Page 34 of 82 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 820

Thread: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

  1. #331
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    136

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    "A black can marry a black and a white can marry a white

    Blacks and whites are inherently separate but equal."
    No they are not. A man is man and a woman is a woman no matter the race.

  2. #332
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,984

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Quote Originally Posted by Penrod View Post
    If SCOTUS has declared it unconstitutional how do most states still have these laws?
    I didn't say SCOTUS has declared these specific laws to be unconstitutional. I stated that the laws still being on the books does not inherently mean they ARE constitutional as you attempted to suggest.

    Lower courts have found these laws to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS is likely to weigh in sometime in the next year or two. Till then, the constitutionality of those laws is in question which is the entire reason people are having this discussion.

    If your only argument for their constitutionality is "They're on the books!" then your argument is extremely flawed, since hundreds of unconstitutional laws were "on the books" at one time and ended up being over turned...so it's hardly rock solid evidence to support your claim.

    Also the civil war was fought over nullification. The idea that the states had the right to nullify what they saw as unconstitutional federal laws. Marriage is the province of the individual states not the federal government.
    Marriage is the province of states, HOWEVER their laws are still subject to the Constitution of the United States thanks to the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment. This is why a state can't decide to confiscate all your weapons on the notion of "states rights". So while marriage is the province of states, their laws regarding marriage MUST still adhere to the federal constitution.

    For example...

    If Virginia wanted to make a law stating that to get married in Virginia one must relinquish all firearms to the state and may never legally be allowed to own, carry, or use a firearm again....would that be constitutional to you since marriage is the provine of the states?

  3. #333
    Almost respectable

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

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Quote Originally Posted by Penrod View Post
    No they are not. A man is man and a woman is a woman no matter the race.
    One can discriminate on the basis of race as well as the basis of gender. Most people can hold these two facts in their heads simultaneously, which is why laws against gay marriage have been dropping like flies every time they're challenged in court.

  4. #334
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,984

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Moderator's Warning:
    Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]There's a topic here folks and it's not what lean people are. Stop the baiting

  5. #335
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,296
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Quote Originally Posted by Penrod View Post
    No they are not. A man is man and a woman is a woman no matter the race.
    "A black is a black and a white is a white"

    The comparison is valid, most of the arguments against SSM were used on in a slight variation against interracial marriage.


  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    136

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Animals and children cannot consent to legal contracts. Feel free to start lobbying to change that, Mr. Libertarian. Since you're so interested in marrying animals and children.

    I also like the not-so-subtle jab at Islam. Yeah, I'm sure this isn't just Christian social conservatism in disguise. You really have me convinced.
    A legal contract would mean involving the state in marriage would it not? Once more Im against this. Im also not interested in marrying anyone. Who needs it?

    Im a Diest not a christian. Truthfully I hate organized religion. I was just pointing out that the age of consent has varied wildly over the centuries and societies. It took until very recently however for this notion of gay marriage to come about

  7. #337
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    136

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I didn't say SCOTUS has declared these specific laws to be unconstitutional. I stated that the laws still being on the books does not inherently mean they ARE constitutional as you attempted to suggest.

    Lower courts have found these laws to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS is likely to weigh in sometime in the next year or two. Till then, the constitutionality of those laws is in question which is the entire reason people are having this discussion.

    If your only argument for their constitutionality is "They're on the books!" then your argument is extremely flawed, since hundreds of unconstitutional laws were "on the books" at one time and ended up being over turned...so it's hardly rock solid evidence to support your claim.



    Marriage is the province of states, HOWEVER their laws are still subject to the Constitution of the United States thanks to the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment. This is why a state can't decide to confiscate all your weapons on the notion of "states rights". So while marriage is the province of states, their laws regarding marriage MUST still adhere to the federal constitution.

    For example...

    If Virginia wanted to make a law stating that to get married in Virginia one must relinquish all firearms to the state and may never legally be allowed to own, carry, or use a firearm again....would that be constitutional to you since marriage is the provine of the states?
    Until SCOTUS declares then unconstitutional they are not

    The 14th amendment was never properly ratified for one thing and the 10th says any power not granted congress is the province of the state. The State is sovereign not the federal government. Just as you are sovereign not the state. Most people have it backwards.

    They cant take your weapons because the constitution specifically says they cant. It says nothing about gay rights or marriage. Thats left to the states.

  8. #338
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:13 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,690

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    If there was any doubt that this war is over:

    Record Support for Gay Marriage; Half See it as a Constitutional Right - ABC News



    Record numbers of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support gay marriage, say adoption by gay couples should be legal and see gays and lesbians as good parents. Most oppose a right to refuse service to gays, including on religious grounds. And, by a closer margin, more also accept than reject gay marriage as a constitutional right.

    The results continue a dramatic transformation of public attitudes on the issue, led by political, legislative and court-ordered developments alike. Seventeen states now allow gay marriage, and federal courts in four others – most recently Texas and Virginia – have rejected laws banning it.

    See PDF with full results and charts here
    .

    http://www.langerresearch.com/upload...ayMarriage.pdf
    I don't agree this is breaking news.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  9. #339
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    136

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    "A black is a black and a white is a white"

    The comparison is valid, most of the arguments against SSM were used on in a slight variation against interracial marriage.

    But they are still the same. Only the color is different. There is a lot more difference between a man and a woman. Do you think if marriage did not usually lead to children or never led to children it would even ever have been invented? To what purpose? Marriage was invented in case you had children not so you could. Its all about inheritance and property rights.

  10. #340
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,984

    Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Penrod View Post
    A legal contract would mean involving the state in marriage would it not? Once more Im against this. Im also not interested in marrying anyone. Who needs it?
    Whether you're against it or not is irrelevant as to whether the currnet laws are constitutional or not.

    They're two seperate issues, but you keep deflecting by focusing on your claim that you don't want marriage to exist at all.

    Are you suggesting that state marriage is unconstitutional in and of itself? Because if you're not, then your prefered opinion on the law is irrelevant as to whether or not the law on the books is or isn't constitutional.

Page 34 of 82 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •