Page 118 of 152 FirstFirst ... 1868108116117118119120128 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,180 of 1516

Thread: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

  1. #1171
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    lol!!!, Bob.
    Hey, I just "destroyed" your post! You have been defeated. Hey, I'm getting the hang of this. Just because I say so, and it is true. I have discovered your secret, you are destroyed again.
    my name isnt bob, use my real name, your deflection fails again
    translation: you still have ZERO facts to support your proven wrong claim while other posters used facts to defeat yours.

    Let us know when you have ANY facts to support your failed claim, any.
    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

  2. #1172
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayar View Post
    This looks like as good a place as any to put my soapbox.

    I am a registered libertarian and self described atheist constitutional conservative. I am confident that I can articulate conservative principles and refute leftist fascism(modern western liberalism) as well or better than anyone you know. My point. The opinion stated below is that of a conservative. I am not a conservative who is liberal on this subject or conservative fiscally but liberal socially. I am a conservative and my position regarding this issue is based on conservative principles and i can defend it from a conservative stance.

    The "equal protection under the law" interpretation of the 14th ammendment has long been considered, by conservatives, to be a valid originalist interpretation of the constitution. As it should be. It is not another progressive pimple full of make-it-up-as-you-go puss their imaginary friend, the living breathing constitution of convenience. FYI; it means basically that all people are to be treated the same in the eyes of the law(I.e.courts,the IRS,law enforcement,etc...the government). That sounds good right? That's because it is. It is a solid principle,one that strengthens individual liberty and supports justice. It is a principle that should be defended. Unfortunately, much like freedom of speech,religion, and expression, it is when this principle is guards sentiments and/or behavior that we find objectionable that defending it is most important. In turn we can only hope that when it is we who are being denied equal protection under the law, those who find our ideas or behaviors objectionable will stand up and support this important constitutional principle on our behalf.
    Does that not have the truthful ring of the kind of real, solid, principled conservatism we all (conservatives) believe can turn this mess of a nation around and away from the cliff? The kind of conservatism we all wish we could convey to the close-minded liberals in our lives, so they can see what we see? The conservatism that, for my money, looks and feels like classical liberalism and enlightenment era idealism? It does.

    Well, then...I'm sure you have figured it out for yourself by now. We must support same sex marriage. We, the right. We, the conservatives. You conservatives who inexplicably are still registered members of the republican party. lol. Regardless of your personal beliefs and feelings,(personally i support gay marriage from a moral standpoint anyway-but that is irrelivant. If you want to debate/discuss that aspect,just ask me. happy to)it is a matter of constitutional principle. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, so to speak,the 14th ammendment insists they must marry same-sex couples as well. Same liscense,same terminology. (remember:seperate but equal is never equal)

    *If you are thinking slippery slope...polygamy,beastiality, incest,etc., stop. it doesnt apply. trust me. i will give one example. Polygamy; allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the govt must sanction multiple marriages." How is that Jayar?" Because....{drum roll}...telling someone you cannot have a liscense to marry so and so because they are already married to someone else does not violate their constitutionally protected civil rights under the 14th ammendment(or any other). They are not being denied based on gender,race,religion,sexuality,etc. they cannot marry that person simply because someone already is. 1 spouse only. thank you. it would be like telling someone they cant assemble on a given street corner at a given time on a given day. why? because someone else is already there on that spot at that time on that day. you haven't been denied your right to assemble. someone has had their right to not be used as a footstool affirmed. Get it? (i dont have a moral prob w/polygamy either,btw. just sayin)

    lets not be hypocrites. the left uses the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it stands in their way. Keep your religion in your heart and your home and among those who share your faith. Help re-affirm the rule of law under the Bill of Rights, even when it rubs you the wrong way.


    Jayar
    I'm sure this will resonate will self-identified conservatives, but did you have to go out of your way to bash "liberal fascists," most of whom agree with you on this?

  3. #1173
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    06-01-14 @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    18

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    I'm sure this will resonate will self-identified conservatives, but did you have to go out of your way to bash "liberal fascists," most of whom agree with you on this?
    No. I didn't have to



    Jayar

  4. #1174
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,975

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Never the less, it's apples and oranges. Doesn't correlate very well.
    No, what I posted was evidence that they are the same.

    Only YOU do not recognize that, because you do not want to.
    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.

  5. #1175
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    06-01-14 @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    18

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayar View Post
    This looks like as good a place as any to put my soapbox.

    I am a registered libertarian and self described atheist constitutional conservative. I am confident that I can articulate conservative principles and refute leftist fascism(modern western liberalism) as well or better than anyone you know. My point. The opinion stated below is that of a conservative. I am not a conservative who is liberal on this subject or conservative fiscally but liberal socially. I am a conservative and my position regarding this issue is based on conservative principles and i can defend it from a conservative stance.

    The "equal protection under the law" interpretation of the 14th ammendment has long been considered, by conservatives, to be a valid originalist interpretation of the constitution. As it should be. It is not another progressive pimple full of make-it-up-as-you-go puss their imaginary friend, the living breathing constitution of convenience. FYI; it means basically that all people are to be treated the same in the eyes of the law(I.e.courts,the IRS,law enforcement,etc...the government). That sounds good right? That's because it is. It is a solid principle,one that strengthens individual liberty and supports justice. It is a principle that should be defended. Unfortunately, much like freedom of speech,religion, and expression, it is when this principle is guards sentiments and/or behavior that we find objectionable that defending it is most important. In turn we can only hope that when it is we who are being denied equal protection under the law, those who find our ideas or behaviors objectionable will stand up and support this important constitutional principle on our behalf.
    Does that not have the truthful ring of the kind of real, solid, principled conservatism we all (conservatives) believe can turn this mess of a nation around and away from the cliff? The kind of conservatism we all wish we could convey to the close-minded liberals in our lives, so they can see what we see? The conservatism that, for my money, looks and feels like classical liberalism and enlightenment era idealism? It does.

    Well, then...I'm sure you have figured it out for yourself by now. We must support same sex marriage. We, the right. We, the conservatives. You conservatives who inexplicably are still registered members of the republican party. lol. Regardless of your personal beliefs and feelings,(personally i support gay marriage from a moral standpoint anyway-but that is irrelivant. If you want to debate/discuss that aspect,just ask me. happy to)it is a matter of constitutional principle. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, so to speak,the 14th ammendment insists they must marry same-sex couples as well. Same liscense,same terminology. (remember:seperate but equal is never equal)

    *If you are thinking slippery slope...polygamy,beastiality, incest,etc., stop. it doesnt apply. trust me. i will give one example. Polygamy; allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the govt must sanction multiple marriages." How is that Jayar?" Because....{drum roll}...telling someone you cannot have a liscense to marry so and so because they are already married to someone else does not violate their constitutionally protected civil rights under the 14th ammendment(or any other). They are not being denied based on gender,race,religion,sexuality,etc. they cannot marry that person simply because someone already is. 1 spouse only. thank you. it would be like telling someone they cant assemble on a given street corner at a given time on a given day. why? because someone else is already there on that spot at that time on that day. you haven't been denied your right to assemble. someone has had their right to not be used as a footstool affirmed. Get it? (i dont have a moral prob w/polygamy either,btw. just sayin)

    lets not be hypocrites. the left uses the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it stands in their way. Keep your religion in your heart and your home and among those who share your faith. Help re-affirm the rule of law under the Bill of Rights, even when it rubs you the wrong way.


    Jayar
    Wow. i should definitely proof-read my rants when my brain is, uh, compromised. I apologize for the incoherent lapses and missing or extra words. hehe I know, i know, the brilliance of the message makes it worth it.
    maybe?


    Jayar

  6. #1176
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayar View Post
    Wow. i should definitely proof-read my rants when my brain is, uh, compromised. I apologize for the incoherent lapses and missing or extra words. hehe I know, i know, the brilliance of the message makes it worth it.
    maybe?


    Jayar
    It's ok, we've all been there, done that! Your comments are still appreciated by at least some on this thread!

  7. #1177
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No, what I posted was evidence that they are the same.

    Only YOU do not recognize that, because you do not want to.

    Anthony is being willfully blind. Anyone who says the Loving case doesn't have any application to the SSM case doesn't understand legal precedents in the least OR is just totally against SSM and nothing will change their mind.

  8. #1178
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,571

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    Anthony is being willfully blind. Anyone who says the Loving case doesn't have any application to the SSM case doesn't understand legal precedents in the least OR is just totally against SSM and nothing will change their mind.
    You just refuse to look at the facts, since it hurts your argument. And let me be clear, if I haven't posted this enough already. I am not arguing against "gay" marriage (though I don't support it) as much as I am arguing that the federal government, once again, is trampling on the Constitution and acting where they don't have the power to act.

    If a state votes to allow it, fine. The people have spoken. If a judge then comes in and says he's decided otherwise, I've got a problem with that.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  9. #1179
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You just refuse to look at the facts, since it hurts your argument. And let me be clear, if I haven't posted this enough already. I am not arguing against "gay" marriage (though I don't support it) as much as I am arguing that the federal government, once again, is trampling on the Constitution and acting where they don't have the power to act.

    If a state votes to allow it, fine. The people have spoken. If a judge then comes in and says he's decided otherwise, I've got a problem with that.
    what facts? you havent provided any?

    people dont get to vote on equal/civil rights and when they do and the issue is pushed to the courts, the courts fix it
    in this case the fed did exactly what its supposed to do, it protected rights

    so the problem you have is you, the judge is exactly who makes the decision just like with womans rights, minority rights and interracial marriage which were all ALSO factually equal/civil rights issues as facts and history prove.

    facts, court cases, laws, rights, and court precedence all prove this, remind us, what do you have on your side to support your failed argument that beats all that besides "nu-huh" we'd love to read it
    Last edited by AGENT J; 01-05-14 at 02:18 PM.
    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

  10. #1180
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Yeah! What Agent J said!

Posting Permissions

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