Page 26 of 116 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 1157

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

  1. #251
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You are perfectly free to try to make this an argument about the 10th amendment, but in so doing, you need to argue for why states are justified in enforcing interracial marriage bans. The entire idea that states have unlimited power in regulating marriage was dismissed in Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court found that a state cannot pass marriage regulations that infringe on the constitutional rights of its residents without advancing a legitimate state interest. That ruling has been in effect since 1967 and so the Federalism angle you are pushing is kind of a dead end here.
    There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.

    Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....

    That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.

    Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."

    Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.

    To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....

    I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.

  2. #252
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    07-13-14 @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Scary.

    So We, you know, the People, do not get to decide what is acceptable and not in our own culture anymore? Judicial tyrants decide that for us now, do they?

    Scary.
    The Federalist #10

    If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

    By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
    ...
    The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

    Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
    In other words, the very nature of our government and how it is structured is best suited to a large Republic, and in that large Republic the institutions of government will act as a check protecting the rights of the few against the demands of the many. So even if "we, the people" opposed same-sex marriage (which we dont), the institutions of government would protect the rights of the few against the needs of the many.

  3. #253
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    1.)There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.
    2.)Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....
    3.)That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.
    4.)Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."
    5.)Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.
    6.)To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....
    7.)I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.
    1.) and yet gay rights is still a civil and eqlau rights issue so the analogy is SPOT ON
    2.) wow, thank you for you for proving you dont know this topic at all
    3.) now you are leaping from interracial bans to slavery????? you know they were factually different right? tell us again who doesnt know about history
    4.) yes it is VERY STUPID to thing of gays as lessers this is why the courts are stopping it, see you are learning
    5.) yep and thats that same stupid arguments bigots make now against gays
    6.) you do know loving vs virginia was 1967 right? good grief all your analogies are complete failures
    7.) again, do you have any logical arguments that have merit and dont instantly fail?
    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

  4. #254
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,128

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.

    Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....

    That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.

    Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."

    Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.

    To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....

    I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.


    Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

  5. #255
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    07-13-14 @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.
    Jim Crow was a caricature (basically), and there were interracial marriage bans prior to Loving v. Virginia

    Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....
    No, interracial marriage bans had nothing to do with property rights (wtf?). The arguments used in opposition to interracial marriage are almost word for word the same as the ones used in opposition to same sex marriage. Here's a few good ones.

    That's what most people ignorant to history don't know -
    I'll come back to this in a moment.

    slavery was about property rights not race.
    I'll grant you that in the mid 17th century, slaves were more often white than they were in the mid-19th century. But by the early 18th century, slavery for whites had pretty much been phased out and replaced with African-American slavery. And why was that? Because African-American slaves were perceived as being "inferior" creatures, with subpar intellect and reasoning skills when compared to the White Man (a view which, we know now, was patently false). Kinda sounds like racism to me.

    Slaves could have been of any race.
    Until about 1720.

    Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."
    No, we had a civil war because paranoid southerners thought just because Lincoln was elected, that meant he was going to free all the slaves. That wasn't his intention. After the Confederate states seceded, Lincoln used his CIC power to try and hold the Union together. Lincoln did eventually free the slaves, but not until 1863, and only then for two reasons: #1 - there had been a massive influx of former slaves fleeing to the Union during the Civil War and the Union didn't know what to do with them and #2 with all the freed slaves coming to the Union, Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a way to weaken the South, by attracting slaves away from the Confederacy and using them in militarized units to bolster union manpower and defeat the rebellion.

    Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960
    Actually, depending on the state, 20-30% of likely Republican voters in the South still think interracial marriage should be illegal.

    or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.
    No, they pretty much opposed it because a) they thought God would want them to... b) they thought society would collapse if we could marry whoever we want ... c) they thought interracial couples were incapable of having children (seriously)...et cetera ad nauseum.

    To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....
    So....150 years later, people are still mad that you took their great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's toys away? How pathetic.

    I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.
    And I wouldn't expect you to know history if a history book walked up and smacked you in the face. Seriously, you attack others for not understanding (or being ignorant of) history, and then go about embarrassing yourself by making wild accusations unsupported by historical facts. But please, do continue. It gives me a hearty chuckle to watch you flounder and then act all butthurt when someone tries to edumacate you.

  6. #256
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    07-13-14 @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post


    Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    +1 karma.... and I got ninja'd LOL.

    I would like it if I could, but can't find the like button (weird.)

  7. #257
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

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

    Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.

    However let's put this into perspective.

    Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????

    Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.

    So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?

    Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."

  8. #258
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post


    Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.

  9. #259
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    07-13-14 @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.

    However let's put this into perspective.

    Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????

    Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.

    So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?

    Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."
    Well, considering the government must compensate me for anything they take away from me, they can have my trashy car and ill go buy another.

    As to your point, you must realize that there were tens of thousands (if not more) slaves who were having their rights trampled on - in a country founded because the rights of the founders were being trampled on! I mean... really?

    And unless those cars have actual people under the hood instead of the Hemi I am hoping for, it is not the same, and you bloody well know it... Or you should. Unless you are advocating for a return to the slave days? If so, may I suggest that you be the first one to be shackled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.
    He didn't need to, he just did it because it was funny.

  10. #260
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.

    However let's put this into perspective.

    Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????

    Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.

    So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?

    Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."
    more failed and mentally retarded "analogies" that have NOTHING to do with the topic lol
    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

Page 26 of 116 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676 ... 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
  •