Respect for Marriage Act

News and events of the day
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:39 pm I don’t know that he speaks for four others. That’s pure speculation on your part.

I believe I have the rights enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of rights and the rights passed legislatively by the Congress and signed by the President.

I think the vast majority of Conservatives and Liberals would agree the we have a right to make our own medical decisions. Although that right got severely bent during the pandemic. However, in the case of pregnancy, there is a potential human life involved. Therein lies the rub. Does that unborn life have rights and when do those rights begin and how do you balance those rights with the rights of the mother. I don’t have the answer but I do know that Roe was about much more than the right to privacy and the right to make your own medical decisions.

It isn’t a yes or no question.
You're too gutless to answer the question. Again, do you believe we have the right to privacy under the Constitution? That IS a "yes or no" answer.

That's what cases such as Obergefell, Loving and Griswold are based upon, and these are the cases that Clarence Thomas want to "revisit" in order to overturn.

But it sounds to me like you don't give a shit for the right of women to keep the government from deciding if they live or die. Luckily this woman survived the new Texas laws. You want "small government" unless it's to control women's lives, right? Then you want BIG GOVERNMENT.

And your pandemic deflection was BULLSHIT. NO ONE IN AMERICA was forced to get a shot. NO ONE was forced by the government, and the government didn't make anyone's decision for them. But you're too much of a fuckhead to deal with reality, aren't you?

You're a raging hypocrite.
JoeMemphis

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:02 pm You're too gutless to answer the question. Again, do you believe we have the right to privacy under the Constitution? That IS a "yes or no" answer.

That's what cases such as Obergefell, Loving and Griswold are based upon, and these are the cases that Clarence Thomas want to "revisit" in order to overturn.

But it sounds to me like you don't give a shit for the right of women to keep the government from deciding if they live or die. Luckily this woman survived the new Texas laws. You want "small government" unless it's to control women's lives, right? Then you want BIG GOVERNMENT.

And your pandemic deflection was BULLSHIT. NO ONE IN AMERICA was forced to get a shot. NO ONE was forced by the government, and the government didn't make anyone's decision for them. But you're too much of a fuckhead to deal with reality, aren't you?

You're a raging hypocrite.
So tell me GoU, where is privacy mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights? Do I think we have a right to privacy? Yes. But that right isn’t mentioned in the constitution. And it isn’t absolute.

As far as the right to marry that you mentioned. In my view, it’s an equal protection issue. That’s what the topic is. The right to marry. As far as abortion is concerned, I supported Roe. Said it many times. I’m not so close minded that I ignore the argument is about more than privacy rights. That’s the reality. Deal with it how you choose.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:16 pm So tell me GoU, where is privacy mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights? Do I think we have a right to privacy? Yes. But that right isn’t mentioned in the constitution. And it isn’t absolute.

As far as the right to marry that you mentioned. In my view, it’s an equal protection issue. That’s what the topic is. The right to marry. As far as abortion is concerned, I supported Roe. Said it many times. I’m not so close minded that I ignore the argument is about more than privacy rights. That’s the reality. Deal with it how you choose.
Okay, so you DON'T believe Americans have a right to privacy from the government, and you don't think it's in the Constitution. Got it.

Let's be clear: Several generations of Supreme Court decisions say there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution. But like other conservatives, you think the government can do whatever they want.

So much for smaller government.

And you've SAID you support Roe, but your votes and your actions, and your posts, prove otherwise.

You think the fetus is more important than a woman. Got it. You don't care if the [url-http://radiofreeliberal.com/viewtopic.php?t=1555]government kills the women or not[/url], do you? I knew you would ignore that case and my link. Gutless.
JoeMemphis

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:21 pm Okay, so you DON'T believe Americans have a right to privacy from the government, and you don't think it's in the Constitution. Got it.

Let's be clear: Several generations of Supreme Court decisions say there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution. But like other conservatives, you think the government can do whatever they want.

So much for smaller government.

And you've SAID you support Roe, but your votes and your actions, and your posts, prove otherwise.

