Page 85 of 89 FirstFirst ... 35758384858687 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 850 of 884

Thread: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #841
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,945

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    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?
    Because our system of government, outlined by the Constitution, allows states to choose how they function amongst themselves in matters that are not vested onto the federal government. There is no constitutional power given to the federal government to establish how individual states are allowed to conduct their governmental business in terms of voting on state issues (outside of broader things like racial discrimination, etc).

    We allow certian things to be put to a popular vote because if an individual state feels that a system that allows them to do such at certain instances when deemed necessary then they are free to do so.

    Why not allow the legislative and judicial branches to do their job.
    What the "job" of those branches, how wide ranging that job should be, how supreme those jobs should be, are not subject to some over arching federal mandate. I question you that its not "why not allow them to do their job" but rather "why limit the people of the states to decide how their government should best serve them"?

    We run a serious risk to the rights/liberties of this country when we allow things to be put to a popular vote.
    I disagree. The risk is no more higher than from letting all laws come from the legislative branch. Both situations have the potential for tyranny of the majority. Both have situations where the rights of the majority may actually be trampled upon by grouping up of the minority. Both have situations where a host of other issues can be. But both have the same limitation in that they are checked for constitutional legitimacy by the courts.

    Isn't that why we elect our representatives and have the safeguard of voting them out if we disagree with them.
    That is one safeguard we have, and that is one reason we have a representitives. However, we also have safe guards in this country to allow states to determine how they deal with state issues on their own based on what individuals within that state feel is best for them.

    Hypothetically, if a state suddenly went to EVERYTHING being by a direct popular vote...yes, that could cause some issues. However, that is as realistic and feasable as a hypothetical as worrying whether or not one of our states would seceed to create a islamic republic. It's ridiculous to use as the basis for an argument.

  2. #842
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,945

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The fact of the matter is....marriage is not require for procreation and marriage does not ensure procreation.
    Neither of which concretely negate the arguments that can be made that its a legitimate state interest or that its rationally related to prohibit homosexuals from marrying due to said interest.

    The proposed ban of gay marriage does nothing that can be said to be reasonably related to furthering that interest.
    Doesn't have to be reasonably related, only "rationally" which is an excessively broad term. Your bravado on the certainty of how slam dunk this issue is in regards to the inability of anti-gay marriage individuals arguing this in court is either born of ignorance of the law and the arguments, self-deception of the honest situation due to your own biases and prejudices, or simply is a utter and completely false bravado born from a desire to beat down and demoralize the opposition rather than present a realistic view point.

  3. #843
    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
    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.
    Easy to do as the discrimination ban is primarily based on biology.

    Rather than require expensive tests to determine if people are fertile, we just discriminate based on the most obvious method of determining viability, sex.

  4. #844
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Because our system of government, outlined by the Constitution, allows states to choose how they function amongst themselves in matters that are not vested onto the federal government. There is no constitutional power given to the federal government to establish how individual states are allowed to conduct their governmental business in terms of voting on state issues (outside of broader things like racial discrimination, etc).

    We allow certian things to be put to a popular vote because if an individual state feels that a system that allows them to do such at certain instances when deemed necessary then they are free to do so.



    What the "job" of those branches, how wide ranging that job should be, how supreme those jobs should be, are not subject to some over arching federal mandate. I question you that its not "why not allow them to do their job" but rather "why limit the people of the states to decide how their government should best serve them"?



    I disagree. The risk is no more higher than from letting all laws come from the legislative branch. Both situations have the potential for tyranny of the majority. Both have situations where the rights of the majority may actually be trampled upon by grouping up of the minority. Both have situations where a host of other issues can be. But both have the same limitation in that they are checked for constitutional legitimacy by the courts.



    That is one safeguard we have, and that is one reason we have a representitives. However, we also have safe guards in this country to allow states to determine how they deal with state issues on their own based on what individuals within that state feel is best for them.

    Hypothetically, if a state suddenly went to EVERYTHING being by a direct popular vote...yes, that could cause some issues. However, that is as realistic and feasable as a hypothetical as worrying whether or not one of our states would seceed to create a islamic republic. It's ridiculous to use as the basis for an argument.
    Fair enough....but just to be clear, I've never argued that States don't have the right to do that, obviously I understand the politics involved, however, what I am questioning is the intelligence in doing so. Take California for example, we have a horrible history of activist groups placing initiatives on the ballot that were clearly unconstitutional...and the state spends millions battling them in the courts. The problem is, more often than not, legislators understand the constitution, drafters of these initiatives do not. Second, you and I both know how easily the electorate is swayed by misleading advertising sound clips. There is often all kinds of hidden stuff in these initiatives that people don't even know about, because it gets whittled down to a 30 second sound bite. Millions are then poured into these ad campaigns to sway people's emotions.

