Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 161

Thread: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

  1. #141
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,714

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The Constitution is meant to limit the government, and since the government is the people, including votes of the people, it is the government that is limited, not what the people can do. The government has to show why a law/restriction is needed if there is a valid challenge (and this certainly is a valid challenge) to further a legitimate state interest. There is no need to Amend the Constitution for that.
    Are you referencing marriage or gun bans?

  2. #142
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Baralis View Post
    1.)The two are not exclusive.


    2.)How about the government grant "Domestic Contracts" that can be created between, any number or sex, of consenting adults. It does not need to be so restricted or have the label of marriage attached.
    3.).) We can then leave "Marriage" as a non legal binding term that can be granted by your religious institution of choice (assuming they will grant it).


    1.) actually they are for legal marriage/contracts
    2.) these already exist in certain forms in certain states, they are not called marriage because they are not but they still involve government
    3.) leave? LEGAL marriage already exist and theres no logical reason to change that and RELIGIOUS marriage already exists in this fashion this too wouldn't be anythign new

    religious and legal marriage are 100% separate, some people do them together by choice but they have no impact on eachother
    Last edited by AGENT J; 08-07-14 at 09:46 PM.
    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. #143
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,004

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Are you referencing marriage or gun bans?
    Do you believe I support gun bans? If so, you'd be wrong. I do not support gun bans. But it does apply the same way, only gun rights are automatically held to the higher level scrutiny, meaning that restrictions on gun ownership has to be shown to further a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional (such as restriction on owning nuclear or chemical weapons).
    "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. #144
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,714

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Do you believe I support gun bans? If so, you'd be wrong. I do not support gun bans. But it does apply the same way, only gun rights are automatically held to the higher level scrutiny, meaning that restrictions on gun ownership has to be shown to further a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional (such as restriction on owning nuclear or chemical weapons).
    In context of the question asked, gun bans are radically different than definition of marital rights. The courts are proving that regularly.

  5. #145
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) actually they are for legal marriage/contracts
    2.) these already exist in certain forms in certain states, they are not called marriage because they are not but they still involve government
    3.) leave? LEGAL marriage already exist and theres no logical reason to change that and RELIGIOUS marriage already exists in this fashion this too wouldn't be anythign new

    religious and legal marriage are 100% separate, some people do them together by choice but they have no impact on eachother

    1. I think we misunderstood one another, or I you. We agree here.

    2. I would like to see the restrictions placed by the government removed, namely sex and number. I believe a domestic contract should be open to whatever the individuals involved wish it to be. Think of it as a group prenup contract of sorts. The government only need to insure that contract is followed.

    3. I just do not see why we do not separate the name between the two as many ( I feel needlessly ) have issue with the name being used for the legal term. It just seem a very simple name change could sooth a lot of people while from a legal standpoint the name it means nothing.

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.

    Made up out of whole cloth? I don't think so. The Supreme Court considers certain rights fundamental even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution, because it's clear most Americans would have seen them as basic rights even before the Constitution was written. The Court has phrased its standard for fundamental right slightly differently in its decisions, but the most common phrasing of the "magic words" is that to be fundamental, a right must be so "deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this Nation" that they are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

    The Court has recognized for a long time now that marriage between a male and a female is a fundamental right:

    "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

    And there are similar statements in Supreme Court decisions going back to the 1800's. But notice I said marriage between a male and a female. There is no fundamental right to polygamy, or bigamy, or to marriage between parties very closely related by blood, or where one or both parties is a very young minor, or where the parties are of the same sex. None of those forms of marriage even comes close to meeting the Court's standard for fundamental rights.

    That's why Justice Kennedy has had to be so creative (some would say disingenuous) with the Constitution in the three "gay" decisions he's authored: Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and U.S. v. Windsor last year. I won't go into all the details here. But if you study those three decisions, you can see the bizarre rationale he has been developing, which the Court is probably planning to use when it some day declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor all turned on the Court's belief that the only possible motive for the laws in question was animosity--a "bare desire to harm"--homosexuals. Now, even if a law doesn't infringe any fundamental right--which would make it subject to "strict scrutiny," a very demanding constitutional test--it still has to at least be "reasonably related" to some "legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. But harming a group of people can never be a legitimate purpose of government. So if the Court thinks that's the only conceivable reason for a law, it will hold that law unconstitutional.

    I can already see the would-be incestuous adult couples arguing, once same-sex marriage has been proclaimed the newest constitutional "right," that the only motive for excluding them from state marriage laws, too, is a "bare desire to harm" them. And how about the polygamists, who have historically been the target of all sorts of animosity and legal persecution in this country? Doesn't justice cry out for legalizing homosexual incest--or even incestuous homosexual polygamy?

    And why should we get so uptight about age, either? Don't the NAMBLA people assure us their young cadets are fully consensual partners in sodomy, and that man-boy love is a beautiful thing? Shouldn't everyone be able to force all those Ozzie-and-Harriet squares in bourgeois America to put their seal of approval on his or her way of loving--even if it is a little different?

  7. #147
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Baralis View Post
    1. I think we misunderstood one another, or I you. We agree here.

    2. I would like to see the restrictions placed by the government removed, namely sex and number. I believe a domestic contract should be open to whatever the individuals involved wish it to be. Think of it as a group prenup contract of sorts. The government only need to insure that contract is followed.

    3. I just do not see why we do not separate the name between the two as many ( I feel needlessly ) have issue with the name being used for the legal term.

    3.)It just seem a very simple name change could sooth a lot of people while from a legal standpoint the name it means nothing.
    1.) very possible happens all the time
    2.) again in general these things already exist im not sure what you mean, the types of contracts you are referring to exist in some places already but they are not marriage and rightfully so.

    So are you saying you want to see marriage stripped down and made a lesser to the likes of these other contracts?

    3.) theres no need to separate them because they are already separated. They are currently thier own thing already

    i guess i see what you are saying but people having hurt feelings or opinions over it also being a legal term is meanignless to me and i dont care because they have no rational to support it and they certainly have no rational to support denying others equal rights.

    how many people didn't want minority being person under law, women equal under law, interracial marriage? we didn't give into those bigots and or anti-equal rights people then so why would we now? and if we do give in they win and then we have somethign NOT equal and a lesser.

    What if we gave in to the people that said a half black man should be president? what if we said listen Barack, people dont like the idea of a black man being president. The office is "sacred, and has years and years of tradition behind it and as a sanctity to it" so we are going to call you the CEO of AMerica. Youll still have all the similar powers but we cant call you POTUS because of these peoples feelings. Also we never really cared before when it bother people but NOW we are definitely going to change it.

    sorry thats complete crap and selling out to bigots and anti-freedom people

    and be clear, im not claiming you feel that way just pointing out why peoples feelings dont matter one hoot on this subject since it deals with rights.

    3.) again this would be giving in and sacrificing equal right and the name is everything because the name is equality. Make no mistake about it thats why they fight against the name so hard they know thats where the equality lies.

    It is the name of a legal contract and has years and years of court precedence to it, the legality behind this is huge so making it somethign new would be making it a lesser.

    Soothing bigots and or anti-equality people is of no concern. See Loving Vs Virginia when more than 80& of the country was against interracial marriage. Opinions like those dont matter when it comes to the constitution and 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

  8. #148
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    And yet, my very comments on this topic CLEARLY demonstrate an acceptance of change.

    Try again.
    This direct response to mine on adapting to social change indicated otherwise:

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Sorry but I disagree. What we have seen over the last 15 years is the will of the people completely usurped by judges. At some point, the battle has to be decided one way or the other and we need to be able to move forward, however that looks.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #149
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,714

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    This direct response to mine on adapting to social change indicated otherwise:
    That whole "one way or another" thing is too confusing to you?

  10. #150
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    You will have to do better than vague generalities. Taxation issues? Noise ordinances? Historically, many issues in towns cities, states, and even issues decided by the Supreme Court are decided and enforced based on a 'majority'.
    No, the vote alone has never been sufficient for an equal protection challenge. If "it was enacted" is a legitimate state interest, then the rational basis test isn't a test at all.
    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.

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 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
  •