Your shallow response absolves us of your accusation. My point has always been that if the United States Constitution does not clearly say something, we should assume that it is silent on the matter, and leave it up to our elected officials.

President Obama was elected by a majority of the voters. He retains more popular support than Congress.

 

You're not really this stupid, so I know you're just leading me on with inanity.

 

Ok. Clearly this thread is off the rails. Time to make a new one, with a simpler argument.

 

Yours is another stupid response. I think you really are that stupid.

 

Not doing this. I am not going to be led by the nose over whether "net neutrality" is in the Constitution! Screw!

 

I never said anything about a judge but to answer no the judge wouldn't take gold in fact the court won't take cash either they only except checks or money orders . Sure gold has value it can be liquidated but it's not used as currency and currency is not based on it . But I find it odd that you focus on that aspect of my argument

 

It used to be liberals who would hide behind the Constitution when advancing policies that were unpopular with the voters. Their efforts were egregious when they used the First Amendment to reduce the presence of Christianity in the public sphere and when they used the Fourth Amendment to invent a right to abortion that is simply not mentioned in the Constitution.

Now reactionaries do the same thing when they use Constitutional arguments against economic laws and institutions that are popular with the vast majority of Americans.

 

Keep posting to yourself.

I know that you know that the courts rebuked the Obama Administration for its efforts to impose Net Neutrality. Several times. And I also know that you know the courts' objections had nothing to do with net neutrality itself. The objections had to do with abuse of executive authority. I also know that you know that the Obama administration has been rebuked by the Supreme Court for directing the EPA in a manner so as to overstep its charter and authority. You know all of this. So I am not going to debate it with you. You are being childish. How old are you? 70, or 17?

 

IF, as you have stated, that the essay discusses adolescent marriages, which anyone would know is different to pedophilia, then WHY did you have to bring pedophilia into the discussion as it is irrelevant to your point.

Also you have still to acknowledge that your essay is just fluff and padding because the crux of the debate is a simple question.

Should same sex marriages be entitled to the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage?

 

Talk to us about how this debate played out in your country mate

 

I ask only because I often wonder if other countries struggle with such things

 

This thread is far too long for me to read. I will continue on the other thread.

 

I have no idea because, basically, it does not concern me.
My marriage to Sylvia was done in England, as it happened just over 22 years ago, we have no children between us, although Sylvia has two from her first husband but they are now aged 41 and 37 daughter and son respectively.

 

Other countries may struggle, though I should think that this might be from the debate as to whether or not the partners in the marriage should be treated as separate entities and not jointly when dealing with financial affairs.
All I know is that Sylvia and I are treated as single people in financial matters, instead of a married couple, though this may well be because we are not Austrian citizens and this financial benefit as such may well change if we were to become Austrian citizens.

 

Are you aware of the public opinion on gay and lesbian unions

 

No because basically it does not concern myself or Sylvia, we are self-sufficient and not dependent on any financial benefits from the Austrian government.
Sylvia's pension is dealt with from England and paid direct into our Austrian bank account, as will mine when I reach pension age.

 

Ok I was seeing if I could get another perspective on the matter

 

I can understand that, just unfortunate that I cannot be of more help.

 

I didn't. As I've explained. Others saw the word, and they jumped to their own conclusions without reading it. As I've explained.

And your "crux" question is answered. In the opening essay.

 

No worries