    The bottom line....just because you CAN doesn't always mean that you SHOULD. That's all.....
    <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. #845
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Neither of which concretely negate the arguments that can be made that its a legitimate state interest or that its rationally related to prohibit homosexuals from marrying due to said interest.



    Doesn't have to be reasonably related, only "rationally" which is an excessively broad term. Your bravado on the certainty of how slam dunk this issue is in regards to the inability of anti-gay marriage individuals arguing this in court is either born of ignorance of the law and the arguments, self-deception of the honest situation due to your own biases and prejudices, or simply is a utter and completely false bravado born from a desire to beat down and demoralize the opposition rather than present a realistic view point.
    Let me ask you.....did you read the prop 8 decision and arguments. You call it "Bravado", but the reality is, the proponents of prop 8 had a very difficult time laying out the legitimate state interests involved and the relations. There have been several very conservative scholars that have come forward with the same conclusions...that it is going to be a very difficult argument to make. I don't exactly call that "bravado".
    <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>

  6. #846
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    Easy to do as the discrimination ban is primarily based on biology.

    Rather than require expensive tests to determine if people are fertile, we just discriminate based on the most obvious method of determining viability, sex.
    How is banning gay marriage even rationally related to the state interest of promoting procreation? People can just as easily procreate whether gay marriage is allowed or not. People don't even need marriage to procreate, nor is marriage designed as a way to encourage it. Good luck in the courts if that is what you are going to rest your laurels on.
    <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>

  7. #847
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,945

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The bottom line....just because you CAN doesn't always mean that you SHOULD. That's all.....
    I can understand where you're coming from on this. I will say however that many of your issues you have with direct votes aren't somehow non-existant from the legislative side of things. Not a one of us can say that we've never heard or or thought or known about a representitive having voted in favor of a bill that they never read, or that had things in it they didn't realize was there, or sometihng of the sort. Or that representitives haven't voted in a certain way due to reasons other than the truthful facts. Or that we don't have our legislatures on the state and federal level passing laws that don't get challenged for eons in the court system. Those pitfalls you speak of in regards to an occasional direct vote aren't inherent to direct votes and occur already even in places where direct votes are uncommon.

  8. #848
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,945

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Let me ask you.....did you read the prop 8 decision and arguments. You call it "Bravado", but the reality is, the proponents of prop 8 had a very difficult time laying out the legitimate state interests involved and the relations. There have been several very conservative scholars that have come forward with the same conclusions...that it is going to be a very difficult argument to make. I don't exactly call that "bravado".
    You realize the prop 8 judge is not a direct and useful mirror of what you're going to see on the Supreme Court? Yes? You also note that the Prop 8 judge decided, seemingly somewhat on his own, to take it in a direction the arguments didn't actually go in...in regards to gender...while even suggesting that there may be a legitimate case in regards to a rational basis argument against it for homosexual marriage based simply on the "appearance" of facts being one way even if they're not REALLY going that direction (I admit, I may be mixing it up with another gay marriage case but I don't think I am).

    Prop 8's ruling doesn't in any way make me think its a slam dunk case as it reaches the SCOTUS level, it reenforces my thought that this thing could quite easily go either way. Could it be difficult going? Absolutely. But I think at worst its a 70/30 type of deal either direction. While I'm sure there are some conservative scholars that have stated it's a losing battle, there's also many who think the opposite and its not uncommon in any form of acadamia or constitutional law circle (or even political circles) to find individuals who enjoy being contrarian. Pointing to handful of scholars saying one thing while ignoring all others...again...to me is cherry picking in hopes of defending your attitude of bravado in regards to how unquestionably open and shut this seems to you.

  9. #849
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I can understand where you're coming from on this. I will say however that many of your issues you have with direct votes aren't somehow non-existant from the legislative side of things. Not a one of us can say that we've never heard or or thought or known about a representitive having voted in favor of a bill that they never read, or that had things in it they didn't realize was there, or sometihng of the sort. Or that representitives haven't voted in a certain way due to reasons other than the truthful facts. Or that we don't have our legislatures on the state and federal level passing laws that don't get challenged for eons in the court system. Those pitfalls you speak of in regards to an occasional direct vote aren't inherent to direct votes and occur already even in places where direct votes are uncommon.
    True true....however, my experience here in California is that we spend much more time defending these initiatives then we ever do defending legislative laws.
    <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>

  10. #850
    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
    How is banning gay marriage even rationally related to the state interest of promoting procreation? People can just as easily procreate whether gay marriage is allowed or not. People don't even need marriage to procreate, nor is marriage designed as a way to encourage it. Good luck in the courts if that is what you are going to rest your laurels on.
    The interest is in rewarding procreation while not rewarding promiscuity.

    proof that the interest are actually being met is not required.

    How the courts will rule is an obvious crap shoot, but I wouldn’t necessarily assume it will go in your favor anytime soon.

    [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13]

Page 85 of 89 FirstFirst ... 35758384858687 ... 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
  •