fact its still discrimination and won't work.

Are you ignoring the method the SCOTUS used to make their ruling?

To apply their legal precedent and not violate the 14th, a person's license to conceal carry must be recognized in the entirety of the United States. Hell, they must be issued as well.

 

[dank69]

I'm far too lazy and uninterested in clicking the link could someone give me a summary what will explode heads?

Just read the first paragraph:

Yesterday, as you know, five justices on the SCOTUS redefined what marriage is in America and also found the time to violate the concept of federalism. They decided that an individual’s behavioral choice was grounds to create a new “right” in the U.S. Constitution. Now of course there are those of you who are somewhat despondent, but just know that in every storm there is a rainbow — quite sure y’all get my tongue-in-cheek comment. Yep, since now the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states, there is an interesting point to be made.

They didn't create a new right, so his whole premise is flawed.

 

[xBiffx]

You claim that this is a side effect of the SSM ruling right in your fucking title. So go ahead and show us the link between this and SSM. If it doesn't have anything to do with what I first posted, there is no link. You are welcome.

I didn't claim it, I merely posted a link to someone who did. I think its worth discussing that claim, however. The discussion isn't about same sex marriage at all. Its about the SC decision and its implications regarding other issues.

Short version: thread is about everything else the ruling can possibly be applied to but same sex marriage. More specifically, the right to bear arms.

 

[dank69]

Are you ignoring the method the SCOTUS used to make their ruling?

To apply their legal precedent and not violate the 14th, a person's license to conceal carry must be recognized in the entirety of the United States. Hell, they must be issued as well.

No, unless you can show what protected class of citizens is facing discrimination.

 

[Mai72]

Basically he's saying that since SCOTUS stated that gay marriage is now recognized in all 50 states, the states have to recognize that by law its citizens are able to carry a concealed gun? Even in states like NJ, NY and CA?

Has anyone challenged this yet?

 

[dank69]

I didn't claim it, I merely posted a link to someone who did. I think its worth discussing that claim, however. The discussion isn't about same sex marriage at all. Its about the SC decision and its implications regarding other issues.

Short version: thread is about everything else the ruling can possibly be applied to but same sex marriage. More specifically, the right to bear arms.

Okay, so what protected class of citizens is facing discrimination?

 

[Jaskalas]

No, unless you can show what protected class of citizens is facing discrimination.

That has no relevance. It is equal protection being violated.

 

[xBiffx]

Just read the first paragraph:


They didn't create a new right, so his whole premise is flawed.

As far as a constitutional right, I would agree. But the SC effectively did make marriage a right when it said that a specific behavior is protected and cannot be stopped. More so, it must be allowed and licensed.

The right to bear arms fits the same description according to the Constitution. Except that we get hung up on the allowed and licensed part. This decision appears to address that.

 

[waggy]

danke again has it right. NOBODY is getting special rights. they are being givin the same rights everyone else has in not being discriminated against.

I don't think it can slide over to gun rights because in effect nobody is being discriminated against. Thou i do think they are being denied full 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Wait.....people are going to marry their guns I thought it only applied to toasters? I guess that is one way to limit guns to one per person. Should help reduce the amount of children in these silly households.


/sarcasm

 

[dank69]

danke again has it right. NOBODY is getting special rights. they are being givin the same rights everyone else has in not being discriminated against.

I don't think it can slide over to gun rights because in effect nobody is being discriminated against. Thou i do think they are being denied full 2nd amendment rights.

This, and since we know waggy thinks dank is a boner-biting bastard, you know you can take this to the bank.

 

[dank69]

As far as a constitutional right, I would agree. But the SC effectively did make marriage a right when it said that a specific behavior is protected and cannot be stopped. ...

No. They did not. Marriage is not a right. It has never been a right and is still not a right.

 

[xBiffx]

danke again has it right. NOBODY is getting special rights. they are being givin the same rights everyone else has in not being discriminated against.

I don't think it can slide over to gun rights because in effect nobody is being discriminated against. Thou i do think they are being denied full 2nd amendment rights.

Except that people who want to execute their 2nd amendment rights aren't treated equally across the country.

So now a non-right, as some have said marriage is, is more important to be applied equally than an actual enumerated right. If it is a right now, its still not enumerated and it still is being given more credence that an actual right that is. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Saying Allen West is not a smart man pretty much tells me all I need to know about getting into a discussion with you. Allen West is a brilliant individual. Perhaps you don't like his position on issues, or even his delivery, but to question his intelligence is pretty telling.

It's possible he is an intelligent person who says a lot of dumb things on purpose in order to rile people up, that much I will admit.

Have fun convincing people he is an idiot. Of course, now that liberals have equated agreement with intelligence I'm not surprised to see you try. It might be surprising but you can disagree with someone without that person being an idiot.

His argument here seems to be based on a mixture of ignorance of the actual SCOTUS decision and a desire to appeal to the conservative id. There are plenty of people I disagree with who I do not think are idiots (you, for example!), it's just that Allen West doesn't happen to be one of those people.

Regardless, are you aware of any person with actual legal training that agree's with Mr. West's evaluation of the decision's impacts? He is 'just a regular fella', in his own words after all. Maybe it would be better if someone who wasn't clueless tried to make his argument.

 

[xBiffx]

No. They did not. Marriage is not a right. It has never been a right and is still not a right.

It is now effectively a right. It is protected, can't be denied, and furthermore must be license and recognized everywhere in this country.

Kennedy even said as much.

Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.

And Breyer agreed.

Protecting the right to marry ... safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education

The SC actually called it a right several times in their decision.