Doing it right

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 months ago  •  103 comments

Doing it right
"Today is a good day," "Biden said. "A day America takes a vital step toward equality, for liberty and justice, not just for some but for everyone."

I want to applaud democrats for passing what they have incorrectly called "the respect for marriage act."   When a new right is created, it should be created through legislation. Most people were in favor of this and even though a Court ruling indicates that it is already the law of the land, the legislation means that it shall remain that way. The people have spoken through their elected representatives as the founders intended.


"The signing took place after a ceremony and string of performances from gay entertainers. The bill, which received support from nearly 40 House Republicans last week to send it to the president, repeals the federal Defense of Marriage Act that was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996."

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/biden-signs-gay-marriage-bill?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjs



The moral question about marriage is secondary and left for future generations.

It is a good day for The Constitution 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Today's civics lesson.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

WHAT'S SO FUNNY ABOUT PEACE, LOVE, AND UNDERSTANDING?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 months ago

Who said anything about funny?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 months ago

I DON"T KNOW, YOU TELL ME?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Tessylo  replied to    2 months ago

Good.

[deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.1.19  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.1.24  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.19    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.32    2 months ago

Most of thread 1.1 deleted for meta & personal animus.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.1.34  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.24    2 months ago

Of course.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

Roughly 80% of the GOP senators voted against the bill. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    2 months ago

The morning news was full of hair on fire comments from people who disapprove of this legislation. they're afraid the IRS will start taxing their churches if they don't perform same sex marriage ceremonies. They probably got that from Chief Hair of Fire Tom Cotton

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
1.2.2  George  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    2 months ago

And? Isn't this already covered under the full faith and credit [clause?deleted]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Sophomore Quiet
1.2.3  afrayedknot  replied to  George @1.2.2    2 months ago

removed for context

Bi-partisan lawmakers codifying an implicit right, but an implicit right subject to the puritanical whims of today’s SCOTUS. How is it not a good thing? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    2 months ago

Did you understand what I said?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.3    2 months ago
implicit right

Now it is!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.3    2 months ago

Have they forgotten this law also protects interracial marriage?

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
1.2.7  George  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.3    2 months ago

So you don't understand how our government works. Let me help you.

1. Congress passes laws, the don't give you rights implicit or otherwise.

2. The supreme court can tell congress to shove the law at any point by ruling it unconstitutional. Congress can't overrule the supreme court.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.1    2 months ago

It's federal law now for all the states.

This debate is finally over 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  George @1.2.7    2 months ago
Congress passes laws, the don't give you rights implicit or otherwise.

If Congress passes a law that provides the legal means for an individual to take a particular action, they have provided an explicit right.   For example, we have the explicit right to operate a motor vehicle if we meet the state requirements to secure a license.    Here, Congress has provided the explicit right for same-sex couples to be legally married if they meet the requirements of the state in which the marriage was performed.

The supreme court can tell congress to shove the law at any point by ruling it unconstitutional.

The SCotUS typically is the agent which identifies implicit rights in extant law (especially in the CotUS).   An implicit right is one that exists by reasonable interpretation but is not explicitly stated.    An example implicit right is indeed the right to marry (as is the right to travel, education, privacy, etc.).    Congress has now made explicit the right to marry and, in so doing, eliminated the ambiguity of the implied constitutional right so that same-sex marriages are explicitly a right (no debate now).

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.10  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    2 months ago

Because unlike the Democrats; the GOP doesn't have forced party line votes.

Seems that many of those that voted against the bill didn't think it went far enough in protecting religious freedom; especially from frivolous lawsuits.

/

The GOP Senate should have held out for a better version of the bill with full religious freedom protection clauses; but there are far too many RINOs.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    2 months ago

We Democrats/Liberals/Progressives and all decent people are doing the correct thing, not the hateful no plan the 'right' wing don't have

We always get it correct

the majority on the right/republicans/gqp are a bunch of hateful narrow minded losers, long lost in the past where they belong 

love is love husband and husband 

wife and wife

who cares?

Just those narrow minded losers lost in the past where they belong, like I said

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    2 months ago
[deleted]


We always get it correct

Not since I've been here.


love is love husband and husband 

wife and wife

Are there other possible combinations?


who cares?

I only care about the Constitution and it was done right.


 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
2.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 months ago
Are there other possible combinations?

Well, since psychologists and sex experts now allege that there are over 70 genders these days, the combinations are endless. It's how one "feels" that matters!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.1.1    2 months ago

“It's how one "feels" that matters!”

No, it’s actually how one reacts that matters.

Is the reaction based in ignorance, fear, self-righteousness or worse, political expediency?

Or does that reaction demonstrate acceptance, tolerance, and benevolence…even when and if one may not hold the same values?

Which reaction we display is the truest sign of how we have been raised, what we hold dear, and a sure testament to our character…individually and collectively. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.1.1    2 months ago

And It's not just new genders. How about man and animal?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.2    2 months ago

I don't care how anyone "feels," especially people with Harvard or Yale Law degrees. I care about the Constitution and finally this issue was settled correctly.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
2.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @2    2 months ago
love is love husband and husband  wife and wife

Just a more expensive way to personally enlarge the U.S. population though. Men don't have babies out their arse, and women need men to have babies , yet, it's still probably cheaper than forking out the mega big bucks for Chucky's Schumer's new "Grow the Employee population" Idea of letting "ILLEGAL Folks" to just flood over the borders to make up for man/man - woman/woman relationship hurdles of repopulation!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.2    2 months ago

what a completely moronic comment which is so easy for some

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
2.2.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.1    2 months ago
what a completely moronic comment which is so easy for some

Only YOU would know ! snicker

Are you just "Delusionary Deflecting" Again ?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3  Nerm_L    2 months ago

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the deadline to avoid a government shutdown is Friday.  Funding the government is the first responsibility of Congress.  Not surprisingly Congress is more concerned with who is in whose pants.

Congress shirking its primary responsibility isn't what the Constitution is about.  Legislation such as the 'Respect for Marriage Act' demonstrates that the Constitution is failing.  Congress isn't defending democracy; Congress is promoting idiocracy.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @3    2 months ago

"While the incoming House Republican majority is urging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to hold leverage on Democrats' spending agenda before the new Congress, the leader is closing on a deal with Democrats anyway"


 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 months ago
"While the incoming House Republican majority is urging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to hold leverage on Democrats' spending agenda before the new Congress, the leader is closing on a deal with Democrats anyway"

The key word in that link is 'omnibus'.  It's an all or nothing package.  And it's obvious the omnibus bill must pass or the government shuts down.  A crisis created by the same Congressmen claiming to be resolving the crisis.  Omnibus spending packages are prepared by committees reviewing the executive blue books and not by Congress.  The executive branch actually prepares the omnibus legislation, not Congress.  Omnibus spending packages clearly show that the Constitution is failing.

Congress no longer takes its Constitutional responsibilities seriously.  That's why Congress celebrates passing legislation like the 'Respect for Marriage Act'.  But that legislation only proves that Congress has abandoned the Constitution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.1    2 months ago
It's an all or nothing package. 

That's why we have inflation.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    2 months ago
That's why we have inflation.

Not the only cause but a significant contributor.  The biggest problem with omnibus spending packages is the entrenched practice of choosing winners and losers.  Funding based on merit has been tossed aside just to avoid a self-made crisis.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

When a person can be married in the morning and thrown out of a restaurant for being gay in the afternoon, this is still wrong.

Biden is, as usual, full of shit. 

That of course doesn't happen. What happens is people get thrown out of restaurants for advocating Christian beliefs or not supporting Biden's beliefs. But he's okay with that, 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 months ago
That of course doesn't happen.

You can personally guarantee that has never ever happened?

What happens is people get thrown out of restaurants for advocating Christian beliefs or not supporting Biden's beliefs.

Their personal beliefs which are often not supported by the holy book they claim to be following.  So, in other words, hypocrites.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    2 months ago
ou can personally guarantee that has never ever happened?

I can't prove a negative. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

  So, in other words, hypocrites

Right. If restaurants  discriminate against hypocrites, how could a progressive ever eat out?  

But sure, Which restaurants discriminate against all hypocrites? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    2 months ago
I can't prove a negative.

But you made the claim, and I am asking you to prove a positive that what you claimed actually happened.

Which restaurants discriminate against all hypocrites?

All of them should.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.2    2 months ago
nd I am asking you to prove a positive that what you claimed actually happened

Lol.  Do you not understand your own words?  You literally  asked "You can personally guarantee that has never ever happened?"  

All of them should.

Sure.  so there would be no such things as restaurants then. Good business plan. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    2 months ago
Lol.  Do you not understand your own words?  You literally  asked "You can personally guarantee that has never ever happened?" 

Because you stated, "That of course doesn't happen." 

So you are now admitting that you made a statement that you did not know was true, because you can't prove a negative.....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.4    2 months ago
use you stated, "That of course doesn't happen." 

Do you know what to prove a negative means?  I don't think you do.

you are now admitting that you made a statement that you did not know was true

No. I'm not. For your sake, I hope this is just an act you are putting on. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    2 months ago
Do you know what to prove a negative means?  I don't think you do.

Do you know how to read?  I don't think you do.

I am asking you for proof of your statement that it doesn't happen.  Trouble is that you are telling me that it cannot be proven because you cannot prove a negative, which means you have nothing to base your claim on.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.6    2 months ago
ing you for proof of your statement that it doesn't happen

Please learn what to prove a negative is. 

se you cannot prove a negative, which means you have nothing to base your claim on

 Jews don't slaughter Christian  children and drink their blood.  I (and everyone else)  cannot prove that statement. Do you believer the statement that Jews don't slaughter Christiaan children is based on nothing? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.7    2 months ago
Please learn what to prove a negative is.

Just admit you pulled your claim out of your ass and move on.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.8    2 months ago
ust admit you pull

Lol. You can't prove something happened (the easiest thing to do) so you demand I prove a negative (the impossible). Who do you imagine is dumb enough to fall for that? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

Biden in 2006 telling the American people  a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman isn't necessary because of the Defense of Marriage Act:

"Nobody’s violated that law, there’s been no challenge to that law. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Pretty much every time  a Democrat says "don't worry, the next step obviously won't happen,"  it does. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    2 months ago

No one has claimed that Democrats have always supported gay marriage, they haven't. DOMA was passed under Clinton and was clearly discriminatory. Both parties have a long history of discriminating against the lgtbq community, just like they had a long history of discriminating against black Americans. The difference is in how they have changed, grown and evolved. Right wing conservative Republicans refuse to accept lgtbq Americans as equals, Democrats have chosen to open their eyes to the injustice and stopped discriminating, pushed to get rid of DOMA and are now advocating for lgtbq rights as any rational, loving, caring human should.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 months ago

This is kind of funny coming from a man who

For decades, Biden opposed same-sex marriage

Biden is falsely claiming he was the first major leader to support same-sex marriage

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6    2 months ago

Brandon's morals only extend as far as what it took to get him elected.

Wonder how much further he will have to sell out to the far left if he runs for reelection? Since he has already caved and given them whatever they wanted.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    2 months ago

This just shows how the average Biden voter has no idea the level of failure they support as president.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.1    2 months ago

You illustrated Biden's waffling over the years (spanning 50 years) regarding same-sex marriage and homosexuality.   Given his generation, Biden is predisposed to discrimination of homosexuals.   In general, he has progressed from that.   Do you think it is bad that his views on homosexuality have evolved over the years or should he just stick with his generation's societal indoctrination of 'homosexuals are mentally ill'?

In the meantime, with regard to the level of failure of a PotUS, was (and is) Trump wrong to claim that the election of 2020 was rigged and that he is the legitimate PotUS?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    2 months ago
Do you think it is bad that his views on homosexuality have evolved over the years

No.  

...was (and is) Trump,,,

Why distract?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.3    2 months ago

You recognize Biden's waffling over homosexuality (over 50 years) and chastise Biden voters based on his "level of failure" yet you cannot acknowledge even the most blatantly obvious, proven wrongdoing by Trump — his continual claim that the election of 2020 was rigged and that he is the legitimate PotUS.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.4    2 months ago

Still trying to deflect I see.  Time to move along.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.5    2 months ago

Deflection is avoiding the subject.   I acknowledged your point about Biden's waffling so there is no deflection by me by definition.

You, in contrast, are deflecting to avoid dealing with your refusal to acknowledge blatantly obvious, proven wrongdoing by Trump after criticizing Biden.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    2 months ago

Lets see.  I never mentioned any other POTUS.  Just the hypocrite currently in office.  YOU on the other hand seem to be SOS and keep bringing up another.  That's deflection.  

Time to move along..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.7    2 months ago

Hypocrisy is ironically the correct word for refusing to even acknowledge blatant, proven, outrageous wrongdoing by one PotUS while criticizing another PotUS for waffling.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.9  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    2 months ago

original

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    2 months ago

I think that it's important that ''they'' let us know when Biden starts selling trading cards on his political career and his presidency in particular. Now, that is something that would be a first, oh wait, no it wouldn't.

“MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT! My official Donald Trump Digital Trading Card collection is here!” Mr Trump   wrote on his platform Truth Social on Thursday.

“These limited edition cards feature amazing ART of my Life & Career! Collect all of your favorite Trump Digital Trading Cards, very much like a baseball card, but hopefully much more exciting,” he added. “GET YOUR CARDS NOW! Only $99 each! Would make a great Christmas gift. Don’t Wait. They will be gone, I believe, very quickly!”

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @6.1.10    2 months ago

I was going to do a seed about this. I thought it was fake but apparently it isn't

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @6.1.10    2 months ago

Another sad commentary on the (embarrassing) stupidity of many Americans.    Trump continues to milk stupidity.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.11    2 months ago

When I first read the article I was looking for the satire tag but apparently it is what now sells to some in America.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
6.1.14  George  replied to  Kavika @6.1.10    2 months ago

It appears PT Barnum was correct. 

   "They will be gone, I believe, very quickly!”

Hopefully because nobody is dumb enough to buy them.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.15  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    2 months ago
Biden's waffling

Funny how when it's BRANDON all he can do is just Waffle.

I guess when one reaches a certain age.... Lying isn't possible !

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Ender  replied to  Kavika @6.1.10    2 months ago

I don't think Pokémon is too worried...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @6.1.13    2 months ago

Do you mind if I take that link and do a seed?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.11    2 months ago

I was going to seed one about a study that showed that vaccine deniers are more likely to get into car accidents...

A real study by the way....

Didn't feel like dealing with some people....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @6.1.18    2 months ago

Do it and seed it in Buttheads or Reality Show. I got your back and so does dev

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.17    2 months ago

Please, go ahead and I'm looking forward to it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6.1.21  MrFrost  replied to  George @6.1.14    2 months ago
Hopefully because nobody is dumb enough to buy them.

There are lot's of trump supporters more than willing to pick up an extra shift at the tilt-a-whirl just to buy those stupid fucking cards. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @6.1.18    2 months ago

There are two safe spaces.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.23  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.22    2 months ago

not for christo-fascists...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.24  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @6.1.23    2 months ago

Don't look now...but you may have a surprise coming

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @6.1.23    2 months ago
not for christo-fascists...

Only if you make it a private group.

In the meantime, there are many who won't go on there. First of all, it's very degrading and beyond that it's neither satire, nor is it adult conversation.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9  Kavika     2 months ago

I am the ultimate grifter. 

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @9    2 months ago

The bananas are a nice touch

 
 

Who is online




Mark in Wyoming
Gazoo


27 visitors