Page 107 of 116 FirstFirst ... 75797105106107108109 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,070 of 1157

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

  1. #1061
    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 Deuce View Post
    No they don't. In no instance has a civil union ever given all the legal rights of marriage.



    No, it's about people wanting the government to treat them equally. Nobody gives a crap whether sawyer approves of their union. I didn't get to vote on your marriage, why am I getting to vote on the marriage of two men or two women? Don't you see just how offensive that is to the American way of life? The idea that your moral disapproval should be enough for the government to treat another citizen unequally?
    If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.

  2. #1062
    Outer space potato man

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    If gays had not wasted all this time pushing for marriage rights they would have had full civil union laws in place now.
    Bull****. People like you voted against civil unions en masse. Don't try to put that on someone else.
    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. #1063
    Outer space potato man

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.
    No you don't. You want the government to exclude them from 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. #1064
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    I'm talking about a fed civil union law not one single state.
    There are no Federal Civil Marriage laws, why would there be Federal Civil Union laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.
    I'd back a Civil Union law.

    Same-law would apply to same-sex couples and different sex couples. Marriage would be something regulated to religious organizations to "award" and since same-sex and different-sex couples can currently enter into Religious Marriages then each would be treated the same.

    To sweeten the offer, we'd repeal Public Accommodation laws so that private businesses could function under the business model of their choice. If they didn't want to accept a customer based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, ethnicity, or national origin they would be free to do so.



    Deal?

    >>>>

  5. #1065
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.

    Those with positions regarding homosexuals were the ones that BANNED Civil Unions in many State Constitutions. You are now trying to use "Civil Unions" as a fallback not that you are no longer a majority position. Anti-marriage equality is losing in the courts, losing in the polls, losing in the legislatures, and now losing in the ballot box in general elections - and "now" suddenly Civil Unions are acceptable.

    Sounds like "when I'm in the majority it's my way or the highway, now that we aren't - it's time to come to a compromise". I don't blame homosexuals going for full equality instead of separate but equal considering how the compromise door was slammed shut in many states a decade ago.



    >>>>

  6. #1066
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,890

    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.
    IMO it's not a right at all. However after Loving vs Virginia, SCOTUS said it was a civil right under the 14th Amendment. As such, it is covered by the Equal Protection Act.
    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.

  7. #1067
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,890

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The civil union of gays protects their rights under the law and gives them equality to marriage without actually being "married".
    Surely you remember that 'separate but equal' was determined to be unConstitutional?

    Not to mention that 'marriage' means exactly the same thing to gays as it does to many straight couples. So why shouldnt they be able to 'marry?'
    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.

  8. #1068
    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.
    The 14th was created for nothing of the sort... Heck, it was pretty near extorted as a mandate to be passed for the minority of states that had "left" the Union to gain re-admittance to the Union... so that would be your actual "tyranny of the majority of the states " over the minority.

    In reality it was a reaction to the fact that we had 4 million people who had previously been enslaved and now were free but had never before been considered citizens even though they were born here and many of their ancestors had been born here. See the Dred Scott Decision and how Scott was treated in that famous case.

    Statements within the Fourteenth were intended by its framers only to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the then Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

    Nothing more.

    In fact, the framers of the 14th Amendment utilized the term "immunities" to mean all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. They used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights of citizens against an action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights.

    You see, there are records of their debates, what was said and what was meant.

    "No discrimination shall be made by any state, nor by the United States, as to the civil rights of persons because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This was expressly for blacks, our African Americans brothers and sisters known then under the term Negroes.

    This was, for all intents and purposes, the reason behind the creation of the 14th. Again, it said nothing about an expansion of rights, it said nothing about sex or gender, certainly nothing about marriage, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution also are silent on all of that. You folks are trying to make something out of the 14th that is just not there.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  9. #1069
    Outer space potato man

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

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

    What exactly do you perceive the 14th amendment to do? It doesn't specifically name anything at all, so it does nothing?
    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.

  10. #1070
    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
    The constitution is the supreme law of the land, says so right in the text. It literally defines the United States of America as an entity. We are not a direct democracy. 51% of the vote does not decide anything you want. You've admitted as much: 51% of the vote cannot reinstate slavery because that is in violation of the constitution. Therefore, if same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution, there is no number of votes that can uphold them.

    So again, the real issue is whether or not the equal protection clause applies here. You claim it doesn't, but you don't really base that on anything in particular. You've steadfastly ignored how the equal protection clause actually functions, hiding behind this "it doesn't say that in the constitution!" business. Constitutional amendments do not explicitly spell out every aspect of their application, and they don't need to.

    SCOTUS is the authority here. They have the power to determine this, and they've put forward a strong legal argument that you choose to ignore.
    Ever notice the opening words of the Constitution, how it starts off how? We the People... an important acknowledgment that it is WE that came forward to make a framework of governing that was in no way intended to become our Master and we do its bidding... we, through our representatives at this convention, did not feel it workable, nor did we want, to be a direct democracy. So, through debate and compromise, we gave our consent to be governed under this framework. A framework that was sold on its direct promise on limiting of the Federal Government.

    That promise is in breach and our consent to be governed can always, and legally, be withdrawn. We are the sovereigns, you see. You can deny it, but to deny implies a desire to be a slave with the government our master.

    Where do you arrive at 51% of the vote not deciding anything? Out of 68 million votes in the election of 1960, Kennedy won by a mere 120K, so 50+% wins plenty in this country. 49% wins noting except perhaps a runoff in some cases. My god, how many times must this be repeated: there is a specific amendment [13th]regarding the abolition of slavery... your use of this as an explanation tied to the 14th and the push for gay marriage is comical. There is NO AMENDMENT REQUIRING SSM. Period.

    Same sex marriage bans are not prohibited under the 14th... you may well get a bogus ruling under the SC saying so, but the 14th intended none of that, provides for nothing of that... and all those mumbo-jumbo contortions created by the court system itself do not make it so. It is only the structure they themselves have created out of whole cloth, with no specific guidance from anything that can be even vaguely alluded to in the Constitution or the 14 specifically, that arrives us at this pathetic point in our history.

    Equal protections were extended only to life, limb and property... again, nothing about marriage rights was intended, mentioned nor sanctioned in the 14th. While its application is not specified and accommodations must be made for this, the amendment's scope was not limitless in all directions, either. The court cannot, is not in its job description to just make up what it wants, that is the job of the law makers... not the court's job. The fact that they have gotten away with it, that is just the normal course of business, subverting the Constitution is something that needs be stopped, whether you and your colleagues recognize this tyranny or not. Their job is to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, based on the Constitution, the extent to which something is or is not...and of course to settle disputes.

    The Supreme Court, just as with the entire apparatus of the Federal government, needs to be reined back in. They have overstepped their Constitutional bounds.

    You will no doubt disagree, but you have no rational basis, except for the habit of just going along with whatever they choose to do, never giving it much of another thought. That is not really how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy, the citizenry is supposed to be awake, alert to incursions on its rights.
    Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 03-29-14 at 11:58 PM.
    "...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
  •