Page 90 of 159 FirstFirst ... 40808889909192100140 ... LastLast
Results 891 to 900 of 1585

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

  1. #891
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    You've pulled that "we" dishonesty crap already, and repeated this deliberate dishonesty of stating what I did not say. I said that your own insertion of compulsion <requirement> to procreate, a flaw of argument known as affirmation of the consequent, is not anywhere involved in the cause for the recognition of heterosexual marriage. And if you cannot win the argument by honest terms, I guess you feel you must try to win it by dishonest terms, and having me removed from discussions, which is more than just a flaw of argumentation, but a serious flaw in character.
    I thought you weren't going to respond to me, anymore. Guess this another area where you are not truthful. Now, you have said, quite clearly several times, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. So have many others. This is an accurate statement of fact. If you believe on ANY level that it is, demonstrate proof, which would require you to show a legal edict or some law that shows that in order to get married, one has to agree to procreate. If you cannot do this... and we know you cannot, your entire procreation/biological argument is completely refuted. As I said, I know that you put a lot of time into that failed argument, but you really needed to do your homework first. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong, which you were.

    The FACT is that procreation only happens by heterosexual means, and that is in FACT the cause for the recognition of societies the world over.
    And this fact has nothing to do with marriage. If you disagree, show any legal precedent that requires someone to procreate in order to marry. If you cannot... and we know you cannot, your position is refuted. Which it is.

    As far as DOMA being unconstitutional, I give you these following words:


    "Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

    I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage[/U] and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

    This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

    I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

    Bill Clinton,
    Signing Statement, DOMA
    Friday, September 20, 1996

    Passed by super-majorities in both Houses of Congress,
    and majorities among Democrats in both houses.

    The allegedly offending passage of DOMA:

    Defense of Marriage Act
    Section 7, Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

    `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

    ♦ The only thing DOMA applied to was the definition of marriage for federal purposes.

    ♦ The federal government did not outlaw anything, as it did with polygamy, and as the court did with sodomy.

    ♦ It did NOT insist that the states recognize the federal government's definition that had been the sole definition recognized throughout this country's ENTIRE HISTORY!

    ♦ The Federal government does not even issue marriage licenses! The states are completely left alone and not violating state federalism at all! In fact the Court violates federalism by dictating the acceptance of this new definition.

    The ONLY thing DOMA did was the FEDERAL government regulating the FEDERAL government -- which is ENTIRELY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE, a legitimate act of Congress and nowhere the domain of equal rights!

    The SOLE purpose of DOMA was the prohibition of States coming up with their own definition AND compelling that definition on other states by the corruption of the Full Faith and Credit clause. That's IT! There was no denial of rights here. Rights are not any guarantee of outcome and reward! This was only the federal government indicating the terms by which it would recognize marriage, which is entirely within it's authority!


    And in the hypocritical act of ALL TIME, the 5 liberal activist progressive judges have sought to deny the Federal Congress its legitimate authority of indicating the terms which only the Federal government would recognize marriage, by the abuse of the federal Court's position in the federal government to 1) dictate their own position, to the independent branch of Congress, 2) violating Separation of Powers, and 3) dictating that Federal Court's position to the allegedly sovereign States as well, violating state sovereignty!!

    The U.S. Supreme Court has allegedly recognized the Sovereignty of states, but only select sovereignty, denying the sovereignty of other states entirely, so as to dictate its own Social Engineering dictate to the States and Congress as well!

    Today the Supreme Court showed that it is NOT in defense of States Rights, but willing to dictate its own view of the terms of marriage by the Federal government, and deny Congress' own protection of those States Rights.

    Simultaneously, regarding Prop 8, that Supreme Court denied the appeal, and allowed California to proceed to the denial of the will of the people in referendum, to deny enacted law, and to fail to defend that enacted law and already instituted into statute, with the State and Court wanting to have repeated bites at the same apple to get the result it wanted, regardless of anything else, so that it may institute the dictates of a few elites in the State legislature, and Governor's office, to dictate the terms in disregard to all of the populace.

    In one statement before the court is that "no other group in recent history has been subject to popular referendum to take away rights ... the way that gay people have." What they want is there own terms dictated, in disregard of states rights, in disregard of the people's view, in disregard to Congress's view.

    In the hearing of this case, the Leftists Court Justices were arguing Federalism and states rights ALL DAY LONG, .... UNTIL it came to the states actually making decisions against their chosen outcome, UNTIL it involved the States making decisions on their own not dictated by one state under Full Faith and Credit abuse.

    In Fact the Constitution itself, and even the meanings of terms therein, mean nothing to the left, NOTHING in comparison to the Progressive Utopian statist desire to dictate to all of society and impose their view on ever member of society. They DON'T WANT the states to make these decisions! And they only want the federal government to make these decisions, if they are the decisions they want!

    There's no "rights" involved here; there is just a corrupt judiciary, and the rejection of the limits imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution.

    Every single American should be greatly alarmed by this. Just as the emancipation of blacks from slavery was used to violate real rights and impose utopian dictate, so too will this be used to dictate even more intrusive terms, and annul individual rights.
    And everything you wrote shows why it is unconstitutional. Based on the full faith and credit clause, it is not the Federal government's place to dictate to the states how they can license something like this. DOMA violated this and was appropriately deemed unconstitutional. As usual, and as was shown in today's ruling, you are wrong.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 06-26-13 at 11:39 PM.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #892
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I'm pretty stoked. I want to have this discussion across the country. I did not think it should be decided by a few justices.

    And I love people like you because...well...no offense but the language and attitude you bring to the discussion is probably going to be quite helpful in pushing our case. Whether you like it or not, same sex marriage is law in those states and choosing to speak down and belittle the people and relationships that you don't agree with is not going to inspire many people to find your cause just or benevolent. It just makes you look angry and vindictive...but whatever.

    There are no losers with this decision. Everyone in the country is a winner because the courts are allowing us to do what is best and that is to have a civil and ongoing discussion on what is best for the country and our culture as a whole in regards to the incredibly important institution of marriage. Let's do it!
    I'm not "belittling" anything.

    The truth of the matter is that you're ignoring what marriage truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife ..

    .. And in so doing you're pissing off a great many of the 92% of the population to whom, as a class, marriage belongs.

    You can pretend that I'm "angry" and "vindictive" and "in the minority" and all, but pretending will not help you, instead setting you up for a huge disappointment in the future.

    What I bring to the table is a cogent rational argument that, though not necessarily the devil's, will still present you with a devil of a time if you don't consider the likely real consequences of continuing to think you can get away with hijacking a 12,000 year-old institution from an entire class of people.

    A word to the wise: start imploring your state reps to create homarriage domestic partner civil unions today.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  3. #893
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,689

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    I'm not "belittling" anything.

    The truth of the matter is that you're ignoring what marriage truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife ..
    In religious terms, that may be so. It's whatever the government says it is, in this case.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  4. #894
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Marriage, as a license and a set of legal obligations and benefits is exactly what you will be, by definition. That you do not like it is entirely irrelevant. I mean, really, this is not hard. In fact it is really easy. Sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the evil truth will not make it go away.
    Since that is what you're doing, sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the truth you can't handle about the likely scenarios that will occur if SS activists continue to push their marriage-hijacking agenda on 92% of the population, you should understand then that that likely reality simply won't go away because you have your fingers in your ears.

    All can change quickly in a short-time power-play.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  5. #895
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    I'm not "belittling" anything.

    The truth of the matter is that you're ignoring what marriage truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife ..

    .. And in so doing you're pissing off a great many of the 92% of the population to whom, as a class, marriage belongs.

    You can pretend that I'm "angry" and "vindictive" and "in the minority" and all, but pretending will not help you, instead setting you up for a huge disappointment in the future.

    What I bring to the table is a cogent rational argument that, though not necessarily the devil's, will still present you with a devil of a time if you don't consider the likely real consequences of continuing to think you can get away with hijacking a 12,000 year-old institution from an entire class of people.

    A word to the wise: start imploring your state reps to create homarriage domestic partner civil unions today.
    I find the term "homarriage" offensive. I'm not sure why you feel that is appropriate or why you feel that is not derogatory but it is. Even if you don't agree with calling same sex marriages "marriage" it really does not justify you creating a neologism just to disparage people and their relationships. There are plenty of widely accepted terms you could use. "Domestic Partnership" "Civil Union" "Civil Marriage" Etc. I suspect you intentionally use that term as a way to belittle and demean gay people.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 06-26-13 at 09:15 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #896
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I find the term "homarriage" offensive. I'm not sure why you feel that is appropriate or why you feel that is not derogatory but it is. Even if you don't agree with calling same sex marriages "marriage" it really does not justify you creating a neologism just to disparage people and their relationships. There are plenty of widely accept terms you could use. "Domestic Partnership" "Civil Union" "Civil Marriage" Etc. I suspect you intentionally use that term as a way to belittle and demean gay people.
    Obviously you are predisposed to see evil where there is none.

