Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 183

Thread: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

  1. #61
    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: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    But they either support the majority of the agenda or they are "one issue voters" that screw everyone for what they want.
    Or they support part of it which just happens to be what's most important to them. In fact, many people are going to go with the candidate/party that most closely matches their views on what is most important to them. Chances are very good that no candidate or party is going to match a person's positions on every single position, 100%. Not unless the person is adapting their positions to fit their party.
    "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.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Or they support part of it which just happens to be what's most important to them. In fact, many people are going to go with the candidate/party that most closely matches their views on what is most important to them. Chances are very good that no candidate or party is going to match a person's positions on every single position, 100%. Not unless the person is adapting their positions to fit their party.
    Regardless of any other issues, if someone is supporting a party that suppresses or oppresses individuals rights and promotes inequality cannot claim to be supporting "equality". If there were indeed, true equality, then this issue would not even be an issue. Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc.

    That is the problem with a basically two party system. You cannot choose just the issues you want, you have to view the overall party platform and either support it or vote against it in the whole.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #63
    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: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Regardless of any other issues, if someone is supporting a party that suppresses or oppresses individuals rights and promotes inequality cannot claim to be supporting "equality". If there were indeed, true equality, then this issue would not even be an issue. Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc.

    That is the problem with a basically two party system. You cannot choose just the issues you want, you have to view the overall party platform and either support it or vote against it in the whole.
    Then no one would ever support any party, because they pretty much all could be said to be oppressing someone's "rights" in one way or another.

    And "equality" is subjective. There is no "true equality", not in a society.

    Without narrowing down to the best choice given the candidates is much better than getting dozens, hundreds, or even possibly thousands of different candidates who each have a small percent of the vote. This is why we have primaries. I'm all for opening up all primaries, in all states, to absolutely everyone, no matter which party they are or aren't registered with. But it still won't solve the problem. Still too many possible views with too little rational choices. It's an inherent flaw in the system that is credited to human nature.
    "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.

  4. #64
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Regardless of any other issues, if someone is supporting a party that suppresses or oppresses individuals rights and promotes inequality cannot claim to be supporting "equality". If there were indeed, true equality, then this issue would not even be an issue. Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc.

    That is the problem with a basically two party system. You cannot choose just the issues you want, you have to view the overall party platform and either support it or vote against it in the whole.
    so tell us what part FACTUALLY supports or doesnt support equality or in this two party system and provide the PROVE please lol
    I cant wait to read this!
    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

  5. #65
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    What in participial are you looking for, there are some updates, some pending dates etc but i dont have it all saved. Ive been ill for a little while and im way behind.

    As far as the ones clinging to this is not a national issue thats a crock and always has been. Its pure dishonesty and they know it. Its never been a defensible position but yeah your right. It sorta has been going state by state. But the other failed complaint is that its "rogue judges" you know 30+ of them in multiple states all ruling very similar, its a conspiracy lol
    I guess the pending cases wouldn't have any details yet.

    Of course it's a national issue. The ultimate issue is over equal protection. It's an issue that stems from the national constitution. The whole "states should decide" bit is complete nonsense. But even with that tactic, to attempt to keep equality out of red states, equality is still winning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    When antifeds talk about the "state", they mean "the people", not overzealous judges. If the state votes to ban and the court overturns, that's not even close to letting the "people" decide.
    If the state votes to violate the constitution, the judges are supposed to overturn it. You can't vote on civil rights. When "antifeds", as you put it, talk about the "state", they mean the specific parts of government that do exactly what they want, and condemn the parts that do what other people want. Too bad, government is for all of us. It represents every single person in this country, even people who aren't like you. And it means you do not always get your way. It means the principles of the constitution stand up no matter what people want to do against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Court rulings don't count, because apparently those aren't a legitimate part of the system for reasons that have never been clearly explained to me.
    It's not like they're in the constitution, or anything. Oh wait...

    No, apparently nothing besides a straight popular vote is alright (except for electing presidents, then we need some kind of small state benefiting rigging for it), because that's the only way you know the "will of the people". Who they elect is apparently irrelevant, and national polls overwhelmingly fall in favor of SSM. It's just trying to cherry pick whatever method will get them the result they want.
    Last edited by Paschendale; 05-10-14 at 09:26 PM.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #66
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,923

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    What exactly am I supposed to be seeing there?
    The actual order of the states being "targeted" by the courts vs. your claims.

  7. #67
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    ...and if I thought marriage was a right, I'd agree with you.
    Then make a substantiated legal argument that would overturn Loving v. Virginia. Go ahead. We'd all like to hear it. And if it's "the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage" we already have that defeated. Go read the ninth amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    If you can show me the word "marriage" anywhere at all in the Constitution, I'll concede every last point you just made.
    Oh look, there it is. Go read the ninth amendment. You also have the right to wear baseball caps, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to build a sand castle, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to eat cheese, despite the constitution not mentioning it. If the government tries to stop you from doing those things, you have a right to do them unless it has a damn good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    They generally, a large majority of them anyways, support liberal agendas. Affirmative Action, Progressive Taxes, maintaining current tax structures and benefits programs that promote inequality and don't treat all people equally.
    Pay attention, the following is for you, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    can anybody support this failed and proven wrong statement with anything factual, as multiple posters noted and proved it has yet to be done.

    "the homosexual community that wants equal "rights" to receive the benefits of "marriage" but would deny equal rights to others?"
    It's pretty hard to get a coherent argument out of someone who thinks that progressive taxation is violating someone's rights. Probably paid maternal leave is, too, because men don't get time off to birth and nurse children. Or a public works project in a poor neighborhood, because it's not benefiting rich people the same way.

    Unequal treatment is perfectly permissible with a compelling reason. That's why we have a court and constitutional scrutiny, so we can determine if the reasons are compelling. "I think gays are icky" is not a compelling reason. Biological differences (like contraceptives for women) is. Redressing the very lingering effects of slavery is. Raising revenue from people who have more money as opposed to people who don't is.

    If someone wants to make a constitutionally and factually supported argument to the contrary, by all means, take it to the court. The idea that equality means treating people in different situations as if they were all in the best possible situation is moronic at best and probably a lie to justify leaving less fortunate or historically oppressed people behind. Unequal treatment is necessary when people are in unequal positions. That's how you push people closer to actual equality. When unequal treatment is no longer necessary, that's when we have the real thing.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #68
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    The actual order of the states being "targeted" by the courts vs. your claims.
    Prior to the Utah ruling only California saw a federal court case at the state-level rule on the constitutionally of non-recognition for gay marriage. Some state courts ruled it a violation of their state constitutions, but that is different. The California case was a fluke and basically was just a quicker way to achieve what was inevitable for California despite the surprise victory for Prop 8. Presumably, they would have wanted it at the Supreme Court level, but the simple fact is that California political leadership were not interested in taking it there and it is likely those pushing for it realized it was a long shot that California would contest recognition being required by the court given that most leaders supported it. What we are seeing here are direct challenges to non-recognition for gay marriage as a violation of the U.S. constitution and the states targeted are typically the most conservative states in the country that could easily be a decade or more away from approving gay marriage through the proper channels. It is clearly a shrewd maneuver aimed at insuring an appearance at the Supreme Court. Utah was certainly not going to pull a California and not contest the ruling and even if by some bizarre turn of events they accepted it, there is no way all these different conservative states would have accepted it as well. Only state in this recent flurry of cases where gay marriage could have reasonably been approved through elections or a referendum is Michigan, but its legislative and executive branches are dominated by Republicans.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  9. #69
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,923

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Prior to the Utah ruling only California saw a federal court case at the state-level rule on the constitutionally of non-recognition for gay marriage. Some state courts ruled it a violation of their state constitutions, but that is different. The California case was a fluke and basically was just a quicker way to achieve what was inevitable for California despite the surprise victory for Prop 8. Presumably, they would have wanted it at the Supreme Court level, but the simple fact is that California political leadership were not interested in taking it there and it is likely those pushing for it realized it was a long shot that California would contest recognition being required by the court given that most leaders supported it. What we are seeing here are direct challenges to non-recognition for gay marriage as a violation of the U.S. constitution and the states targeted are typically the most conservative states in the country that could easily be a decade or more away from approving gay marriage through the proper channels. It is clearly a shrewd maneuver aimed at insuring an appearance at the Supreme Court. Utah was certainly not going to pull a California and not contest the ruling and even if by some bizarre turn of events they accepted it, there is no way all these different conservative states would have accepted it as well. Only state in this recent flurry of cases where gay marriage could have reasonably been approved through elections or a referendum is Michigan, but its legislative and executive branches are dominated by Republicans.
    Challenges to laws based on the U.S. Constitution are proper channels.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    so tell us what part FACTUALLY supports or doesnt support equality or in this two party system and provide the PROVE please lol
    I cant wait to read this!
    How about instead I provide just as much FACTUAL proof as you have. Oh, wait, that would mean I would have to present none at all.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •