Page 104 of 116 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106114 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1157

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

  1. #1031
    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 roguenuke View Post
    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)?
    Facts are that the states should be able to put which age limit THEY decide. Not the federal govt. What could and should prevent states from not allowing a 36 yo to marry would be that the majority would not stand for it. Yet if the majority wanted it, for whatever reason, they very well should and could with the powers reserved to the states in the Constitution, in areas not of appropriate Constitutional concern of the Federal government.

    What you indicate would not occur and yet the states should be able to make such laws as they, themselves, deem necessary. The 14th was created for a specific purpose and that purpose has been fulfilled. I would go so far as to say the amendment was a power grab by the Federal government into areas it has no proper or Constitutional business and misapplied to the extent that, having thought about it a lot more due to this thread, it probably does need repeal/modification/limits/interpretation in some of its extent.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  2. #1032
    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
    Facts are that the states should be able to put which age limit THEY decide. Not the federal govt. What could and should prevent states from not allowing a 36 yo to marry would be that the majority would not stand for it. Yet if the majority wanted it, for whatever reason, they very well should and could with the powers reserved to the states in the Constitution, in areas not of appropriate Constitutional concern of the Federal government.

    What you indicate would not occur and yet the states should be able to make such laws as they, themselves, deem necessary. The 14th was created for a specific purpose and that purpose has been fulfilled. I would go so far as to say the amendment was a power grab by the Federal government into areas it has no proper or Constitutional business and misapplied to the extent that, having thought about it a lot more due to this thread, it probably does need repeal/modification/limits/interpretation in some of its extent.
    The 14th was created to protect everyone's rights from the tyranny of the majority of the states. You can complain all you wish about it, but that is what the majority want. Very few would argue that they should lose their driver's license for one year while they are 36 years old or not be allowed to marry because they are 44 just because the majority in a state want to make such a stupid law.
    "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.

  3. #1033
    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 roguenuke View Post
    The 14th was created to protect everyone's rights from the tyranny of the majority of the states. You can complain all you wish about it, but that is what the majority want. Very few would argue that they should lose their driver's license for one year while they are 36 years old or not be allowed to marry because they are 44 just because the majority in a state want to make such a stupid law.
    Again, you have no authority to declare what the majority wants.

    Your very few arguing the driver's license loss point dovetails right into the fact that few, a minority, would not get their way... copiche'? The majority would not allow it.

    Thanks for the confirmation of the point.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  4. #1034
    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
    Again, you have no authority to declare what the majority wants.

    Your very few arguing the driver's license loss point dovetails right into the fact that few, a minority, would not get their way... copiche'? The majority would not allow it.

    Thanks for the confirmation of the point.
    We are talking about a hypothetical scenario where the majority would allow it, voted for it. And yes, it could happen. It may not be likely, but it is still possible.

    In fact, I can even tell you what would likely lead to such a scenario occurring. Someone finds research on driving statistics that says the vast majority of those who drive drunk and who are in accidents are 36 year old drivers. This could easily lead to a majority of those in a state to decide that 36 year olds should not be allowed to drive. If people can get a supermajority of people asked to ban water by presenting faulty research, I'm sure that there are people who would go for banning 36 year old drivers with a good enough presentation.

    Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

    snopes.com: Dihydrogen Monoxide

    People are gullible. And that is why the rights of the minorities need to be protected, and are, from the whims and gullibility of the majority. And that is why we have the 14th Amendment's EPC.
    "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.

  5. #1035
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,958

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

    Over 100 pages and GC has been unable to show how SSM has and will harm our 'culture.' (his words) That is what he said the 'majority' is objecting to...and he's speaking for the majority @_@.

    So to deny a significant minority civil rights, there would need to be a reason, right? So....how are they harming our culture or anything else?
    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. #1036
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    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.
    Not sure why you have such trouble understanding. The courts have consistently ruled that denying SSM violates the 14th amendment. This one, but only one, way in which the Constitution protects minorities. I've mentioned it and so have others. You should not be having any trouble finding a specific.

    I and others have also mentioned the notion in law if just cause. It's a very specific and recognized concept. Again, very specific and not something you should be confused about.

    I've also pointed out that a vote concerning a candidate for office is not comparable to equal rights protection or anything else that deals with a private matter. Who I love is not a votable issue. If there is no just cause to prevent it, it's none of your damn business.

    Understand, as I've mention quite specifically before, you're side is the side oppressing others, denying rights, being tyrants.

    Now, if you can't find anything specific there, I'll try and draw a picture next time.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #1037
    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 roguenuke View Post
    We are talking about a hypothetical scenario where the majority would allow it, voted for it. And yes, it could happen. It may not be likely, but it is still possible.

    In fact, I can even tell you what would likely lead to such a scenario occurring. Someone finds research on driving statistics that says the vast majority of those who drive drunk and who are in accidents are 36 year old drivers. This could easily lead to a majority of those in a state to decide that 36 year olds should not be allowed to drive. If people can get a supermajority of people asked to ban water by presenting faulty research, I'm sure that there are people who would go for banning 36 year old drivers with a good enough presentation.

    Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

    snopes.com: Dihydrogen Monoxide

    People are gullible. And that is why the rights of the minorities need to be protected, and are, from the whims and gullibility of the majority. And that is why we have the 14th Amendment's EPC.
    Who then protects the majority from the gullibility and whims of the minority then?
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #1038
    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
    Who then protects the majority from the gullibility and whims of the minority then?
    The SCOTUS and the Constitution as well. It isn't really that hard to figure out.
    "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.

  9. #1039
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Over 100 pages and GC has been unable to show how SSM has and will harm our 'culture.' (his words) That is what he said the 'majority' is objecting to...and he's speaking for the majority @_@.

    So to deny a significant minority civil rights, there would need to be a reason, right? So....how are they harming our culture or anything else?
    Examples of civil rights are" freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places."
    Marriage is not a civil right.

  10. #1040
    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 sawyerloggingon View Post
    Examples of civil rights are" freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places."
    Marriage is not a civil right.
    Equal protection of the law is a civil right. And marriage has been declared a right by the SCOTUS on several occasions. So long as legal kinships are recognized within our country, then marriage is necessary and likely going to be deemed a "right".
    "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.

Posting Permissions

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