Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 143

Thread: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban [W:72]

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Translation: you still got nothing, we know. Lets us know when you have anythign on topic, anything.
    You're correct, I got nuthin. To me this subject has been discussed to death but there is a lot of response to the thread so I guess I am in the minority. Sorry to butt in.

  2. #132
    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: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Actually, I know exactly what I am talking about. You just aren't following it. For future reference, I rarely discuss how US law works, but rather, how I believe US law SHOULD work. Nor have I ever said I opposed same sex marriage. Now if you are incapable of dealing with the abstract then you will find it difficult to comprehend what I am talking about. Just so you know, the supposed 'right to marriage' is not a primary no matter how buried your mind is in legalisms. The primary here is freedom of association. You may associate with whomever you like. By right. Yet being a good leftist, you reject that primary and skip right along to adhere to any random collection of thoughts you view as valid at any given moment. That some grouping of political appointees has fallen into the same mindless trap is not evidence that you have reached the proper conclusion. You are just using bad reasoning to support your argument.
    You should learn how to make yourself more clear in your writing then. You made a lot of assertions about how the constitution works, not how you'd like it to work. You should use words like "should" to denote this. Meanwhile, since we live in this world, with this constitution, this article 3, this common law system, this body of supreme court case law, and this United States, we'll deal with the laws we have.

    In order for your fantasy to play out, several decades of case law would need to be thrown out without justification, but I'm getting the sense that you want the entire system of judicial review tossed out, despite how it was clearly the intent of many of the framers, and described clearly in the Federalist papers, nor do you have any alternate interpretation of "all cases arising under this constitution" that somehow excludes review of whether or not an act of congress violates the constitution. Without judicial review, there is nothing besides parliamentary tricks to stop a party with a majority in both houses and with the white house to pass any unconstitutional law it likes. I'm sure you'd be a lot more fond of "political appointees" if they'd struck down Obamacare, wouldn't you?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #133
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    1.)You're correct, I got nuthin. To me this subject has been discussed to death but there is a lot of response to the thread so I guess I am in the minority. Sorry to butt in.
    1.) i know thanks for admitting this truth
    2.) but the fact remains it has not.

    The subject is about texas and this law suite and in particular how the case is going to be argued in texas. SInce this is new there as not been any to death discussion.

    In the case of Texas the argument can not be used that the banning violates Texas's own state constitution because that doesnt protect equality based on sexuality but it does protect other equality that can be argued that bleed over.

    If the article is accurate, in this particular case, the argument is going right to the top, this guy is going to swing for the fences, he is stating that his argument will be this violates specifically the US constitution and he doesnt seem like he is going to use other supportive arguments, just going to let it all ride on the US constitution.

    IF this is how it happens that is actually pretty big, actually its HUGE!

    because if he chooses to use ONLY that argument (which ill only believe it when i see it) and he wins that will be huge, depending on the wording on the ruling.


    If the decision states that a ban does in fact violate the US constitution then precedence is set and can be referred to in other states, of course its not SCOTUS so it doesnt just make it national its still just a texas thing but it can help push the issue to a national scene and get a decision made on its constitutionality based on the US constitution therefore possibly effecting the country in the future instead of just one state.

    While there have been other court cases that do in fact mention equal rights, civil rights, human rights and equality, the decisions never directly mention the US constitution or refer directly to the 14th they are vague and IMO on purpose. If this decesion would end up doing that its MAJOR.

    But in my opinion again, ill believe it when i see it. My guess is any ruling at this level will NOT directly mention the 14th.
    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

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) i know thanks for admitting this truth
    2.) but the fact remains it has not.

    The subject is about texas and this law suite and in particular how the case is going to be argued in texas. SInce this is new there as not been any to death discussion.

    In the case of Texas the argument can not be used that the banning violates Texas's own state constitution because that doesnt protect equality based on sexuality but it does protect other equality that can be argued that bleed over.

    If the article is accurate, in this particular case, the argument is going right to the top, this guy is going to swing for the fences, he is stating that his argument will be this violates specifically the US constitution and he doesnt seem like he is going to use other supportive arguments, just going to let it all ride on the US constitution.

    IF this is how it happens that is actually pretty big, actually its HUGE!

    because if he chooses to use ONLY that argument (which ill only believe it when i see it) and he wins that will be huge, depending on the wording on the ruling.


    If the decision states that a ban does in fact violate the US constitution then precedence is set and can be referred to in other states, of course its not SCOTUS so it doesnt just make it national its still just a texas thing but it can help push the issue to a national scene and get a decision made on its constitutionality based on the US constitution therefore possibly effecting the country in the future instead of just one state.

