U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-19-2018, 06:32 AM
 
2,962 posts, read 2,876,732 times
Reputation: 2839

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgirlinnc View Post
I guess you missed my post (first page, second post) where I say I do "not support reversing these."

And I referenced that President Trump himself has said this is settled law.

Here it is, for your convenience:

"Trump supporter here and NO to your questions, I do not support reversing those.

Furthermore, although President Trump is anti-abortion, he considers abortion and gay marriage to be "settled law". Trump is not an evangelical conservative. I believe your premise is flawed."
You don't speak for the Republican party. It is still their agenda to try to overturn/reverse those rulings. However, I'm glad to know that there are Republicans out there that do not support reversing them. Kudos to you.

But, would you go so far as to not support Republicans on a ticket that aims to reverse these? Would you vote third party instead as a sort of protest vote? If not, then you fall into the category of "disinterested." If the party doesn't lose your vote by aiming to reverse these, then the end result is you support politicians that have the goal to reverse these.

Quote:
I am still against abortion and I still believe marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. I just don't think it's the government's business.
I'm also of the mindset that federal government should stay out of abortion and gay marriage. Unfortunately, these two issues needed their protection because the states seem to want to deny people equal rights.

If a religion wants to say the sacrament of marriage is between a man and woman and they want to choose to exclude people, maybe that's their right. Personally, I'm not Christian. I suppose a "club" like Christianity can choose its own members and those members have to play by those rules. But for the rest of the country, religion should stay out of the conversation.

Speaking of equal rights: equal rights for some doesn't mean less equal rights for others. It isn't a pie where there's only so much to go around. We can give equal rights to homosexuals (for example) without losing any of our own rights.

I think a lot of people get hung up on that concept.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2018, 06:32 AM
 
5,628 posts, read 2,128,747 times
Reputation: 2935
Roe v Wade invented law by judicial fiat and also invented a Constitutionally protected right that isn't in the Constitution, while also violating the 10th Amendment. All overturning that decision does is return the states to be sovereigns of those things not enumerated in the Constitution or any of its Amendments. Someday, it will be overturned simply because if there needs to be a federal law concerning abortion, the US House and US Senate and the 50 states can figure out what that law should be, not the court.

If that decision gets overturned, it will be because a state is plaintiff vs fed.gov, in an effort to reclaim their sovereignty under the word for word reading of the 10th Amendment. No such case exists currently, that I am aware of anyway. In Roe, the plaintiff was an individual seeking the right to do something that at the time was illegal, but she (her legal team anyway) felt was legal under an interpretation of the 4th Amendment. So that ends up being "interpretation of the 4th vs actual word for word text of the 10th." That's why it scares Dems, liberals, etc. It's a rickety house built on sand, and they know it.

Obergefell vs Hodges is much easier. State governments are bound by the 14th Amendment -
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In the case of marriage, the state has all manner of laws that confer privileges, rights, etc through the legal contract of marriage. Obergefell v Hodges recognizes this as states making law and oh yeah, you cannot apply them unequally, or institutionally grant those rights/privileges to some and not others. That's a rather simple "uhm, read the 14th Amedment, you jacktards" decision, and until you overrule the 14th with an Amendment that says "sure, the states can discriminate all they like, WGAFF", absolutely nothing will happen to that decision, given it's "precedent" is the 14th freaking Amendment word for word.

Do I think they should be overturned? Yes to Roe, no to Obergefell, and my "opinion" is based entirely on exactly what is written in the US Constitution. Respect it 100%, or not at all. There is no in between.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 06:37 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,445 posts, read 30,688,107 times
Reputation: 12876
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
Thankfully, your bronze-age religious tome is not yet the supreme law of our nation so yes, abortion rights and LGBT rights are a thing. You may not like abortion and you may have a deep, seething hatred towards gay people but you have to share a society with people you might not like and you can't take their rights away just because you don't like them.
Murder, is murder.
New York City has aborted more black babies than were born, year after year for the last 2 decades. Just one major Democrat ****hole, of 100's.
The next Obama was sucked out of the moms womb 1000 x's over.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 06:58 AM
 
3,752 posts, read 1,676,383 times
Reputation: 5144
We've seen which is the Party that will do things "at any cost". It isn't the Republicans.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 08:53 AM
 
15,758 posts, read 8,560,004 times
Reputation: 6222
I would like for someone who supports Roe to point out the Constitutional Underpinnings of the ruling and explain where that is found in the constitution.


Obergefell on the other hand is rooted in the equal protection clause. Its clearly Unconstitutional to allow 2 people to enter into a contract, while denying that right to two other people. period.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 09:19 AM
 
31,698 posts, read 14,614,583 times
Reputation: 8448
I'm pro-life and believe in the sanctity of a traditional marriage. If they came up for a vote I would vote likewise. I have no problem with a civil union between gays.


I would also vote to overturn Plyler v. Doe that forces us to educate children of illegal aliens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Boston
5,097 posts, read 1,464,223 times
Reputation: 3735
All Republicans aren't Trump supporters but they sure won't vote for a progressive. Many Democrats won't either.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
20,042 posts, read 20,537,101 times
Reputation: 20398
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgirlinnc View Post
Regarding abortion, should it be made illegal, women will still get abortions. It pains me to say it, but it is the truth. I do have a hard time understanding why when the pill is so cheap and so effective, that the abortion rate is so high. Barring the pill there are patches and IUDs.
The abortion rate is the lowest its been since R vs W.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 12:17 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,445 posts, read 30,688,107 times
Reputation: 12876
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenth View Post
What was your point? That marriages must be performed in a religious ceremony before you consider them valid? And not just any religious ceremony, it must be one that aligns with your personal religious beliefs. The 1st Amendment rendered your point moot long before you were even born.
The best part of waking up, is knowing `ol Auntie Ruth is on her way out the door.
I personally cannot wait to see total snowflake meltdown... Just wait... wait... wait.
Good things come to those that wait.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 12:34 PM
 
5,238 posts, read 1,570,692 times
Reputation: 5031
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
Thankfully, your bronze-age religious tome is not yet the supreme law of our nation so yes, abortion rights and LGBT rights are a thing. You may not like abortion and you may have a deep, seething hatred towards gay people but you have to share a society with people you might not like and you can't take their rights away just because you don't like them.
I don't hate gay people...people don't have a right to marriage in the first place. Civil marriage is a government creation, and its not a "Right" anyway..its a privilege or a franchise. Rights don't require licenses. Show me your "free speech" license, Sir. You were talking, were you not?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Roe v Wade invented law by judicial fiat and also invented a Constitutionally protected right that isn't in the Constitution, while also violating the 10th Amendment. All overturning that decision does is return the states to be sovereigns of those things not enumerated in the Constitution or any of its Amendments. Someday, it will be overturned simply because if there needs to be a federal law concerning abortion, the US House and US Senate and the 50 states can figure out what that law should be, not the court.

If that decision gets overturned, it will be because a state is plaintiff vs fed.gov, in an effort to reclaim their sovereignty under the word for word reading of the 10th Amendment. No such case exists currently, that I am aware of anyway. In Roe, the plaintiff was an individual seeking the right to do something that at the time was illegal, but she (her legal team anyway) felt was legal under an interpretation of the 4th Amendment. So that ends up being "interpretation of the 4th vs actual word for word text of the 10th." That's why it scares Dems, liberals, etc. It's a rickety house built on sand, and they know it.

Obergefell vs Hodges is much easier. State governments are bound by the 14th Amendment -
In the case of marriage, the state has all manner of laws that confer privileges, rights, etc through the legal contract of marriage. Obergefell v Hodges recognizes this as states making law and oh yeah, you cannot apply them unequally, or institutionally grant those rights/privileges to some and not others. That's a rather simple "uhm, read the 14th Amedment, you jacktards" decision, and until you overrule the 14th with an Amendment that says "sure, the states can discriminate all they like, WGAFF", absolutely nothing will happen to that decision, given it's "precedent" is the 14th freaking Amendment word for word.

Do I think they should be overturned? Yes to Roe, no to Obergefell, and my "opinion" is based entirely on exactly what is written in the US Constitution. Respect it 100%, or not at all. There is no in between.
Obergefell created law. There is no law establishing marriage as anything but the union of a man and a woman. Period. Thus SCOTUS created law...they made law from the bench.

If you want to strike down laws defining marriage, go right ahead. That doesn't magically erect a new law defining it as something else. That's absurd. That's not how the system works. When you strike down a law, its gone. There isn't some replacement that has the opposite meaning in its place. WTF?

There is no such thing as a "gay marriage". What are the odds a gay man would marry a gay woman? Infinitesimally low. So maybe it happened a few times. But other than that...no such thing.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top