Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee; Servant of the Cross
So, why don't we make it simple and see how you respond to a couple of YES or NO questions? (I learned a long time ago that the surest sign of a troll on FR was their unwillingness to answer such questions.)

1. Should it be up to the individual states to decide if same-sex marriage is legal or not? YES or NO

2. If a state does allow same-sex marriage, must other states and the federal government recognize it under the equal protection clause? YES or NO

Actually, the assumption that every question can be sufficiently answered Yes or No is an infantile shallow opinion. Some can of course, but a lot of issues are simply not that way. So your entire premise is flawed. Actually both of your foundational premises above are flawed.

As to question 1, I don't know if it "should" be up to the individual states, because that was NOT the issue here. The issue here was whether or not the state route was the best way to uphold traditional marriage. And my answer is it probably is. Just probably. I never said 100%, and I don't say that now. And I think that was Beck's point.

As to question 2, you can ask 100 lawyers and get 100 different answers probably. I prefer to deal in the real and practical, and not always get in the weeds of the legal and the hypothetical. All I can say is, the last time I checked, there was no huge migration of gay couples from other states into a state where gay marriage is not allowed. My suggestion to you is to look at it this way: having such an amendment passed will likely discourage gay couples from moving in. This is another reason why the answer to question 1 is, as I said, probably.

578 posted on 12/14/2012 7:46:22 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies ]


To: C. Edmund Wright; wagglebee

I’ve seen very few posters who have labored so persistently to ensure that their beliefs are incapable of being discerned. Is that your intent?


579 posted on 12/14/2012 7:58:31 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies ]

To: C. Edmund Wright; xzins; P-Marlowe; wmfights; little jeremiah; ansel12; greyfoxx39; trisham; ...
Actually, the assumption that every question can be sufficiently answered Yes or No is an infantile shallow opinion. Some can of course, but a lot of issues are simply not that way. So your entire premise is flawed. Actually both of your foundational premises above are flawed.

Got it, you are taking the "one must examine all of the nuances" route so favored by pseudo-intellectuals.

As to question 1, I don't know if it "should" be up to the individual states, because that was NOT the issue here. The issue here was whether or not the state route was the best way to uphold traditional marriage. And my answer is it probably is. Just probably. I never said 100%, and I don't say that now. And I think that was Beck's point.

I'll take that as a YES.

As to question 2, you can ask 100 lawyers and get 100 different answers probably. I prefer to deal in the real and practical, and not always get in the weeds of the legal and the hypothetical. All I can say is, the last time I checked, there was no huge migration of gay couples from other states into a state where gay marriage is not allowed.

Have you got an actual SOURCE that you are prepared to cite? Or is this just speculation?

People move all the time, to suggest that homosexual don't is absurd. This is far from hypothetical.

My suggestion to you is to look at it this way: having such an amendment passed will likely discourage gay couples from moving in. This is another reason why the answer to question 1 is, as I said, probably.

So, in your hypothetical universe, you believe SCOTUS will uphold amendments to state constitutions that discourage homosexuals from relocating?

580 posted on 12/14/2012 8:00:18 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson