Page 47 of 116 FirstFirst ... 3745464748495797 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 1157

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

  1. #461
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,735

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ok, and that is a valid point. My "support" if you want to call it that for gay people able to be married is exactly rooted in this....I remember when I first learned that a gay couple didn't have any rights to be consulted when their partner was in the hospital, or the unfairness of a family coming into long term couples and basically looting the estate after passing, was wrong to me....So, my feeling is that it is more a live, and let live kind of mindset. I don't care what they do in their own home, just like they don't care what I do in mine...So, I really don't care if they get married, in fact let them. Let them enjoy the cost and pain of divorce too.

    The complaint I have is that this board is over run with gay marriage threads, Hell last month there were 4 of them at one point on page 1 of the forum. It's spam. We don't need to have the same argument every time a county seat determines that they are going to allow people to get married do we?
    We also don't have to have a discussion on gun control every time someone makes a justified or unjustified use of a firearm in self-defense, but people fall all over themselves to post those stories. We don't have to have comments every time someone gets stabbed about "SOUNDS LIKE TIME FOR KNIFE CONTROL RIGHT LIBRULS HURR HURR"

    But we have those discussions.

    We don't have to a have a discussion about the IRS every time any scandal comes up.

    But we have those discussions.
    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. #462
    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
    Race is not gender, but both are protected classifications.


    That's not how America works. I don't get to decide that your free speech is unacceptable. I don't get to decide that your religion is unacceptable. And I don't get to decide that your marriage is unacceptable. My personal opinion is not good enough to deny those things to you. 51% of the population's opinion is not enough to deny those things to you.


    We've responded to this a dozen times. The logic was rejected with Loving v Virginia.



    I don't think 51% of the population gets to vote that Christianity is outlawed, no.


    Fun fact: Opponents of same-sex marriage are no longer a majority. Your whole argument rests upon this "will of the people" schtick but you don't even have that anymore.
    Protected classes don't get carte blanche. If they think they do, or if it even came close, we would need a wholesale recalibration society, a reset at normal. We are getting to the point of complete ridiculousness here, this is like a comedy show.

    Your description is not how America works, its how you are breaking it. The way things work have worked through 238 years. Proven system that you and your side are, for some self-destructive reason, are attempting to destroy. And we have had about enough of it. Our traditions have held us in good stead. And sure 51% of the population, if that is what they decide [ that's about how many voted for the boob-ama, and I accepted it ] its what will happen.

    They cannot take away my inalienable rights, those are not even on the table. They can limit, or increase, things that governments can limit or increase... drinking age, voting, marriage, education, size of military, space program the list goes on and on. Marriage and its definition should be left up to the individual states to decide without interference from the activists courts.

    Plessy v Ferguson was decided, too, was it? You want that one court case to decide things for all time, do you? What a joke. See, this is comedy you are spouting. Sorry, its gonna be a battle and its going to continue to be a battle.

    No, religious freedom is a first amendment right [ why do you pick such bad examples? ]... you would have to amend the constitution to accomplish that, a bit more effort than just getting the 51%.

    As regards your funny fact: This side has 2/3s of the states [ known in common parlance as a super-majority ] currently with amendments banning SSM or defining marriage as one man one woman. Your side sure doesn't have the majority... so you will have to do a bit, oops, I mean a lot better if you want to change things.

    And think you will change things for all times? Another joke.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #463
    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
    If we did not allow the Courts to decide issues about the Constitution, then the Constitution would be pointless. We would still have laws against interracial marriages, Jim Crow laws, segregation in schools (which is actually still on the books in some states), sodomy laws, laws that ban everyone from owning guns in some places, laws that restrict some religions from being practiced in certain areas, laws that allow some people to enforce their religious rules upon others, laws that do not allow people in jail to marry, laws that do not allow those behind on their child support to marry, laws that place certain children as more important than others even in the absence of a will, and many more.

    Minorities are protected without having to persuade enough people to vote for them. That isn't how our country works. It is "tough beans" for you that we have a US Constitution that protects us, via the Courts, from votes of the majority. Constitutional republic, not direct democracy. That is where you live.

    Everyone has morals. Our morals do not agree. The fact that you do not understand that this is a difference in morality is telling on yourself.
    Of course the courts have their place... they do not, however, supersede the will of the people on fundamental cultural constructs. They can tinker at the edges, at least until they become a roadblock to the will of the people. They, because of their position, do not become the new kings who make the people's will inferior.

    I would say all those laws you indicated that we would still have, and in some cases still have, did not have the majority supporting them when they were pushed to the side. There are lines to be drawn, red lines that folks do want adhered to, not the boobama style red lines. And even with all that history of injustice, that does not mean your side is right because we overcame injustice, real injustice, in the past. This is merely silliness, me me me-ness, that will fade as rapidly as it came up.

    Just because you are in the minority does not in any way mean you get to make the decisions for the rest of us... that is foolishness. The Constitution, nor the courts, were meant to do that, they were meant to protect your individual rights and allow you the freedom to say what you want, not to just do anything you want. That is simply an absurd analysis of our governing framework.

    One person's morals are not necessarily equivalent to another's. Newbie smarts rarely equates to the wisdom of the ages.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  4. #464
    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
    Then what were you talking about? Because we are talking about a constitutional issue here since judges are ruling that same sex marriage bans, even those written into state constitutions, violate the US Constitution. This means that if the SCOTUS agrees and rules that those bans violate the US Constitution (as they very likely will), then that means the only way to override that is via another US Constitutional Amendment. Nothing else will do. It doesn't matter how many states have voted (in the past) to have amendments for their own constitutions banning same sex marriage. Votes from the past mean little in a world that changes like ours does. Every day more and more people change their mind in support of same sex marriage being legal everywhere. Every day older people (those most likely to currently be against same sex marriage) die. Every day young people (those most likely to support same sex marriage) become old enough to vote. Unfortunately, the political process works slower than the courts in some places. Heck, some things can only be voted on every 2 or even 4 years in accordance with state constitutions.
    Counting your turkeys way before they are hatched.

    As those younger currently thinking SSM is okay become adults they start thinking more clearly, like adults. They generally become more conservative. Especially after they realize the line of bull they have been force fed in school, in media and now by government... and should that not happen, wow, what a wonderfully mixed up and predictably war torn world this is soon to become. Once family stability breaks down here completely, once nobody cares much about anything worth caring about anymore, once the weakness that your side's termites are constantly eating away at our foundations to create becomes apparent to the predators out there in the world... and they are out there, waiting... well, we will see if you get to keep your cherished SSM then.

    Once you have chased all the strong away, nursed the rest into being namby pambies, the nation will be ripe for the picking. Yes, no doubt in your lifetime... if the quickening pace that is apparent in just this lifetime does not slow down. That would be unfortunate, yet poetic justice.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  5. #465
    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 Constitution itself is about ensuring our rights our protected against the government. It doesn't need to expand rights because those are rights we already have that simply are being enshrined within the Constitution to ensure they are protected.

    You obviously have no idea what equal protection under the law means. It means that you cannot treat people differently based on random characteristics of those people, even some things that can be changed, without showing how that difference in treatment furthers a legitimate state interest.

    For instance, a state cannot randomly say that during the ages of 45-50 a person cannot have a driver's license because there is no way they could justify (with evidence/information we have now anyway) that this restriction would further any legitimate state interest. Age limits are in fact legal, when they are justified (ever wonder why no state says people who reach a certain age are not allowed to own a driver's license). Hair color is not a constitutionally protected specifically right. However, it would violate equal protection to make a law that restricted red heads from obtaining business licenses (even if it allowed for them to change their hair color in order to obtain that license). There would simply be no legitimate state interest being furthered in that law. When it comes to marriage, a state could not legitimately limit marriages to those who have IQs within 20 points of each other. IQ is not a protected class (specifically) within the Constitution, yet people are still protected by the Constitution from having their IQ, or their age, or their hair color, or their gender used to treat them differently than other people, even when it is being used in a way that is simply relative to a characteristic of another person, unless the state can show that such treatment furthers a legitimate state interest. Judicial precedence is part of a laws and has been for some time.
    That is simply an absurd and pretty naive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework for governing.

    While I appreciate your efforts, why don't you give me a list of the protected classes and where exactly those protected classes are listed as protected (specifically) in the Constitution.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  6. #466
    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
    No, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you. And I am heterosexual. I support same sex marriage. The majority of the supporters of same sex marriage are heterosexuals.

    And the burden is always on the state to show a legitimate state interest is furthered whenever a person can show that the law treats them differently than someone else. The law treats men and women differently based on their gender/sex. A man cannot marry a man, but a woman can. A woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can. Why? Because of their gender/sex.
    Similarly, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you either. Their not having it also does not affect you.

    What would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing a 40 year old to marry a 7 year old? Besides your prejudices regarding age, what would be the legitimate state interest? If I wanted to marry a tree, what would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing that? What if I wanted to marry an adult chicken, or a rooster for that matter, what would be the legitimate state interest there? I can marry a woman, you want to allow me to marry a man, why cannot I marry a horse? Why not all three? What is the legitimate state interest? Matter of fact, I want to marry 73 other people all at the same time, two of them my siblings, one my parent, what would be the legitimate state interest in stopping me?
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  7. #467
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Similarly, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you either. Their not having it also does not affect you.
    I think it does affect the thousands of children raised by same sex couples in the state of Michigan.

    What would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing a 40 year old to marry a 7 year old? Besides your prejudices regarding age, what would be the legitimate state interest? If I wanted to marry a tree, what would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing that? What if I wanted to marry an adult chicken, or a rooster for that matter, what would be the legitimate state interest there? I can marry a woman, you want to allow me to marry a man, why cannot I marry a horse? Why not all three? What is the legitimate state interest? Matter of fact, I want to marry 73 other people all at the same time, two of them my siblings, one my parent, what would be the legitimate state interest in stopping me?
    The problem with making these kinds of arguments is it throws your personal morality and ability to reason into question. You are basically saying the only argument YOU can make against those situations are "gays can't do it".

    Children cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult and for all the same reasons we would not allow children to serve on a jury, drive a car, enter a contract, buy alcohol, and any other number of reasons that relate to their ability to make decisions, we will not allow them to marry. But the fact that you clearly did not understand that yourself, makes you look pretty...bad.

    But please continue to make arguments like those. It does help the gay rights movement quite a bit when people see the level of reasoning your side is capable.

  8. #468
    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
    A man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman. That is gender discrimination. A person cannot do something another can based solely on their gender. The same as it would be religious discrimination if the law said a Catholic can marry a Catholic but a Methodist cannot marry a Catholic. A person cannot do something another person can based solely on their religion.
    Oh, I understand what you are saying, but you see, as a society we, many of us, don't want that kind of nothing matters above anything else sort of world. Some things aren't equal, are not meant to be equal, some things just should not be. Maybe we, as a nation, will at some point agree to allow this outrage, but not while we have the strength to support a strong nation.

    Not while I can help it.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  9. #469
    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 only difference it makes that race and gender are different is in what kind of interest a state has to show is being furthered and/or how that trait is related to that interest. It doesn't change that they are both protected against unequal protection of the laws/unequal treatment.
    Yeah, that is just flat-assed silly. That is why a court system with precedent eventually must break down, it no longer stands for anything but the sublimely bizarre, a template for the circus you folks are turning this country into.

    One could laugh if it weren't so sad. And you think you are doing good, what an irony.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  10. #470
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,735

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Protected classes don't get carte blanche. If they think they do, or if it even came close, we would need a wholesale recalibration society, a reset at normal. We are getting to the point of complete ridiculousness here, this is like a comedy show.
    And, for the 600th time, I will explain that no, a protected classification isn't carte blanche and nobody is suggesting it is. But it does bring up the test, and this is not a test that same-sex marriage can pass. Stop extrapolating everything to absolutes and this discussion will confuse you far, far less.

    Your description is not how America works, its how you are breaking it. The way things work have worked through 238 years. Proven system that you and your side are, for some self-destructive reason, are attempting to destroy. And we have had about enough of it. Our traditions have held us in good stead. And sure 51% of the population, if that is what they decide [ that's about how many voted for the boob-ama, and I accepted it ] its what will happen.
    Wow. So America is ruined if you aren't allowed to impose your religion on others. Hilarious.

    They cannot take away my inalienable rights, those are not even on the table. They can limit, or increase, things that governments can limit or increase... drinking age, voting, marriage, education, size of military, space program the list goes on and on. Marriage and its definition should be left up to the individual states to decide without interference from the activists courts.
    Marriage is a "basic civil right." Says SCOTUS.
    Plessy v Ferguson was decided, too, was it? You want that one court case to decide things for all time, do you? What a joke. See, this is comedy you are spouting. Sorry, its gonna be a battle and its going to continue to be a battle.
    It's going to go to SCOTUS, probably in the middle of next year. After that, you'll never see it in court again.

    No, religious freedom is a first amendment right [ why do you pick such bad examples? ]... you would have to amend the constitution to accomplish that, a bit more effort than just getting the 51%.
    Marriage is a basic civil right.
    As regards your funny fact: This side has 2/3s of the states [ known in common parlance as a super-majority ] currently with amendments banning SSM or defining marriage as one man one woman. Your side sure doesn't have the majority... so you will have to do a bit, oops, I mean a lot better if you want to change things.
    A situation that arose a decade ago. Opinions are radically different now.

    And think you will change things for all times? Another joke.
    The trend towards increasing support for marriage equality is as clear as day. Even in Texas now, polls show an opposition to same-sex marriage down to 49%, no longer a majority. (48% support) And every year it leans towards support, in every state. Young people support marriage equality by a large margin, and they are a growing percentage of the electorate while those who oppose are shrinking. (literally dying off)

    There will always be the fanatics. There will always be that small percentage of people who just wont let go of the hate. However, all of the arguments against same-sex marriage were used against interracial marriage. Every single one. It's unnatural. It's against the will of God. It's against the will of the people. Everyone has the same rights already. It's a state decision. And so on. All of the arguments were made, and all of them failed. And the majority let go of the hate. The majority no longer have a problem with it, and that's never going to change back. No, my friend, you will never be in the majority again. You can hold onto your hate for as long as you like, but it's healthier to let go.

    Just admit it: You cannot identify a way in which same-sex marriage affects you. You refused to answer my question on the grounds that I hadn't answered your slippery slope. I did that now, and you still wont give a manner in which this affects you. Because there isn't one. You are fighting over... what, exactly?
    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.

Page 47 of 116 FirstFirst ... 3745464748495797 ... 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
  •