Democratic Missouri Gov. Nixon may be impeached over gay marriage decision

Does that 150 years of jurisprudence apply to discriminating against a behavior? Because that is precisely all that homosexuality is: A behavior. And not a very good one at that. Bad behavior = bad morality, and the 14th Amendment does not protect against discrimination toward one group of people's moral standards.

The Windsor ruling was very vague in its contention because of this. Translation: It holds very little weight.

How do I know this? Because for example, Alaska is in the 9th Circuit, and our state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages still stands strong and unchallenged.

You are citing a Colorado case, which is yet another "land of fruits and nuts" second only to California in regards to its liberal laws. If the 14th Amendment truly applied to all groups, regardless of their protected status, then the SCOTUS would have no problem in forcing all of the states to abide by federal gay marriage laws and regarding gays as a protected class. Yet the SCOTUS has not done so. Why is that?

Here is the reason why: because no federal laws exist that define marriage. Period. The 14th Amendment applied to the Romer case because one specific group of people was targeted for oppression under a proposed constitutional amendment; a lack of any status at all by state law would certainly have been unfair and unconstitutional.

Where the gay agenda keeps screwing up is where they insist that federal marriage laws that do not exist MUST be enforced in their favor. They insist that they have a "right" to marry when in reality, no one in the U.S. has a right to marry anybody. Period.

So after the Romer case, once the gays were spared the denial of their protected status, they turned around and demanded that they be given special rights to marriage, even though not a single heterosexual in the United States has the right to marry anyone either. That is typical of the pansy brigade.

 

Even if it was just a behavior, yes. All laws that have any discrimination can be challenged under the 14th amendment, just that most of the time the courts find a legitimate governmental purpose to do so. There are more than a few cases when people bring suit that a law affects their type of job more than other peoples (such as laws that only regulate job A to do something but not job B). These laws must pass 14th amendment tests.

Someone from your state needs to challenge it before it can be struck down. And if it was challenged in the District of Alaska they would be bound by 9th circuit precedent.

Just because Windsor is vague does not mean it holds little weight. Most courts have taken the position that the holding from Windsor means there is no legitimate state interest in banning same-sex marriage. Kennedy does use the language of "legitimate" and "rationally" in his opinion, which has since been interpreted to mean it failed an Equal Protection Clause analysis, and not on issues of Federalism.

Romer is a SCOTUS case, it just happened to go through the Colorado courts first...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Also now you're mixing the supremacy clause with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is not what compels states to comply with Federal Law, that's the Supremacy clause. In fact the Supremacy Clause is what says that states cannot violate the 14th amendment....

The fact there is no federal laws again have nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

As I've said it's any group that's discriminated by a law (whether de jure or de facto) that can challenge it under the 14th amendment. And when they do they court will apply a rational basis review.

Laws also do not need to discriminate on their face to trigger a 14th amendment review either. They can do so by discriminating in their application (de facto) or how they are enforced (discrimination in administration).

You are misinformed about how 14th amendment challenges work.

The is argument that the constitutional amendments have a de facto effect of not allowing gays (as a group) to marry the partners of their choice but they allow heterosexuals to choose partners of their choice. Because the law has this discriminatory effect the argument is they do not have equal protection of the laws. This is an equal protection claim. The equal protection clause does not require a right to be violated, just that different groups are treated differently under the law.

They have also made the argument that marriage is a fundamental right and this is being deprived by the government. This is a substantive due process claim. They are relying on the many cases have said that marriage is a fundamental right and the state is depriving them of that right.

So two claims, both under the 14th amendment, but a right is not needed for an equal protection claim.

SCOTUS has held many times marriage is a fundamental right...

Loving v. Virginia: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland : “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International: “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhall: “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

 

First and foremost, let's discuss what you so interestingly called "familial participation", in fact saying that there would be (paraphrasing) "none of it of any kind". This is a bald-faced lie. I have two nieces and two nephews, my partner has a niece, and we "participate" in their lives ton. We have a lesbian couple that we regularly associate and they have started a family, having a kid together. That's called "familial participation" and the fact that you don't think that it happens shows nothing to anyone but how profoundly ignorant you are to the realities of the world.

You then say that there is no "moral religious consideration". The faith that my partner participates in (I am agnostic on good days, atheist on bad) is 100% inclusive of all sexualities and has been practicing same-sex unions for many years. There is a Church of Christ (I think) somewhere that is suing a state for not including their religious rite of marrying two people of the same-sex. So, just because you want to say that your narrow box of a "moral religious consideration" won't be an issue, you are 100% wrong. There are religions that accept and celebrate same-sex relationships.

The fact of the matter is that everything you have expressed here has been so far to the fringe that I marvel and wonder if you're just a troll profile. You have a pathological inability to back up what you say with sources. In fact, the ONLY link that you have shared was a top ten list from a clearly biased source that had so much INSANE troll logic in it that my head spun.

You have made wild, unsubstantiated claims involving the Nazi party and homosexuality. You have yet to provide a source for this claim, despite the fact that I asked you for one five days ago. I am forced to assume that if you can't find a source in five days, that one doesn't exist, and you pulled that claim out of some orifice I'd rather not imagine.

It's cute watching a puppy try to run with the grown ups, but take some advice, just quit while you're ahead.

