Page 19 of 88 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #181
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    If you want to make the new argument that "procreation is a legitimate state interest for marriage bans" or that "denying marriage to same sex couples does not violate equal protection because it discriminates equally" then that is fine and I can easily contest those new arguments. However, I was contesting your old 10th amendment argument that "marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution so the federal government has not place in it." That was not a sound argument.

    Which argument would you like to put forward now?
    No, read what YOU posted. I was countering your assertion that marriage was some fundamental right tied to survival. If it were, homosexual marriage loses.

    The feds have no constitutional play here despite your thinking that the 10th and actual enumeration doesn't matter.

  2. #182
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Correct, it does not. Not it's purpose nor it's intent.
    The 14th says "any person" not "former slaves" or "people of African descent" or whatever. The amendment could very easily have been drawn narrowly if the intent was to have it apply only to former slaves. It wasn't.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  3. #183
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    The 14th says "any person" not "former slaves" or "people of African descent" or whatever. The amendment could very easily have been drawn narrowly if the intent was to have it apply only to former slaves. It wasn't.
    Wow, I know you know more of our history than that displays. Tell me again the intent wasn't to deal with former slaves. It certainly didn't apply to women who, last I checked were persons.

  4. #184
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,559

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    The Federal government is involved because it has been asked by the people to get involved. The people can not run to the Constitution and amend it to fix problems in our daily lives...that is why we have laws.

    Marriage and child custody are contracts that have to be settled in a court of law. Who offers that service? Google? AT&T? Walmart? ...No the state and federal governments.
    The powers of the Federal government are outlined in the Constitution. There is nothing in there that says that it can have more power if the people simply ask. That's what the amendment process is for. Laws are only valid if they are Constitutional, no law supersedes the Constitution.

    States can handle those issues, no need or permission for the federal government to be involved. Remember, the federal government was created by the States, and can be eliminated and changed by the States. I think it has gotten so out of control now because the States never come together and reel in the Federal government. I'd love to see the States pass an amendment or two and put the Federal in it's place. Maybe something like term limits and a requirement for a balanced budget.

    Then kick 'em in the ass and tell them to get outta here before we decide to amend things further.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #185
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.

    As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.
    And you cannot claim with a straight face that a state constitution can define a federal amendment.
    If a state constitution defined "arms" as the two things attached to your shoulders, would you find a blanket gun ban constitutional within that state?
    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. #186
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, not for me. An activist judge is one who improperly uses law or constitution to decide in the favor of a cause.
    Fair enough. I can't see however, how you can read the Equal Protection Clause so narrowly.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  7. #187
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    And you cannot claim with a straight face that a state constitution can define a federal amendment.
    It doesn't need to, and I don't understand why you think this distraction was anywhere claimed in what I posted. The feds can't even define a federal amendment. That's a job for the amendment process and the states when ratifying that amendment.

  8. #188
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    Fair enough. I can't see however, how you can read the Equal Protection Clause so narrowly.
    Same way the folks who wrote it and ratified it did.

  9. #189
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I am no Constitutional scholar, but if you see little difference, then you don't even have a basic understanding of the cases, the subjects, and the Constitution. Can't really put it any other way.

    I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but I can read, apply logic, common sense, and reason to a variety of situations.

    I've followed SSCM quite closely over the last decade since 2004 reading many of the briefs and decisions in the matter (I don't claim to have memorized them) and evaluated the arguments on both sides of the issue and the truth is the pro-discrimination side has been lacking as to why discrimination based on the racial composition of the couple does not matter but yet the gender composition of the couple does.

    In 10-years no one has been able, from a Constitutional and legal perspective, been able to provide a compelling government reason - which pertains to the comparison of those in like situations that are treated differently but where one group is discriminated against - as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of different genders are allowed to Civilly Marry but yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of the same gender are not allowed to Civilly Marry.


    So here is your chance, please articulate a reason that applies equally to both groups.


    >>>>

  10. #190
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Same way the folks who wrote it and ratified it did.
    What makes you think they wanted it to apply narrowly? Why do you think they didn't want broad interpretations towards individual liberty? Were they just more authoritarian than I am?

    Some people argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder muskets, because the founding fathers never said anything about semi-automatic weapons.
    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 19 of 88 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969 ... 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
  •