Clinton on Ellen discussing gay marriage

9/4

(posted for demonstration purposes only)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ellen
• gay
• marriage
• hillary

[zztstenglish]

@TheKinderhookPlates - "behind an outdated decision" LOL! What makes a court ruling outdated? Date? Wrong! when a case is overturned, THEN it is outdated. Has baker v nelson been overturned? Answer: Nope.

As for Perry v Schwarzeneggar, we'll see. But the last I checked, CA has stopped issuing ssm licenses since nov 17th. Hmmmm.....

[LUXAETERNA6603]

gosh i hate it when all the comments are related but you cant find the original comment

[chgobmw]

How can someone who's own marriage has been openly a disaster and immoral tell others who can and cannot marry!! If Hillary Clinton thinks she can provide a strong argument for Marriage; she would have to look within her own relationship first. I can't believe she has the Balls to even come on Ellen and say such a thing!! BOOO on You Hillary!!!!

It is NOT Hillary's or anyone in the government's decision whether or not I have the right to marry someone I love!!

Keep your Nose out of my business

[zztstenglish]

@LogicalDragon - "I think that marriage is a right" Well, that's where you (and many others) misunderstand the Loving court's decision when it declared it as a 'right.' Furthermore, as stated, it's a sham UNTIL Baker is overturned since lower courts are not suppose to come to a contrary conclusion.

As for the EU court ruling, it seems they took it down. But there's articles on it. Google EU court rules states not obliged to allow same sex marriage

[LogicalDragon]

@zztstenglish Baker only restricted cases brought under the US constitution. State constitutions are still fair game. I think that marriage is a right that is being denied gays and lesbians but I'm not going to convince you of that so I will respectfully disagree with you on that point. I don't understand why you say it's a sham, it is legal in 6 states and 10 countries.

I did look for the ruling I didn't find it. Does it have a name I could search?

[zztstenglish]

@LogicalDragon - A) It's a sham until Baker is overturned. As stated, lower courts are not suppose to come to a contrary conclusion and there's no doubt the supreme court was NOT talking about gay marriage when it declared marriage as a right. B) I suggest u look up the EU court & the ruling. Nobody is stopping them from havin a gay partner. Their rights are not being violated. It does NOT mean the State must recognize it

[LogicalDragon]

@zztstenglish Maybe I'm not understanding what point you're trying to make. Are you saying ssm isn't legal on a federal level? Are you talking about the states somehow? You said ssm was a sham, what does that mean?

Also what is the EU court?

[zztstenglish]

@LogicalDragon - Google EU court rules states not obliged to allow same sex marriage. here's a quote: "The [EU] court found no violation of human rights..." As u can see, your 'rights' arguement is BASELESS. Nobody is stopping u from having a same sex partner. It does NOT mean the State must recognize it. Not to mention it was ALREADY decided in Baker.  I have plenty of more info

[zztstenglish]

@LogicalDragon - Here's a wiki quote: "As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion" As for your wiki quote, this is true BUT the fact remains it was the SAME court (who declared marriage as a right) was the same court who dismissed gay marriage in Baker based on its merits. The evidence is crystal clear

[TheKinderhookPlates]

@LogicalDragon

zztstenglish is a fool, and not worth your time. great points you made, however!

[LogicalDragon]

@zztstenglish Because Baker is a precedent and not a Supreme Court ruling (as Loving is) it doesn’t have the same influence of a ruling. Wiki quote: “federal judges have come to differing conclusions on where and how Baker controls” It should also be noted that Baker doesn’t restrict cases brought under state constitutions. At this point each state has the right to regulate marriage. It is up to the states to decide whether or not they allow SSM

[zztstenglish]

@LogicalDragon -"fundamental right" A) Marriage is not in the Bill Of Rights. B) marriage was declared a 'right' in Loving v Virginia which was the SAME court that dismissed Baker v Nelson only a few yrs later. Evidently, the Loving court was NOT talkin about gay marriage when it decided Loving.