TARGET Unveils Pride Collection That Includes LGBT Rainbow Onesies For Newborns

[n_huffhines]

The job of govt is to leave citizens alone. Getting involved in private contracts is EXACTLY unconstitutional except to avoid exploitation.

Why should govt be involved in this should be the FIRST question we ask. Do we need govt involved to make this work? We don't when it comes to marriage so why is govt involved?

Just name the part of the constitution that empowers them to do this. The proper role of government is a completely different debate. You are the one who invoked the constitution

 

[n_huffhines]

The Constitution is simple. Govt should get out of the way of citizens lives. Govt should leave us alone as much as possible. Getting involved in marriage is as intrusive as govt can get...... but here we are.

I don't think you know what the constitution says.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Just name the part of the constitution that empowers them to do this. The proper role of government is a completely different debate. You are the one who invoked the constitution

What? What gives CITIZENS the right to not be bothered by govt is the entire root of the Constitution.

You act as though WE are beholden to govt and need to justify why we should be free to live our lives, married or unmarried, without the govt.

WTF? The question is why is govt butting in. It's always that question. Why is govt getting involved? That's always the question we should ask when a law is proposed.

I'll side with you guys on gay marriage. Govt has no reason to object. Govt, FROM THE START, had no business being involved in my marriage or yours.

Govt just gets in the way of people's lives when it comes to marriage.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Let's start again. Tell me why govt needs to be involved in marriage? What compelling interest does govt have in regulating marriage?

If we can't start with WHY govt should be involved, it's a good bet govt shouldn't be involved.

The Constitution is simple. Govt should get out of the way of citizens lives. Govt should leave us alone as much as possible. Getting involved in marriage is as intrusive as govt can get...... but here we are.

Your questions, though interesting, are not particularly relevant when analyzing how SCOTUS could end government involvement in marriage.

If it is so simple show me how.

It really seems that allowing carpet munchers and colon cowboys the right to marry in the eyes of the law just grinds your gears.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I don't think you know what the constitution says.

Let's look at this reasonably. Say you and I are neighbors. If you build a big, unsecured HAM radio tower right on the property line, you're placing my property at risk if that tower should blow down. Govt has an interest in neighbors not placing each other at risk.

If you marry a guy or 2 guys or 3 girls and a guy, my life isn't impacted in any way. If your relationship falls apart or my relationship falls apart, as long as we're not disturbing the peace...... govt needs to shrug and walk off.

It's really that simple.

 

[VolStrom]

It really seems that allowing carpet munchers and colon cowboys the right to marry in the eyes of the law just grinds your gears.

Wow, I never expected you to use those terms.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Wow, I never expected you to use those terms.

Are jokes not allowed?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Your questions, though interesting, are not particularly relevant when analyzing how SCOTUS could end government involvement in marriage.

If it is so simple show me how.

It really seems that allowing carpet munchers and colon cowboys the right to marry in the eyes of the law just grinds your gears.

Govt ended segregation by declaring that no local, state, etc had the right to interfere in the normal life of citizens based upon race. In other words, all those "you have to sit in the back of the bus" and "you can't go to school here" laws were no longer valid.

Why can't the SCOTUS say, "Govt has no business regulating marriage" and any local, state, etc laws (beyond exploitation) are not valid. SCOTUS can and should say this because these laws only restrict free citizens.

 

[VolStrom]

Are jokes not allowed?

It didn't seem like a joke, but things are hard to decipher when they're typed.

 

[n_huffhines]

What? What gives CITIZENS the right to not be bothered by govt is the entire root of the Constitution.

You act as though WE are beholden to govt and need to justify why we should be free to live our lives, married or unmarried, without the govt.

WTF? The question is why is govt butting in. It's always that question. Why is govt getting involved? That's always the question we should ask when a law is proposed.

I'll side with you guys on gay marriage. Govt has no reason to object. Govt, FROM THE START, had no business being involved in my marriage or yours.

Govt just gets in the way of people's lives when it comes to marriage.

Just name the part of the constitution. You're only fooling yourself with this nonsense. We agree on the proper role of government, but I just want you to back up your claim....or stfu.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It didn't seem like a joke, but things are hard to decipher when they're typed.

Just messing around, sir.

 

[n_huffhines]

Govt ended segregation by declaring that no local, state, etc had the right to interfere in the normal life of citizens based upon race. In other words, all those "you have to sit in the back of the bus" and "you can't go to school here" laws were no longer valid.

Why can't the SCOTUS say, "Govt has no business regulating marriage" and any local, state, etc laws (beyond exploitation) are not valid. SCOTUS can and should say this because these laws only restrict free citizens.

What part of the constitution did they reference?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Just name the part of the constitution. You're only fooling yourself with this nonsense. We agree on the proper role of government, but I just want you to back up your claim....or stfu.

The 14th Amendment, so called "equal protection," was the part of the Constitution that destroyed segregation. You can't sort citizens by race, sex, etc.

As far as marriage goes, it's a lifestyle choice. The govt has no business being involved. Govt should leave citizens alone in lifestyle choices that harm no one. Want to wear a dress? Enjoy. Want to wear a tie? Enjoy. Want to groom my child online? Wait just a damn minute.

Ask yourself why you WANT govt involved in marriage? I WANT govt involved in protecting me, my family, etc but what is the protection that being involved in marriage provides?

Govt isn't in the "let's run people's lives" business.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Govt ended segregation by declaring that no local, state, etc had the right to interfere in the normal life of citizens based upon race. In other words, all those "you have to sit in the back of the bus" and "you can't go to school here" laws were no longer valid.

Why can't the SCOTUS say, "Govt has no business regulating marriage" and any local, state, etc laws (beyond exploitation) are not valid. SCOTUS can and should say this because these laws only restrict free citizens.

Govt. did not end crap. Earl Warren was confirmed as Chief Justice during the Brown case and hid his views on the case until after his confirmation.

Brown v. Board was a much more struggled with decision than you let on and it addressed the issue of whether a school district could treat white and black students differently (separate but equal). The court held the 14th Amendment required equal treatment based upon race and that separate but equal was inherently unequal. People hollered about judicial activism and that at the time of writing the 14th Amendment was not designed to desegregate schools.

 

[n_huffhines]

The 14th Amendment, so called "equal protection," was the part of the Constitution that destroyed segregation. You can't sort citizens by race, sex, etc.

As far as marriage goes, it's a lifestyle choice. The govt has no business being involved. Govt should leave citizens alone in lifestyle choices that harm no one. Want to wear a dress? Enjoy. Want to wear a tie? Enjoy. Want to groom my child online? Wait just a damn minute.

Ask yourself why you WANT govt involved in marriage? I WANT govt involved in protecting me, my family, etc but what is the protection that being involved in marriage provides?

Govt isn't in the "let's run people's lives" business.

How does equal protection empower the federal government to tell the states they can't regulate marriage? It only indicates that states have to regulate it equally.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Govt. did not end crap. Earl Warren was confirmed as Chief Justice during the Brown case and hid his views on the case until after his confirmation.

Brown v. Board was a much more struggled with decision than you let on and it addressed the issue of whether a school district could treat white and black students differently (separate but equal). The court held the 14th Amendment required equal treatment based upon race and that separate but equal was inherently unequal. People hollered about judicial activism and that at the time of writing the 14th Amendment was not designed to desegregate schools.

I never said it wasn't a contentious issue. That's why it went to SCOTUS. They DID use the 14th and I never said that's why the 14th was created. To be honest, in a free country it should've been obvious that govt can't treat people differently based upon race or sex or whatever.

You're trying to paint me as a bigot when I want govt OUT OF THE WAY just like you. Moreso, even. What's your problem?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

How does equal protection empower the federal government to tell the states they can't regulate marriage? It doesn't make sense

Govt simply has no dog in the fight. Govt shouldn't butt into whether I sign a contract with another citizen unless that contract is exploitive.

If I want to contract to live with someone, why should that be special to govt? Why does govt have a "special interest" in that contract.

It's fundamental. ===GOVT=== needs to prove why it should be involved. Citizens shouldn't have to prove why govt shouldn't be involved.

You've got the point of govt turned around.

