Jindal- If SCOTUS strikes down Gay Marriage bans, amend the Constitution-

The short answer is that it can't be challenged on constitutional grounds since it is in fact part of the constitution. HOWEVER, passing a ban on same sex marriage could certainly create a constitutional crisis because such an amendment would clearly be in conflict with the 5th and 14th amendments. I would foresee decades of congressional and judicial battles to try to sort it out and it would clearly call into question the integrity of the constitution in general and specifically the amendment process. It's just a really stupid idea. It would create an official underclass that would sow the seeds of unrest much the way that allowing slavery by the founders led to a good deal of trouble later.

 

gender is very easy to see... same sex marriage is based on gender, "sex" in this case equals "gender", two of the same gender marrying

I do not care what their sexual orientation is, if two heterosexual male bests friends want to marry, have at it

many heterosexual marriages I disagree with, young gold digging teen girls marrying old perverted rich males... but I would not make it illegal as long as both were consenting adults

.

 

Hmmm, I think this is a misunderstanding of rights.... just because something is "natural", that doesn't necessarily mean it is protected. Similarly, just because something is a choice or otherwise not completely identifiable as "natural", that doesn't mean the government has a legitimate interest in regulating with no protection from interference.

Let's take a close example... Could the government limit your choice in who you marry to some particular individual which I'll name "Susan Smith". What if you would rather marry "Nancy Freeman"? There's nothing "natural" about your choice in who you marry, it's a choice. What if the government wanted to limit your choice to who you can marry to only people who have never eaten broccoli or asparagus? These are choices, not natural, so does that mean the government can regulate on this basis? I hope you agree that it would be absurd to suppose the government should have the ability to regulate this choice without a very good reason for doing so, among a great many other choices that the government has no business interfering in. So the question is, does the government have a good reason for limiting the choice based on gender? The fact that the choice for a particular gender may or may not be "natural" isn't relevant, only that the restriction has some relation to a legitimate state interest.

Put differently, an "immutable characteristic" isn't just something natural like race. An immutable characteristic includes anything central to a person's identity, something that someone should not be expected or required to chance in order to obtain the right in question.

 

Cap'n, if you are to speak for me then at least get it right

I have ALWAYS said that the act of gay sex is the sin. I am consistent

One cannot engage in gay sex and be Christian.

But, just like infidelity, stealing etc, if you stop the act, ask forgiveness, then all is good

I have been consistent about that. But, make no bones about it, engage in gay sex and you are not Christian.

 

None of that was the point....

If a person is attracted to the same gender, but is celibate NOW...even if they enaged in homosexual sex in the past.....are they "not homosexual" in your view?

 

Cap'n, if I have not smoked for 10 years, am I still a smoker?

 

Ah but using your example when someone is attracted to the same sex that is a current thing. They are still homosexual. Now they may not engage in a homosexual act, but if they are still attracted to the same sex they are homosexual.

Using you examole they would have to STOP being attracted to the same sex to stop being homosexual
There are Christians who have stopped engaging in homosexual acts by they are still attracted to the same sex which would make them Christian in your eyes if they accepted the Homosexual acts as being wrong and accepted the Jesus christ.

 

so, if someone never has sex, are they homosexual or heterosexual?

they can claim anything they want

the difference between you and me is how we have sex. I have sex with the opposite sex

We do not breathe any different nor are you a different species

it's about the sex act and all the noise about "gay rights' is looking for special accord over a sex act

 

It isn't the homosexual sex that makes someone homosexual, it's being attracted to the same sex that makes someone homosexual. Your comments get continually beaten because you don't understand that simple concept.

 

This is not a question that can be answered in the abstract. Constitutionality is not based merely on how a law was passed, but whether that exercise of power was itself legitimate. This can't be determined without the full context of the specific instance in question.

 

is a person a thief if they never steal?

Let's see if you are consistent with your logic

 

When you understand what sexuality is let us know. Look it up, you're embarrasing yourself. Being a thief is based on the actions of stealing. Being homosexual is based on the attraction to the same sex.

 

that is the definition that you need and I understand the motivation behind it

do you walk differently than me?
Do you breathe differently?
Are you a different species?
Are you a 3rd sex?

No, you have sex differently, that's it.

It's nothing special

why do you wish to be classified based upon how you have sex?

 

How do I have sex differently?

 

Arx, just a warning....sec uses the personal pronoun "you" against you in his responses ....but if you use "you" on him in a response....he screams "discussing the poster, not the post" and Reports you.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine, so if a woman is sexually attracted to men....and is not a virgin, she's had sex with men in the past....but is currently celibate...

she is "not heterosexual".....uh...right?

 

That depends on who they are attracted to

Except it is not a claim, it is a fact.

No the difference is who they find sexually attractive and are attracted to, sex is but the end product (sometimes) of that attraction.

Which is irrelevant

no it is not, no matter how many times you attempt to foist that erroneous opinion it will still be wrong.

 

Nope, same species. The only thing that is different is the attraction to whichever sex.

No homosexuals don't have sex differently than heterosexuals. That has very little to do with it. It is more about the sex of the people one is attracted to.

Of course it isn't, you should stop acting like it is.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals don't have sex differently.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't. Sec wants to think you do so that he can feel special. Meanwhile telling you that you are nothing special.

It's called hypocrisy.

 

Hmmm... If a person goes to church, lives free of sin and asks for forgiveness when she commits a sin, but does not believe in Jesus or God, is that person a Christian? What defines a "Christian"? Is it just behavior, or is it also belief? Does one not need to have Faith to be a Christian? Or could someone who just does a really good job pretending be a Christian? I hope you would agree that there are words which describe people not just by their behaviors they manifest, but also their motivations which might not be manifest.

A person can be an alcoholic even if they don't drink and haven't drank in 20 years. The term describes the person's mental characteristics, not behavior, the same way homosexuality is often used to describe mental characteristics rather than behavior.

As for the "thief", does the person have an unusual compulsion or drive for it? If so, they would not be a "thief" since that particular word implies an action, but they might be described by another word that identifies the compulsion or drive. I don't think we have such a word, but this doesn't preclude the possibility.

 

Bravo on this post.

As to the word for a thief who only has the urge to steal, kleptomaniac would come close.

 

BTW, politically speaking...

I REALLY hope the Religious Right force this issue in the Republican 2016 Primaries.....demanding that guys like Jeb or Scott Walker "take the pledge" to support a Constitutional Amendment to allow the banning of same-sex marriage.

Sadly, I think the RNC knows what a political disaster that would be ...and will gag the Social Cons.

 

Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal Join Israel Trip With Hate Group That Wants To Convert Jews - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...group-wants-convert-jews#sthash.OUStQXae.dpuf

 

I would expect such an action from Santorum, he's a "true believer", but I always just figured Jindal, rather than that, was pandering to social conservatives. After all, he HAS to now that getting an Amendment banning SSM, as a practical matter, simply is NOT going to happen. 10, 20, 50 years ago maybe, but not anymore.

 

Ummm, isn't that not what Bushy did and it got overturned? The sad thing is the sheeple can be scammed over and over and they never get that hey are being played. There is Nothing the Cons can do to stop gay marriage from being the law of the land, the government, either federal or state, is not allowed to discriminate. I am sure there are some that would be willing to tear up the Constitution and Bill of Rights if they can stop this from happening, they will not succeed but they will continue to whine and stomp their feet, let them so long as that is all they do.

 

You don't quite understand what's going on here. SOME people are really adamant that if they do not DO sex with other men, therefore they are not homosexual. And they are adamant because otherwise, their desires alone would make them homosexuals, and they can't tolerate that. This effort at self-delusion leads to some interesting ramifications - that virgins find nobody desirable, that people biologically change orientations when they change partners, that orientation can be simply dropped, and rekindled later, etc. SOME of these people have been asked if they had ANY desire for sex while they were still virgins. So far, these people have never answered this question. And this indicates something important, namely one of the various ways that people despise themselves for their orientation and are trying to come to grips with it without admitting it even to themselves.

As one study of penile erection put it, these people CLAIM to be anti-gay, but their penises testify the opposite.

 

Except when left to their own devices, conservative states have almost always chosen to discriminate unless forced not to.