Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 265

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

  1. #171
    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: US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
    Some extreme libertarians tried the uninhabited island trick, moved onto an island belonging to the Kingdom of Tonga. Needless to say, the mighty Tongan navy dispatched them within hours. People gotta understand, it is not 1955, it is not 1965, it is not 1975...the world changes, people grow, things change, adapt and embrace, or just be the angry old man who hates the world. Their choice, the rest of us will move forward.
    Some plantation owners simply packed up and moved to brazil, where slavery was legal still. Could've done that sooner and spared the country a war. Reading digsbe's post on "revolution" over this, how selfish can one get? Spare us the trouble and move to uganda already, where that mindset fits right in.

    I could also point out the massive contradiction between violence to get one's way and a savior who goes willingly to crucifixion but hey.

  2. #172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    JoCo Kansas
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 02:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    373

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

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    EXCEPT that this isn't changing anyone INTO a second class citizen but freeing a few folks from being second class citizens. Kinda opposite day on that.

    Be careful what you wish for when it comes to violence, or better yet have you a most excellent hidie hole because revolt isn't neat and tidy and many 'just' folks end up buzzard bait in the streets. Not sure how the Union will divide on this, this isn't as much a regional thing as your neighbor thing.

    The biggest problem with the 'Right for States to define marriage' is that right isn't without limits. Can a state define marriage as only within one's race? This doesn't redefine anything, it EXPANDS a definition.

    Where the State's Rights crowd miss the mark on this, and a few other issues, is the deciding which consenting adults are allowed to do something, but not others of equal legal status (ie not felons with handguns or untrained 'doctors' practicing medicine) is not a State Right. The Constitution is quite clear on equal rights- some would say traditionally a woman isn't granted 'equal rights' as she was made second, made to be a 'helper', made subservient. So quoting 'what was' doesn't so it ever shall be, even while singing it in a hymn.

    There need be no Constitutional Amendment on this. That is a forlorn hope stall tactic.

    Does a ban on same sex marriage pass Constitutional muster?

    You see Oklahoma didn't define marriage or even restrict it to man/woman, we BANNED same sex marriage. Stupid tactic by hyper partisan religious Conservatives.

    It is a foolish lament to decry the 'the will of the people' every time an unconstitutional law is passed. But it is about all those who spend endless time and taxpayer money dreaming up and then pushing for Unconstitutional laws have left to shout...
    /endofdiscussion

    Nicely put.

  3. #173
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,890

    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. Why should I care about "state interest" when there is nothing in the text about any such thing?

    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.

    I mean, again, sure, I don't think anyone should be forbidden from making such a contract with whomever they like, regardless of their gender, but to pretend the text says something it doesn't and then to force such hallucinations on others remains tyrannical absurdity.
    He did not say ANY such thing in the post you quoted:

    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.
    He provided the basis for why preventing gays from marrying is discrimination, he never said ANYTHING about SSM being mentioned in or called out in the Constitution.

    When you write stuff....do you think that the other person's responses magically disappear to others???? We DO see your fantasizing and irrelevancies.

    Edit:

    And after all that, and after he clarified it AGAIN with ZERO mention of SSM, you post this:

    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?
    Apparently you dont find it difficult to just write bold face lies. This probably isnt news to you, but you have ZERO credibility.
    Last edited by Lursa; 01-15-14 at 10:50 PM.
    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.

  4. #174
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,807

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    1.)He did not say ANY such thing in the post you quoted:



    2.)He provided the basis for why preventing gays from marrying is discrimination, he never said ANYTHING about SSM being mentioned in or called out in the Constitution.

    3.)When you write stuff....do you think that the other person's responses magically disappear to others???? We DO see your fantasizing and irrelevancies.
    1.)dont use FACTS to destroy fantasy and strawmen its not fair
    2.) correct
    3.) yes thats the case reality and facts are ignored and strawman and fantasy are posted for an reply but honest and rational posters never buy it since facts prove otherwise.
    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

  5. #175
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,890

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    Of course they can cut off federal funding and of course TX would cave. The feds used similar tactics when it came to changing the drinking ages, speed limits, seat belt laws, etc.

    And because of its discriminatory basis which has been explained throughout this thread, the decision is Constitutional, which is probably more than the examples I gave were. As such, the tyranny of the majority may not decide the fate of the minority.

    I'll just ignore your prehistoric and unfounded opinion on homosexuality. That ignorance does not lend itself to credibility on other subjects.
    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.

  6. #176
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,199

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    How many goalposts do you have? Should I go around cutting them down before we begin posting so that you can stay on point?
    I haven't moved a goal post. What the government does and why it supports what it does isn't some binary pass X and you're good. If you have some simple black and white criteria for what the government does good for you...a lot of us don't think that way.

    So you believe in the principle that government should be involved in activities if it can make peoples lives easier, but impose a limit on it's extent? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.
    Sure...that's why we have court systems and elections. We do it every day. The battles in Washington are about expansion of government versus limiting it. The battle has been fought since the countries inception.

    Your argument was essentially marriage is old and therefore the government should be involved. It's just as weak as your other arguments you have presented so far.
    No...I've said human beings have been coupling together forever...older than the act of marriage or government.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  7. #177
    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 iliveonramen View Post
    Really? Marriage is a pretty common practice and the amount of paperwork and lawyer fees required are pretty substantial in order to recreate the protections a spouse has.
    Its no different than typical contract law, and since its a common practice, it would be pretty simple to adopt.

    Let the government create a designation, like a benefactor, and replace all law references to "spouce, partner, marriage" etc with designated benefactor. Now all citizenry can choose 1 person, whomever they want, to get those special protections and privileges. It eliminates the state's involvement with any type of marriage, and turns it all into basic contracts.

    If the state wants to regulate those contracts, by being the keeper of the records, so be it, but its a much better system than what we have today.

  8. #178
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Its no different than typical contract law, and since its a common practice, it would be pretty simple to adopt.

    Let the government create a designation, like a benefactor, and replace all law references to "spouce, partner, marriage" etc with designated benefactor. Now all citizenry can choose 1 person, whomever they want, to get those special protections and privileges. It eliminates the state's involvement with any type of marriage, and turns it all into basic contracts.

    If the state wants to regulate those contracts, by being the keeper of the records, so be it, but its a much better system than what we have today.
    Ahh yes, the "take my ball and go home" approach.

    Feel free to try and enact this through the democratic process. It's not an unconstitutional idea, but I doubt you'll be successful. Until then, the government doesn't have the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman because that violates equal protection under the law, for reasons I already explained.
    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. #179
    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
    Ahh yes, the "take my ball and go home" approach.

    Feel free to try and enact this through the democratic process. It's not an unconstitutional idea, but I doubt you'll be successful. Until then, the government doesn't have the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman because that violates equal protection under the law, for reasons I already explained.
    I don't have to enact it, its my opinion, and I think its better than the existing system. If you don't like it, or prefer the existing system, you are welcome to do so.

  10. #180
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Ahh yes, the "take my ball and go home" approach.

    Feel free to try and enact this through the democratic process. It's not an unconstitutional idea, but I doubt you'll be successful. Until then, the government doesn't have the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman because that violates equal protection under the law, for reasons I already explained.
    Except it's not their ball.

Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... 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
  •