    While there have been other court cases that do in fact mention equal rights, civil rights, human rights and equality, the decisions never directly mention the US constitution or refer directly to the 14th they are vague and IMO on purpose. If this decesion would end up doing that its MAJOR.

    But in my opinion again, ill believe it when i see it. My guess is any ruling at this level will NOT directly mention the 14th.
    Interesting. I may have gone off half cocked when I saw what I figured was just another thread by you on the same old subject. Please hold the obvious jokes about half cocked

  5. #135
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Some people actually want the constituion to be understood without so much interpretation.

    Explain the need for the 15th and 19th amendments using your interpretation of the 14th.
    Some people live in a ridiculous universe where words and phrases have only one possible meaning. Those people are not my problem. It's a legal document, legal issues can be complicated. You claim that some want less interpretation, but really you've interpreted the Constitution to allow you to carry a device that projects a small metal slug at a target via gunpowder. It doesn't mention such a device. You don't want less interpretation. You want it to be interpreted how YOU like it.

    How come you haven't provided the state interest in banning same sex marriage yet?
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-01-13 at 08:37 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. #136
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Well let me straighten you out then - granting equal rights to any group that already has equal rights under the Constitution devalues the very Constitution that already guarantees those rights.
    Rights are not a zero sum situation. Unless you think granting you the right to carry a gun makes me less free...no, that would be silly. You don't think that.

    So which of your rights are degraded if two dudes marry? How?
    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. #137
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,289

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Rights are not a zero sum situation. Unless you think granting you the right to carry a gun makes me less free...no, that would be silly. You don't think that.

    So which of your rights are degraded if two dudes marry? How?
    Why should the right of the people to determine what will and will not qualify as a marriage be taken from them? No one is denying anyone the right to freely cohabitate and fornicate with whoever they wish. That any such arrangement should be given the social sanction of marriage is something that should be left to the people to decide, not unelected lawyers.

  8. #138
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Why should the right of the people to determine what will and will not qualify as a marriage be taken from them? No one is denying anyone the right to freely cohabitate and fornicate with whoever they wish. That any such arrangement should be given the social sanction of marriage is something that should be left to the people to decide, not unelected lawyers.
    You can define marriage however you want. Nobody is stopping you. I'm not sure I understand the objection.
    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.

  9. #139
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,047

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Why should the right of the people to determine what will and will not qualify as a marriage be taken from them? No one is denying anyone the right to freely cohabitate and fornicate with whoever they wish. That any such arrangement should be given the social sanction of marriage is something that should be left to the people to decide, not unelected lawyers.
    Why should only 'straight' married couples be the beneficiaries of the benefits, privileges, legal protections...and yes penalties...accorded by state and fed govts?

    As this comes down to an issue of discrimination, it comes under the protection of the Constitution where the majority may NOT vote on the rights of the minority...such as on segregation, for example.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #140
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    13,392

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    And yet non religious people want to marry, too. So there is most definitely marriage outside of religion. And, like everyone else, want their marriages to be marriages, not something else that might be kind of close. Religious traditions have no special privilege to the term or to the traditions around marriage. It is a part of our human history.



    The supreme court doesn't grant rights or add to the law. No court does that. It simply has the authority, directly from article 3, to rule on all cases arising under the constitution. A case that asks "does the constitution, which admittedly protects more rights than are enumerated, protect this right?" It is the court's job to answer that question. Sometimes the answer is yes.



    The people of this country do not want to destroy the legal status of marriage, so all of this "get government out of marriage" stuff is never going to happen, nor would it be a good idea if it did. Same sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry under the constitution. That will be the national standard pretty soon.
    as stated before,religion was considered a religious construct while civil unions a state construct,the state has no pwer to regulate religion without any just cause,usually involving life liberty or property.in either case as mentioned states if they choose to recognize marriage as religious as traditional would have no controlling authority over,and if they recognize them the same as civil unions,which are a state construct,they would be under equality of law.



    article 3 doesnt grant them any such power,as stated in the constitution,all powers not directly granted under the constitution are given to the states,so that means the courts granting a right never granted by the constitution are unconstitutional.the states do however have to abode by the amendments of the constitution,as the are the official way to change or add to the absolute law of the land.the courts only hold power to decide if laws or states abide by the constitution,not the power to decide if rights exist not enumerated.
    heres section 3

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
    Section 2.

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
    Section 3.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.



    as stated already no the people don,i only explained the only legal ways the states could ban ssm,which would be to ban all marriage as recognized by the state.but as stated before yes ssm couples can be denied rights but only if all couples are denied rights.
    “[The metric system is the tool of the Devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I likes it!” – Abe “Grampa” Simpson”

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 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
  •