Page 48 of 88 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 880

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

  1. #471
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    lol....if you read and understood Loving you would know that it isn't "Completely different"....loving was about marriage....it was also about race. Being about one does not require the exclusion of the other (maybe you didn't realize that). The reality is, the Supreme Court in Loving stated in no unclear terms that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights that a human being has. You can try to spin and cajole all you want....it doesn't change the facts. If you want to converse intelligently on the topic, I suggest you take a course or do a little self study on conlaw. Education is not something to fear.
    You've got to stop lying to yourself. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat 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. #472
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    That is a bit more complicated than "people make mistakes." In this case, and many by the Federal courts, I'd have to call it more than a mistake. Actually, they had quite a while to work on it, so it's more like a colossal, egregious blunder. And that's the point I was making, that our Supreme Court has a history full of this, and will do so in the future.
    A convenient argument if you think that allows you to just dismiss any ruling you don't like.

    Overturning same-sex marriage bans is not a mistake. It's defending individual freedom. Homosexuals do not have to justify their individual liberty to you by proving this wont lead to some other, unrelated thing you also personally disapprove of.
    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.

  3. #473
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,867
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Trying to narrow marriage into merely a "traditional social convention" is disingenuous. It is also a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. Decisions about those legal rights absolutely can carry future precedent.
    All social conventions carry a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. That's why they're conventions and why access to them is important. That's why the question whether SSM should become a convention has been important.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #474
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You've got to stop lying to yourself. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.
    And when the best argument you have before the Supreme Court of the United States is semantics, you have to understand that they are going to side with someone else's freedom and not your whining about a definition. Definitions aren't the key here, actions are. Specifically: the government treating two groups of people differently based on absolutely nothing more than your disapproval.
    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. #475
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    All social conventions carry a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. That's why they're conventions and why access to them is important. That's why the question whether SSM should become a convention has been important.
    Uhh, no, most social conventions are purely social conventions. Buying a girl dinner on the first date is a social convention. This isn't what we're talking about.

    What we're talking about is the government making a distinction of gender based on "convention." And under an equal protection challenge "it has been convention to treat people differently" has never been a particularly good argument.
    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. #476
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 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 Anthony60 View Post
    You've got to stop lying to yourself. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.
    20 years from now you will be afraid to admit you ever opposed same-sex marriage because nothing you feared will have come true and you will likely meet same-sex families and will feel embarrassed that you tried to denigrate them based on absolutely nothing. You are like those people who supported interracial marriage bans in the 60s. In the future people will see you the same way you see them.

  7. #477
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,867
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Uhh, no, most social conventions are purely social conventions. Buying a girl dinner on the first date is a social convention. This isn't what we're talking about.

    What we're talking about is the government making a distinction of gender based on "convention." And under an equal protection challenge "it has been convention to treat people differently" has never been a particularly good argument.
    Buying dinner is a custom. Conventions are institutions.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #478
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    I'm not debating whether something is discriminatory or not. Obviously holding same-sex couples to a different standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Please try to stick to my point.

    My point is that legal kinship does not require a marriage license to be recognized. Even if you are not related by blood, you do not need a marriage license in order for legal kinship to be recognized. If legal kinship is granted by a marriage license, then it should be granted to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. But the fact remains that if there were no such thing as a marriage license, legal kinship would not suddenly be impossible. It could be recognized just fine through other means, none involving government issued licenses.
    Sorry. It didnt seem relevant to the thread without my pointing it out but I didnt see the previous posts for context.
    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. #479
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Re SSM bans, I agree and so does the SCOTUS. Otherwise, no. A decision about access to a traditional social convention cannot be a precedent for the validity of creating a new social convention.
    How is it new? What is different? DOMA might have been specific but that was very recent.
    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.

  10. #480
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    All social conventions carry a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. That's why they're conventions and why access to them is important. That's why the question whether SSM should become a convention has been important.
    Since there is no harm that has been proven or even historically demonstrated (gays living together, gays raising families), why would it be so 'important' or come under such rigorous scrutiny? If there is a need to show it's in the best interests of the states (yeah, not registering the correct phrasing there at the moment)....it can certainly be done by showing that the children in gay marriages would benefit from the same legal protections as those in straight families.
    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.

Page 48 of 88 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... 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
  •