Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 143

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

  1. #71
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    13,512

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    translation: you have no quotes of me saying the lies you claimed i said, ill keep waiting, please continue with these failed strawmen.

    why do you make posts about ME instead of the topic? thats very telling

    the fact remains again, this is an equal, civil and human rights issues and nothing chances that, just like it was when it was about womans, minorities and interracial marriage.

    let me know when you can post those qoutes i asked for and PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC
    facts prove your post wrong again
    ive posted plenty about the topic,so far you have claimed the courts declared it a right,and that not allowing it violates there rights,but have not yet backed up their claims.

    i have posted links to every constitutional amendment,the wiki to the constitution,and the origins of judicial review never granted to the courts by anyone but themselves,

    if your so ignorant you cant even read the amendments,yet want to talk crap,yet cant even point to a single amentment or clause in the constitution,you deserve no place in this debate whatsoever,as you have provided nothing but opinions and childish retaliations.
    “[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”

  2. #72
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    32,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    again your saying you cant back up a single thing constitutionally,which makes your theory simply an opinion piece,as the law and constitution dont back you,as you have done nothing but runarounds rather than back your claims,which i did,then you simply called it nonsense,and provided no rebuttal,which shows how weak your character is.
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    translation: you have no quotes of me saying the lies you claimed i said, ill keep waiting, please continue with these failed strawmen.

    why do you make posts about ME instead of the topic? thats very telling

    the fact remains again, this is an equal, civil and human rights issues and nothing chances that, just like it was when it was about womans, minorities and interracial marriage.

    let me know when you can post those qoutes i asked for and PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC
    facts prove your post wrong again
    Moderator's Warning:
    Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban [W:72]Stop the personal comments and baiting. Address the topic and debate or move on.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We can’t get lost in discrimination. We can’t get lost in B.S. We can’t get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  3. #73
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    45,602

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

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    1.)ive posted plenty about the topic2
    2.) so far you have claimed the courts declared it a right,and that not allowing it violates there rights,but have not yet backed up their claims.
    3.) i have posted links to every constitutional amendment,the wiki to the constitution,and the origins of judicial review never granted to the courts by anyone but themselves,
    4.) if your so ignorant you cant even read the amendments,yet want to talk crap,yet cant even point to a single amentment or clause in the constitution,you deserve no place in this debate whatsoever,as you have provided nothing but opinions
    5.) and childish retaliations.
    1.) yes and failed insults about me
    2.) i dont claim that 14 times SCOTUS said its a right this is a fact, you can disagree with them but that is a fact they did that. You went off on some rant trying ot turn that into something i never said
    3.) which are meaningless to anything i actually said, post 30 more links they dont matter because they dont impact anything i actually posted. DO you have those quotes yet?
    4.) lol more incivility and failed insults because you got caught positng lies and making stuff up, thats not my fault
    5.) ???? what? lol that was only you not me

    Like i said when you are ready to STAY ON TOPIC and can qoute me and back up the lies you posted youll have somethign, until then NOTHING has changed, you just keep reposting your failed strawmen

    facts defeat your post again

    the fact remains again, this is an equal, civil and human rights issues and nothing chances that, just like it was when it was about womans, minorities and interracial marriage.

    that is the topic
    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    I'm not at risk for AIDS. Gays are.
    Quote Originally Posted by ajn678 View Post
    there is no such thing as an abortion on a dead fetus.

  4. #74
    Stable Genius
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,731

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

    Who cares about the constitution. This is our country now, we decide it means whatever we want to say it means. It is no good reason to use it as an excuse to hurt people you don't like.

  5. #75
    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 beerftw View Post
    to throw your world upside down,the constitution never once grants right of marriage,nor recognizes it.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. That is to say, that the constitution does not specifically list a right does not mean that we do not have it. The argument that we do not have the right to marry merely because the constitution does not say that we do, or that we lack any right because the constitution does not specifically guarantee it to us, is ALWAYS wrong.

    I don't want to bother with quotes but we'll address the other points brought up.

    1. Religion has no special hold on marriage, least of all a single religion in this country. For thousands of years, societies have been making rules about marriage, both for spiritual and secular reasons. And even so, most Americans don't want their marriages to suddenly have no legal authority. The vast majority of the people in this country, married or not, want marriage to be a legal status. These laws trace at least back to 13th century England, which is about the earliest legal body that our law is based on. In that society, while religion (and pretty much just Catholicism) had a part in marriage, it was still a legal status. That said, the favor given to a singular religious body and the entanglement it held with the law would be grossly unconstitutional in this country.

