Is it? The Fourteenth Amendment was used in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, making interracial marriage legal. But it doesn't exactly cover same-sex marriage. I would like Paul to fully support gay marriage, but at least he's more lenient towards it than the other republicans. I'm not going to quit supporting him just based on that one issue.

My point is that he doesn't want to flat out dictate the issue like the other republicans. The others don't even want states to have the right. The only one that is more lenient towards it is Obama, but I still think Paul is better. If it can't be Paul, which it won't, then I'll support Obama. So, looks like I'm supporting Obama.

But, again, the fact that the other republicans suck doesn't somehow make me like Paul.

It makes me like him more, considering he's the best candidate.

That's a little like saying he's the least smelly piece of dog shit. And, honestly, I don't even know if he's that.

So I guess you support Obama, if anyone.

Why doesn't it exactly cover it? Read the 14th Amendment. Tell me why it won't cover it?

States Rights has been horribly corrupted because every time its been invoked, historically, it has been over an issue that wasn't a states right.

Incarcerated murders and child molesters are allowed to marry, but gay people are not? It's disgraceful.

That's why the federal government has the power to override when a state infinges on the rights on the individual that are granted by the constitution.

Yeah thats fine, but why doesn't it cover gay marriage?

Eh? Really, every time it's been invoked it's been over an issue that wasn't within their rights? While I recognize you're being hyperbolic, an easy example is the portion of the Civil Rights Act of '64 which changed the interpretation of the Bill of Rights from governing the relationship between The Government & The Governed to relationships between the Governed. The most obvious example being forcing private businesses to desegregate.



Well, the relevant section of the 14th amendment is:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Maintaining marriage is between two people of different sexes =/= not denying homosexuals life, liberty or property. Homosexuals can still marry and recieve all the benefits therein, they just can't marry people of the same sex. So what this is about, then, is the definition of marriage.

What i mean to say is "nullification" was never something allowed by the 10th Amendment. Also, what is that an example of.

As for your position on marriage equality, my question back to you is "why can't they marry people of the same sex?" Marriage isn't specified in the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment is the trumping law given American Laws hierarchy. So states banning gay marriage are illegal by virtue of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't know exactly why there isn't specifically anything about gay marriage in it.

So then you agree with me. Given the wording, and the absence of exception, Gay Marriage is currently, under the Constitution, legal.

I guess people who oppose gay marriage interpret it in their favor.

My guess is he's holding out for an Al Gore / Hillary Clinton ticket.

yeah but as I said to HHB, thats like people saying Slavery should be legal despite the large pool of founding documents that say it isn't.

Well if Obama doesn't get reelected.....can we have him?

Yes. Although if Gingrich ends up being the GOP nominee, we will have to keep him 4 more years.

Perfect. I'll just get a screenshot of that, to make it all official like.

Hey, I'm just one voter, probably in the minority on most issues, I can't make any promises.

But in all seriousness, I think Obama will be doing 8 years. None of the other GOP candidates other than Mitt or Ron Paul have a chance to beat Obama.

He's not nearly as bad as some folks, who get paid to hate him, say he is. Im voting for him because I think if he loses it will reinforce the sort of political non-sense we've seen since 2009.

Of whom are you speaking? Obama?

:laughing:

Yes.

I support Obama over all other republicans except Paul. But I'm not sure if he deserves another term. What good has he done since he got elected?

If you're seriously asking that, you haven't been paying attention.

You should really be asking "why have all the republicans been stone-walling the **** out of obama and trying to **** up our whole country and the middle and lower class even more".

Well, he's done some good things like make the environment a priority and brought some troops back home, but the economy is in pretty bad shape.

Better than when he came into office.

My head is about to explode. What did he do to the economy except improve it?

Certainly better than Bush.

Calm down, man. I'm not trying to piss you off. Just asked a question. I've just been watching too many republican debates.

Well if it makes you feel any better, it was a general explosion. Not at you. I read too many comments on Politico articles.

Here, try this: What the heck has Obama done so far?

Yes, I've looked at that before. I guess I was just looking for a direct answer from you.

Also guilty of overlooking the fact that there's only so much a president can do in four years. And what I mean by that is of course he can't whip it up into to perfect shape in four years, considering what he inherited from Bush.

But the unemployment rate has risen in Obama's term.

1. Whats the difference between me giving you facts or a website?

2. Its not "in 4 years" even, its "at all". Congress is the driving force in this country. Its why they're first in the constitution, its why they have the control of the finances.

3. Its not fair to blame Bush 43 alone. It was 30 years of undoing financial regulation we had had in place since the 1930's. I think Congress repealed Glass-Stegal in '98 or '99 and that's what lead to most of this.

4. The unemployment is falling. Jobs are coming home. Jobs are a lagging indicator. And we're slashing the debt by moving troops out at a more rapid rate.

What else do you want from the guy?

1. There is no difference, I just asked you for some reason :laughing:

I was just simply stating that the unemployment has gone up since he took over.

States denying same-sex marriage would only be illegal, under the auspices of the 14th amendment, if the Federal Government made same-sex marriage legal (or, rather, recognized it is as equal to heterosexual marriages). However, due to the relative lack of Federal Laws regarding marriage, as this area has traditionally been left to the states, the only realistic way this could happen is an Amendment to the Constitution. This is why Conservatives moved for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.

You may have a bone to pick with the Defense of Marriage Act, as that arguably messes with the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” of the Constitution.

I dunno man, I'm seeing a fair bit of "increased funding for..."

What's wrong with government funding? it's far more productive than lowering taxes for the higher brackets.