Page 84 of 89 FirstFirst ... 34748283848586 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 884

Thread: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #831
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Fair enough. The problem with putting everything to a "popular vote" really pre-empts why we have a legislative and judicial system however. Why not just do away with legislatures and put everything on a ballot then?
    Well yes, but you were asking a hypothetical. The reality of the situation is that we're not going to have "everything" or even close to "everything" put to a popular vote in this country and its a strawman to even suggest or imply that doing such is what Christie stated. At worst, Christie is suggesting that massively controversial issues, especially ones that have shown themselves in various states to continue to be heated even after legislatures or courts have decided on it, would be best served being done by a popular vote. Which is still drastically different than "everything" to a popular vote. So you're arguing against a strawman in complaining that it would pre-empt the legislative and judicial system...becuase no one is suggesting that.

    Now, if you're actually dealing with the reality of this situation and what's being said here, you'd ask if putting occasionally controversial issues to a popular vote would pre-empt why we have a legislative and judicial system. Very slightly, but not to a troublesome way in the former, and absolutely not in any way in the latter. Popular vote doesn't preclude it from being challenged in court.

  2. #832
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    He is playing to the base, and it could potentially be his downfall just like it has been for GWB, McCain, and Romney.
    The downfall of GWB which lead to him being re-elected by an even larger percentage margin of victory and larger popular vote total than he did in 2000?

  3. #833
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,142

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Right, the courts are there to ensure that such doesn't happen. However, to do such...in part...the ocurts act after hte fact. Your question was not whether or not those laws would be upheld and remain in place. Your question was whether or not they should be allowed to be voted on.
    That is exactly the point. He was stating that we run the risk of a system being foisted on the public if we don't allow voters to pass these laws. My response was that we don't really run that risk because we have a legislative system that allows representatives to be voted out if you disagree with them and a judicial branch that protects the rights and interests of the Constitution.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #834
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,142

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well yes, but you were asking a hypothetical. The reality of the situation is that we're not going to have "everything" or even close to "everything" put to a popular vote in this country and its a strawman to even suggest or imply that doing such is what Christie stated. At worst, Christie is suggesting that massively controversial issues, especially ones that have shown themselves in various states to continue to be heated even after legislatures or courts have decided on it, would be best served being done by a popular vote. Which is still drastically different than "everything" to a popular vote. So you're arguing against a strawman in complaining that it would pre-empt the legislative and judicial system...becuase no one is suggesting that.

    Now, if you're actually dealing with the reality of this situation and what's being said here, you'd ask if putting occasionally controversial issues to a popular vote would pre-empt why we have a legislative and judicial system. Very slightly, but not to a troublesome way in the former, and absolutely not in any way in the latter. Popular vote doesn't preclude it from being challenged in court.
    However, the point Zyph is not really a strawman....the point is, why do we allow certain things to be put to a popular vote? Why not allow the legislative and judicial branches to do their job. We run a serious risk to the rights/liberties of this country when we allow things to be put to a popular vote. Isn't that why we elect our representatives and have the safeguard of voting them out if we disagree with them.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #835
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Whoa....wait there. How does discriminating against gay marriage create more stable families? I agree...THAT is a legitimate public interest, but gay marriage opponenents can't just spout off the interest, they have to be able to argue how a ban promotes that. Gay families are every bit as stable as straight ones. Eliminating gay marriage won't decrease the divorce rate in straight marriages.


    Is proof required that what people think are in the public interest actually has the desired outcome? This does not seem to be the case for other areas we get involved in.

  6. #836
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Whoa....wait there. How does discriminating against gay marriage create more stable families?
    Strawman. I never stated that it helps to create more stable families. You stated that they couldn't identify any legitimate state interests. That's pattentedly false. They absolutely can. What they may have issues doing is explaining how discriminating against homosexuals is "rationally related" to serving that state interest.

    I agree...THAT is a legitimate public interest, but gay marriage opponenents can't just spout off the interest, they have to be able to argue how a ban promotes that.
    They only have to argue how a ban "rationally relates" to that. A relatively broad terminology.

    Same thing for "encouraging procreation" First off, I'm not sure that this is a legitimate governmental interest, but even accepting that it is, you would have to limit marriage to people who CAN and WILL procreate for that argument to advance.
    First off, "Disneydude disagreeing with it" is not a slamdunk way of establishing that something isn't a legitimate government interest. While you may not agree that it qualifies as such, there absolutely is a legitimate argument to that notion that has at least a reasonable amount of likelihood of being recognized.

    Second off, because it need only be "rationally related" there are ways to at leats make the argument that there is a difference between those who are not physically capable with each other (homosexuals) and those who are choosing not to at hte time of marriage but can easily change their mind. The closest equivilent would be those that are physically unable to reproduce, but unlike gay marriage, to identify such a person would require a disclosure of medical records which comes into other constitutional blocks.

    Again...while I may not agree with the assertion that they would make, the outright dismissal and arrogant portrayal of the inevitable legal nature of your particular side is what I have issue with. On top of your just factually wrong portions of what you wrote in regards to the need of legitimate state interest being the issue (ironic after you lectured people on understanding the EPC), my issue is with your grossly exaggerated superiority of one sides constitutional case. If it was truly so slam dunk, open and shut as you like to pretend this issue would have been dealt with long ago.

  7. #837
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,142

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    Is proof required that what people think are in the public interest actually has the desired outcome? This does not seem to be the case for other areas we get involved in.
    In order to pass Equal protection muster, there does not necessarily need to be "proof" per se, but the burden is on the government to show that the proposed ban/discrimination is reasonable crafted and narrowed to meet that interest.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #838
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I think you need to go back and follow along in the discussion before you call ME dense. I think you missed the posts where we were talking specifically about these being VOTER laws not Legislative laws.

    Its ok though.....feel free to catch up and join in the conversation. I only ask that you do so appropriately.

    You missed the point where I just said it doesn’t matter how the law comes about. Direct democracy, or representative republic, the people responsible for defending the government needs to agree with the government.

    So yes, dense.

  9. #839
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    That is exactly the point. He was stating that we run the risk of a system being foisted on the public if we don't allow voters to pass these laws.
    And he's right. If the state allows for public referendum on issues, and the issue isn't a clear cut, precedence laden, obvious constitutional violation, if you simply FORBID people from voting on a law because you dislike it that creates a situation where you're forcing a system upon the public.

    You took that and applied a plethora of phantom words to it and fashioned yourself a strawman to beat as if he was suggesting that somehow because he thinks those laws should be allowed to be voted on that he supports all laws to be voted on by popular vote and that they should not face judicial scrutiny...things he never said or even gave any implication to.

    My response was that we don't really run that risk because we have a legislative system that allows representatives to be voted out if you disagree with them d a judicial branch that protects the rights and interests of the Constitution.
    Your response was based on a strawman of your own creation, not simply on what he stated.

  10. #840
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,142

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Strawman. I never stated that it helps to create more stable families. You stated that they couldn't identify any legitimate state interests. That's pattentedly false. They absolutely can. What they may have issues doing is explaining how discriminating against homosexuals is "rationally related" to serving that state interest.



    They only have to argue how a ban "rationally relates" to that. A relatively broad terminology.



    First off, "Disneydude disagreeing with it" is not a slamdunk way of establishing that something isn't a legitimate government interest. While you may not agree that it qualifies as such, there absolutely is a legitimate argument to that notion that has at least a reasonable amount of likelihood of being recognized.

    Second off, because it need only be "rationally related" there are ways to at leats make the argument that there is a difference between those who are not physically capable with each other (homosexuals) and those who are choosing not to at hte time of marriage but can easily change their mind. The closest equivilent would be those that are physically unable to reproduce, but unlike gay marriage, to identify such a person would require a disclosure of medical records which comes into other constitutional blocks.

    Again...while I may not agree with the assertion that they would make, the outright dismissal and arrogant portrayal of the inevitable legal nature of your particular side is what I have issue with. On top of your just factually wrong portions of what you wrote in regards to the need of legitimate state interest being the issue (ironic after you lectured people on understanding the EPC), my issue is with your grossly exaggerated superiority of one sides constitutional case. If it was truly so slam dunk, open and shut as you like to pretend this issue would have been dealt with long ago.
    Two things...I never said "Disneydude disagrees" as an argument....I said that personally I don't see it as a legitimate interest, but accepting that it is.........and then provided my argument.

    The fact of the matter is....marriage is not require for procreation and marriage does not ensure procreation. The proposed ban of gay marriage does nothing that can be said to be reasonably related to furthering that interest.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 84 of 89 FirstFirst ... 34748283848586 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •