The Political Thread

[Swamps]

How come no one has considered any of the pregnant men's feelings in this?

 

[Deezy]

Because we don't assume gender identity.

Birth givers and people who menstruate is the appropriate term.

 

[Smart Marx]

I doubt anyone here is planning on spending any money but for the love of God don't donate to Nancy fucking Pelosi lol there's better candidates running to actually get elected this year if you must but there's a lot of clinics in red states who provide much more than abortions but will have their budgets slashed and need all the help they can get for the other care the women need that they can legally provide

Not to mention it does no good to donate money for this cause to federal politicians. You need to elect people to your state houses and Government. That’s where this fight continues on now.

You can even donate money to out of state Governors like Massachusetts who just signed an executive order saying he would welcome all out of state women and would refuse to cooperate if your state tries to interfere or charge you for doing so.

 

[Deezy]

Not to mention it does no good to donate money for this cause to federal politicians. You need to elect people to your state houses and Government. That’s where this fight continues on now.

 

[Smart Marx]

complain to smark idc lmao I'm not trying to ban or even warn you, I'm not going to bring any of this shut outside of this thread and it's easy to ignore you elsewhere so there's no others convos to be had not in this thread

Why you bringing me into this?

 

[Chris]

Well he laid out a whole case against your biased mods

 

[Hidden Blaze]

I just wanna point out, I was extremely polite to Dak yesterday, and he didn’t even think of giving me credit for that when he shit on the rest of the folks for calling him names. you try and be nice to someone who doesn’t even deserve it, and he can’t even acknowledge it.

 

[Deezy]

I was nothing but polite.

troll job.

 

[Smart Marx]

I knew it had been discussed. I was more referring to that part about why overturning Roe v. Wade pertained to the other.

They were procedurally similar meaning if one is thrown out the other should be as well. Since the Supreme Court should not legislate.

That is they tying bind here. My opinion on gay marriage doesn't matter. My whole gripe was how they went about it. Pass a Federal Law legalizing or amend the Constitution and I have no complaints.

I know it is hard for people like you to show reason and think about things instead of taking it personal but try for me. Ok?

*wink*

The 14 Amendment was passed in 1868.

The Equal Protection Clause is the relevant section:

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.

The Supreme Court also ruled only two years ago that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to sexual orientation and is applicable to any public accommodation, government program or employment position.

There’s also the 1st Amendment that grants religious freedom to everyone and while I wouldn’t want to force any particular church to perform a ceremony against their own religious freedom, the government shouldn’t be able to intervene on your behalf if your freedom includes getting married to someone of your same orientation or gender.

There’s also dozens of state and local discrimination laws that would bolster the original decision.

 

[Dakstang]

The 14 Amendment was passed in 1868.

The Equal Protection Clause is the relevant section:


The Supreme Court also ruled only two years ago that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to sexual orientation and is applicable to any public accommodation, government program or employment position.

There’s also the 1st Amendment that grants religious freedom to everyone and while I wouldn’t want to force any particular church to perform a ceremony against their own religious freedom, the government shouldn’t be able to intervene on your behalf if your freedom includes getting married to someone of your same orientation or gender.

There’s also dozens of state and local discrimination laws that would bolster the original decision.

The point is the Supreme Court cannot legislate and that is in effect what they did with that ruling.

It should have been achieved via a Federal Law, or an Amendment to the Constitution. And that decision....just like Roe v. Wade.....will be overturned and returned to the jurisdiction of the state until Congress passes something at the Federal level.

 

[Smart Marx]

So before it was made an amendment - did Dak think slavery was OK? Because the constitution allowed it? On his logic - he was PRO SLAVERY

I don’t think that makes anyone pro slavery, but that amendment was needed. If it hadn’t been passed, the weaker emancipation clause that was only actually effective in states in active rebellion wouldn’t hold up when pro slavery was back in power.

 

[Dakstang]

I just wanna point out, I was extremely polite to Dak yesterday, and he didn’t even think of giving me credit for that when he shit on the rest of the folks for calling him names. you try and be nice to someone who doesn’t even deserve it, and he can’t even acknowledge it.

I never said anything bad about you.

I'll never understand people who personally attack others for having different political and/or religious opinions.

Especially those who claim to be inclusive and accepting.

It is mind boggling they can justify personal insults and attacks that easily.

I don't deserve niceness just because I disagree?

No wonder this country so divided.

 

[CakeWalker]

I don’t think that makes anyone pro slavery, but that amendment was needed. If it hadn’t been passed, the weaker emancipation clause that was only actually effective in states in active rebellion wouldn’t hold up when pro slavery was back in power.

The point I was making - is that he hiding behind the fact that "its not legal or wasn't done legal" - but doesn't have the stones to actually have a personal opinion despite it being so clear. I just knew if I made an extreme example - he wouldn't respond nor would be able to say "YOU DAMN LIBERAL"

 

[Smart Marx]

The point is the Supreme Court cannot legislate and that is in effect what they did with that ruling.

It should have been achieved via a Federal Law, or an Amendment to the Constitution. And that decision....just like Roe v. Wade.....will be overturned and returned to the jurisdiction of the state until Congress passes something at the Federal level.

They didn’t. The 14th already rules you can’t stop a group of people doing something that’s legal for other groups based on their immutable characteristics. And there’s plenty of laws I cited that only embolden that law.

Roe isn’t the same. They ruled that based off privacy and even Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew it would eventually be overturned.

 

[Hidden Blaze]

I never said anything bad about you.

I'll never understand people who personally attack others for having different political and/or religious opinions.

Especially those who claim to be inclusive and accepting.

It is mind boggling they can justify personal insults and attacks that easily.

I don't deserve niceness just because I disagree?

No wonder this country so divided.

That wasn’t an attack. It was me saying how you want to strip rights away from people, and to me that’s fucked up. If you think that’s an attack then well, I don’t wanna see you call anyone soft.