XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/8/2015 1:54 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >   
   > "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.   
      
   I agree (it was Peter's idea).  And now that marriage equality is the   
   law of the land, we don't have to.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   That's nonsense.  Please provide citations to back your claim.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)