Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

• GoPens

  

  God, you two argue like an old married couple...
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1560124 wrote:That doesn't answer the question of what are they waiting for.

  when our independent federal judiciary wishes to.
• Con_Alma

  They have had 50 some years.
  
  Are you suggesting they don't want to right now? If they don't want to then they haven't led anything considering they haven't forced such actions by the States.
• pmoney25

  

  
  
  
  
  Always a tough time when I have to explain to people that I am not that type of conservative. Not all conservatives are southern, hillbilly social conservatives.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1560402 wrote:They have had 50 some years.
  
  Are you suggesting they don't want to right now? If they don't want to then they haven't led anything considering they haven't forced such actions by the States.

  50 years, really
  Interracial civil marriage had been around for centuries, but it had little popular support. In 1967 The court acting independently struck down state laws against it. Gay marriage is a comparatively new concept in civil law. In striking down DOMA, throwing out Prop 8 the Court is a head of the curve.
• Con_Alma

  Yep...50 plus years. The courts have had a precedence for 50 plus years intervening in the States definition of marriage and yet they have not forced the allowance of gay marriage when more people than not think it should be legal.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1560484 wrote:Yep...50 plus years. The courts have had a precedence for 50 plus years intervening in the States definition of marriage and yet they have not forced the allowance of gay marriage when more people than not think it should be legal.

  your math is wrong
• Con_Alma

  If they had the power in 1967, then they had it earlier. They didn't gain the power by rendering a ruling in the Loving case. The Courts only used it and set a precedence. They always had such power...and still haven't used it to this day to force States to allow gay marriage. It's been 50 plus years.
• isadore

  you have made a very good points. the Supreme Court has been progressive on the issue of marriage but many other areas it has been reactionary at best. They have made some horrible decisions over the years.
  
  Hopefully the federal courts act in an enlightened way and end the ban on gay marriage.
  Because if we rely on state action, it maybe decades before some of the red states allow their gay citizens to be married in their states.
  
  Phil Robertson is a racist homophobe.
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• WebFire

  isadore;1561088 wrote: Because if we rely on state action, it maybe decades before some of the red states allow their gay citizens to be married in their states.

  I honestly don't see the problem with this. This is the way our government is supposed to work. Just because not everyone agrees doesn't mean the feds should sweep in and overrule.
• isadore

  WebFire;1561244 wrote:I honestly don't see the problem with this. This is the way our government is supposed to work. Just because not everyone agrees doesn't mean the feds should sweep in and overrule.

  a state government should not be allowed to deny its citizens a basic right.
  That is a major reason why there is a 14th Amendment. It was the reason behind the Loving decision.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  isadore;1561254 wrote:a state government should not be allowed to deny its citizens a basic right.
  That is a major reason why there is a 14th Amendment. It was the reason behind the Loving decision.

  There isn't a right to be accepted by everyone....you don't get a cookie for being different. People have had the ability to arrange their will and living will to maintain their estate and let anyone be a beneficiary. Most people are tolerant, and unfortunately there may be those who aren't, but acceptance is not a given.
• sherm03

  

  WebFire;1561244 wrote:I honestly don't see the problem with this. This is the way our government is supposed to work. Just because not everyone agrees doesn't mean the feds should sweep in and overrule.

  So just curious and off topic. Are you also pro-choice, and for the legalization of weed, too?
• OSH

  

  I imagine people will be buying the new Duck Dynasty guns that Mossberg will be making.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1561254 wrote:a state government should not be allowed to deny its citizens a basic right.
  That is a major reason why there is a 14th Amendment. It was the reason behind the Loving decision.

  I do have a question for you, and I'm being genuine in my curiosity, so please take the question with the sincerity in which it's asked.
  
  Why do you think state-recognized marriage, of any kind, is a basic right?
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• isadore

  Manhattan Buckeye;1561256 wrote:There isn't a right to be accepted by everyone....you don't get a cookie for being different. People have had the ability to arrange their will and living will to maintain their estate and let anyone be a beneficiary. Most people are tolerant, and unfortunately there may be those who aren't, but acceptance is not a given.

  What?
  We should not require everyone to accept everyone. But people should not be denied basic rights because of discrimination. The state should not deny people a basic right. Phil Robertson should be able to express his racist, homophobic opinions and others should be able to criticize him for it.
  I was hoping to a get a cookie and then leave it as part of my estate to GLAAD.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1561299 wrote:I do have a question for you, and I'm being genuine in my curiosity, so please take the question with the sincerity in which it's asked.
  
  Why do you think state-recognized marriage, of any kind, is a basic right?

  I am not enamored to Civil marriage. But the Supreme Court has defined the right to marriage as a basic right. And since it has chosen to grant that right to heterosexual couples with its attendant benefits then it should be available to gays.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1561381 wrote:I am not enamored to Civil marriage. But the Supreme Court has defined the right to marriage as a basic right. And since it has chosen to grant that right to heterosexual couples with its attendant benefits then it should be available to gays.

  By the letter of the law, isn't the same right available to all, regardless of orientation?
  
  "Couples" are not granted rights. Individuals are. I know you know this, but I'm simply trying to be clear. What right does male Individual A have that male Individual B doesn't have, regardless of sexual orientation?
• isadore

  O-Trap;1561490 wrote:By the letter of the law, isn't the same right available to all, regardless of orientation?
  
  "Couples" are not granted rights. Individuals are. I know you know this, but I'm simply trying to be clear. What right does male Individual A have that male Individual B doesn't have, regardless of sexual orientation?

  The right to civil marriage (defined as a basic right by the Supreme Court) to the consenting adult of a person’s choice is being denied to gays and lesbians in the majority of states. They are being denied equal protection of the law and due process. “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment..” Quote from the Loving decision on interracial marriage but applicable to the present issue.
  Phil Robertson is a racist homophobe.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1561933 wrote:The right to civil marriage (defined as a basic right by the Supreme Court) to the consenting adult of a person’s choice is being denied to gays and lesbians in the majority of states.

  Was that the language as outlined by the documents to date, though? "Of a person's choice?"
  
  "Choice" is a pretty subjective term, and I don't think legislation is traditionally based on personal preference.
  
  As it currently stands, it would seem that all citizens are denied the ability to marry (strictly in the legal sense, of course) an adult of the same gender. That includes both those who would want to and those who wouldn't want to. Conversely, it seems that all citizens are granted the ability to marry (again, in a legal sense) an adult of the opposite gender, and that includes both those who would want to and those who wouldn't want to.
  
  That's the letter of the law, is it not?
  
  I'm not suggesting that same-sex marriages ought not be legal. I'm not even suggesting they aren't discriminatory in another way. But it seems to me that all men are under the same rule, both gay and straight, and all women are under the same rule, both gay and straight.
  

  isadore;1561933 wrote:They are being denied equal protection of the law and due process.

  If you could explain how, given my thoughts above, would you please? I'm genuinely wanting to hear the rationale.
  

  isadore;1561933 wrote:“To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment..” Quote from the Loving decision on interracial marriage but applicable to the present issue.

  Here's the distinction I see, and it's one the quote does touch on rather well (so I do appreciate you citing it): The basis of race ... the identity of the person himself/herself ... is that which is used to distinguish what can and cannot be done in the Loving decision.
  
  In the current situation, I think the quote FURTHER lends support to the notion that the current laws which still prohibit same-sex unions are discriminatory against gender. Replace "racial" in the statement with "gender."
  

  isadore;1561933 wrote:Phil Robertson is a racist homophobe.

  We weren't really talking about him, but okay.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1561996 wrote:Was that the language as outlined by the documents to date, though? "Of a person's choice?"
  
  "Choice" is a pretty subjective term, and I don't think legislation is traditionally based on personal preference.
  
  As it currently stands, it would seem that all citizens are denied the ability to marry (strictly in the legal sense, of course) an adult of the same gender. That includes both those who would want to and those who wouldn't want to. Conversely, it seems that all citizens are granted the ability to marry (again, in a legal sense) an adult of the opposite gender, and that includes both those who would want to and those who wouldn't want to.
  
  That's the letter of the law, is it not?
  
  I'm not suggesting that same-sex marriages ought not be legal. I'm not even suggesting they aren't discriminatory in another way. But it seems to me that all men are under the same rule, both gay and straight, and all women are under the same rule, both gay and straight.
  
  
  
  If you could explain how, given my thoughts above, would you please? I'm genuinely wanting to hear the rationale.
  
  
  
  Here's the distinction I see, and it's one the quote does touch on rather well (so I do appreciate you citing it): The basis of race ... the identity of the person himself/herself ... is that which is used to distinguish what can and cannot be done in the Loving decision.
  
  In the current situation, I think the quote FURTHER lends support to the notion that the current laws which still prohibit same-sex unions are discriminatory against gender. Replace "racial" in the statement with "gender."
  
  
  
  We weren't really talking about him, but okay.

  The Supreme Court quote is appropriate. The term abridging seems very applicable. By denying some people the right to marry based on gender we are abridging their right to marry in a discriminatory fashion. They are being denied a basic right for no good reason.. They are not receiving equal protection of our laws.
  With any discriminatory law, the burden of proof to justify its existence is on the government. Those being discriminated against do not need to prove why they should have the right, the government must show an overwhelming need for the law for the protection of society.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1562176 wrote:The Supreme Court quote is appropriate. The term abridging seems very applicable. By denying some people the right to marry based on gender we are abridging their right to marry in a discriminatory fashion. They are being denied a basic right for no good reason.. They are not receiving equal protection of our laws.
  With any discriminatory law, the burden of proof to justify its existence is on the government. Those being discriminated against do not need to prove why they should have the right, the government must show an overwhelming need for the law for the protection of society.

  I agree. The abridgment is very much based on gender, which is why I've insisted that denying the recognition of same-sex marriage is indeed one of gender discrimination.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1562365 wrote:I agree. The abridgment is very much based on gender, which is why I've insisted that denying the recognition of same-sex marriage is indeed one of gender discrimination.

  I hope that the federal courts would understand and act on the basis of gender discrimination. I have been convinced that the courts have been slow to act. But I think they will act sooner for several of that states to act. It could be multiple decades for some states to change their laws and even their state constitutions to allow gay marriage. Or for action on the federal level as long as it takes 60 votes to get action in the US Senate.