Page 14 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 265

Thread: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

  1. #131
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Yes, I would like to talk about how you can pretend the Constitution says anything about gay marriage, as written, as ratified, or even as amended.

    The hallucinations of others is not much justification when talking about the written word and the rule of law.

    You want to pretend that in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was written - written as it was, chiefly in regard to the practices of slavery like its peers the 13th and 15th - it was intended and in fact did apply to gay marriage, that gay marriage has been an official constitutional right since 1868, despite not being explicitly stated as such.

    Okay. Show me some indication of the authors of the 14th amendment protesting the absence of legal gay marriage.
    So, to clarify, you don't think it's right to apply the law equally on the basis of gender? You think the constitution doesn't support that?
    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.

  2. #132
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So, to clarify, you don't think it's right to apply the law equally on the basis of gender? You think the constitution doesn't support that?
    So to clarify, you do think the right to gay marriage was explicitly put into the Constitution as a constitutional right in 1868 and that right has been violated ever since then?

  3. #133
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    So to clarify, you do think the right to gay marriage was explicitly put into the Constitution as a constitutional right in 1868 and that right has been violated ever since then?
    Not explicitly, no. Because that's not what the word "explicit" means. Interesting how you didn't answer the question...

    But I do believe in equal protection under the law on the basis of gender, and that precludes the existence of a same-sex marriage ban. Barring that "important state interest," which you have failed to provide.

    Maybe I'm just a small government type, but to me the burden is on the state to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
    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.

  4. #134
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Equal protection under the law applies to the states. Gender is one of several protected classifications. In order to uphold a gender-based classification, a state must show an important state interest in making that classification, and show that their measure is substantially related to that interest. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based classification that limits my freedom to choose with whom I enter a particular legal contract.

    It is a matter for the courts to overturn an unconstitutional law. Under equal protection, the burden is on the state to justify its discrimination.

    Provide that state interest.

    You want to talk about rule of law? You're the one defending an unconstitutional law under some guise of states' rights.
    Provide the state interest in restricting incestual marriages. After you cite birth defects, explain why they still restrict incestual gay marriages. Or provide the state interest in being involved in a marriage contract at all.

  5. #135
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Or provide the state interest in being involved in a marriage contract at all.
    Good one. I'm not sure there is one.

    What I am sure about is that the Constitution says nothing about forcing the states to recognize all contracts.

    While I'd personally like the states to recognize almost all contracts, including those of same-sex couples who want to cohabitate and share property and all those other things that come with a standard marriage contract, I can also read a plain English document.

    The Constitution is not a "living document." If you want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, there is an amendment process.

  6. #136
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Provide the state interest in restricting incestual marriages. After you cite birth defects, explain why they still restrict incestual gay marriages. Or provide the state interest in being involved in a marriage contract at all.
    Classic deflection. You can't answer my question so you spit out another one assuming I can't answer either. You would be wrong. I can answer any of those questions, but since you're still dodging mine, I'm going to ignore yours. Debate honestly, or don't bother me.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Good one. I'm not sure there is one.

    What I am sure about is that the Constitution says nothing about forcing the states to recognize all contracts.

    While I'd personally like the states to recognize almost all contracts, including those of same-sex couples who want to cohabitate and share property and all those other things that come with a standard marriage contract, I can also read a plain English document.

    The Constitution is not a "living document." If you want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, there is an amendment process.
    Does the constitution provide equal protection on the basis of gender or doesn't it?
    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
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Classic deflection. You can't answer my question so you spit out another one assuming I can't answer either. You would be wrong. I can answer any of those questions, but since you're still dodging mine, I'm going to ignore yours. Debate honestly, or don't bother me.
    You've asked me no question. The core of your opinion, is that equal protection applies unless the state can prove interest.

    What is the state's interest in a marriage contract?

  8. #138
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    You've asked me no question. The core of your opinion, is that equal protection applies unless the state can prove interest.

    What is the state's interest in a marriage contract?
    Now he goes to semantics.

    I made the initial request for a state interest in barring two same-gender individuals from entering a marriage contract. You provide that interest, and I'll provide several for marriage contracts in general. (although it's a bit of a red herring because there isn't an equal protection challenge that I'm aware of regarding the existence of marriage in general)
    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
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Good one. I'm not sure there is one.

    What I am sure about is that the Constitution says nothing about forcing the states to recognize all contracts.

    While I'd personally like the states to recognize almost all contracts, including those of same-sex couples who want to cohabitate and share property and all those other things that come with a standard marriage contract, I can also read a plain English document.

    The Constitution is not a "living document." If you want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, there is an amendment process.
    Sorry but you are dead wrong. There is no need for an amendment because, you may not be aware, but there is a little something in the United States Constitution called the "Equal Protection Clause". What the Equal Protection Clause says is that the government cannot pass laws that deny its citizens equal protection under the law. This requires the government to justify any disparate treatment of a group of individuals by showing that there is a legitimate/important/compelling governmental interest behind the disparate treatment (depending on the class and right/privilege involved). You have to understand Constitutional Law if you want to participate in the conversation.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #140
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I edited that, was a tad too harsh.

    And yes, maybe not a war but at least rebellion and a split of the union. In America the Constitution has been used to legalize and protect abortion, and now they are wanting to try and use it to protect perverted definitions of marriage coupled with moronic rulings and lawsuits against "religion" on government property and whatnot. I would hope that this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back if it is upheld. I for one do not want to live in a nation that restricts my freedoms to vote on social issues, legalizes things with Constitution protection that I consider to be the biggest ethical evil of our time (abortion) and backs the secular while restricting the rights of expression of the religious. Tyranny due to social change is wrong, especially without new Amendments to the Constitution. I know many may think my opinions or beliefs on the issue are extreme or harsh, but they are. As a citizen I'm sick of such things happening and it worries me to see that the Constitution of this country wants to protect such evils, it's inhumane and should not be tolerated by people of like mind up to the point of rebellion and separation from the union.


    Incorrect. Saying to an entire voting block and class of people that their legally held beliefs and laws can no longer be on the books because they "violate the Constitution" and forcing those laws, that have been held for many years and wanting to be changed due to changes in public opinion, is wrong. Telling people that they have no right to make or enforce marriage laws like upholding traditional marriage does turn a voting class of people into second class citizens and restricts their freedoms.

    And don't try to correlate this with women's rights or minority rights, totally separate issues.
    What if a totally RED state, like say Texas somehow found itself in the same predicament with an judge ruling away the will of the people on a social matter were to say, F-U Judge, and inform it's State employees that the ruling of the people is the law, and NOT that of the court. Ok, so the USSC would have to rule on this once and for all, and say they rule that States don't have a right to define marriage, and rule with gays, and then the state says screw you, you're misapplying the meaning of what citizens have a right to decide for themselves. So then what? What is the Federal government going to do about it? I ask in all seriousness because the Fed's can cut off any federal funding or they could use force (Doubtful), but using force would cause an outright rebellion from the other states. The point here is that these lower court rulings are emotional, and in my honest well educated opinion, are not based on the proper interpretations of the Constitution.

    I've stated many times that, citizens have a right to decide for themselves, and as locally as possible what kind of community they want to live in. Mobility allows those that do not agree to reside elsewhere, and if your laws are so far out there, then no one will live there and the town, municipality, or State will go bankrupt, or be forced to change due to a lack of constituency. With all the in and outs of what the Founders wanted in a nation, this one thing rings true on every level. The founders wanted the states to be sovereign republics, and within the states themselves they wanted the localities to direct public policy. The thinking was, and still is that, if a locality is run properly, the locality will stand or fall based on its policies. The Federal government was only ever needed to regulate commerce between the states, protect our borders, have a standing army, and to conduct trade, and wage war. The Federal government by slowly but surely disproportionately taxing all US citizens has grown to a point where they buy the states compliance or punish if not complaint with its wishes. This to me, is wrong headed, and we deserve the government we have, but no one in their right mind would want a government that forces social policy on its citizens by judicial fiat.

    For the record, DO NOT say that SSM is about equality. I disregard that philosophy. Homosexuality is a sexual fetish, no different than any other fetish. Heterosexuality is the baseline potential of all humans, and most animals, IMO, and however and whenever someone waivers from that, whether exclusively or partially doesn't change that assertion, IMO. If a heterosexual engages in anal sex, that is a fetish, if they engage in drinking someone else's urine, that is a fetish, if it's in wanting to have sex with a child, that is a fetish. Some fetishes have become socially acceptable while some others remain not so much, but make no mistake, when it comes to what is socially acceptable, the people should decide. No one wants to take away the homosexual fetish and of those that wish to practice it either exclusively, or on occasion, but lets all please stop pretending that homosexuality is on equal ground with heterosexuality, and therefore in my opinion not worthy of any claim to equal marriage rights.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Page 14 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •