The Political Thread

[Kross Rhodes]

Some people warned that it faced potential danger. But the vast majority of people didn't really believe it.

You know that is fact.

Belief isn’t what I’m worried about.

 

[Dakstang]

Belief isn’t what I’m worried about.

I say you are wrong. You say I am wrong.

Only time will tell.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

I say you are wrong. You say I am wrong.

Only time will tell.

I mean the 14th Amendment is there. Just gotta read it.

 

[Dakstang]

I mean the 14th Amendment is there. Just gotta read it.

It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret it.

We can argue about interpretation till the cows come home and it won't amount to a pile of poop.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret it.

We can argue about interpretation till the cows come home and it won't amount to a pile of poop.

“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Not sure what’s open to interpretation there.

 

[Dakstang]

“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Not sure what’s open to interpretation there.

"equal protection of the laws"

What is equal protections? Does it mean it has to be defined as "marriage"?

Or is a civil union with the same benefits "equal"?

etc.....

 

[Kross Rhodes]

I’m not even saying Thomas won’t try, but it won’t be based on the constitution and I don’t think the younger Justices, even if they lean conservative, are gonna flagrantly pretend they don’t know what equal protections under the law means.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

"equal protection of the laws"

What is equal protections? Does it mean it has to be defined as "marriage"?

Or is a civil union with the same benefits "equal"?

etc.....

Yes. Straight people are allowed to get marry so you can’t deny that same law or protection to same sex attracted people.

And we already ruled separate but equal was discriminatory.

 

[Dakstang]

I’m not even saying Thomas won’t try, but it won’t be based on the constitution and I don’t think the younger Justices, even if they lean conservative, are gonna flagrantly pretend they don’t know what equal protections under the law means.

It is nowhere near as cut and dry as you are trying to make it.

If it were so Clarence Thomas wouldn't be inviting challenges to it.

You can pretend like that all you want but all you are doing is fooling yourself.

I can't articulate a legal argument or constitutional argument on it. But rest assured there are those who have been working on it for some time waiting on the opportunity.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

It is nowhere near as cut and dry as you are trying to make it.

If it were so Clarence Thomas wouldn't be inviting challenges to it.

You can pretend like that all you want but all you are doing is fooling yourself.

I can't articulate a legal argument or constitutional argument on it. But rest assured there are those who have been working on it for some time waiting on the opportunity.

It really is cut and dry.

You can’t say one group can do something that another group cannot by law. It’s pretty black and white. Constitutionally, by the Civil Rights Act, and by the Supreme Court itself in 2020.

 

[Bobby Barrows]

Nah man, marriage is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, Smark. Don't you understand? smurfs and birdies aren't people and therefore aren't equal.

 

[Bobby Barrows]

And yes, that language was on purpose.

 

[Dakstang]

It really is cut and dry.

You can’t say one group can do something that another group cannot by law. It’s pretty black and white. Constitutionally, by the Civil Rights Act, and by the Supreme Court itself in 2020.

Yes.

I am sure you possess a greater Constitutional mind than Clarence Thomas.

Come on man. It is your opinion. Stop trying to make it something more.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

Yes.

I am sure you possess a greater Constitutional mind than Clarence Thomas.

Come on man. It is your opinion. Stop trying to make it something more.

If he’s saying gay people aren’t equal, he’s not thinking constitutionally.

 

[Dakstang]

If he’s saying gay people aren’t equal, he’s not thinking constitutionally.

I don't know what the interpretation is going to be. I don't know what he is basing it on.

Once again, us debating it means nothing.

The ruling is all that matters.