Page 75 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 882

Thread: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

  1. #741
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    No.
    What I wold do is make jokes about people having voted for Obama.
    In a country of 300 million+ people, we won't all vote the same way. Nor should we. That's what makes this country great. And votes are cyclical. There are people who make jokes about people who voted for Bush. There are people who make jokes about people who voted for Obama. But nobody (or at least not me) advocates for people's rights to vote being taken away from them, as far as I know.

  2. #742
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Why do you find me so fascinating?

    And why do you care, honestly, why I support SSM?

    Two faced means you say one thing and do another behind someone's back. If I say I support SSM to people who want to marry a gay partner, and come on here to say they same thing, that isn't two faced. Sorry.
    This is 2 faced....
    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I've never voted to ban marriage but it seems pretty obvious that the end result of a ban on gay marriage means that they can't get a marriage license and have their unions recognized as a marriage.

    You can't ban prayer because you don't need the government's approval to pray in your shower.
    .....because, again, it is reducing marriage down to "a piece of paper" while ignoring that there is a huge difference between civil law and religious practices. Equating civil contracts to prayer while reducing civil contracts to "pieces of paper" is not supporting SSM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #743
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    This is 2 faced.........because, again, it is reducing marriage down to "a piece of paper" while ignoring that there is a huge difference between civil law and religious practices. Equating civil contracts to prayer while reducing civil contracts to "pieces of paper" is not supporting SSM.
    Two faced means I wasn't being honest. I was.

    A marriage license is a piece of paper giving legality to a union. I never in my 50+ years on this Earth have known anyone who got married and when asked why they were getting married, gave "The Consitutional allowed me to get married" as their reason for marrying. I married my husband because I fell in love with him and wanted to spend my life with him, not because we were Consitutionally allowed to marry or because we could enter into a civil contract.

    Why do I fascinate you so much?

  4. #744
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I'm not a sir, as evidenced by that little pink thing in my user panel.

    I also disagree with their vote, but it wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with what people vote on. Happens every election cycle.




    My apologies Ma'am.

    A fine day for you and a blessing on all of yours.



    >>>>

  5. #745
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,860

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Alabama placed a vote on their ballot to amend their Constitution to bar interracial marriage. That Alabama Constitutional amendment was invalided by the Loving decision in 1967.

    Was Alabama's vote to ban interracial marriage Constitutionally sound?


    (BTW & FYI - When a law is found unconstitutional, that law is not stricken from the statutes or State Constitution, it remains in the printing until removed later by legislative action or a new Amendment. In 2000 Alabama finally got around to removing the discriminatory language from their Constitution. 33-years after the Loving decision. The really sad thing is that 40% of the people voted to retain the language even though it was void.)



    >>>>
    What does the proposal to delete a constitutionís archaic language affirming segregation have to do with this discussion other than to present another strawman? Instead of focusing on the fact that when the people had an opportunity to change it, the people VOTED to amend their constitution. No you focus on the archaic language in their constitution. When prop 8 was placed on the ballot in California it was already found constitutionally sound according to their state. The people voted and a political appointed judge stripped their votes from them. Hey why bother to vote at all? Let whatever political party in power with an agenda use their political appointed justices to tell us how things will be because that is exactly what is happening and you want to talk about unconstitutional, there's a good place to start.

  6. #746
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post



    My apologies Ma'am.

    A fine day for you and a blessing on all of yours.



    >>>>
    No worries WW. It happens to me all the time. I think the population of DP must be heavily weighted in favor of men. That's good with me because I'm not a girly girl anyway.

    Have a great Friday and blessings to you & yours as well!

  7. #747
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    What does the proposal to delete a constitution’s archaic language affirming segregation have to do with this discussion other than to present another strawman? Instead of focusing on the fact that when the people had an opportunity to change it, the people VOTED to amend their constitution. No you focus on the archaic language in their constitution. When prop 8 was placed on the ballot in California it was already found constitutionally sound according to their state. The people voted and a political appointed judge stripped their votes from them. Hey why bother to vote at all? Let whatever political party in power with an agenda use their political appointed justices to tell us how things will be because that is exactly what is happening and you want to talk about unconstitutional, there's a good place to start.

    You miss the time from of the comparison. Alabama's repeal was a footnote to the main point. Alabama voted to deny interracial marriages, the State Constitutional amendment was overturned by the Loving decision. Why have you not been complaining that the SCOTUS "Stripped their votes" (meaning the people of Alabama that voted to enact the amendment)?


    BTW - When a State Constitution is amended, the Amendment becomes part of the State Constitution so State courts (as in the California Supreme Court) are bound by that law. In Strauss v. Horton (the in-state challenge to Prop 8) the court noted that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause." in that it provided for an exception to the State Equal Protection clause and therefore their hands were tied. At that point the challenge had to move to federal court to challenge the discriminatory amendment against the Federal Constitution.



    >>>>

  8. #748
    Educator Amandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Last Seen
    06-19-15 @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    905
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    This is 2 faced.........because, again, it is reducing marriage down to "a piece of paper" while ignoring that there is a huge difference between civil law and religious practices. Equating civil contracts to prayer while reducing civil contracts to "pieces of paper" is not supporting SSM.
    That is your opinion. Mine is as long as she would vote for SSM she is supporting it. That is all legal mariage is to me too, a piece of paper that grants the couple to handle some legal matters as one person. Also, a person could support same sex marriage and still think it isnt a constitutional issue. People have different opinions and you wont change them by accusing them of doing things or calling them names.

  9. #749
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,860

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    You miss the time from of the comparison. Alabama's repeal was a footnote to the main point. Alabama voted to deny interracial marriages, the State Constitutional amendment was overturned by the Loving decision. Why have you not been complaining that the SCOTUS "Stripped their votes" (meaning the people of Alabama that voted to enact the amendment)?


    BTW - When a State Constitution is amended, the Amendment becomes part of the State Constitution so State courts (as in the California Supreme Court) are bound by that law. In Strauss v. Horton (the in-state challenge to Prop 8) the court noted that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause." in that it provided for an exception to the State Equal Protection clause and therefore their hands were tied. At that point the challenge had to move to federal court to challenge the discriminatory amendment against the Federal Constitution.



    >>>>
    The Ninth Circus Court's ruling was a very narrow one as it asserted that the voter-approved statewide initiative cannot limit the name "marriage" to heterosexual couples. Rather bazaar as those in support of Prop 8 defined marriage between a man and a woman overwhelmingly in regard to their moral conscience. But it isn't surprising that the Ninth Circus Court would rule in such a way because it is primarily made up of 68% Democrat appointed justices. And it isn't surprising to the rest of us to find in the news today that the overwhelming majority of the recent justices overturning state's bans on same sex marriage are also Democrat appointed justices. Justice my foot. It's an abuse of power.
    Majority of judges behind wave of gay marriage rulings were Democrat-appointed | Fox News

  10. #750
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    The Ninth Circus Court's ruling was a very narrow one as it asserted that the voter-approved statewide initiative cannot limit the name "marriage" to heterosexual couples. Rather bazaar as those in support of Prop 8 defined marriage between a man and a woman overwhelmingly in regard to their moral conscience. But it isn't surprising that the Ninth Circus Court would rule in such a way because it is primarily made up of 68% Democrat appointed justices. And it isn't surprising to the rest of us to find in the news today that the overwhelming majority of the recent justices overturning state's bans on same sex marriage are also Democrat appointed justices. Justice my foot. It's an abuse of power.
    Majority of judges behind wave of gay marriage rulings were Democrat-appointed | Fox News

    You are attempting to move the goal posts.

    I posted about Strauss v. Horton in response to what you said "When prop 8 was placed on the ballot in California it was already found constitutionally sound according to their state." The "state" (the State court system) did not invalidate Prop 8 because Prop 8 amended the State constitution that courts are bound by.

    Now you are moving to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which is a Federal court, not a State Court. The State court didn't invalidate Prop 8, the federal court did. Just like the federal court by "stripping the votes" of the people of Alabama that voted to include an interracial ban in their Constitution.


    *************************************

    Straight question: Do you agree or disagree with the courts decision in Loving which resulted in the invalidation of the Alabama ban on interracial marriage that the citizens of that state voted to put in their State Constitution?



    >>>>

Page 75 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... 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
  •