Page 31 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 880

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

  1. #301
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i understood it perfectly. it's the classic "of course homosexuals can get married; to someone of the opposite sex! (even though homosexuality is not a choice, and they are as attracted to members of the opposite sex as heterosexuals are to the same sex, so this argument is fatally flawed.)"

    i've read this same bull**** argument about a thousand times now, and it's still bull****.
    And you still don't get it.
    "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

  2. #302
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    This issue needs to be out to bed once and for all on a national level. It's exhausting.
    How exactly does it affect you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    So instead you'd prefer the Federal Circuit courts do it in their stead? All right then. As long as the states aren't deciding for themselves I'm comfortable.
    I'm comfortable that we're going with the constitution, rather than legislating popular prejudices. Whether the ruling comes from a circuit court or the supreme court, the reasoning and outcome are the same. The constitution doesn't permit this kind of discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
    There can be no compromise, either sexual orientation is a protected class or it isnt. This affects a lot more than just gay marriage.
    I'm curious as to why opponents keep bringing up protected classes. It has never been a significant portion of any rulings on the subject. Sexual orientation needn't be a protected class in order for the fourteenth amendment to protect it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I agree that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, but they are. And as long as they are, this issue will not be settled through avoidance.
    Having a functioning system of inheritance will be almost impossible without legally defined families.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    They probably have real issues to pay attention to.
    If it's not a real issue, why are conservatives devoting so much energy to fighting it?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Nope, it was about INTERRACIAL marriage. Ignoring that detail isn't helping your argument.
    And the compelling reason to distinguish the two is...?

    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 am a constitutional scholar. There is no significant difference between the two. It seems to be you that misunderstands the issues at play here.

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, it doesn't, and to whom specifically do those unremunerated rights fall to? The STATES and the PEOPLE, not the federal.
    That is a completely incorrect assertion about the ninth amendment. Governments don't have rights. People do. And it falls to federal and state governments to protect the rights of people. But the ninth amendment refers to rights protected by the federal constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    The tally is currently 41 wins and 2 losses. The losses were a state judge in Tennessee and a federal judge in Louisiana.
    Plus both of those losses are facing appeals at levels below the supreme court. They are exceedingly unlikely to stand and won't require the supreme court to take up the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Quick point, nobody is being told they can't get married. It isn't a fundamental right to change marriage to suit your own needs. That's the real issue.
    Yeah, those gays are really oppressing you by trying to marry. Imagine what they'll change next!?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    State courts don't really matter at this point because their on the bottom rung as I understand it.
    The vast majority of state court rulings aren't appealed, because there are no grounds upon which to do so. When it comes to constitutional questions, that's not what will happen, but SSM is very much a constitutional issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    In terms of the federal constitution state courts are the end of the chain for unremunerated rights. They decide if the issue comports or conflicts with the STATE constitution. They should not be allowed to consider precedence set by the federal courts in their decisions for obvious reasons.
    You have made this up out of thin air.

    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???
    This is within the rules we have set up. And there was no reason to put civil rights to a vote, since that's unconstitutional.

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    You can play games with my arguments as much as you like, it's not a response to them. They are still part of "any person", however, they are not a protected class and the 14th just does not apply here.
    Again, all this bit about protected classes... There's a lot more to the 14th amendment than this. It's actually a relatively minor part of 14th amendment law.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Show me this fundamental right in the constitution please.
    The ninth amendment specifically says that we have protected rights that are not enumerated. This argument is ALWAYS wrong. Please stop making it. It's wrong about abortion. It's wrong about gay rights. It's wrong every time you make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    In a word yes. Is there a compelling reason - other than the "ick" factor - not to?
    It would certainly complicate many areas of law. And of course there is the question of where we draw the line. How many people can a marriage have? At what point are we no longer talking about marriages and start talking about corporations? I don't th ink these are insurmountable problems, but there are actual legal problems with recognizing polygamy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    And just to be clear, just because they claim marriage a fundamental right does not mean that ssm is necessarily a fundamental right.
    What it means is that every person (consenting adult) has the right to marry the person (consenting adult) they want, unless there's a compelling reason to stop them. This is just as true for same sex marriages as it is for opposite sex marriages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Yes. Please see my #266. The federal government is out of the marriage definition business. Federal courts, another matter entirely, still have jurisdiction.
    Circuit court judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress, the same as supreme court justices. How exactly is the latter part of the federal government and not the former?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    The problem is that the links you post don't really back up the argument you're trying to make. SSM "bans" do not prevent individuals from marrying, they prevent the government from recognizing that union. You may call that parsing terms, but that's only because you fail to understand why that might be important from a legal standpoint.
    What exactly is the difference? Whatever marriage you think same sex couples can have, it's a lesser form, which is unconstitutional. "Recognizing" as you put it, includes a thousand or so benefits and restrictions. This is just nonsense semantics you have here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Not necessarily. If EVERYONE is allowed a heterosexual marriage then the law is being applied equally. What is new is the recognition of the idea of homosexual marriage. That is social and cultural evolution.
    So if EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the same race then the law is being applied equally. That was nonsense in 1967 and it's nonsense now.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    If it's not a real issue, why are conservatives devoting so much energy to fighting it?
    To generate dues and donations. If all that money were actually going to fighting SSM then there would be more resistance to SSM. Conservatives give lip service to the cause so as to generate revenues. Once the money is in the general pot, money is prioritized and distributed, and SSM is not the top issue. Just enough money is put into fighting SSM to keep the commercials emotional and thus the funds rolling in.

