"Overturning Roe is a Radical, Not Conservative Choice" (Page 2): The State of California had a law allowing a civil union of two homosexuals of the same g****r. But the homosexuals...

anotherview Loc: California

The State of California had a law allowing a civil union of two homosexuals of the same g****r. But the homosexuals wanted "marriage." The Court gave it to this special class. Never mind that two homosexuals of the same g****r cannot mate and produce fertile offspring as in a true marriage.

A fetus is not a human being. Insisting otherwise ignores human biology.

Blurryeyed wrote:

Gay marriage is certainly something that we can se... (show quote)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

anotherview wrote:

The State of California had a law allowing a civil union of two homosexuals of the same g****r. But the homosexuals wanted "marriage." The Court gave it to this special class. Never mind that two homosexuals of the same g****r cannot mate and produce fertile offspring as in a true marriage.

A fetus is not a human being. Insisting otherwise ignores human biology.

You can repeat the same BIG LIE that the unborn child is not a human being, your statement still remains untrue.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

anotherview wrote:

The State of California had a law allowing a civil union of two homosexuals of the same g****r. But the homosexuals wanted "marriage." The Court gave it to this special class. Never mind that two homosexuals of the same g****r cannot mate and produce fertile offspring as in a true marriage.

A fetus is not a human being. Insisting otherwise ignores human biology.

That is not what the court said in Roe. You and I might do well to agree to disagree.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

anotherview wrote:

The State of California had a law allowing a civil union of two homosexuals of the same g****r. But the homosexuals wanted "marriage." The Court gave it to this special class. Never mind that two homosexuals of the same g****r cannot mate and produce fertile offspring as in a true marriage.

A fetus is not a human being. Insisting otherwise ignores human biology.

What does marriage have to with reproduction ?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Blurryeyed wrote:

John, earlier in some of these threads I posted leading liberal constitutional scholars including Ruth Bader Ginsberg stating that the court overreached in the original decision, that there is not constitutional argument that would conclude as the earlier court did.

From what I have read of RBG's take on Roe v Wade it is not that it was unconstitutional, but rather that a ruling based on "e******y" for women was a stronger argument and less susceptible to further debate than the ruling based on "privacy." RBG was still supportive of a woman's right to decide on a******n, rather than a State legislature; and she had concerns of the negative consequences of overturning RvW.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

From what I have read of RBG's take on Roe v Wade it is not that it was unconstitutional, but rather that a ruling based on "e******y" for women was a stronger argument and less susceptible to further debate than the ruling based on "privacy." RBG was still supportive of a woman's right to decide on a******n, rather than a State legislature; and she had concerns of the negative consequences of overturning RvW.

How could it be an argument from an equally for women standpoint when ONLY women can have a******ns? It's not as if men can have a******ns.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Racmanaz wrote:

How could it be an argument from an equally for women standpoint when ONLY women can have a******ns? It's not as if men can have a******ns.

Ask RBG for the answer. I did not make that up. Do your own Google search for what she said about RvW.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

Ask RBG for the answer. I did not make that up. Do your own Google search for what she said about RvW.

I was going by what you posted, did you not Google those words before posting them?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Racmanaz wrote:

I was going by what you posted, did you not Google those words before posting them?

Of course I did!!!!! And if you want to question her words, then feel free, but don't expect me to explain her argument; she is the legal expert, not me.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

Of course I did!!!!! And if you want to question her words, then feel free, but don't expect me to explain her argument; she is the legal expert, not me.

Ok, you posted those words so can you explain to me what she meant by your understanding?

Laramie Loc: Tempe

Well, if we are considering reversing earlier SC decisions. I can think of one that needs reconsidering: Citizens United v Federal E******n Commission. Dark money needs to go away.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

JohnFrim wrote:

Ask RBG for the answer. I did not make that up. Do your own Google search for what she said about RvW.

It would still be a leap, but the point is that even Ginsberg understood the error of the earlier ruling.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Let’s. Not put words in RBG mouth she didn’t say or intend

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

DennyT wrote:

Let’s. Not put words in RBG mouth she didn’t say or intend

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

So, the issue being pushed by Blurry is that the RvW was unconstitutional, and he said even RBG felt that way.

But what I read about RBG is that she felt the wrong legal case was used to justify the SCOTUS a******n ruling.

Sound a bit like apples and oranges to me, and bringing in RBG as support to overturn RvW on constitutional grounds is a red herring... or deflection, as so many here on UHH like to say.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

Let’s. Not put words in RBG mouth she didn’t say or intend

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

Equal protection is even more outlandish than the right to privacy... Silly argument. Quick fix..... Pass legislation that men can't have a******ns either, there, fixed it, everything is equal.