You think the fetus is more important than a woman. Got it. You don't care if the [url-http://radiofreeliberal.com/viewtopic.php?t=1555]government kills the women or not[/url], do you? I knew you would ignore that case and my link. Gutless.
You are welcome to believe whatever you choose GoU. Your track record is abysmal but you go ahead anyway. I told you what I believe. The rest is you putting words in my mouth. That’s both gutless and dishonest.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:24 pm You are welcome to believe whatever you choose GoU. Your track record is abysmal but you go ahead anyway. I told you what I believe. The rest is you putting words in my mouth. That’s both gutless and dishonest.
Nope, those are YOUR words. You are the one that says the Constitution doesn't give the citizens of our nation the right to privacy from the government. Now, LOTS of Supreme Court Justices say differently. They say the 14th Amendment DOES give the citizens of our nation the right to privacy.

If we don't have a Constitutional right to privacy from the government, then we ARE NOT FREE.

So much for your belief in limited government.

And what about the life of the woman in Texas I gave you the link for? This is the government YOU VOTE FOR - this is what YOU WANT. You have already said you were fine with the Supremes overturning Roe. You'll also be fine with them overturning Obergefell. We've been through that.

That's the bottom line.

I'm just showing your rank hypocrisy.
JoeMemphis

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:30 pm Nope, those are YOUR words. You are the one that says the Constitution doesn't give the citizens of our nation the right to privacy from the government. Now, LOTS of Supreme Court Justices say differently. They say the 14th Amendment DOES give the citizens of our nation the right to privacy.

If we don't have a Constitutional right to privacy from the government, then we ARE NOT FREE.

So much for your belief in limited government.

And what about the life of the woman in Texas I gave you the link for? This is the government YOU VOTE FOR - this is what YOU WANT. You have already said you were fine with the Supremes overturning Roe. You'll also be fine with them overturning Obergefell. We've been through that.

That's the bottom line.

I'm just showing your rank hypocrisy.
That most certainly is not what I said. Those are your words not mine. Not about privacy and not about Roe. So you are lying. Plain and simple. You are not an honest poster.

So until you show a single post where I said we don’t have privacy rights or until you show a single post where I said I agree with the latest SC decision on Roe there is nothing else for us to talk about.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:48 pm That most certainly is not what I said. Those are your words not mine. Not about privacy and not about Roe. So you are lying. Plain and simple. You are not an honest poster.

So until you show a single post where I said we don’t have privacy rights or until you show a single post where I said I agree with the latest SC decision on Roe there is nothing else for us to talk about.
Are these your words? "where is privacy mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights?"

So, under our Constitution, you don't believe there is a right to privacy. Even though Supreme Court Justices for decades have said there is. But you are on board with Clarence Thomas and the other nutjobs on the right that want to shut down our right to privacy.

But you say we DO have a right to privacy. Well, if we do, where is it?
JoeMemphis

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:53 pm Are these your words? "where is privacy mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights?"

So, under our Constitution, you don't believe there is a right to privacy. Even though Supreme Court Justices for decades have said there is. But you are on board with Clarence Thomas and the other nutjobs on the right that want to shut down our right to privacy.

But you say we DO have a right to privacy. Well, if we do, where is it?
I answered that question. We have all sorts of rights passed by out duly elected representatives. We are a nation of laws and we can pass laws granting rights as long as we do not violate the Constitution. There are tons of privacy laws.

Thanks for admitting you out words in my mouth. Now all you gotta do is correct your lie about my position on Roe.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by Libertas »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:53 pm Are these your words? "where is privacy mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights?"

So, under our Constitution, you don't believe there is a right to privacy. Even though Supreme Court Justices for decades have said there is. But you are on board with Clarence Thomas and the other nutjobs on the right that want to shut down our right to privacy.

But you say we DO have a right to privacy. Well, if we do, where is it?
Rights for him, not for you.

Rights for his ilk, not for CJ or any minority including Women.
I sigh in your general direction.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:44 pm ... my position on Roe. ...
Your position on every topic is special rights for yourselves, curtailed rights for so-called minorities and minoritized people such as all cis and trans women.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:44 pm I answered that question. We have all sorts of rights passed by out duly elected representatives. We are a nation of laws and we can pass laws granting rights as long as we do not violate the Constitution. There are tons of privacy laws.

Thanks for admitting you out words in my mouth. Now all you gotta do is correct your lie about my position on Roe.
No, I QUOTED you. You say the Constitution does not give us a right to privacy from the government.

And you can't show me a law that says we have a right to privacy from the government either.

If we don't have a right to privacy, then we aren't free.

And that's how you like it - you don't give a fuck if women die or not. You think the government should decide whether they carry a fetus or not.

She SURE AS HELL isn't free, now, is she?
JoeMemphis

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:31 pm No, I QUOTED you. You say the Constitution does not give us a right to privacy from the government.

And you can't show me a law that says we have a right to privacy from the government either.

If we don't have a right to privacy, then we aren't free.

And that's how you like it - you don't give a fuck if women die or not. You think the government should decide whether they carry a fetus or not.

She SURE AS HELL isn't free, now, is she?
I asked you a question you did not answer.

Are you at all familiar with Hippa or any number of privacy laws? Are you at. All familiar with the numerous banking laws and regulations surrounding privacy. So yeah GoU, there are lots of privacy laws out there. Laws passed by duly elected representatives. We generally refer to them as the “government”. That’s who cuts their checks.

You can have rights as a citizen that aren’t necessarily mentioned in the constitution. They just need to be passed as laws by the legislature and signed by the executive. You know “the government”.

Tell me GoU. Do YOU think we have a right to privacy in the constitution?
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:26 pm You can have rights as a citizen that aren’t necessarily mentioned in the constitution.
Special rights for whites is unconstitutional.

So are special rights for males, and special rights for heteros.

You OTOH are so stupid you’d actually vote for government right up in hetero-married couples’ beds. :?

Conservatives are such self-loathing people.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:26 pm I asked you a question you did not answer.

Are you at all familiar with Hippa or any number of privacy laws? Are you at. All familiar with the numerous banking laws and regulations surrounding privacy. So yeah GoU, there are lots of privacy laws out there. Laws passed by duly elected representatives. We generally refer to them as the “government”. That’s who cuts their checks.

You can have rights as a citizen that aren’t necessarily mentioned in the constitution. They just need to be passed as laws by the legislature and signed by the executive. You know “the government”.

Tell me GoU. Do YOU think we have a right to privacy in the constitution?
OF COURSE we have the right to privacy from the government in the Constitution. Without privacy, we would NEVER be FREE.

And many great Supreme Court Justices agree with me, over many cases.

Cases like Loving v. Virginia, that said that the government can’t tell them they can’t marry the people they love. or Griswold, that said the government couldn’t ban married couples from purchasing contraception.

Tell me why the government has the right to regulate whether married couples can have contraception. Why the government can tell white people they can’t marry black people.

So explain to me why these cases weren’t decided correctly. Explain to me why the Supreme Court incorrectly decided these cases and why there is NOT a right to privacy in the Constitution.

Go ahead.

Laws can be passed, laws can be repealed. You say you don’t trust the government, but you want to let them decide whether we have our rights, do you, and how they can take them away at will.
JoeMemphis

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:48 pm OF COURSE we have the right to privacy from the government in the Constitution. Without privacy, we would NEVER be FREE.

And many great Supreme Court Justices agree with me, over many cases.

Cases like Loving v. Virginia, that said that the government can’t tell them they can’t marry the people they love. or Griswold, that said the government couldn’t ban married couples from purchasing contraception.

Tell me why the government has the right to regulate whether married couples can have contraception. Why the government can tell white people they can’t marry black people.

So explain to me why these cases weren’t decided correctly. Explain to me why the Supreme Court incorrectly decided these cases and why there is NOT a right to privacy in the Constitution.

Go ahead.

Laws can be passed, laws can be repealed. You say you don’t trust the government, but you want to let them decide whether we have our rights, do you, and how they can take them away at will.
I think I already told you several times in this thread and others that the right to marry IMV is an equal protection issue. I have supported that right for many, many years. So if you want an explanation to the contrary you really need to ask someone who doesn’t believe in that right.

So if you believe we have an absolute privacy right to make our own health care decisions, explain your support for vaccine mandates. People were terminated by public and private employers. Explain to me why the government can decide what I wear? I’ll start believing in your commitment to individual rights, freedom and privacy when you start to apply those principles even when it’s inconvenient for you to do so.

Bottomline, I did not support overturning Roe. Although I agreed with RGB it was poorly decided, I am where I believe a majority of people are. Most folks don’t want unlimited abortion but they also don’t want to force a woman to carry a child to term. So they would support the right to abortion prior to viability and in the case of rape, incest or life of mother.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:14 pm I have supported that right for many, many years.
You vote for overturning it.

Stop gaslighting yourself.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by carmenjonze »

gounion wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:48 pm Without privacy, we would NEVER be FREE.
White-conservative notions of what "freedom" even is, are diametrically opposed to normal peoples'.

Their idea of being "free" is that the government implements social totalitarianism on every other demographic but their own.

The government makes it legal for them to own other people.

The government makes it legal for them to cordon off entire nations onto reservations and steal their children.

The government tells you what clothes you can wear, where you can sit on a bus, what stupid water fountain you can drink out of, what school you can go to as a kid, and what college you can go to as an adult.

The government sez no on their behalf to LGBTQ people serving in the military we pay for.

The government opens doors for robber barons and crooks, and the government can also ruin your credit if you're late on your $50/mo student loan payment.

Not just that, the government is ideally present in their own bedrooms and family practice appointments, to keep them from going off-track.

Heaven forbid a white woman decide not to breed for the white nation.

All of the above things are perfectly "constitutional" for these dumb bigots. It's also worth it to remember these dumb bigots are so immersed in their own supremacy issues, they truly believe we're dependent on them to pass legislation like Respect for Marriage, and ending Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA. :?

And by "we" I mean people who are actually affected by this legislation. These are not abstractions for us.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:14 pm
ProPublica
@propublica

Official
In audio reviewed by @ProPublica, an anti-abortion lobbyist suggests to Tennessee lawmakers that IVF and contraception could be further regulated in a few years’ time.

[AUDIO] - Stephen Billy, SBA Pro-Life America

https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1 ... 4164085761
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by carmenjonze »

Ritchie Torres
@RitchieTorres

BREAKING: The Respect for marriage bill has PASSED in the House.

Today we put the equality of same-sex love in its rightful place: under the protection of federal law.

https://twitter.com/RitchieTorres/statu ... 2857598976
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:14 pm I think I already told you several times in this thread and others that the right to marry IMV is an equal protection issue. I have supported that right for many, many years. So if you want an explanation to the contrary you really need to ask someone who doesn’t believe in that right.

So if you believe we have an absolute privacy right to make our own health care decisions, explain your support for vaccine mandates. People were terminated by public and private employers. Explain to me why the government can decide what I wear? I’ll start believing in your commitment to individual rights, freedom and privacy when you start to apply those principles even when it’s inconvenient for you to do so.

Bottomline, I did not support overturning Roe. Although I agreed with RGB it was poorly decided, I am where I believe a majority of people are. Most folks don’t want unlimited abortion but they also don’t want to force a woman to carry a child to term. So they would support the right to abortion prior to viability and in the case of rape, incest or life of mother.
Again, the Supreme Court has said we have a right to privacy from the government. You don’t agree with that, I get it.

And vaccine mandates? From the government, or from an employer? I am not aware where the government said everyone in America was required to get a vaccine.

Now, as I understand it, (and I haven’t been in the military, but Number Six can say whether I’m right or not), but when you join the military and go overseas, you are required to take many different vaccines. You don’t have a choice. Yet you guys want to turn that upside down, and let soldiers decide whether to take vaccines or not. I’d say that’s putting their lives in danger, but then, the right has always seen the military as cannon fodder anyway.

As to employers making mandates, some things are required for the job. You aren’t forced to take the vaccine, but you may not be able to perform your job without it, so you have the right to quit. Now, under a collective bargaining agreement, that has to be negotiated - and I know it was going to be an issue without our union’s contracts, though I retired before vaccines were available and it became an issue. Sans a CBA, it’s up to the employer, and you have a choice, stay employed or quit. But, it’s an employer-employee thing, NOT a Constitutional thing. Again, a Constitutional right to privacy, just like free speech, is only about the government, not an employee. That’s why companies can fire you for speech you make as an employee. Good reason to have a union contract, where you DO have freedom to speak out on many issues, including safety.

And I take it you’re against public nakedness laws? Is that what you mean that the government makes you wear clothes? Are you saying you shouldn’t be required by the government to wear a uniform, if you’re employed by the government? No police or firefighter uniforms?

So please, explain yourself.

Concerning the Right to Privacy, consider this - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy :
​In Griswold, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court found that when one takes the penumbras together, the Constitution creates a “zone of privacy.” The right to privacy established in Griswold was then narrowly used to find a right to privacy for married couples, regarding the right to purchase contraceptives.

Justice Harlan's Concurrence in Griswold

Additionally, it is important to note Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Griswold, which found a right to privacy derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. In his concurrence, he relies upon the rationale in his dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman (1961). In that opinion, he wrote, "I consider that this Connecticut legislation, as construed to apply to these appellants, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe that a statute making it a criminal offense for married couples to use contraceptives is an intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual's personal life."

In privacy cases post-Griswold, the Supreme Court typically has chosen to rely upon Justice Harlan's concurrence rather than Justice Douglas's majority opinion. Eisenstadt v Baird (1971), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) are two of the most prolific cases in which the Court extended the right to privacy. In each of these cases, the Court relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment, not penumbras.

Extending the Right to Privacy

In Eisenstadt, the Supreme Court decided to extend the right to purchase contraceptives to unmarried couples. More importantly, however, the Court found that "the constitutionally protected right of privacy inheres in the individual, not the marital couple."

In Lawrence, the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the right to privacy to "persons of the same sex [who choose to] engage in . . . sexual conduct." Relying upon the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process, the Court held: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
More at the link. I’m relying on Supreme Court case decisions. What are you relying on?
JoeMemphis

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:43 am Again, the Supreme Court has said we have a right to privacy from the government. You don’t agree with that, I get it.

And vaccine mandates? From the government, or from an employer? I am not aware where the government said everyone in America was required to get a vaccine.

Now, as I understand it, (and I haven’t been in the military, but Number Six can say whether I’m right or not), but when you join the military and go overseas, you are required to take many different vaccines. You don’t have a choice. Yet you guys want to turn that upside down, and let soldiers decide whether to take vaccines or not. I’d say that’s putting their lives in danger, but then, the right has always seen the military as cannon fodder anyway.

As to employers making mandates, some things are required for the job. You aren’t forced to take the vaccine, but you may not be able to perform your job without it, so you have the right to quit. Now, under a collective bargaining agreement, that has to be negotiated - and I know it was going to be an issue without our union’s contracts, though I retired before vaccines were available and it became an issue. Sans a CBA, it’s up to the employer, and you have a choice, stay employed or quit. But, it’s an employer-employee thing, NOT a Constitutional thing. Again, a Constitutional right to privacy, just like free speech, is only about the government, not an employee. That’s why companies can fire you for speech you make as an employee. Good reason to have a union contract, where you DO have freedom to speak out on many issues, including safety.

And I take it you’re against public nakedness laws? Is that what you mean that the government makes you wear clothes? Are you saying you shouldn’t be required by the government to wear a uniform, if you’re employed by the government? No police or firefighter uniforms?

So please, explain yourself.

Concerning the Right to Privacy, consider this - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy :



More at the link. I’m relying on Supreme Court case decisions. What are you relying on?
I have already stated many times on this board that same sex marriage and/or interracial marriage is an equal protection issue as far as I’m concerned. As a matter of fact, I discussed that issue with JDogg years ago.

As far as a right to privacy from the “government”. I assume you mean the constitution and/or a body of law duly passed by our elected representatives. My answer to you is that I do think there is a right to privacy in law. We have numerous laws and case history affirming a right to privacy.

As far as mandates are concerned, if we have an absolute right to make medical decisions for ourselves, it doesn’t matter whether we work for the government or a private employer. But as you pointed out, both the government and private employers compel their employees to make medical choices at risk of their employment. So obviously, this is more than just a question of privacy or an absolute right to privacy. You appear to want it both ways. We either have a right to make our own medical choices or we don’t.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:19 pm I have already stated many times on this board that same sex marriage and/or interracial marriage is an equal protection issue as far as I’m concerned.
:lol: why do you keep repeating this old tired line when confederates don't accept the very concept of "equal protection"?

You clowns are looking to take a jackhammer to the 14th Amendment like a fish, like you guys decimate everything else related to Civil Rights.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 4493
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by Drak »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:19 pm I have already stated many times on this board that same sex marriage and/or interracial marriage is an equal protection issue as far as I’m concerned. As a matter of fact, I discussed that issue with JDogg years ago.
No, you are not, liar. You vote for people who are against it.
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"

- Rage Against the Machine
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:19 pm I have already stated many times on this board that same sex marriage and/or interracial marriage is an equal protection issue as far as I’m concerned. As a matter of fact, I discussed that issue with JDogg years ago.
Again, you mix "opinion" with "fact". It may be equal protection as far as YOU'RE concerned, but the Supreme Court in their rulings say different, as the link I provided in my last post proves.
As far as a right to privacy from the “government”. I assume you mean the constitution and/or a body of law duly passed by our elected representatives. My answer to you is that I do think there is a right to privacy in law. We have numerous laws and case history affirming a right to privacy.

As far as mandates are concerned, if we have an absolute right to make medical decisions for ourselves, it doesn’t matter whether we work for the government or a private employer. But as you pointed out, both the government and private employers compel their employees to make medical choices at risk of their employment. So obviously, this is more than just a question of privacy or an absolute right to privacy. You appear to want it both ways. We either have a right to make our own medical choices or we don’t.
Okay, you lack the basic understanding of our system and the Constitution, and don't even have a high-school Government 101 understanding of it. The Bill of Rights and the other Amendments keeps the government from abridging your rights by law. Like the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is an admonishing for the government. Government can't stop your free speech, and they can't make a law abridging it. But a company or entity doesn't have to allow free speech. You don't have free speech at work, you can get fired for your speech. I need both hands and feet to count all the conservatives that have came to this and the previous boards, and when they shit all over the place, they scream that we can't do anything about it, that we're "infringing on their first amendment rights to free speech". No. Not true. This private board can do whatever it wants, and the first amendment does not apply.

I see you can't understand that basic fact about our Constitution.

As for your "medical choices" crap, you don't believe in that, because you DO believe in the government restricting abortion, even if you say you don't believe in banning it. So, you're being quite hypocritical.

Now, of course, Roe v. Wade, using the Right to Privacy they found in the 14th and other amendments, they didn't say there was an absolute right to an abortion, they tried to, considering the medical knowledge available at the time, to say when abortion was a right that couldn't be legislated away, and a level where states could regulate abortion.

And if you join the military of our nation, you are under different rules than a civilian is. But again, you're just plain ignorant. They have always required certain vaccinations. But suddenly you think that's wrong, eh?

And Drak is right. Your vote for Governor and Senator were both for candidates that are sworn to ban abortion in all cases nationwide.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Respect for Marriage Act

Post by Bludogdem »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:19 pm I have already stated many times on this board that same sex marriage and/or interracial marriage is an equal protection issue as far as I’m concerned. As a matter of fact, I discussed that issue with JDogg years ago.
“ Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in 5-4 decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obergefell_v._hodges

Looks like you got that right.
Post Reply