Page 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 506

Thread: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Only that's not how SCOTUS works and you know it. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution about healthcare. Does that mean that any SCOTUS decision rendered on it can be ignored because SCOTUS by your logic has no jurisdiction on matters concerning healthcare?
    There is no constitutional authority behind healthcare. It's a recent invention. SCOTUS was determining the legality of a federal law, which not the same as a right left to the states. There is no federal law on any such 'national marriage' policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You're getting desperate. SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to rule on marriage thanks to the 14th amendment.
    It's actualy thanks to Artical 3, not the 14th, but you idiots are to stupid to do anything but parrot talking points. Thank you for helping me demonstrate the shere ignorence of pro-ssm.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    There is no constitutional authority behind healthcare. It's a recent invention.
    So is marriage as practiced in America.

    SCOTUS was determining the legality of a federal law, which not the same as a right left to the states. There is no federal law on any such 'national marriage' policy.
    There wasn't a federal racial discrimination policy either Jerry. And SCOTUS was still able to rule Jim Crow laws unconstitutional.

    It's actualy thanks to Artical 3, not the 14th, but you idiots are to stupid to do anything but parrot talking points. Thank you for helping me demonstrate the shere ignorence of pro-ssm.
    Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So is marriage as practiced in America.
    And theres no constitutional authority behind or mandate for marriage licenses, either.

    If a State issues them, then the state has to act equitably, but the state doesn't have to give or honor marriages at all. The state can't stop you from having a ceremony, putting rings on and calling eachother 'husband' or 'wife', but nothing forces the state to honor your union.

    California could choose not to honor marriage licenses from states who not require a blood test. Any state could require pre-marital counseling and not honor marriages from states who do not require the same. It's all up to the state.
    Last edited by Jerry; 07-02-14 at 04:56 AM.

  4. #194
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    And theres no constitutional authority behind or mandate for marriage licenses, either.
    Doesn't matter. SCOTUS can still determine whether marriage law is in violation of the 14th amendment as shown by Loving v. Virginia.

    If a State issues them, then the state has to act equitably, but the state doesn't have to give or honor marriages at all. The state can't stop you from having a ceremony, putting rings on and calling eachother 'husband' or 'wife', but nothing forces the state to honor your union.

    California could choose not to honor marriage licenses from states who not require a blood test. Any state could require pre-marital counseling and not honor marriages from states who do not require the same. It's all up to the state.
    Whether a state has to honor or doesn't have to honor is irrelevant. The state still needs to comply with the 14th amendment when it comes to marriage law. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Doesn't matter.
    Then you shouldnt have brought it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Whether a state has to honor or doesn't have to honor is irrelevant. The state still needs to comply with the 14th amendment when it comes to marriage law. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
    Theres no 14th amendment violation taking place. A SSM-ban does not violate the 14th and for the reasons stated.

  6. #196
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Then you shouldnt have brought it up.
    I explained why it doesn't matter.

    Theres no 14th amendment violation taking place. A SSM-ban does not violate the 14th and for the reasons stated.
    You've stated no reason lol. All you've stated is that a state can choose to not honor a marriage because of... what? Blood tests? It's laughable to compare a blood test to what is the outright discrimination based on the gender of the participants. Discriminating based on gender/sexual attraction? Violation of the 14th, Jerry. Craig v. Boren, Reed v. Reed, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Thomas - look them up.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You've stated no reason lol.
    Oh you're right, someone else wrote post #174. My bad.

  8. #198
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's not gender discrimination. One gender has to enjoy some priviledge or suffer some burdon which the other gender does not, in order to be gender discrimination.

    Let's take 3 people - Martha, John, and Heather - who are consenting, adult, non-related, law abiding, US Citizens.

    John can Civilly Marry Martha.

    John can Civilly Marry Heather.

    Martha though cannot marry Heather.


    Because of gender John enjoys a right (or privilege if you prefer) to marry someone who consents that is denied Martha who has a burden placed on her that does not inhibit John.

    The only factor that mandates under the law (on most States) the different treatment of Martha and Heather verses John and Heather is the gender composition of the couple.



    >>>>

  9. #199
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Because of gender John enjoys a right (or privilege if you prefer) to marry someone who consents that is denied Martha who has a burden placed on her that does not inhibit John.
    All 3 people have the same right: to marry someone of the opposit sex. All 3 people have the same burdon: can't marry the oppoait sex.

    That it would be good and proper for us to create a new right to marry the same sex does not mean such a right exists now, or ever did.

    What you highlight here is yhat yhis is truly about sexual preferences, not gender, but you lie and argue gender because a few years ago SCOTUS declined to hear a key case because preference isnt a protected class.
    Last edited by Jerry; 07-02-14 at 09:03 AM.

  10. #200
    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: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    A SSM ban is not unconstitutional because marriage is not a Constitutional right. It is left to the states to regulate.

    The only way for SCOTUS to have proper authority to rule on SSM is to make a marriage amendment.
    First of all, marriage has been ruled as a constitutional right. It would be covered by the 9th.

    Second, it doesn't have to be a constitutional right for a restriction within a law to be unconstitutional. Getting a driver's license is not a constitutional right. However, if a state made a law that said that those who had red hair (whether natural or dyed) cannot get a driver's license, that would most likely be ruled unconstitutional because the state would be unable (in all likelihood) to provide a legitimate state interest furthered by such a law/restriction.

    The Amendment that is applicable already exists, it is the 14th and the Equal Protection Clause it contains.
    "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.

Page 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •