Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception
-
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.
