Page 36 of 36 FirstFirst ... 26343536
Results 351 to 357 of 357

Thread: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

  1. #351
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I have good news for you, nobody is suggesting anyone will be forced to perform the ceremony!



    So you are literally arguing over semantics here. Is that really your basis for opposing same-sex marriage? Quibbling over rights vs. privileges? According to George Carlin, we don't have any rights at all, ever, because the government can and does take them away. Fine, whatever, interpret it that way if you like. What does that have to do with whether or not the government should recognize a marriage contract between two people of the same gender?
    any right is an absolute.......example:.....if you had a right to food, then it MUSE BE given to you, no matter what, no matter who's food it is...even it its others people food, because it would mean government could (legally) resubstitute property of other people.

    rights are affirmed by constitutions.

    privileges are affirmed by governments, meaning they can be licensed or not licensed.

    rights are never licensed, ....they cannot be affirmed by elected officials or bureaucrats of government on pieces of paper....license ,permits.

    for marriage to be a right, licensing would have to end, and government could not make any laws concerning marriage..............take your pick

    its a privilege, or its a right------> with no government involvement at all!.

    i prefer no government at all.
    Last edited by Master PO; 03-31-13 at 11:47 PM.

  2. #352
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-14 @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    563

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    according to the foundering fathers in their letters they cannot........to do so would then, would make the rights of the people,....not unalienable.

    rights are unalienable

    how can the federal government, then the state governments who would try to repeal the amendments, have power to take away rights of the people......are not rights in the people hands-----> not governments.

    government is does give or take rights.

    "Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
    To your point, the founding fathers put in place a system by which any part of the constitution including the bill of rights can be amended or repealed. Some of them may have written elsewhere that some rights are unchangeable, but when it mattered, when they established the charter for our republic, the highest law of the land, they left room for anything within to be changed or removed.

  3. #353
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    are you saying government dispenses rights to the people?

    therefore any time government feels your rights should be taken from you-----> they can do it?
    Geez, what the hell is wrong with you libertarians that you think the government is some alien entity forced on the people. The government is the legislative arm of society. It exists and operates at the behest of the people. If the people collectively want to change it, then it will be changed. Rights come from society.

    Of course, the problem is, small groups like the libertarians, which have no popular support and thus no widespread power, have to pretend that the government doesn't represent social consensus, it's the only way they can argue that their own beliefs are remotely valid.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #354
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    The thing about if prop 8 were somehow upheld, I would imagine another ballot initiative would take place in CA in the near future. This is how asinine and humiliating it is to allow mob rule to define civil rights, but there's probably a clear majority supporting SSM there now. Back and forth we go...

    While somewhat disappointing, a ruling that struck down DOMA and also the '08 ballot in CA, but not other ballots (this is senseless cowardice to me but whatever) would still mean huge progress. Same sex couples in the handful of states allowing SSM would no longer be deprived of the same rights, and the gay couple in Montana would have even more reason to move the hell out of there.

  5. #355
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    any right is an absolute.......example:.....if you had a right to food, then it MUSE BE given to you, no matter what, no matter who's food it is...even it its others people food, because it would mean government could (legally) resubstitute property of other people.

    rights are affirmed by constitutions.

    privileges are affirmed by governments, meaning they can be licensed or not licensed.

    rights are never licensed, ....they cannot be affirmed by elected officials or bureaucrats of government on pieces of paper....license ,permits.

    for marriage to be a right, licensing would have to end, and government could not make any laws concerning marriage..............take your pick

    its a privilege, or its a right------> with no government involvement at all!.

    i prefer no government at all.
    Constitutions are affirmed by governments. To continue off Carlin, for a good example of what "rights" you really have, check out Japanese-Americans circa 1943. The constitution didnt protect any rights for them. The constitution is a piece of paper too, in the end there's no magical force preventing a government from ignoring it.

    Your bizarre definition of rights is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion. By your definition, not one person actually has one single right, because nothing we generally call a right is truly absolute. the right to bear arms doesnt include nuclear weapons. Free speech doesnt include slander or inciting violence. apparently none of them apply if the government calls you a terrorist first. What does this have to do with whether nor not the government should recognize same-sex marriage contracts?
    Last edited by Deuce; 04-01-13 at 02:55 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #356
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    The thing about if prop 8 were somehow upheld, I would imagine another ballot initiative would take place in CA in the near future. This is how asinine and humiliating it is to allow mob rule to define civil rights, but there's probably a clear majority supporting SSM there now. Back and forth we go...

    While somewhat disappointing, a ruling that struck down DOMA and also the '08 ballot in CA, but not other ballots (this is senseless cowardice to me but whatever) would still mean huge progress. Same sex couples in the handful of states allowing SSM would no longer be deprived of the same rights, and the gay couple in Montana would have even more reason to move the hell out of there.
    Yes, a "no-standing" punt is a bit cowardly but might turn out to be the judicially "correct" determination. If the prop 8 supporters have no legal authority to bring that case to SCOTUS, SCOTUS shouldn't be ruling on that. However, I read another statement that makes me wonder more about that: one of the judges remarked that if this is the case, that random citizens have no authority to bring a case like this to court, that this leaves a situation in which a state can essentially decide a law is unconstitutional by simply failing to defend it in court. I'm not convinced that is a precedent SCOTUS is willing to set.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #357
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Constitutions are affirmed by governments. To continue off Carlin, for a good example of what "rights" you really have, check out Japanese-Americans circa 1943. The constitution didnt protect any rights for them. The constitution is a piece of paper too, in the end there's no magical force preventing a government from ignoring it.

    Your bizarre definition of rights is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion. By your definition, not one person actually has one single right, because nothing we generally call a right is truly absolute. the right to bear arms doesnt include nuclear weapons. Free speech doesnt include slander or inciting violence. apparently none of them apply if the government calls you a terrorist first. What does this have to do with whether nor not the government should recognize same-sex marriage contracts?
    your calling me bizarre, and your quoting George Carlin...


    nuclear weapons, ...........are not firearms

    if you slander or (cause pain and suffering) by your actions......you can be help responsible...as in yelling fire in a public building.....it not the words you use, that are illegal........if they cause damage you, are help accountable.

    SSM.......if it is a RIGHT............ITS NOT GOING TO BE LICENSED........rights...... are not licensed.

Page 36 of 36 FirstFirst ... 26343536

Posting Permissions

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