Page 103 of 116 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1157

Thread: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

  1. #1021
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Just responding in kind to the silliness that was expressed... that's fair game.

    So, you think Hamilton wrong in his sales job/assessment that if the people find that the government oversteps its bounds that the people may then take proper remedy... do you agree we are the masters and the government our servant...or do you think we are just slaves to government?
    False dichotomy.

    Here's the real question you should be asking: does the will of the people supersede the constitution?

    No. It does not.
    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. #1022
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    I think a simple comparison of what I have written here on the topic compared to...just what have you actually written on the topic? Usually just a rather unreasoned/faulty counter to what I have posted, seems to me.

    So you think the state is our master, that society cannot choose to go the way society wants? You think that the minority's will should win out over the majority's will? You think that SSM is specifically provided protections in the Constitution?
    Doesn't need to be specifically mentioned. Equal protection covers it, and experts on the law agree with me instead of you.
    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.

  3. #1023
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I would consider that the ideology of the US constitution. But you are grossly overestimating your belief's impact on our culture. States have implemented same-sex marriage and nothing remotely resembling "havoc" nor "topsy-turvy" has occurred.

    Yes, absolutely, those nine people have the right to overturn your unconstitutional law.
    Show me in the Constitution where your defective view of Constitutional ideology resides in fact, in writing.

    You know, when it begins to rain, those raindrops initially seem insignificant, are welcomed even... until it continues to rain and rain and rain with water rising to flood stages, rivers bulging, overflowing their banks, dams potentially undermined and bursting if these seemingly insignificant raindrops keep falling. If one could stop the raindrops falling before disaster, before the destruction and loss of life, one would.

    You see, it seems left to conservatives, sensing danger that the inattentive rest cannot seem to see, to hold back these rising waters of these overfull embankments, to save those innocents downstream, to keep us all from this growing potential disaster.

    Yes, you want a minority of Americans to enforce a mockery being made of our Constitution. Understood.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  4. #1024
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    Some are desperately holding on the belief that their way of thinking on SSM is still the majority opinion in America. Almost every Supreme Court ruling has a dissenting opinion[s]. Some, as of yet, have not come to the realization that their opinion will forever be the dissenting opinion on SSM.
    Wow, forever huh? I do not get the feeling that you are a real prohet, divining the future is probably not your forte... I think you will just have to settle for that being your opinion.

    How about we at least wait until they, the SC, make a judgement. Its like I told someone else here, don't count your turkeys until they have hatched.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  5. #1025
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    False dichotomy.

    Here's the real question you should be asking: does the will of the people supersede the constitution?

    No. It does not.
    Wrong. Most certainly it does. From where does this mistaken philosophical underpinning for your erroneous viewpoint originate? Certainly not derived from the Constitution, not in the Federalist Papers, so where?

    We not only have the right, we have a solemn duty to do so.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  6. #1026
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Doesn't need to be specifically mentioned. Equal protection covers it, and experts on the law agree with me instead of you.
    The law was never fashioned nor intentioned to take the human/cultural element out of the equation, to simply be a computer formula that one plugs in and it spits out a decision. If that were so, we would not allow for mitigating factors, for example.

    Height of ludicrous to believe it must be such.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  7. #1027
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Wow, forever huh? I do not get the feeling that you are a real prohet, divining the future is probably not your forte... I think you will just have to settle for that being your opinion.

    How about we at least wait until they, the SC, make a judgement. Its like I told someone else here, don't count your turkeys until they have hatched.
    As my momma used to say..."Once the beak cracks the shell...it's a done deal".


  8. #1028
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    As my momma used to say..."Once the beak cracks the shell...it's a done deal".
    Well, we can always get rid of it, carve that turkey all up and serve it for dinner on Thanksgiving...

    Amen.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  9. #1029
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Your wording is somewhat ambiguous, so I cannot really tell if you are recognizing that different states DO get to treat 16/17/18 year olds differently by state. For instance, in the area of legal sexual consent, the states are all over the place on the issue with many allowing it at 16, many at 17 with about 2/3s having it at age 18 and above...so what is the difference... and if you move from a state that allows for consent at 16 to as state that only allows 18+, would your mental abilities to judge circumstances just automatically diminish by simply crossing the state line?

    Alcohol consumption is generally 21, but South Carolina allows the possession and consumption of alcohol by adults 18 to 20 years of age... so this is not uniform across the nation, nor should it be.

    Local and state communities indeed should be able to determine what is allowable and what is not in their state and their communities... that has been one of the geniuses of our system of Federalism, power sharing/division between state and national government.

    The Federal government has simply and obviously overstepped its proper boundaries, based on the promises upon which our framework for governing, our Constitution, was sold to the states. Further, upon which these states voluntarily gave up their independence, and only a portion of their sovereignty, based on this Constitutionally established system of power sharing/power division with the Federal government limited to only the enumerated and with minimal necessary additional powers to carry these out these specific powers, curbed with extremely reasonable limitations as to how far they could go [ as there was a lot of prescient doubt that the Federal government would stay within its agreed bounds ]... and so, as predicted, the Feds have gone too far.

    The 14th, while necessary, well meaning and attempting to help a nation heal/adjust from a major war within itself, was surely never meant for what it is now being warped to intend. The 14th needs a whole lot of scrutiny, fine-tuning/correction as to meaning... certainly limits in place so it does not get to the outrageously absurd.

    The current situation is a prime example.
    Different states do get to treat different ages differently, but only from the point of giving a minimum age for something. That is the only way that any state can use age limits. They cannot be used to discriminate after a person has already reached that other age (ever heard of age discrimination?). (And I'm almost certain that one of the next challenges we are going to see to laws is on age limits that are over 18. Whether they hold up or not, we will see, but I see them coming.) Like I said, the state cannot choose a random age and limit people of that certain age and that age only from something.

    The drinking thing works the same way as driver's licensing and marriage age limits. It is a minimum age. (And drinking ages are pretty much 21 in every state with there being exceptions in many states that allow for drinking with parents' permission or in certain places or for certain events. Drinking age is federally tied to road funding for the states.)

    So, like I asked, what prevents the people in a state from deciding that those aged 36 cannot have a driver's license (while 16-35 year olds and 37 and up can have a driver's license) or those aged 44 cannot get married (while those at the state's minimum marriage age up to 43 and 45 and up can get married)? Why would these specific restrictions be unconstitutional (and believe me there is little doubt that such restrictions would get challenged and ruled as unconstitutional)?
    Last edited by roguenuke; 03-29-14 at 11:06 AM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #1030
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Hardly. The 14th Amendement is one example of protections. You step outside of the context and compared an apple with a tree frog. I noted they don't compare.

    As for culture, you are not required to change at all. You can be as narrow minded as you want to be. But our society is not stagnant. It us in a constant state of change, though often at a varying paces, from glacier to instant. That us the nature of living. So, fearing change is not by itself reason to deny.
    So sufficiently vague as to be incomprehensible as a concrete debating point. Why not say something that has some definable significance with regard to this debate? Afraid to be pinned down?

    Regarding what you classify as narrow-mindedness, one can similarly be as open-minded as they personally want, no matter how silly unless it impacts, or potentially impacts, others in a way they do no want.

    We, society, can choose to keep what works, dismiss what does not, even simply what we do not want, change as necessary and when desired... all this hope and change merely for change's sake has proven to be a destructive and unsettling hole in which to descend.

    Simply, we are not required to follow every silly path liberals choose to explore... some of us happen to like being a prosperous, free, moral, practical/workable and strong nation.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

Posting Permissions

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