Page 12 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 524

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

  1. #111
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    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...
    Here's a better question:

    Why the **** do you pretend not to care? If you really don't care, quit posting in threads about same-sex marriage. Some of us do care that people are being denied rights based on nothing but a baseless disapproval of others. This is America, and I find that unacceptable. So I am going to speak out against it. If that bothers you, don't read what I write. Log off this message board. Go outside or something. Quit spending so much time talking about a subject you claim not to care about.
    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. #112
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post

    No doubt the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling because the SCOTUS represents tyranny, but I do understand the process.
    It is not tyranny to overturn an unconstitutional law, it doesn't matter how many people voted for it. If 53% of the population voted to reinstate slavery, it's not tyranny to reject their vote. Because their vote is the tyranny.
    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. #113
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    1.)Let me ask you this J - why are you so obsessed with state sponsored government marriage?
    2.)what are your reasons behind the idea?
    3.)In my idea of marriage it's a sacred bond
    4.) - not a government endorsement..
    5.)So why the **** do you care so much?
    6.)
    If/when I get married it certainly won't be a political statement and will certainly have a meaning -
    7.) I don't need government to give me permission or endorse my wedding
    8.) nor would I feel comfortable with government involved in my life or my wifes life....
    9.)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...
    1.) im not thats one of the failed strawmen you make up and that is factually not true.
    Im for equal rights
    2.) see #1
    3.) mine too and that persona subjective scared bond is not impacted anyway by SSM at all
    4.) marriage is not government endorsed, the contract is government protected if a person doesnt want this they are free to have a non legal marriage.
    5.) again like the majority of americans i care about equal rights and not just mine but the rights of my fellow americans. Its disgusting that some of them are treated as lessers and if that didnt bother me it would make me a selfish hypocrite.
    6.) me to, again SSM has zero impact on this
    7.) 100% correct you dont for a nonlegal marriage
    8.) thats your choice, Good thing you are free to get married without a contract.
    9.) this again is meaningless to the topic and you are free to do so now and will be after SSM so this has

    so do you have anythign that actually matters to this topic?
    I mean thanks for sharing your personal opinions and views but they dont have any impact on equal rights nor will they be affected by equal rights.
    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

  4. #114
    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 Deuce View Post
    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?
    The last comment is all the proof anyone needs that your interest is not really in the Constitution, but your personal beliefs. Jefferson was a slave-owner so who really cares if his idea of "separation of church and state" was markedly different from that being espoused by various anti-religionists? Washington massacred Native Americans so why should anyone care what he thought about freedom of speech? If we are going to condemn the authors of the law for their beliefs and suggest, by extension, that we should not care about the original intent of the law then you are only saying that the law itself is meaningless. All that matters then is if you can come up with any sort of argument that somehow could be made to be fit within the wording of the law or an extended interpretation of its wording. What that amounts to is the law itself being meaningless. In such a case, what matters is who holds the power over the courts and nothing more than that. So long as the people you agree with have control over the courts it is all good in the hood.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #115
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    The last comment is all the proof anyone needs that your interest is not really in the Constitution, but your personal beliefs. Jefferson was a slave-owner so who really cares if his idea of "separation of church and state" was markedly different from that being espoused by various anti-religionists? Washington massacred Native Americans so why should anyone care what he thought about freedom of speech? If we are going to condemn the authors of the law for their beliefs and suggest, by extension, that we should not care about the original intent of the law then you are only saying that the law itself is meaningless. All that matters then is if you can come up with any sort of argument that somehow could be made to be fit within the wording of the law or an extended interpretation of its wording. What that amounts to is the law itself being meaningless. In such a case, what matters is who holds the power over the courts and nothing more than that. So long as the people you agree with have control over the courts it is all good in the hood.
    You're extrapolating to absolutes where it isn't warranted. The point isn't that intent is irrelevant, the point is that intent isn't gospel.

    You, on the other hand, are absolutely working from personal opinion and just hiding behind this "original intent" nonsense. Well, we don't have an original intent regarding same-sex marriage, or school segregation. We also don't have an original intent regarding nuclear weapons under the second amendment, or search and seizure in reference to electronic property.

