Page 32 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 1157

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

  1. #311
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    No it was the government at one level removing the ability of a government at another level to ban marriage for individuals. You act as if the government isn't we the people, I understand the Libertarian slant on it but for the rest of us, and we are many, it is simple removing government over reach and an unconstitutional prohibition on a group of taxpayers.

    People gain more power, out from under the State boot
    The government isn't we the people. The people are those governed by the government, while the government is those that govern the people. Exactly how is having the government further involved in the relationships of people actually remove people from under the governments boot? Yes, the ban was an overreach of government, but to suggest government marriage is not an overreach is foolish.

  2. #312
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,751

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The government isn't we the people. The people are those governed by the government, while the government is those that govern the people. Exactly how is having the government further involved in the relationships of people actually remove people from under the governments boot? Yes, the ban was an overreach of government, but to suggest government marriage is not an overreach is foolish.
    It's a contract that establishes legal kinship. It establishes certain property rights, child custody, medical power of attorney. It empowers me in all sorts of things. It protects me from being compelled to testify against my spouse. Spousal communications are assumed to be confidential in a legal proceeding. Yes, this furthers my rights, not the states. And the process is 100% voluntary. The idea that marriage erodes my freedom is absurd.

    The idea that someone else's marriage erodes my freedom is just beyond stupid.
    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. #313
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It's a contract that establishes legal kinship. It establishes certain property rights, child custody, medical power of attorney. It empowers me in all sorts of things. It protects me from being compelled to testify against my spouse. Spousal communications are assumed to be confidential in a legal proceeding. Yes, this furthers my rights, not the states. And the process is 100% voluntary. The idea that marriage erodes my freedom is absurd.
    Is that why more young people today consider marriage a net loss and the risks not worth the reward? How is those alimony laws working out for ya?

  4. #314
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The idea that someone else's marriage erodes my freedom is just beyond stupid.
    I was talking about the people involved.

  5. #315
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The government isn't we the people. The people are those governed by the government, while the government is those that govern the people. Exactly how is having the government further involved in the relationships of people actually remove people from under the governments boot? Yes, the ban was an overreach of government, but to suggest government marriage is not an overreach is foolish.
    If the people had no say in who is in government you MAY have a point, but I refer you to the opening line of our Constitution... "We the People of the United States..."

    What the Federal level is doing is removing a state level over reach. Your Libertarian POV is noted, however is a minority view on the role of Government in marriage. There are a variety of legal benefits to marriage a class of people are denied under the current ban on SSM. This simply removes that boot on Same Sex folks wanting what the rest of us have- the government isn't picking my pocket to give SSM folks the same legal standing.

    The idea of a government marriage isn't the issue, it is the legal status of SSM folks in forming a life together. Your Libertarian sensibilities maybe offended that a society embraces the idea of marriage as both a emotional and legal bonding... but the 'fix' is easy enough for you.... don't get married, just live together...

  6. #316
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    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.
    Its scary that you think that it is acceptable to oppress a group of people based on your beliefs.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  7. #317
    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
    If you understand the Constitution as you say you do...you would have never asked where in the constitution does it allow for an expansion of rights. The 14th amendment and the constitutional as a whole is used as judicial reasoning for such decisions. Precedent.

    Any future law can be ajudicated using the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning to allow or strike down that law. Precedent.

    Any right afforded in the future, will use the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment- as well as others- as the court's judicial reasoning to afford those rights. Precedent.

    230+ years of American jurisprudence...precedent.
    Here is the pertinent text of the 14th

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Now, using the text of the amendment, and not all the mumbo jumbo camouflage that you were attempting above, show me where the 14th entitles/guarantees any group that so decides an expansion of their privileges or immunities. It doesn't.

    Oh, and please point out to me where I, as you state, "...asked where in the constitution does it allow for an expansion of rights." Please do not state that I said something I did not say. I may even agree with it, but if I so desire to say so, I will say so in my own words, thank you.

    Also, still waiting on that pesky and, apparently, illusive example of the expansion of rights that the 14th legitimately allows. As I said, I am open to convincing, you just have not proven very convincing so far.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    If the people had no say in who is in government you MAY have a point, but I refer you to the opening line of our Constitution... "We the People of the United States..."

    What the Federal level is doing is removing a state level over reach. Your Libertarian POV is noted, however is a minority view on the role of Government in marriage. There are a variety of legal benefits to marriage a class of people are denied under the current ban on SSM. This simply removes that boot on Same Sex folks wanting what the rest of us have- the government isn't picking my pocket to give SSM folks the same legal standing.

    The idea of a government marriage isn't the issue, it is the legal status of SSM folks in forming a life together. Your Libertarian sensibilities maybe offended that a society embraces the idea of marriage as both a emotional and legal bonding... but the 'fix' is easy enough for you.... don't get married, just live together...
    My objection is that anyone that signs the marriage license is under the control of the state. People might argue there is benefits to it, but those benefits can be taken away whenever the government finds it in their interest. The government can also add whatever condition they might feel is worth their while, like alimony, whenever it suits them. Any sort of agreement of this sort has the same problem; in that, the people that sign the agreement have no recourse and no protection from changes in the deal. A business license for example essentially puts the property of individuals under the complete control of the state, and there is no legal rights left to those individuals to argue their property rights are being violated. All government contracts work on this same basic principle, while a private contract has set terms that need agreement by all parties to be changed. I strongly object to this sort of control being under the command of the state no matter if it is the relationships of people or anything else.

  9. #319
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Nonsense. There is a hundred years of judicial precedent and a sound constitutional argument for my side. You've elected to pretend they don't exist, but that's your problem and not mine.
    No there's not, once again, you proved by your own words that you care nothing for constitution or anything other than winning at any cost. The pretense has not been mine.

  10. #320
    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 notquiteright View Post
    Your POV on my use of the term CON is noted, do you have the same view and have made the same comments on CONs using libtard and the like?

    My point is the CONs as the GOP loves to paint themselves when pandering for votes, have been unable to push a Federal Amendment on Marriage. The door has been left open for the Federal court to hear and declare STATE amendments as unconstitutional and therefore get the CONs at the state level out of restricting people they don't like rights.
    Never have used, except in this case right here, "libtard". While that may be a somewhat apt term [ i don't use retard either, however ] for many on that side of the political spectrum... and while I am not above such descriptions [for example I use boobama..or just the boob, and other such regularly], I usually only use perhaps similar perjoratives when someone on the other side provokes such. I generally use the likes of "the libs" which is meant only a shortening of the term "the liberals", but which, solely by it own merit, or lack of it, is considered a disparagement [not my fault].

    So, guilty in some ways, I am sure.

    As regards what the Republicans have and have not been able to accomplish an amendment defining marriage, there are myriad reasons why there has not be a greater push, one of which is that we generally think this kind of thing is not an area for federal intrusion, states can make their own decisions. Yet, with all the end runs, the activists judges, the name calling and subterfuge the other side is willing to use and the depths to which they will sink to getting this travesty passed, well, it may take that.

    We conservatives are about CONserving the union, not destroying it.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

Page 32 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... 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
  •