Page 40 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090140 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #391
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Wrong. As a citizen, I and my fellow citizens are free to define marriage for our government.
    Wrong. So defined as only between people of the same race. That was shot down. Now they may define it that way for themselves, but not for others and the government had to comply. That alone shows your statement to be inaccurate.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #392
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Give it up Boo. You know damn well the 14th amendment had zero to do with marriage.
    Seems there have been courts that disagree with you.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #393
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Try equal protection under the law. Most cite the 14th amendment.
    Absolutely....a lot of uneducated people do not understand what the 14th Amendment is and what it does. So you get the fools that try to argue Constitutional Law without understanding the basics 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. #394
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    This is the ONLY argument for SSM: Some ideological plurality of judges decided marriage should be for everyone. Not a democracy. Heck, not even a representative republic. The decision was made by oligarchists - the decision was made by a few. Kinda think the Constitution was drawn up to prevent things like this from happening in US government.

    Do supreme court judges show supreme judgement at all times? I refer you to the middle 1850's Dred Scott decision where the SCOTUS decided a slave owner had the legal right to recapture a fugitive slave no matter how long the slave had been a freeman in a free state. Actually, at that time, SCOTUS used the US Constitution more to make their decision on Dred Scott than the original plurality of state supreme court judges who used 'out of the box' thinking, decreed marriage was a right for everyone, and set the precedent. You can't even say these ideological oligarchists were particularly bright. Just ideologues.

    There are many issues which could be considered unfair in american society. Advocates of SSM aren't phased with this unfairness in other institutions of american society. SSM is not about fairness. Its political.
    Last edited by cabse5; 06-21-13 at 02:35 PM.

  5. #395
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    This is the ONLY argument for SSM: Some ideological plurality of judges decided marriage should be for everyone. Not a democracy. Heck, not even a representative republic. The decision was made by oligarchists - the decision was made by a few. Kinda think the Constitution was drawn up to prevent things like this from happening in US government.

    Do supreme court judges show supreme judgement at all times? I refer you to the middle 1850's Dred Scott decision where the SCOTUS decided a slave owner had the legal right to recapture a fugitive slave no matter how long the slave had been a freeman in a free state. Actually, at that time, SCOTUS used the US Constitution more to make their decision on Dred Scott than the original plurality of state supreme court judges who used 'out of the box' thinking, decreed marriage was a right for everyone, and set the precedent. You can't even say these ideological oligarchists were particularly bright. Just ideologues.

    There are many issues which could be considered unfair in american society. Advocates of SSM aren't phased with this unfariness in other institutions of american society. SSM is not about fairness. Its political.
    No the argument for same sex marriage is simple, people should be allowed freedom in this country to do what they want up til the point where that interferes with someone else's freedoms/rights or does harm. The onus is on the state to justify why a restriction is placed on a government offered contractual arrangement to make two adults legal family on the basis of sex/gender, and that justification must show at the very least a legitimate state interest is furthered (and many feel it should have to be a higher level of scrutiny because it is marriage or the basis is sex/gender).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #396
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    This is the ONLY argument for SSM: Some ideological plurality of judges decided marriage should be for everyone. Not a democracy. Heck, not even a representative republic. The decision was made by oligarchists - the decision was made by a few. Kinda think the Constitution was drawn up to prevent things like this from happening in US government.

    Do supreme court judges show supreme judgement at all times? I refer you to the middle 1850's Dred Scott decision where the SCOTUS decided a slave owner had the legal right to recapture a fugitive slave no matter how long the slave had been a freeman in a free state. Actually, at that time, SCOTUS used the US Constitution more to make their decision on Dred Scott than the original plurality of state supreme court judges who used 'out of the box' thinking, decreed marriage was a right for everyone, and set the precedent. You can't even say these ideological oligarchists were particularly bright. Just ideologues.
    None of the above has any bearing on the argument of whether or not homosexuals should have marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    There are many issues which could be considered unfair in american society. Advocates of SSM aren't phased with this unfairness in other institutions of american society. SSM is not about fairness. Its political.
    Your baseless opinions have no bearing on the argument of whether or not homosexuals should have marriage.

    And before you chime in with infringement on the rights of religion as you did in another thread, I will remind you (as I did in that thread) that the constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but it does not force others to have the same practices and beliefs as your religion.

  7. #397
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No the argument for same sex marriage is simple, people should be allowed freedom in this country to do what they want up til the point where that interferes with someone else's freedoms/rights or does harm. The onus is on the state to justify why a restriction is placed on a government offered contractual arrangement to make two adults legal family on the basis of sex/gender, and that justification must show at the very least a legitimate state interest is furthered (and many feel it should have to be a higher level of scrutiny because it is marriage or the basis is sex/gender).
    Or when 1st amendment rights are violated when, IMO, SSM laws infringe upon religions in america. upon religions.

  8. #398
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    Or when 1st amendment rights are violated when, IMO, SSM laws infringe upon religions in america. upon religions.
    Hey, can I call it or can I call it?

  9. #399
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    None of the above has any bearing on the argument of whether or not homosexuals should have marriage.



    And before you chime in with infringement on the rights of religion as you did in another thread, I will remind you (as I did in that thread) that the constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but it does not force others to have the same practices and beliefs as your religion.
    I'm a chimin'. That's what the religion part of the first amendment is about... Read it more closely. Gov't shall not set up a gov't religion, and gov't shall not impede religions from the practice of their religion.

  10. #400
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    I'm a chimin'.
    I'm not stopping you from chiming.

    Gov't shall not set up a gov't religion,
    It's not doing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    and gov't shall not impede religions from the practice of their religion.
    It's not doing that either. When gay marriage finally becomes fully legal in all fifty states, you will be able to still practice your religion in exactly the same way as you practice it now.

Posting Permissions

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