  4. #304
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    And you still don't get it.
    Unless your point is to just repeat "you don't get it" over and over again, then you need to explain what he doesn't get because his interpretation of your post is my interpretation as well.

  5. #305
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I hope that was a rhetorical question tossed my way since I'm pro-SSM.
    It was. I know that you are pro-SSM.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  6. #306
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    To generate dues and donations. If all that money were actually going to fighting SSM then there would be more resistance to SSM. Conservatives give lip service to the cause so as to generate revenues. Once the money is in the general pot, money is prioritized and distributed, and SSM is not the top issue. Just enough money is put into fighting SSM to keep the commercials emotional and thus the funds rolling in.
    So why are conservatives giving all this money so inspired to donate because of this non-issue? Not the leaders who are supposedly giving lip service, but the actual people in the party to whom the lip service is given. If it's such a non-issue, why is that lip service effective?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  7. #307
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    This is fully consistent with the SCOTUS' earlier ruling against DOMA, taking the federal government out of the marriage definition business.
    Well, they took themselves out of the segregation ruling for a long time, too. Eventually they realized they had to step up to the plate and meet their responsibilities. People - including SSM's - travel from state to state. They can't be married in one state and not married in another. Too many possible legal issues arise.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  8. #308
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    So why are conservatives giving all this money so inspired to donate because of this non-issue? Not the leaders who are supposedly giving lip service, but the actual people in the party to whom the lip service is given. If it's such a non-issue, why is that lip service effective?
    It's just the commercial that raises revenue for the party. Little money is actually put into fighting SSM, while SSM takes a front seat on image. Conservatives sell the image that SSM matters because the idea is the product people buy. The brand. Then that money is put into issues which are actually important, like the healthcare situation. We lead you to believe we oh sooo care about SSM because that's what sells. We take the money generated from stimulating emotions on SSM and do other things with it.

    It's similar to how the Aryan Brotherhood readily accepts Jews and blacks. The whole Aryan thing is just a brand. Likewise the whole Conservative thing is just a brand. Conservatives can be sold on gun control if it's within the brand, just look at Reagan for an example on that. Liberals would oppose SSM, or at least reduce support, if it were put behind the Liberal brand.

    Take ordinary carrots and re-brand those same exact carrots as "McCarrots" and children will love them. Google that story for fun, it's a good read.
    Last edited by Jerry; 10-07-14 at 02:02 AM.

  9. #309
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,078

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Nope, doesn't have anything to do with the equal protection clause. Not a smidgen.
    once again, incorrect.

  10. #310
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    If that's the narrative that SSM advocates want to portray that's fine by me. I see it as yet another victory that the federal government won't be taking over SSM with a SCOTUS ruling - regardless of which way they would rule.
    What exactly do you think fed appeals courts using the 14th to overturn SSM bans is? I would say that's the fed govt taking over. Not to mention "DOMA" being struck down. Don't kid yourself either. The judges in 6th circuit have already decided to uphold the bans in MI OH etc, which will be appealed to guess where? SCOTUS, which because the 6th circuit ruling will be uconstitutional, will take up the appeal next term. So yeah, SCOTUS will decide this for about 10-20 states in the end.

Page 31 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181 ... 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
  •