 

Is this as ridiculous as what the Dems dream of doing to Gov. Walker in Wisconsin?
(Who in my opinion is doing a great job here in Wisc where I live)

 

And from the mind that does not comprehend, we get this presious little ditty of mindless regurgitation and attempted insults that a person with principles ignores. And the anicdotle set asides fail on its face, as two mommies or two daddies hardly make a family and they certainly did not produce anything. They had to fall back on a natural process to get the desired result.

 

So, I'm assuming that this "Nazi" claim that you made can't be backed up? It's cool. That's what I figured. When someone blatantly pulls (*)(*)(*)(*) out of their ass and tries to sell it to me as gold, I usually see through that pretty quickly.

 

"Nazi" is a false accusation that does more to describe the accussor than it does to describe the responder. Give it a think.

 

I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi, you dolt. I'm asking for a source for the following statement: "In Russia and in Nazi Germany they were used to bring about political change". In what way? What is your source? You haven't provided one.

 

More insults? tsk tsk tsk...I am not going to provide a source for what you wish, mostly because you are rude and mean spirited and really not interested in historical facts and would reject such 'proofs' as partisan fabrications.

 

And because no such proof exists. Have a lovely day.

 

Sure it does. But, you have to read books. Reliance on the internet has made people ignorant and Obama voters.

 

The greatest repository of knowledge in human history makes people ignorant Obama voters...

Okay...

There have been a lot of statements about you being a kid, and I think that your final post actually wraps up that thought pretty well. I'm pretty young myself, 25, and we didn't have the internet growing up until my Junior or Senior year of high school. Until you have lived without the internet, you don't understand what an amazing and valuable tool it is. Yes, it's full of cat pictures and porn but in between all of that, the astute mind can discover just about anything they want to know.

The greatest repository of knowledge in human history makes people Obama voters. LMAO. That's genuinely rich.

Now, if you looked at my book shelf, you would know that I'm a voracious and active reader. You'll see books by Ann Coulter, Marco Rubio, and books from people with whom I ideologically agree as well. And one of the weirdest books you'll find on my bookshelf that is called "The Pink Swastika".

The hilarious thing is that "The Pink Swastika" has been debunked over, and over, and over, and over again, and yet people like you still back it up.

But remember, the greatest repository of knowledge in human history turns people into Obama voters.

 

Yeah. knowledge without moral principles, not to mention values and virtue.

Ah the "your a kid" buffoonery. Lots of lies on the internet, you have to be careful and weight what you read with truth and what you know is right, not trumped up morally diluted social reinterpretations and redefinitions by morally vacant people who want you to believe that they are smarter than you.

Ernst Rohm is a case in point. He was killed by Hitler himself.

 

I'm done. You can spew your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to someone who'll actually listen. Not a single link, not a single fact, just unmitigated, absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Have fun kid.

 

Because the State of Missouri doesn't recognize some doctor's licenses from Maine, but not others.
The state of Missouri recognizes all valid drivers licenses from Maine.
It does however recognize some marriages from Maine, and not others, and that is a problem of equal treatment under the law..

 

Whatever. Many leftist Chairman Soetoro voters do not like it when real Americans refuse to cave into moral vacancy and politically correct positions that contribute to our national decline socially and politically and legally because our constitution has been reduced to a permission slip for decay and corruption. Its not my problem that progressives can not read a book(s) and learn things from them to help historical recidivism.

 

No one chooses to be LGBT.

- - - Updated - - -

You are aware that President Obama is not a left-winger?

 

You won't even tell me the name of the book you pretentious (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

LOL!!! You can't be serious!

 

"Pretentious (*)(*)(*)(*)"? It was not one book, but many. Go to the library and look up The sociology of Nazism and Stalin's Show Trials and Books that Lenin wrote. I will not think for you. I think for myself and that is why I am not a progressive leftist. Plus, I thought you were done with me, guess not.

 

Yes, I can. See, I live in New Zealand which has REAL left-wing politicians. Obama is a Centre-Right politician. If you want to see what a left-wing politician looks like, try researching NZ Prime Ministers like Norman Kirk, Richard Seddon etc.

 

So, telling someone the name of the books that you make grand assertions based on (that the historical community disagrees with nearly to a man) is "thinking for me". Dear God, the insane troll logic that comes out of you is amazing.

- - - Updated - - -

This guy's logic has been an absolute sham this whole time. If he doesn't understand that Obama is indeed a center-right politician, and that America doesn't have a true left-wing party, then we can easily ascertain through all of this that the rest of his politics hold a similarly limited worldview, along with a complete lack of understanding of what a "leftist" is.

And Inviolate, just so you know, I'm the left-winger that Fox News warned you about.

 

So you did not look it because you think you already know. Good enough. Politically correct historians are pleanteous, people who really think, not so much.

 

I would really like for you to show me where any of the absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that you posted was in my post. I asked you for specific names of books, you've thus far told me "Sociology of Nazism" with no author, "books Lenin wrote", of which there are 136, and "Stalin's Show Trials", again with no author and a cursory Google search brings up nothing.

So are you going to continue spewing (*)(*)(*)(*) all over the walls or are you going to actually give me a good list of books to back up your wild theories?