Page 11 of 53 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 524

Thread: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

  1. #101
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I have plenty of claims - reading your posts can just be torture tho...
    another deflection and failed attack instead of supporting your failed post.

    yew we know you have many "claims" what we want if for you to support them with accurate facts and logic. this is somethign that hasn't happened in your posts yet.
    Please stay on topic and simply support your false claims. Thank you.
    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

  2. #102
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    1.)What's nonsense is actually believing a Wisconsin district judge can actually decide the constitutionality of an issue. The Law that does decide these ideas is called the Supreme Court of The United States.
    2.)If you paid attention to the legal process you would understand this or have an understanding of how our government works. This isn't the "Wild West" where law was arbitrary at best and a judge could sentence you to death and you would be hanged a few hours or a couple of days later.
    3.)I'm not the biggest fan of how our legal system works, but at least we have an appeals process.
    4.)I understand law and the "system" a lot better than you do.
    5.)No doubt the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling because the SCOTUS represents tyranny, but I do understand the process.
    1.) not nonsense at all a FEDERAL judge can do so and it can be appealed if SCOTUS thinks its needed
    2.) yes i know the law thats why #1 proves you wrong
    3.) yes we do
    4.) so far FACTS and your quoted post prove otherwise since only one of us have made factually wrong posts
    5.) LMAO another failed argument with no accurate or factual support.

    again lets us know when you can do so, thanks.
    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

  3. #103
    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 Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    SCOTUS is the final arbiter, not the only arbiter.



    SCOTUS already ruled against part of DOMA.

    I think Clinton was a good president. That does not mean I think he was perfect. That should not even be remotely hard to understand, so clue why you have trouble with the concept.
    Sorry to explain to you that the tyrannical SCOTUS is the end all of legislation - at least if it violates federal law, however they do occasionally handle state issues that have nothing to do with federal law that cant be resolved within the state legislator or through judicial means.

    And if you really want my opinion on gay marriage - I could care less about the issue - but I do care about democracy, and states who have put gay marriage on their ballots - the pro-gay marriage population lost tremendously.

    Also, why the hell does government need to be involved in marriage in the first place? the only reason I can concoct is taxes and somehow public acceptance.

    Do you really think that if our government endorsed gay marriage that would somehow change peoples position on the issue?

  4. #104
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Sorry to explain to you that the tyrannical SCOTUS is the end all of legislation - at least if it violates federal law, however they do occasionally handle state issues that have nothing to do with federal law that cant be resolved within the state legislator or through judicial means.

    2.)And if you really want my opinion on gay marriage - I could care less about the issue - but I do care about democracy, and states who have put gay marriage on their ballots - the pro-gay marriage population lost tremendously.

    3.)Also, why the hell does government need to be involved in marriage in the first place? the only reason I can concoct is taxes and somehow public acceptance.

    4.) Do you really think that if our government endorsed gay marriage that would somehow change peoples position on the issue?
    1.) good thing this isnt happening
    2.) sorry states dont have that power neither do the people in that fashion when it comes to rights and the constitution.
    3.) government is needed can have an effective contract without government.
    also government doesnt make public "acceptance"
    4.) they wont be endorsing it nor does peoples positions matter on this subject of rights.

    Do you have anythign besides strawmen?
    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. #105
    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 Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) not nonsense at all a FEDERAL judge can do so and it can be appealed if SCOTUS thinks its needed
    2.) yes i know the law thats why #1 proves you wrong
    3.) yes we do
    4.) so far FACTS and your quoted post prove otherwise since only one of us have made factually wrong posts
    5.) LMAO another failed argument with no accurate or factual support.

    again lets us know when you can do so, thanks.
    It's quite obviously you have absolutely no idea how the legal system works.

    If we just let judges rule how they see fit - we would have basic tyranny and judicial anarchy at the same time.

    If It matters at all I support county judges deciding for the best interests of their counties.

    What's good for your community may not be the best for mine.

    Besides, all these rulings are nothing more than precedence - NOT LAW.

    If you want gay marriage to be legalized then Amend the Constitution - this issue is doing nothing more than playing games with the Constitution - and the issue will never be resolved - because politicians don't want it resolved because it's a hot button issue.

    In theory - gay marriage in Illinois is no different than selling pot in Colorado - both ideas are illegal under state law - not federal. However the Tenth Amendment gives leeway to states to operate how they see fit.

    However, what happened with Prop8 was an absolute travesty..... Direct democracy voted down gay marriage - yet democracy was challenged? that there is precedence within itself to destroy the United States as we know it.... If a president loses to we just run to the courts and file an injunction?

    Like I said - I could care less about gay marriage but our political/legal/judicial system is completely ****ed.

    Ironically the only thing that is keeping the US stable is our ****ty economy - that ties into a global economy.
    Last edited by Mr.Nick; 06-08-14 at 08:27 PM.

  6. #106
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Sorry to explain to you that the tyrannical SCOTUS is the end all of legislation - at least if it violates federal law, however they do occasionally handle state issues that have nothing to do with federal law that cant be resolved within the state legislator or through judicial means.

    And if you really want my opinion on gay marriage - I could care less about the issue - but I do care about democracy, and states who have put gay marriage on their ballots - the pro-gay marriage population lost tremendously.
    The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the ballot. Don't you care about the constitution?

    Also, why the hell does government need to be involved in marriage in the first place?
    In 2014 there are various legal issues that require the government to recognize legal kinship.

    the only reason I can concoct is taxes and somehow public acceptance.

    Do you really think that if our government endorsed gay marriage that would somehow change peoples position on the issue?
    Who cares whether or not some stranger approves of your union?
    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.

  7. #107
    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: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't talk about the importance of history and tradition, only to then cherry pick the history and tradition that you think supports your argument. History is history, and we're living it.
    Oh come on, that is nonsense. Thousands of years of history and you are saying it is "cherry-picking" to not include the last ten or so years as part of that history? I am including it, of course, but as an ongoing process of changing the traditional and historic meaning of marriage that has existed for the previous thousands of years.

    Your attempt to take polygamous marriage and try to use verbal acrobatics to somehow frame it as still being monogamous did not work.
    Not what I was doing, but just pointing out that even the polygamous marriages were taken as being between a man and a woman. The women were not married to each other. Each was married individually to the man.

    It's an arbitrary line in the sand. There were people who believed mixed race marriages would be the ruin of the institution.
    Such laws had nothing to do with the institution of marriage and everything to do with general hostility towards race-mixing. It was opposition to the mixing of black and white blood. Nothing arbitrary about saying marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. That is a clear bright line.

    Never said it was akin to allowing slavery or human sacrifice, just that when you use the tradition argument you have to take into consideration every tradition we've had throughout history.
    Yet, those traditions had more than their fair share of prominent opposition and faced bans throughout history. Abolition of slavery goes back thousands of years. Many contemporary countries had banned slavery decades prior to the U.S. or even earlier.

    Do you have a problem with the way our government is set up? Those judges exist to review the constitutionality of laws. If those laws are unconstitutional, then the judges are going to rule against them. Else why have a constitution if you're not going to have a system in place for upholding it?
    The problem is not the government, but the people in charge of it. Enforcing the constitution, like all law, is great so long as people are committed to an honest and faithful interpretation. When people abuse their position of authority over the law to push their political views on society, that is when I have a problem.

    The original form of the constitution can blow me, seeing as women weren't allowed to vote then and black people could be traded as property. Or do you now have a problem with all the amendments?
    I don't have a problem with the amendments. What the **** are you talking about? You are now being completely dishonest in attacking my position. My point is actually that the amendment did not somehow require recognition of gay marriage.

    Who cares? The social mores of the United States is changing in that it's growing accepting of same sex marriage, and if it becomes legal in all fifty states, guess what: homophobes in Utah will still be allowed to be homophobes. No one can force anybody to accept gay marriage.
    Except, legal recognition means they do have to accept it on some level. I mean, are their businesses not now going to be required take part in any gay marriage ceremony at request? They can only avoid it by coming up with some non-religious excuse. Any argument that "it is against my beliefs" will be promptly met with a lawsuit saying this photographer has to take photos at my gay wedding no matter how they feel about it or this person has to bake my wedding cake even if it goes against everything in their religion. You can say that is not being "forced to accept" gay marriage, but it is in effect putting people in a position where they either take some part in the celebration of the union or lose their livelihood. People are, in effect, being forced to accept it as lawsuits and financial penalties are a form of coercive force.

    Do you really support that?

    Link to me a story of two heterosexual people of the same gender being forced to marry each other and we'll talk, otherwise your statement is nonsense.
    Again with the illogical retorts. People are going to have to accept it when it is legalized and that would be fine if this was the choice of the people. When it is the choice of certain activist judges then they are being forced by a small group of individuals to accept that marriage no longer means what it has meant for thousands of years. No one needs to be forced to marry anyone for the change to be forced on society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, that's not Orwellian. You are invoking oppression where there is none.
    Orwellian does not inherently mean "oppressive", but merely something that is akin to the world in Orwell's writings. By arguing that the 14th Amendment requires legal recognition of gay marriages, they are effectively reinventing history, because even those who wrote it most assuredly did not think it applied in such a manner and only in the past few years has anyone taken it that way. The law should be firm, not subject to the whims of judges. Interpretation of the law should be limited in scope and not become a way to perpetually move the law closer to a position favoring a political end not even remotely envisioned by its authors. When the law is seen to have deficiencies that prevent a certain political goal it should be revised in accordance with the appropriate procedures, not perverted through arbitrary decisions by partisan judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by AJiveMan View Post
    Cardinal is correct, same sex marriage or unions has been happening for eons.

    History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Wikipedia fail. Even if the stories are true, you should play closer attention as it explicitly says such unions were not recognized under the law. Anyone can have a ceremony, but we are talking about legal recognition.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #108
    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 Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) good thing this isnt happening
    2.) sorry states dont have that power neither do the people in that fashion when it comes to rights and the constitution.
    3.) government is needed can have an effective contract without government.
    also government doesnt make public "acceptance"
    4.) they wont be endorsing it nor does peoples positions matter on this subject of rights.

    Do you have anythign besides strawmen?
    Let me ask you this J - why are you so obsessed with state sponsored government marriage? what are your reasons behind the idea?

    In my idea of marriage it's a sacred bond - not a government endorsement..

    So why the **** do you care so much?

    If/when I get married it certainly won't be a political statement and will certainly have a meaning - I don't need government to give me permission or endorse my wedding - nor would I feel comfortable with government involved in my life or my wifes life.... If I was "really" worried which a layman like myself wouldn't be I would maybe sign a civil contract... But that is as simple and as complicated marriage can be...

  9. #109
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Orwellian does not inherently mean "oppressive", but merely something that is akin to the world in Orwell's writings. By arguing that the 14th Amendment requires legal recognition of gay marriages, they are effectively reinventing history, because even those who wrote it most assuredly did not think it applied in such a manner and only in the past few years has anyone taken it that way. The law should be firm, not subject to the whims of judges. Interpretation of the law should be limited in scope and not become a way to perpetually move the law closer to a position favoring a political end not even remotely envisioned by its authors. When the law is seen to have deficiencies that prevent a certain political goal it should be revised in accordance with the appropriate procedures, not perverted through arbitrary decisions by partisan judges.
    How exactly is this supposed to work? Were they supposed to poll the various people who wrote the 14th amendment on every conceivable subject to write down their opinion on every possible subject and just declare everything is all decided?

    Are you really wanting us to base every legal decision on the personal opinions of people who thought blacks were inherently inferior?
    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.

  10. #110
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    1.)It's quite obviously you have absolutely no idea how the legal system works.
    2.)If we just let judges rule how they see fit - we would have basic tyranny and judicial anarchy at the same time.
    3.)If It matters at all I support county judges deciding for the best interests of their counties.
    4.)What's good for your community may not be the best for mine.
    5.)Besides, all these rulings are nothing more than precedence - NOT LAW.
    6.) If you want gay marriage to be legalized then Amend the Constitution
    7.) this issue is doing nothing more than playing games with the Constitution
    8.)- and the issue will never be resolved - because politicians don't want it resolved because it's a hot button issue.
    9.)In theory - gay marriage in Illinois is no different than selling pot in Colorado - both ideas are illegal under state law - not federal. However the Tenth Amendment gives leeway to states to operate how they see fit.
    10.)However, what happened with Prop8 was an absolute travesty..... Direct democracy voted down gay marriage - yet democracy was challenged?
    11.) that there is precedence within itself to destroy the United States as we know it.... If a president loses to we just run to the courts and file an injunction?

    12.)Like I said - I could care less about gay marriage but our political/legal/judicial system is completely ****ed.
    1.) you keep repeating this lie but yet have nothing to support it and your posts have been FACTUALLY wrong regarding law.
    2.) I agree good thing this did NOT happen but you are free to fill that it did but that will only be your OPINION backed up by zero facts
    3.) no it doesnt matter and that is meanignless to law, the constitution and rights or individuals
    4.) I agree but again that has no impact on laws, rights and the constitution
    5.) another failed strawman, who called the "rulings" law? nobody please stick to what has actually been said
    6.) this is not needed the constitution already protects equal and civil rights
    7.) the games being played were by the state and the fed is fixing it
    8.) you are free to have this opinion but its meanignless to the topic at hand
    9.) no those are factually nothing alike.
    the 10 is fully intact since the state cant infringe individual rights, hence why the FED is fixing it, so this point fails too.
    10.) no it was awesome because we are not a direct democracy especially when it comes to RIGHTS LMAO
    thank you for further proving to us that you do not know how law and rights work.

    are you telling me a state of white could get together and VOTE using DEMOCRACY that rape is legal, and only the majority religion should be allowed? if not why? anythign you say besides yes would be hypocritical.

    your argument is a complete failure and not based on any intellectual honest, legality or rational.

    11.) wrong again this is how government is supposed to work CHECKS AND BALANCES. the people and state over stepped the fed fixed it. Thats its design.

    12.) you keep repeating this but it has no impact because obviously you do care and your claims cant be supported

    again please let us know when you have more than failed strawmen and any facts to support your claims. Repeating your unsupportable opinions over and over wont change anything.
    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 11 of 53 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •