XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor
From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
news:mn6q3e$n7b$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/3/2015 1:17 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> When LEGISLATION is judged against the constitution, the result is pass
>> or fail. If pass, nothing else. If fail, then the legislation is
>> reworked or abandonded. But when the voters of a state pass an amendment
>> to the constitution, then that is a higher hurdle to knock down than
>> mere legislation passed by a governing body.
>
> When it comes to whether it is constitutional under the federal
> constitution, it makes no difference how it was passed. Ordinary
> legislation and a state constitutional amendment have to overcome the same
> hurdle.
>
>> Everything in marriage is available through the legal system to gays.
>
> That's not true. For example, you can't collect spousal Social Security
> benefits if you are not married.
>
>
That's a specious argument, Josh. Lots of straight couples actively avoid
marriage for a variety of reasons, and they forego spousal SS benefits. Yes,
they _can_ get married but for personal reasons they do not.
Are we now supposed to create a new class of unmarried people to give SS
benefits to in the name of treating them equally? I think not.
>> nothing says gays cannot marry, so they must be
>> allowed to. More dumb is that anybody bought the argument, and now we
>> have gay marriage.
>
> Yes, that's a dumb argument. But, The Court did not use that argument.
It's the argument made (one of them) by gay rights advocates -- There is no
specific ban on gay marriage, therefore it must be allowed. It is precisely
the argument made in all states where the state courts imposed gay marriage.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
