Respect for Marriage Act

[gounion]

It’s a reinforcement statement supporting “due process of law” for the case. It certainly isn’t a statement of “right to privacy”.

And Obergfell is an “Equal Protection “ ruling.

Sorry, it’s all right to privacy the right wants to shut down.

Along with gay rights. 169 votes in the House and 36 in the Senate against it.

And that’s what you guys want. That’s what you vote for.

[JoeMemphis]

JoeKnowNothing says that there is NO right to privacy under the Constitution of the United States.

Do you agree with him or not? You're sure arguing his case.

I disagree. The Constitution gives us a right to privacy from the government.

GoULiesConstantly can’t show a post where I said such a thing. I did say that a number of SCOTUS justices have opined that the right to privacy is implied. It isn’t stated explicitly in the Constitution. In addition, there are a number of laws passed by our duly elected representatives respecting privacy. That’s what I actually said.

GoULiesConstantly doesn’t speak for me. He rarely speaks for himself. He spends most of his time lying about other posters. Been that was for years.

[Bludogdem]

Sorry, it’s all right to privacy the right wants to shut down.

Along with gay rights. 169 votes in the House and 36 in the Senate against it.

And that’s what you guys want. That’s what you vote for.

Well given that the Supreme Court has ruled these issues are 14th amendment equal protection and due process rights that right to privacy approach won’t be getting very far.

I’m very pleased with the 14th amendment protection accorded by the court. Very , very pleased.

And I was 1 for 2 in the last election. Tim Ryan lost and Greg Landsman won.

[Bludogdem]

GoULiesConstantly can’t show a post where I said such a thing. I did say that a number of SCOTUS justices have opined that the right to privacy is implied. It isn’t stated explicitly in the Constitution. In addition, there are a number of laws passed by our duly elected representatives respecting privacy. That’s what I actually said.

GoULiesConstantly doesn’t speak for me. He rarely speaks for himself. He spends most of his time lying about other posters. Been that was for years.

And again, you are correct.

Not sure if he’s lying. May just be massively faulty reasoning skills.

[Toonces]

Then you and I agree that gay marriage and interracial marriage is not a privacy issue but more an equal protection issue.

It should be treated the same as any other marriage.

[Number6]

It should be treated the same as any other marriage.

As long as both parties in the marriage are human beings they should be treated the same.

[gounion]

GoULiesConstantly can’t show a post where I said such a thing. I did say that a number of SCOTUS justices have opined that the right to privacy is implied. It isn’t stated explicitly in the Constitution. In addition, there are a number of laws passed by our duly elected representatives respecting privacy. That’s what I actually said.

GoULiesConstantly doesn’t speak for me. He rarely speaks for himself. He spends most of his time lying about other posters. Been that was for years.

Right here (bolding mine:

So tell me GoU, where is privacy mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights? Do I think we have a right to privacy? Yes. But that right isn’t mentioned in the constitution. And it isn’t absolute.

So you said the Constitution does NOT give us a right to privacy. And if we don't have a Constitutional right to privacy, then we aren't free.

Now, you are welcome to change your mind and say yes, the Constitution protects our right to privacy, as several Supreme Court decisions say. Or you can continue to say the Constitution does NOT protect our right to privacy.

The ball is in your court. But if you won't, you can't call me a liar.

[gounion]

Well given that the Supreme Court has ruled these issues are 14th amendment equal protection and due process rights that right to privacy approach won’t be getting very far.

I’m very pleased with the 14th amendment protection accorded by the court. Very , very pleased.

And I was 1 for 2 in the last election. Tim Ryan lost and Greg Landsman won.

Let's be clear: If this Supreme Court has it's way, gays will not have a right to marry. 169 GOP Congressmen and 36 Senators do NOT want gays to have a right to marry. They wouldn't even vote for a bill that states must recognize other state's marriages.

But that's how you guys roll.

[Libertas]

Let's be clear: If this Supreme Court has it's way, gays will not have a right to marry. 169 GOP Congressmen and 36 Senators do NOT want gays to have a right to marry. They wouldn't even vote for a bill that states must recognize other state's marriages.

But that's how you guys roll.

Hell, MTG and Musk are on board with doing physical harm to you and me and the rest of the patriots.

Board cons will sit by and say jack shit if that happens.

[gounion]

Here's what Clarence Thomas has to say about these cases. First, he does NOT believe there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, and here's what he says in his concurrence in Dobbs (starting on pg. 119):

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from ourjurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.

*snip*

Now, in this case, the nature of the purported “liberty” supporting the abortion right has shifted yet again. Respondents and the United States propose no fewer than three different interests that supposedly spring from the Due Process Clause. They include “bodily integrity,” “personal autonomy in matters of family, medical care, and faith,” Brief for Respondents 21, and “women’s equal citizenship,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24. That 50 years have passed since Roe and abortion advocates still cannot coherently articulate the right (or rights) at stake proves the obvious: The right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in desperate search of a constitutional justification.

Thomas does NOT believe there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.

He also doesn't believe there is a right for citizens to buy and use contraception, nor is there a right for gays to engage in sex with consenting adults, nor a right to marry. He wants these ALL overturned.

I included the last paragraph because JoeKnowNothing screams about the right to make your own medical decisions (as long as it's refusing vaccines), and Thomas doesn't believe you have any rights to your own medical decisions either.

Obviously Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in any kind of freedom in America.

If this is the world you righties envision, I want nothing to do with it.

But go ahead, make your defense for it.

[carmenjonze]

GoULiesConstantly

Can't you cons do better than imitating what you see?

[carmenjonze]

Let's be clear: If this Supreme Court has it's way, gays will not have a right to marry.

Put another way, conservatives think heterosexuals are supposed to get special rights.

[carmenjonze]

... 14th amendment equal protection and due process rights ...

The only thing conservatives like about the 14th Amendment is using it to claim corporations are "people," while denying actual rights to actual people.

[carmenjonze]

And again, you are correct.

Not only do you conservative Know Nothings not know any actual gay or "gay-married" people, you actively ignore what LGBTQ organizations say about these laws, rulings, and potential rulings.

[JoeMemphis]

It should be treated the same as any other marriage.

I agree.

[gounion]

Can't you cons do better than imitating what you see?

Oh, that's hilarious. Joe trying to strike back like that shows how much it stings.

Joe constantly uses his go-to, the argument from ignorance. He also reminds me of Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes. He's constantly braying "I know nothing!"

[gounion]

The only thing conservatives like about the 14th Amendment is using it to claim corporations are "people," while denying actual rights to actual people.

That's precisely what Clarence Thomas was saying in his Dobbs concurrence. He was saying that the Fourteenth Amendment gave no rights at all to human beings.

[JoeMemphis]

Right here (bolding mine:

So you said the Constitution does NOT give us a right to privacy. And if we don't have a Constitutional right to privacy, then we aren't free.

Now, you are welcome to change your mind and say yes, the Constitution protects our right to privacy, as several Supreme Court decisions say. Or you can continue to say the Constitution does NOT protect our right to privacy.

The ball is in your court. But if you won't, you can't call me a liar.

I said the right to privacy isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. If it is then you should be able to point to it. Some SCOTUS justices have opined that such a right is implied. But it isn’t mentioned explicitly.

But since you say that if don’t have a right to privacy then we aren’t truly “free” then I guess we aren’t truly free. You have stated over and over our rights are limited. Limited by what? By whatever the government decides? One would think that if as you say privacy is the one right essential to our “freedom”, the founders would have mentioned it explicitly along with the others in the Bill of Rights.

You are all about the right to privacy when it comes to issues with which you agree and you are more than willing for the government or private industry to trample upon those rights when it’s an issue you oppose. Is that your idea of being truly “free”?

[carmenjonze]

I said the right to privacy isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. If it is then you should be able to point to it. Some SCOTUS justices have opined that such a right is implied. But it isn’t mentioned explicitly.

But since you say that if don’t have a right to privacy then we aren’t truly “free” then I guess we aren’t truly free. You have stated over and over our rights are limited. Limited by what? By whatever the government decides? One would think that if as you say privacy is the one right essential to our “freedom”, the founders would have mentioned it explicitly along with the others in the Bill of Rights.

You are all about the right to privacy when it comes to issues with which you agree and you are more than willing for the government or private industry to trample upon those rights when it’s an issue you oppose. Is that your idea of being truly “free”?

You dumbshits still think free dumb is owning other people, with on-paper entities being people.

Don’t try to change the subject. Conservatives have been eagerly chipping away at all rights struggles, and overturning your discriminatory laws. It defines you.

[gounion]

I said the right to privacy isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. If it is then you should be able to point to it. Some SCOTUS justices have opined that such a right is implied. But it isn’t mentioned explicitly.

But since you say that if don’t have a right to privacy then we aren’t truly “free” then I guess we aren’t truly free. You have stated over and over our rights are limited. Limited by what? By whatever the government decides? One would think that if as you say privacy is the one right essential to our “freedom”, the founders would have mentioned it explicitly along with the others in the Bill of Rights.