    You are acting like there's a singular, correct interpretation of the constitution. There isn't. Disagree? Ok, what was the original intent of the 14th amendment regarding asteroid mining rights? Every possible aspect of it.
    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.

  6. #116
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    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.
    Do you lament that people started marrying each other for love instead of the traditional function of uniting tribes and families or to acquire wealth?

    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.
    po·lyg·a·my
    noun \-mē\

    : the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time


    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.
    The position against gay marriage has been about hostility to gay people, and not at all about "tradition." This is demonstrated every time people don't talk about traditional marriage being under attack (or that government needs to step out of marriage) with every divorce or every quickie Vegas marriage. And it's demonstrated every time they couldn't care less that polygamy and different functions of marriage were abandoned for more modern approaches. We're not stupid.

    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.
    Yes, bit by bit the world moved on from slavery. So? This doesn't challenge my point. Humanity had some crappy practices, we abandoned them, yay team humanity. We're not forced to do something the same way forever just because we always have.

    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.
    What if everybody is wrong and you're right, is that it? Unfortunately for your position, every time same sex marriage goes to court it wins because no argument against it can be upheld. You can only use the "activist judge" routine so many times before you have to consider the very real possibility that the case against ssm simply just sucks.

    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.
    Except that every time, bans on ssm are overturned citing the the 14th amendment.
    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?
    That's different, and isn't unique to same sex couples. Nobody can be legally required to recognize ssm, just as no law can legally force me to accept Jesus into my heart regardless of Christianity being legal in all fifty states.
    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.
    Are you married? If so, what does the advent of ssm mean for your marriage? Does it mean less to you now?
    Last edited by Cardinal; 06-08-14 at 09:15 PM.

  7. #117
    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 Deuce View Post
    The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the ballot. Don't you care about the constitution?


    In 2014 there are various legal issues that require the government to recognize legal kinship.



    Who cares whether or not some stranger approves of your union?
    The Constitution is the supreme court of the land, and the SCOTUS justices that document(s) and oddly enough 9 actually have the power to override legislation passed .

    I have a problem with the notion that only a few can override legislation passed by both the House and the Senate.

    What makes their politics any different than anyone else?

    Obviously the SCOTUS as individuals has politics considering they're people.

    That is where it gets dangerous.

    Would you rather have 535 make decisions or 9? that is my concern.

  8. #118
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,807

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    The Constitution is the supreme court of the land, and the SCOTUS justices that document(s) and oddly enough 9 actually have the power to override legislation passed .

    I have a problem with the notion that only a few can override legislation passed by both the House and the Senate.

    What makes their politics any different than anyone else?

    Obviously the SCOTUS as individuals has politics considering they're people.

    That is where it gets dangerous.

    Would you rather have 535 make decisions or 9? that is my concern.
    Oh, so you're against every Supreme Court decision, then? We should just eliminate that branch entirely because 9 isn't enough people? Because Congress has proven itself so effective at legislating and protecting our rights, it doesn't need any counterbalance?

    When SCOTUS overturns a properly-enacted gun control law, are you bitching about 9 people overturning legislation passed by both the house and senate?
    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.

  9. #119
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    The last comment is all the proof anyone needs that your interest is not really in the Constitution, but your personal beliefs. Jefferson was a slave-owner so who really cares if his idea of "separation of church and state" was markedly different from that being espoused by various anti-religionists? Washington massacred Native Americans so why should anyone care what he thought about freedom of speech? If we are going to condemn the authors of the law for their beliefs and suggest, by extension, that we should not care about the original intent of the law then you are only saying that the law itself is meaningless. All that matters then is if you can come up with any sort of argument that somehow could be made to be fit within the wording of the law or an extended interpretation of its wording. What that amounts to is the law itself being meaningless. In such a case, what matters is who holds the power over the courts and nothing more than that. So long as the people you agree with have control over the courts it is all good in the hood.
    WOW???

    how does what duece said even come close to this bit of fantasy that you posted here?

    thats the biggest most elaborate hyperbolic strawman i read this year.
    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

  10. #120
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post


    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.
    Where did it say they weren't recognized under the law?

Page 12 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •