Page 20 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 880

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

  1. #191
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    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.
    My assertion was not that marriage is a fundamental right tied to survival. My argument is that marriage is a law, and therefore, it falls under the 14th amendment. There are amendments that exist beyond the 10th amendment and the purpose of Section 1 of the 14th amendment was to limit state powers so that they could not pass laws that would violate equal protection and due process.

    Are you going to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state interracial marriage bans in Loving v. Virginia because the federal government has no authority over marriage law?
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 10-06-14 at 05:30 PM.

  2. #192
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
    You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?

    No it goes farther than that. He said that sexual orientation isn't covered so homosexuals aren't included under the "all citizens" part, so laws such as anti-sodomy laws that targeted homosexuals should have been upheld and that conduct remained illegal.



    Of course Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans show that is incorrect.



    >>>>

  3. #193
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    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.
    I didn't say that wasn't the intent. The 14th is a reconstruction amendment. It may have been prompted by slavery but it doesn't follow from that that it only applies to former slaves. Especially when the wording so explicitly says it applies to all people.

    Are you speaking of women in terms of voting rights? I'd suggest that if the 14th amendment applied to voting rights there'd be no need for a 15th amendment.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  4. #194
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,828

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

    Realistically, this rejection by SCOTUS settles the issue anyway. Just slower and less directly. If SCOTUS saw any substantial flaw in any of the decisions on cursory inspection, they would have taken up the case to overturn the circuit court decision. They didn't do that. Anyone attempting to appeal the next circuit decision (likely 9th) has this barrier: SCOTUS has no drive to take the case right now. So why appeal? Other circuits will also be looking at this rejection in the same light. While not technically bound by the decision of another circuit, the legal reasoning in these various cases is presumably sound if it made it that far without being overturned.

    So, in the end, somebody needs a new, compelling argument as to why same-sex marriage bans should stand, if they want to keep this fight going. I'd ask the people against same-sex marriage in this thread to ponder that question: "Do I actually have an argument that I don't think has been expressly rejected several times already?" Theoretically another circuit could uphold a ban, at which point there would be a circuit split SCOTUS would be forced to settle. Unlikely.

    It's over. The rest is just bureaucracy. I just wish SCOTUS would have had the balls to take the case and settle it faster so we can stop wasting taxpayer dollars on fighting against freedom.
    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.

  5. #195
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
    Gays and Lesbians are not citizens of the United States?

  6. #196
    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
    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?
    No, they were dealing with an issue that had plagued us, split us since the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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.
    Well then those some people don't know what they're talking about. Automatic weapons existed at the time, we just couldn't afford them.

    Ferguson rifle
    Ferguson rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  7. #197
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    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.
    Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???

    Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.
    "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

  8. #198
    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
    My assertion was not that marriage is a fundamental right tied to survival. My argument is that marriage is a law, and therefore, it falls under the 14th amendment. There are amendments that exist beyond the 10th amendment and the purpose of Section 1 of the 14th amendment was to limit state powers so that they could not pass laws that would violate equal protection and due process.

    Are you going to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state interracial marriage bans in Loving v. Virginia because the federal government has no authority over marriage law?
    Asked and answered.

  9. #199
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,828

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, they were dealing with an issue that had plagued us, split us since the beginning.



    Well then those some people don't know what they're talking about. Automatic weapons existed at the time, we just couldn't afford them.

    Ferguson rifle
    Ferguson rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So they didn't want the 14th amendment to cover anything except former slaves/racial issues? Who said that? What lead you to believe this was the intent? What if I suggested they were wiser than this, and realized that there were other aspects of a person that might be cause for discrimination in the future that they wanted to preempt?
    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. #200
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???

    Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.
    What if a man wants to marry a man?
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

Page 20 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... 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
  •