You are all about the right to privacy when it comes to issues with which you agree and you are more than willing for the government or private industry to trample upon those rights when it’s an issue you oppose. Is that your idea of being truly “free”?

I asked you over and over - Do you believe the Constitution protects our right to privacy from the government. You said it isn't mentioned.

That would be a "no".

So don't call me a liar when I say you say there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution.

If you can't marry who you want, if you can't even have contraception, then no, I don't believe I would call that freedom.

And no, I don't believe that industry should be able to trample those rights either. One of the problems we have is the courts have give corporations human rights. I believe that human rights should only be for humans.

[carmenjonze]

I asked you over and over - Do you believe the Constitution protects our right to privacy from the government. You said it isn't mentioned.

That would be a "no".

So don't call me a liar when I say you say there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution.

If you can't marry who you want, if you can't even have contraception, then no, I don't believe I would call that freedom.

And no, I don't believe that industry should be able to trample those rights either. One of the problems we have is the courts have give corporations human rights. I believe that human rights should only be for humans.

They don’t think of us as human beings.

[JoeMemphis]

I asked you over and over - Do you believe the Constitution protects our right to privacy from the government. You said it isn't mentioned.

That would be a "no".

So don't call me a liar when I say you say there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution.

If you can't marry who you want, if you can't even have contraception, then no, I don't believe I would call that freedom.

And no, I don't believe that industry should be able to trample those rights either. One of the problems we have is the courts have give corporations human rights. I believe that human rights should only be for humans.

If I say it isn’t mentioned that’s all that statement means. I also said that some, not all, SCOTUS justices opined it is implied. It is however not mentioned explicitly.

So when you purposely misrepresent someone else’s view, that’s a lie. So the shoe fits. Has for years.

The Constitution does explicitly mention equal protection. I think that applies in the case of interracial marriage and also same sex marriage. As a matter of fact, an equal protection argument could be made for abortion as well.

I will note that you did not address my question as to why such an important right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution along with our other rights. I also note that you can’t explain why if the right to privacy is so essential to our freedom in your opinion, why you favor it in some cases and then easily toss it aside in others. I ask again, is that your idea of being truly “free”?

[gounion]

If I say it isn’t mentioned that’s all that statement means. I also said that some, not all, SCOTUS justices opined it is implied. It is however not mentioned explicitly.

So when you purposely misrepresent someone else’s view, that’s a lie. So the shoe fits. Has for years.

The Constitution does explicitly mention equal protection. I think that applies in the case of interracial marriage and also same sex marriage. As a matter of fact, an equal protection argument could be made for abortion as well.

I will note that you did not address my question as to why such an important right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution along with our other rights. I also note that you can’t explain why if the right to privacy is so essential to our freedom in your opinion, why you favor it in some cases and then easily toss it aside in others. I ask again, is that your idea of being truly “free”?

You answer my question: Does the Constitution protect our right to privacy? Yes or no?

You've never said yes, and you won't answer, so obviously the answer is no.

[JoeMemphis]

You answer my question: Does the Constitution protect our right to privacy? Yes or no?

You've never said yes, and you won't answer, so obviously the answer is no.

I did answer your question. Privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. There is division among legal experts as to whether such a right is implied by certain amendments. Those are opinions and I know how you hate opinions. So the actual fact of the matter is that Privacy is not explicitly listed in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights. Why do you think that is?

My personal opinion is that I can see an argument for an implied right to privacy in certain amendments. Does that extend to all circumstances, I am not quite so sure. I think that is one reason we have loads of legislation duly passed supported by loads of case law on privacy.

I’ll await you answers to my questions. I won’t hold my breath.

[gounion]

I did answer your question. Privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution.

So your answer is no.

There is division among legal experts as to whether such a right is implied by certain amendments. Those are opinions and I know how you hate opinions. So the actual fact of the matter is that Privacy is not explicitly listed in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights. Why do you think that is?

Well, for one thing, language changes over the years. I've seen scholarly writings that privacy didn't have the same meaning over 200 years ago, but I don't know that for a fact. But take a look at these facts:

Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy
Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy?)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.

My personal opinion is that I can see an argument for an implied right to privacy in certain amendments. Does that extend to all circumstances, I am not quite so sure. I think that is one reason we have loads of legislation duly passed supported by loads of case law on privacy.

Again, it's not a hard question, and it's a yes or no: Do you believe the Constitution protects our right to privacy?

YES OR NO?

I’ll await you answers to my questions. I won’t hold my breath.

You're the one that runs away.