Page 43 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3341424344455393143 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 1585

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

  1. #421
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It doesn't matter. Almost every state had laws at one time or another against interracial marriages. And every state at one time or another had laws against women voting. Times change.

    This in no way changes the fact that religions do not own marriage, so it is not adopting a religion nor infringing on any religion's rights for the government to allow same sex couples to marry. <---This was your contention. Bringing up what the government originally had as marriage does not change the counter to this contention.
    Incidentally, there are churches that have been marrying gay couples for years if not decades. So to the extent that governmental recognition of SSM has any impact whatsoever on religious practice, it would amount to the government being more inclusive re: recognizing religious practice than it currently is.

  2. #422
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Bowler hats are cool.
    Fedora > bowler

    veronica.jpg
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #423
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,970

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Fedora > bowler

    veronica.jpg
    In my experience you need Russell Brand head and facial hair to pull off the fedora. Tragically, I possess neither.

  4. #424
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,718

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    What happens to tax free status for church organizations of churches who don't believe in SSM? Have you heard of the IRS scandal? Who's being discriminated against there?
    Did someone from one of those "pro-family" groups tell you that this might change? It's sad that people calling themselves Christians would stoop to this sort of fearmongering.
    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.

  5. #425
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    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.
    1. Loving v Virginia was 9-0. That's not a plurality. 2. Can you think of a compelling reason why marriage should NOT be for everyone? 3. Those justices were constitutionally appointed to their position and given jurisdiction over the issue properly according to Article 3. Or do you have some other definition for "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..." The mantra that the court "made up" judicial review is inaccurate. James Madison made it quite clear in the Federalist Papers that it was an intended use of the supreme court, and even if you disagree, how else would one assert that the congress and president erroneously enacted a law that violates the constitution? Or would you have no check on their power? I think having a body that can strike down unconstitutional laws (which state courts of course can do with state laws) that cannot enact laws of its own is a fantastic idea. But by all means, offer us a better alternative.

    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.
    Dred Scott was a political question as well, and was a very "federal over state" move. It extended slavery even into free states and removed the ability of those states to truly abolish slavery in their own territory. That it was (frighteningly) a sound constitutional argument at the time shows us that it is a very good thing that such arguments (as well as the constitution itself) can change.

    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.
    This tripe again? In what demented universe does anyone actually think that a move towards progress cannot occur unless all progress happens simultaneously? Tell me, was it wrong to extend voting to blacks in 1870 because it did not also extend voting to women? No? I thought not.

    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.
    How, exactly? And please include why prohibiting SSM does not therefore infringe on the religious rights of members of a faith that think SSM is great.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    Marriage was a religious institution before the state got a hold of it. Before,IMO, gov't broke the first amendment.
    So what claim does an anti-SSM religion have to determine the law for everyone that a pro-SSM religion does not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Bowler hats are cool.
    It looks like Michael Fassbender. Who is, I would add, extremely cool.

    We can, of course, cleanly discard the appeals to tradition, and the attempts to discredit the supreme court. I am always tickled by how conservative Christians suggest that disallowing them to set the rules for everyone is somehow an infringement of their religion, but allowing them to set those rules is not an infringement of anyone else's. Reform Judaism, for example, is extremely pro-SSM. Why are Reform Jews' religious liberties not infringed when conservative Christians get to make the rules, but the conservative Christians' liberties would be infringed upon when Reform Jews make the rules? Obviously, the real answer is that no one's religious liberties entitle them to make the rules for anyone else, but I always chuckle at how ethnocentric that kind of argument is.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #426
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Wrong.
    Not at all.

    A) the government has to define marriage for its' own purposes as it has to state under what circumstances it will issue a marriage license and
    B) we live in under a representative form of government where the people are sovereign, and it is on their behalf and in their will that governance is done

  7. #427
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Within the limitations of the Constitution. You cannot limit marriage to only those you feel should get it without being able to justify why that limitation furthers a legitimate state interest.
    The Constitution leaves defining marriage to the States, and the states themselves are beholden to the expressed will of the people, either directly through referendum or indirectly through the legislature. The States are free to limit marriage in any way they like - which is why some states ban varying levels of kinship, some states have differing ages of consent, so on and so forth. Some states choose to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, some do not. Simply because you feel that someone should get it is not a good reason to overthrow self-government.

  8. #428
    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
    Not at all.

    A) the government has to define marriage for its' own purposes as it has to state under what circumstances it will issue a marriage license and
    B) we live in under a representative form of government where the people are sovereign, and it is on their behalf and in their will that governance is done
    And, (as you ignored before), exercises of that have been ruled illegal. Even on this issue specifically, courts have ruled against your view. There are limits on how far the majority can abuse the minority. And rightly so. You don't like, don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't go to a same sex wedding. You're not required to. Just leave others to practice as they see fit. Allow them the right to choose.

    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.

  9. #429
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And, (as you ignored before), exercises of that have been ruled illegal.
    Yes. Amazingly, even the Supreme Court is made up of humans who make bad decisions. As they themselves admit when they overrule their own precedent.

    Even on this issue specifically, courts have ruled against your view
    And ruled in ways that agree with me - now the issue is at the SCOTUS and we are going to see what they say, but the Police Powers of the States remain, regardless.

    There are limits on how far the majority can abuse the minority. And rightly so.
    Agreed. You will find those limits in the Constitution of the Federal and various State governments. But it is not an abuse to not give someone a marriage license. You do not have a positive right to a licence from the state to enter into a marriage with whomever you please.

    You don't like, don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't go to a same sex wedding. You're not required to. Just leave others to practice as they see fit. Allow them the right to choose.
    That logic carries with it consequences that you wish to ignore. Invalidating the existence of borders on the definition of marriage, invalidating the right of the States to define it as they see fit means that those rights are invalidated.

    If you want to alter the definition of marriage to include same sex couples so be it. But do so legally.

  10. #430
    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
    Yes. Amazingly, even the Supreme Court is made up of humans who make bad decisions. As they themselves admit when they overrule their own precedent.



    And ruled in ways that agree with me - now the issue is at the SCOTUS and we are going to see what they say, but the Police Powers of the States remain, regardless.



    Agreed. You will find those limits in the Constitution of the Federal and various State governments. But it is not an abuse to not give someone a marriage license. You do not have a positive right to a licence from the state to enter into a marriage with whomever you please.



    That logic carries with it consequences that you wish to ignore. Invalidating the existence of borders on the definition of marriage, invalidating the right of the States to define it as they see fit means that those rights are invalidated.

    If you want to alter the definition of marriage to include same sex couples so be it. But do so legally.
    You must feel frustrated, you're breaking things up again. No need to. There aren't that many points. The only real consequence would homosexuals would have a measure of equality. And btw, the courts ruling is legally. If they rule it violates he 14 th amendment, that would be applying law.

    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.

Posting Permissions

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