Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
When individual states where starting to give marriage equality and civil unions to us, the right argued that it was not legal under federal law, but the left argued that it was states' rights.
Pretty sure that they were predominantly arguing that the federal DOMA act was a violation of Equal Protection, and that states and the federal government allowing some states to refuse recognition of marriages performed in other states as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution (again, not a states' rights argument).
You'll have to do better than that.
-
DOMA erased the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but only for marriage equality and by extension all gay equality.
The argument was, if states enact marriage equality or civil partnerships, then it must be accepted by everyone else (other states and the federal government) under FF&C.
It was a states' rights argument in that each state was allowed to decide who could get married and due to the FF&C everyone else had to accept it.
It was not a federal government issue.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
It was a states' rights argument in that each state was allowed to decide who could get married and due to the FF&C everyone else had to accept it.
Oh, I get why you think that's a states' rights argument....you're stupid.
The federal government, specifically Congress, only has specific enumerated areas within which it can legislate. Marriage is not one of those enumerated areas. Marriage laws are, by the federalist design of our country, controlled by the individual states. That's not an argument that the marriage equality advocates were making; that's just plain fucking facts. Even after the Obergefell decision established that the right to same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, marriage is still controlled by the states. Post-Obergefell, it's just that a state cannot pass a schema for marriage that discriminates without that statutory schema being unconstitutional.
In the days of DOMA and the Same-Sex Marriage bans, marriage equality advocates were definitely making arguments based on the US Constitution. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution cannot be erased by federal statute (e.g., DOMA). The argument marriage equality advocates were making was specifically that Alabama, as a state, does not have the right to pass a state law that refuses to recognize a marriage contract issued by the State of Hawaii. In other words, the anti-gay marriage states didn't have the Right as a State to choose not to follow the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.
That's not a states' rights argument, despite you trying to pretzel it into one.
-
Name-calling, nice.
DOMA, as enacted by your beloved Democrats, did in fact erase FF&C when it came to marriage equality, until SCOTUS overturned it, more than a decade later.
DOMA allowed the federal government and other states to reject gay marriages.
While statutes can not technically "erase" parts of the constitution, they can effectively erase them until the SCOTUS overturns the statute, as they did in DOMA and DADT. This almost always take more than a decade.
Abortion is not enumerated, but the left wants a federal law to make it legal. Of course, you can't see the similarities because you are blinded by your agenda and hatred of anyone who disagrees.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
While statutes can not technically "erase" parts of the constitution, they can effectively erase them until the SCOTUS overturns the statute, as they did in DOMA and DADT. This almost always take more than a decade.
I agree; unconstitutional laws can be passed by Congress. However, our dispute here is that you think trying to overturn such an unconstitutional law passed by Congress means you're de facto arguing for states' rights. In other words, you're trying to create the false dichotomy of (1) fighting for states' rights by opposing a federal law; and (2) fighting for a federal law by opposing states' rights.
Marriage equality advocates were arguing against a federal statute AND the states who thought they had the right to pass Same-Sex Marriage bans.
-
If the Democrats weren't so hostile to gay equality, the people fighting for marriage equality would have fought for a federal law making it the law of the US.
This is what we are seeing in the abortion argument.
Because you have Congress and the WH on your side, you want a federal law, despite abortion not being enumerated, therefore a states' rights issue.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
If the Democrats weren't so hostile to gay equality, the people fighting for marriage equality would have fought for a federal law making it the law of the US.
This is what we are seeing in the abortion argument.
Because you have Congress and the WH on your side, you want a federal law, despite abortion not being enumerated, therefore a states' rights issue.So I can presume by the above non-sequitur, red herring tangent that you've discovered that your "marriage equality liberals were arguing for states' rights" BS was indefensible, and you're trying to sidetrack the discussion or distract from it now. Good, that means I won.
-
Nope.
You won't admit that if the DNC under Bill Clinton wasn't so hostile to gay equality, you would have gone the federal law route to make it the law of the land.
It's the same thing we see with abortion.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
You won't admit that if the DNC under Bill Clinton wasn't so hostile to gay equality, you would have gone the federal law route to make it the law of the land.
It's the same thing we see with abortion.Just repeating your non-sequitur, red herring distraction. Yeah, I won. We're done here.
-
If you want to think you did.
The only thing you "won" was not admitting that you people flip-flop on states' rights and federal rights, as the situation suits you.
Marriage and abortion are not enumerated to the federal government, so marriage is a states' rights issue, but abortion is a federal issue.
LOL, yeah you "won", alright.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
The only thing you "won" was not admitting that you people flip-flop on states' rights and federal rights, as the situation suits you.
Again, you haven't provided a cogent argument to support this statement. Repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over again doesn't make it true.
Anti-gay marriage advocates certainly did argue that states had the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The marriage equality advocates were arguing that the 5th and 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection, and that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section I of the US Constitution prevented the anti-gay marriage states from having the right to deny recognition of married gays.
But, whatever, you keep thinking that the above meant they were arguing FOR states' rights.
-
There was no push to make marriage equality as a federal law because Clinton and the DNC-controlled Congress were homophobes.
If Clinton and Congress were friendly to marriage equality, there would have been a push for it on the federal level.
This is why the abortion argument is not about the states, but about federal law. Biden and the DNC-controlled Congress love abortion.
I don't know if you are deluded or just being dishonest.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
There was no push to make marriage equality as a federal law because Clinton and the DNC-controlled Congress were homophobes.
If Clinton and Congress were friendly to marriage equality, there would have been a push for it on the federal level.Oh, I get it now. You don't understand that federal judicial system and the Supreme Court of the United States, where the marriage equality advocates were making their arguments, is part of the federal government. That's the "federal level" that marriage equality advocates were working with. They were trying to get that whole co-equal third branch of the federal government created in Article III of the US Constitution to declare that Alabama doesn't have the state right to prejudicially define marriage.
You failed basic Civics, I guess.
-
AH, I get it now.
You only want to focus on a tiny part of the marriage equality push.
You want us to ignore everything that doesn't gel with your narrative.
You aren't deluded, just dishonest.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
You only want to focus on a tiny part of the marriage equality push.
No, I just focus on the dominant, mainline push for marriage equality without tarring the whole group with something that, at best, may have been propounded by a small minority of marriage equality advocates.
Marriage equality advocates weren't seeking to empower the states to act because they had been losing in the states ever since the 1970's. You might not know, but in the late 1960's and early 1970's, gay men applied for marriage licenses from the states and it was ultimately determined that they could not be denied said marriage licenses because it wasn't illegal to issue them the licenses. Well, the homophobes corrected that mistake right away and between 1973 to 2000 every state in America (other than New Mexico) had enacted a statutory ban on same-sex marriage.
Then in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court, relying on Hawaii's state constitution decided Hawaii's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's equal protection clause. Hawaii quickly fixed this problem by enacting a constitutional amendment which empowered Hawaii's legislature to pass a gay marriage ban, which it did quickly.
To prevent what happened in Hawaii from happening elsewhere, states started adopting Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (30 states, a majority of states by my math).
So, the RIGHTS being exercised by the states....the power being used by the states....was being used to prevent gay marriage. Why the fuck would marriage equality advocates try to give even more power of the states by increasing the states' rights? That's absurd. You're wrong.
The gay marriage advocates only avenue for advancement was in the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS, i.e., a federal solution for marriage equality.
Your argument is like saying abolitionists were advocating for states' rights when they were pushing Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
-
Federal courts are not the same as federal laws.
Marriage equality advocates were pushing for states' rights, and part of that was to overturn DOMA and restore FF&C when it comes to marriage.
This became important when Mass. legally recognized marriage equality in 2004.
Unlike abortion, now, there was no push at the time to make marriage equality a federal law. It was states' rights based on Massachusetts.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login