    Creating a new term for SS committed monogamous civil union domestic partnerships is simply appropriate, as the use of a proper name to accurately describe something is a modern, civilized and intelligent thing to do.

    We've used the word "marriage" for 12,000 years to reference the OS committed monongamous civil union domestic partnerships between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    Since the word "marriage" does not apply for SS couples, a new word needs to be coined, as we simply don't have a word yet coined for their relationships, understandably.

    I suggested "homarriage", drawing the analogy between "man" and "woman" to apply here: "marriage" and "homarriage" -- quite applicable and descriptive.

    If you prefer another new term, then suggest it and justify its usage.

    That you suspect me of "belittling and demeaning" is simply ludicrous.

    I'm searching, as we centrists often do, for win-win scenarios, and win-win scenarios that rightly respect definitive propriety, as respecting definitive propriety creates progress whereas disrespecting definitive propriety causes regression, regression that most often ultimately gets corrected anyway and was nothing more than a waste of time against progress.

    That you see my efforts as "mean-spirited", in effect, .. well, perhaps I need to remind you that your entire position is one of being "I don't give a damn" uncaring about an entire class of people and their 12,000 year-old institution, just as long as you get what you want, you don't care who and how many people you have to, in effect, steal from in order to get it.

    All in all, it's best that the new term for SS relevant relationships be both employed and as accurate as possible.

    That the term I suggested includes the word "marriage" should be at least somewhat satisfying for you.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  7. #897
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Wow...paranoid much? It is one thing to blame gays for undermining the moral fabric of society, but now we get part of the blame for the destruction of individual rights? I really need to get a copy of the Gay Agenda! How are we doing all this nefarious stuff!

    Paranoid? The now repeated determination of the federal government to dictate the terms of our lives, even take over de facto ownership of each citizen's body, and willingness to violate state sovereignty and separation of powers at its will, with laws being written that Congress does not read, but prohibits congress to act, or even remove members of boards at will... and my recognizing that this is NOT at all the Republican form of government which we're guaranteed.... is paranoia?

    You need to reintroduce yourself to your dictionary.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  8. #898
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,790

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Obviously you are predisposed to see evil where there is none.

    Creating a new term for SS committed monogamous civil union domestic partnerships is simply appropriate, as the use of a proper name to accurately describe something is a modern, civilized and intelligent thing to do.

    We've used the word "marriage" for 12,000 years to reference the OS committed monongamous civil union domestic partnerships between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    Since the word "marriage" does not apply for SS couples, a new word needs to be coined, as we simply don't have a word yet coined for their relationships, understandably.

    I suggested "homarriage", drawing the analogy between "man" and "woman" to apply here: "marriage" and "homarriage" -- quite applicable and descriptive.

    If you prefer another new term, then suggest it and justify its usage.

    That you suspect me of "belittling and demeaning" is simply ludicrous.

    I'm searching, as we centrists often do, for win-win scenarios, and win-win scenarios that rightly respect definitive propriety, as respecting definitive propriety creates progress whereas disrespecting definitive propriety causes regression, regression that most often ultimately gets corrected anyway and was nothing more than a waste of time against progress.

    That you see my efforts as "mean-spirited", in effect, .. well, perhaps I need to remind you that your entire position is one of being "I don't give a damn" uncaring about an entire class of people and their 12,000 year-old institution, just as long as you get what you want, you don't care who and how many people you have to, in effect, steal from in order to get it.

    All in all, it's best that the new term for SS relevant relationships be both employed and as accurate as possible.

    That the term I suggested includes the word "marriage" should be at least somewhat satisfying for you.
    links? facts?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #899
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,312
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Huh? How did that change in November?
    Factbox: List of states that legalized gay marriage

    * MINNESOTA: 2013 - After Minnesota voters became the first to reject a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman in 2012, the state legislature proposed a same-sex marriage legalization bill in 2013. The bill was approved and takes effect on August 1.
    REFERENDUMS
    * MAINE - When supporters of same-sex marriage put the issue on the ballot in Maine, it marked the first attempt to legalize same-sex marriage in a popular referendum. It was approved by voters in the November 2012 elections.
    * MARYLAND, WASHINGTON STATE - After the state legislatures in Washington and Maryland voted in favor of same-sex marriage, the laws were blocked from taking effect until state voters were given an opportunity to decide the matter in ballot initiatives. The issue went to voters in November 2012 and in both states voters sided with legalizing same-sex marriage.
    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.

  10. #900
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Paranoid? The now repeated determination of the federal government to dictate the terms of our lives, .
    In the context of gay marriage what is being dictated that chnges your life?

Posting Permissions

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