 

[C-south]

The only thing marriage is in the eyes of the government is a legal contract. Who cares who it's between.

I think most people would be fine with this if the government didn’t offer financial and tax incentives to get married. Maybe they should draw up some standard prenups that every couple has to choose from.

 

[VolStrom]

I think most people would be fine with this if the government didn’t offer financial and tax incentives to get married. Maybe they should draw up some standard prenups that every couple has to choose from.

I'm not really sure that there are any financial or tax incentives to be married anymore. The big reason for gay marriage was legal stuff when it came time to make healthcare decisions.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I think most people would be fine with this if the government didn’t offer financial and tax incentives to get married. Maybe they should draw up some standard prenups that every couple has to choose from.

Reduced insurance rates
Tax incentives
Laws regarding transfer of assets upon death
laws regarding end of life decisions
laws regarding abuse, stalking etc
laws regarding entitlement to social security
laws regarding
who owns what when dividing "marital property"
etc etc etc

The institution is way too entrenched in our society to simply invalidate.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I'm not really sure that there are any financial or tax incentives to be married anymore. The big reason for gay marriage was legal stuff when it came time to make healthcare decisions.

The real sticky issue is healthcare and end of life issues.

I have an Advance Directive/Living Will and that's to make it easier on my loved ones if I'm not able to direct my care. Everyone should.

I have beneficiary directions for banks, investments, etc and a Will and again that's to make it easier when I'm done here.

When it comes to employee benefits, I'm out of the loop but I believe the market has driven companies to allow someone to select a partner/family unit that doesn't include marriage.

Individuals can and should handle these things. Inviting govt into your life never goes well.

 

[VolStrom]

The real sticky issue is healthcare and end of life issues.

I have an Advance Directive/Living Will and that's to make it easier on my loved ones if I'm not able to direct my care. Everyone should.

I have beneficiary directions for banks, investments, etc and a Will and again that's to make it easier when I'm done here.

When it comes to employee benefits, I'm out of the loop but I believe the market has driven companies to allow someone to select a partner/family unit that doesn't include marriage.

Individuals can and should handle these things. Inviting govt into your life never goes well.

I agree with everything you've said.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The real sticky issue is healthcare and end of life issues.

I have an Advance Directive/Living Will and that's to make it easier on my loved ones if I'm not able to direct my care. Everyone should.

I have beneficiary directions for banks, investments, etc and a Will and again that's to make it easier when I'm done here.

When it comes to employee benefits, I'm out of the loop but I believe the market has driven companies to allow someone to select a partner/family unit that doesn't include marriage.

Individuals can and should handle these things. Inviting govt into your life never goes well.

Well, for inheritance issues... you cannot completely disinherit (either intentionally or unintentionally) your spouse. Most states say that the surviving spouse can take either what's in the will or 30% of the entire estate including POD, Bank Accounts, property, and gifts given within 1 year of death.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The real sticky issue is healthcare and end of life issues.

I have an Advance Directive/Living Will and that's to make it easier on my loved ones if I'm not able to direct my care. Everyone should.

I have beneficiary directions for banks, investments, etc and a Will and again that's to make it easier when I'm done here.

When it comes to employee benefits, I'm out of the loop but I believe the market has driven companies to allow someone to select a partner/family unit that doesn't include marriage.

Individuals can and should handle these things. Inviting govt into your life never goes well.

Deleted - DP

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Well, for inheritance issues... you cannot completely disinherit (either intentionally or unintentionally) your spouse. Most states say that the surviving spouse can take either what's in the will or 30% of the entire estate including POD, Bank Accounts, property, and gifts given within 1 year of death.

And again, what the hell gives govt the right to tell me who I leave money to or don't leave money to when I pass.

We'd have a lot less issues with govt doing stupid things like getting involved in my private choices if we didn't invite them to treat us like children who don't know what to do with our assets.

Why do you think politicians should make that kind of decision for citizens? As always, how does this fit in the function of govt? Simply, it doesn't, but here we are.

Even traditional conservatives WANT to invite bigger govt all the time. It's dumb and it's not in the spirit of the Founders who wanted govt to leave citizens alone.