    2. The "get government out of marriage" argument would always end up with a couple having fewer rights. The argument usually ends up demanding that all of the designations like medical and legal proxy and inheritance be determined in a living (or not) will, but there is absolutely no private contract that will confer on one partner immunity to being compelled to testify against the other. A loss of rights is guaranteed and there is no benefit obtained in exchange.

    3. The supreme court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right that is protected by the constitution. Even if a state wanted to refuse to recognize marriages (which would be against the wishes of the people in that state), it would still have to recognize the status conferred by marriages in other states, or federally recognized ones.

    There is no serious movement to destroy the legal institution of marriage. Since that is the case, there is no constitutional grounds for denying gay couples access to it. Marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right according to numerous supreme court cases, and thus is law, since we use a common law system. In order to infringe on that fundamental right, the government (state or federal) must provide reasoning to pass at least a rational basis test, likely a higher one. Every court case thus far that has addressed the overall constitutionality of SSM bans has found them unconstitutional. The Prop 8 case in California, which is the current highest level case, will be persuasive in any future deliberation, and it holds that SSM bans fail to meet even the rational basis test, and I am inclined to agree.

    Please, what government interest is banning SSM rationally related to?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #76
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36,080

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Really? I've been told on other forums that TX's state constitution specifically prohibits SSM. Same for Michigan.

    Of course, I told those folks that posted that that if the feds recognize gays as a protected class, that particular amendment wont stand up to state challenges.
    It is my understanding that this is a federal court case, challenging the TX state constitution, as prop 8 was challenged in CA.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #77
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36,080

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It's a legal contract that provides certain legal benefits and protections. It currently discriminates on the basis of gender. Under equal protection, the court precedents are pretty clear: the state must show an important interest in making that discrimination.

    Provide such an interest.

    Surely a libertarian like yourself would believe that the government can't just make that discrimination for no reason. Individual liberty trumps government interference as a default.
    The same basis as that for title 9 in college sports, gender "equality". For every male athlete (scolarship or not) there must be a female athlete. It seems odd that those pushing for gender quotas, to acheive gender "equlity" would now seek to say that they are unconstituional. Should we now seek to have an equal number of homosexual participants in college sports?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #78
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The same basis as that for title 9 in college sports, gender "equality". For every male athlete (scolarship or not) there must be a female athlete. It seems odd that those pushing for gender quotas, to acheive gender "equlity" would now seek to say that they are unconstituional. Should we now seek to have an equal number of homosexual participants in college sports?

    Sorry...

    #1 Title IX - does not require a "tit-for-tat" quota system and that for every male athlete there needs to be a female athlete. The function of Title IX is that publicly funded school must present equal chances of participation, not quotas. For example I work in the HR Department of a school and part of my job is handling the Athletic Coaching Contracts. We offer football as a boys sport (although there are no restrictions on a girl going out for the team none have chosen to do so) and we offer girls Softball. We also offer boys and girls Volleyball at each high school. Because we offer girls softball that offsets the boys football team. In terms of Volleyball, two of our high schools did not utilize their Volleyball coaching position for girls this past year because they could not field enough participants for a team roster. We are required to make opportunities available, we are not required to fill quotas.


    #2 RE: the last sentence, this is pretty silly from a logical basis. Males/Females are pretty much evenly split at 50/50 and therefore comprise 100% of the population. Homosexual comprise 3-10% (depending on which source you choose to believe). Requiring "an equal number" of participants in a sport for 3-10% of a given population makes no logical sense.



    >>>>

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    205

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Why is the constitutional amendment process now ignored in favor of simply "reinterpreting" it to get the desired result? When we take bizarre steps to create constitutional "pseudo-amendments" that devalues the very document that was intended to protect those rights. We have two constitutional amendments relating to the recreational drug alcohol, one to ban it and one to undo that ban, yet none were deemed necessary to establish/remove total federal control over the various other recreational drugs. Not a single mention of marriage, "strong personal desire" or "sexual preference/orientation" exists in the constitution.
    the constitution says whatever a majority of the Justices say it says ...

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    205

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The same basis as that for title 9 in college sports, gender "equality". For every male athlete (scolarship or not) there must be a female athlete. It seems odd that those pushing for gender quotas, to acheive gender "equlity" would now seek to say that they are unconstituional. Should we now seek to have an equal number of homosexual participants in college sports?
    quota? When it was only men, that was a quota ...

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •