Page 4 of 40 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 394

Thread: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    "People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws."

    Yet, just because they engaged in a democratic process doesn't suddenly nullify the fact that they are infringing upon the liberty and freedom of others. Whether it is done by the barrel of a gun or at the ballot box, infringing on liberty and freedom is still just that, infringing on liberty and freedom.

    "Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman."

    Well, that has been changed quite recently with the SCOTUS ruling and that doesn't change the fact that people should still have the freedom to marry whomever they want (given of course it is consensual and everyone is of legal age). Thus, with this most recent SCOTUS ruling, "The law has to change[d] to accommodate for same sex marriages and [has allowed[ the term of 'marriage' [to] be redefined."
    Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard. The default definition of marriage in the US is traditional marriage. This gets changed in states that want it changed. The "liberty and freedom" from the extent of marriage goes is that you are at liberty and free to marry anyone of the opposite gender that is of age. This is the minimum and can be expanded by including "anyone of any gender."

    The court doesn't set policy, they make rulings according to the Constitution. According to DOMA it violates the ability of states that legalize SSM to allow those legally wed couples to receive federal benefits. DOMA went beyond what the fed should do in trying to enforce or change marriage policy, it trampled on the states. This doesn't change the fact that in a majority of states same sex unions are not recognized as a marriage.

  2. #32
    Sage davidtaylorjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,775

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    It's not apples and oranges, though I do like your graphic. It is a perfect example to refute what he is saying.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

    Ronald Reagan

  3. #33
    Sage



    Jack Fabulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    midwest
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,705
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    "People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws."

    Yet, just because they engaged in a democratic process doesn't suddenly nullify the fact that they are infringing upon the liberty and freedom of others. Whether it is done by the barrel of a gun or at the ballot box, infringing on liberty and freedom is still just that, infringing on liberty and freedom.

    "Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman."

    Well, that has been changed quite recently with the SCOTUS ruling and that doesn't change the fact that people should still have the freedom to marry whomever they want (given of course it is consensual and everyone is of legal age). Thus, with this most recent SCOTUS ruling, "The law has to change[d] to accommodate for same sex marriages and [has allowed[ the term of 'marriage' [to] be redefined."
    What the court effectively did with the DOMA ruling was to basically leave it up to the states. They ruled that the federal government could not dictate the terms of marriage to the states. Supporters of SSM hailed this ruling as a victory because it effectively nullified DOMA but, more accurately, it was a victory for states rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.)are you tryign to deflect now and say my example is unrelaistic or 100s of others just like it are unrelaistic? i hipe not because that would be silly and further expose your stance

    2.) this is not a marriage contract and is not the same thing at all so it instantly fails but lets go further is is your licenses seen by the fed AND do you have the option of getting a licences. Has there been any court cases that have ruled this inequality? is this a civil rights or rights issue?

    all these things make your example meaningless

    3&4.) see 2

    5.) again when pushed the courts disagree with your opinion
    answer the question do you think its right if your wife dies or was in the hospital in a state that didnt recognize your marriage to not let you see her, notify you of her death or let you make medical decisions

    6.) please stop with the meaningless examples. are you comparing pot to marriage? this is just nonsensical and intellectual dishonest.
    WHat 1000+ benefits and rights does smoking pot grant you? what federal protections does smoking pot grant you. seriously quit, you are better than this.
    You aren't addressing my arguments, your chopping things up into points, putting arguments and words into my mouth that I never said and then arguing that. If anything I think you may be trying to deflect with your posts what I'm actually arguing and not addressing that.

    I have addressed court concerns, and it appears that the courts uphold that it's a state issue. I bring up examples to show that a state doesn't have to recognize all the laws and legal recognition that another state may have. The state is sovereign in regards to their laws, and when in that state you are under that state's laws. Pot may be legal somewhere and illegal somewhere else, being legal in 1 place doesn't allow someone from that state to bring it wherever they want. Being licensed in a state doesn't mean that other states have to recognize your license. A physician could have their license somewhere, know how to practice medicine, but then have a lawsuit if they go to another state and do so without a license in that state. What the other state does is irrelevant. Some states ban SSM, others go strongly (Like LA's state Constitutional Amendment) that says they will not recognize any union performed anywhere else that does not fit within LA's definition of marriage. The people of a state may approve of SSM, but they do not have the sovereignty to force every other state in the nation to recognize their laws and marital definitions and force other states to violate their own laws to accommodate for couples that are not legally wed.

  5. #35
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard. The default definition of marriage in the US is traditional marriage. This gets changed in states that want it changed. The "liberty and freedom" from the extent of marriage goes is that you are at liberty and free to marry anyone of the opposite gender that is of age. This is the minimum and can be expanded by including "anyone of any gender."

    The court doesn't set policy, they make rulings according to the Constitution. According to DOMA it violates the ability of states that legalize SSM to allow those legally wed couples to receive federal benefits. DOMA went beyond what the fed should do in trying to enforce or change marriage policy, it trampled on the states. This doesn't change the fact that in a majority of states same sex unions are not recognized as a marriage.
    "Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard."

    So I guess the freedom and liberty of millions of Southerners was violated when they had to integrate their schools with black people.

    What is going on is that people are having their freedoms and liberties trampled upon by having them dictated by others.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    "Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard."

    So I guess the freedom and liberty of millions of Southerners was violated when they had to integrate their schools with black people.

    What is going on is that people are having their freedoms and liberties trampled upon by having them dictated by others.
    Race is protected under the Constitution. The Federal Constitution is the highest dictator of rights. As is it today the Constitution doesn't demand that it's a violation of rights and liberties for a state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. The ban on my state on SSM is still as legal and valid as it was before the ruling. It's also not a logical comparison to compare race issues in the South to SSM.

    We can declare anything a liberty. I could say that my liberties are infringed upon in states that won't let me get marriage in an incest relationship. But unless the Constitution says so then legally that liberty is subject to the legal bodies deciding that and isn't something I'm entitled to.

  7. #37
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Please don't categorize what I said into points, that's not what I posted.
    2.) Also, don't misrepresent what I said because it's convenient for you.
    3.) I am not claiming that bigotry and discrimination is made up for doesn't exist. There are plenty of people on the pro-SSM side that are bigots and discriminatory against those who are against it and visa versa.
    4.) Although the fact remains that it's a social issue discussing changing a civil right.
    5.) So, you say I'm 100% wrong on the fact of the matter being that SSM is a social issue and disprove that with your opinion that it's an equal rights issue?
    6.)When pushed into courts it seems that it is the state's right to define marriage either way
    7.)In my state SSM is banned
    8.) DOMA is unconstitutional largely because it prevents legal couples in states that legalize SSM to receive federal benefits.
    9.) I also never claimed that gays are never discriminated against, what I did say is that it's far overplayed and over-hyped.

    Your post is dishonest, you are applying things to my argument that I never said, argued, or believed.
    1.) its exactly what you posted, disagree choose your words better
    2.) didnt do this, i took your words for their face value, be more clear next time
    3.) sure seemed that way by your words
    4.) no matter how many times you repeat every time you call it a fact its 100% wrong, if you disagree back up your statment lol you made it prove its a fact its only a social issues, court cases already disagree with you
    5.) yes i do because you factually are, see the court cases that deemed it so, its not my opinion its what some courts have decided and its why you are wrong when you call it a fact, it makes it easy
    6.) well you would be wrong because that hasnt been pushed in many courts yet and when it was it was ruled that it violated equality
    7.) and that is meaningless to anything being discussed unless you are trying to claim your state heard this exact issue in its supreme court and ruled that its a social issue and the state can discriminate.
    8.) yes correct another thing that doesnt matter to what we are discussion
    9.) by what standards? your opinion it doesnt happen much lol
    10.) really? weird only ONE of us has called something a fact that isnt and it wasnt me

    speak more clear next time and this wont happen, giving examples of discrimination you dont think happens and saying they have done a good job inventing their issues certainly implies you think it doesnt really happen much.
    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

  8. #38
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    If gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, why do you care?
    Some people think the government should be used to enforce their selective morality. Just big government supporters trying to excuse their call for government force against the individual.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    Because it isn't marriage.
    So how does it affect you?

  10. #40
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Race is protected under the Constitution. The Federal Constitution is the highest dictator of rights. As is it today the Constitution doesn't demand that it's a violation of rights and liberties for a state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. The ban on my state on SSM is still as legal and valid as it was before the ruling. It's also not a logical comparison to compare race issues in the South to SSM.
    I'm not arguing whether or not it is currently legal, what I am arguing is that such laws are limiting the freedom of others because other people have opposing views. Your state's ban on SSM is a tyranny of the majority. Just because someone doesn't morally agree with what I do, I should still be allowed to do it (given of course what I am doing does not infringe on their or anyone else's liberties/freedoms).

    EDIT: Edited a sentence to provide clarification.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

Page 4 of 40 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •