Page 51 of 88 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 880

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

  1. #501
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,781

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    LOL I know. Felons convicted of murder, rape, and pedophilia can marry...while still in jail. But heaven forbid 'the geighs' marry!

    We have to keep our standards up!
    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.

  2. #502
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,528

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Meh. This is not abortion. You likely do not meet or encounter many people who are open about having an abortion. You will likely meet more families headed by same-sex couples in the future. You will know the real people. You will know their kids. You will witness their relationship and their choices. And when you get away from the abstract ideological crap and see the real people and the pragmatic effect I doubt you will feel the same way. I could be wrong but I sincerely feel with more experience you will one day feel very foolish for having opposed same-sex marriage.
    I don't support it, that's what I said about it somewhere in this thread. That's about all I said about it. That's a different subject that I don't care to get into (for the 50th time). But you go ahead.
    "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

  3. #503
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,528

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Yes, it is. All you've got is semantics, moral disapproval, tradition, and slippery slope fallacies. "You can't have same-sex marriage because marriage means a man and a woman" is arguing semantics.
    I guess you missed something. Didn't I just say you're responding to the wrong topic???
    "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

  4. #504
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    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.
    What's "conlaw?" Could it be what people whose knowledge of constitutional law consists of a few minutes of Wikipedia research are engaging in, when they try to con other people into thinking they know it in depth?

    The Virginia antimiscegenation statutes in Loving struck right at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment. These racial purity laws officially sanctioned white supremacy over blacks--exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent states from doing. The Lovings had been convicted of crimes for going out of state to get married, and then returning to Virginia to live as man and wife. But as the Court noted, the statutes under which they were convicted made those acts crimes based entirely on the race of the actor. Ain't no way in hell to square that with the Equal Protection Clause.

    The Court had made clear long before Loving that marriage is a fundamental right. But the decisions in which it affirmed that right all involved marriage between one man and one woman, and it's beyond question that the Court was not talking about any other kind. The notion that the Court ever meant to suggest there was also a fundamental right to same-sex marriage is as laughable as the notion that it meant to suggest there was a fundamental right to bigamous or incestuous marriage, or to polygamy.

    It is because Justice Kennedy is well aware of this that he went out of his way in the majority decisions he authored in Romer in 1996 and in Lawrence in 2003--and appeared to do last year in his somewhat garbled decision in Windsor--not to suggest that laws discriminating against homosexuals called for strict scrutiny, or heightened scrutiny of any kind. As I'm sure you know, in substantive due process and equal protection challenges to laws that involve fundamental rights or make suspect classifications--i.e. single people out for disparate treatment by race or national origin--strict scrutiny applies and makes the challenge far more likely to succeed than it otherwise would be.

  5. #505
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    You are correct about Loving, although it's inconceivable that the court deciding that case would have had SSM in mind. And that's where the analogy breaks down, IMHO. The debate about SSM has been about whether there can be such a thing as SSM (which I favor, btw).
    The Court in Loving was not addressing the issue of SSM, nevertheless, in their analysis of the rights involved, they clearly recognized the right to marry as a fundamental right. They weren't referring to same race marriage, inter-racial marriage, same sex marriage....they were addressing the right to marry period. The case involved an inter-racial couple and although the holding of the case is narrowly tailored to that issue, the analysis and recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is clear in the body of the ruling.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #506
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I don't support it, that's what I said about it somewhere in this thread. That's about all I said about it. That's a different subject that I don't care to get into (for the 50th time). But you go ahead.
    Nah. I said my piece. I feel that way about every ideological argument made on this issue. Some day arguing "I believe marriage is by definition between a man and a woman" will sound as hollow as arguing "I believe a marriage is by definition between people of the same race."

  7. #507
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    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.
    LOL.....you are the one being intellectually dishonest. The better analogy would be you claiming that only 2x6= 12, not realizing or admitting that 1x12, 6x2, 3x4, 4x3...as well as a variety of other formulas get you to 12 as well. Sorry....but you are plain and simply wrong, whether you admit it or not.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #508
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    ...

    Up until a decade ago gays could be sent to prison in many states for having sex with their partner. A couple decades before that being gay was recognized as a mental illness that people tried to cure with electro convulsive therapy. A few decades before that the Nazis killed tens of thousands of gays in concentration camps. A few decades before that it was considered liberal to castrate gays rather than put them to death in this country.

    What history did you study?
    Me? I never bothered with books in school unless they had lots of pictures in them. You, though, must know history pretty well. So maybe you can answer a few questions I had.

    What does the Nazis' killing of homosexuals in concentration camps in Europe have to do with how they were treated in this country? How many homosexuals in the U.S. were given electroconvulsive treatments to try to change their sexual preference? Who performed these treatments, under what authority--and where, and when? I don't see why anyone should care if some unnamed persons at some time thought it was a good idea to castrate homosexuals, or to execute them, unless they acted on that thought. If you're claiming people were castrated or executed in the United States solely because they were homosexuals, please cite some specifics to back that up.

  9. #509
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    they were addressing the right to marry period.
    The Court in Loving meant the right to marry was fundamental, period? If so, the right to marry more than one partner at a time must be fundamental, too. And yet states all have laws against bigamy and polygamy! How can those laws violate the fundamental right to marriage that way, and yet never have been held unconstitutional?

  10. #510
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,528

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Because people make mistakes? Why didn't our founding fathers get rid of slavery from the beginning or give women the right to vote from the very start of our country?
    Well, maybe we'll just go with the short answer here. Because we would not have a country if they did that. No Constitution.
    "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

Page 51 of 88 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •