Page 15 of 83 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 830

Thread: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

  1. #141
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
    Technically speaking, aren't you interpreting the constitution?
    "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

  2. #142
    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: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
    Actually, I'll take this up. The thirteenth was to ban slavery. It doesn't just say slavery of blacks, but all slavery. It likewise prohibited the enslavement of American Indians, which had been quite common for the entirety of American history until that point. The fourteenth was to guarantee citizenship and equal rights to all Americans, not just blacks and whites, but to everyone of every race. Likewise, it has been instrumental in protecting minority religious groups and women. Keep in mind, the fourteenth amendment is why the bill of rights applies to state laws and not just to the federal. It is because of the fourteenth that you, despite not being black, can invoke your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in a state court instead of just federal courts, even if your state doesn't want you to have that right. Lastly, the fifteenth amendment guaranteed the right to vote for all races, again, not just blacks and whites.

    The idiotic assertion that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are only about post Civil War rights for blacks is complete nonsense. It is doubly hilarious that this argument is often offered by people who describe themselves as strict constructionalists, despite the fact that there is no mention of race in either the 13th or 14th amendments. What these amendments did was set the tone for the nature of American citizenship for the modern era. No longer would we be a nation of first and second class citizens. Every citizen would be equal in the eyes of the law and would enjoy the full and complete measure of rights as every other citizen. Except, apparently, for women. These men dropped the ball on that one and we're still trying to get that sorted out.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #143
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
    Targeted at, does not imply limited to.
    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.

  4. #144
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
    So you are upset every time the court overturns any law?
    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. #145
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Learn to read. It's a tax benefit for couples that meet the requirements and apply for state sanction. It's a dodge for those that aren't complying with the state's requirements but want that benefit, anyway.
    Homosexual marriage serves no useful purpose my state.
    If your state has a different perspective, that's your state's business.


    100% WRONG.

    It serves the purpose of giving gay people the same rights that straight people have and takes nothing away from straight people.

  6. #146
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    What interest do the states have in banning gay marriage?
    Note that the states aren't banning homosexual liaisons. A state's ban on gay marriage is a statement that it is not going to be coerced into normalizing homosexuality and sanctioning homosexual unions and giving tax incentives for people to enter into homosexual unions. The "benefit" is that they don't have to jump through whatever hoops homosexuals want. Unless a state sees a benefit in doing so, it shouldn't be made to do so and this state sees no benefit in sanctioning homosexual unions as "marriage" and I think my state's decision is a wise one.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #147
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    100% WRONG.

    It serves the purpose of giving gay people the same rights that straight people have and takes nothing away from straight people.
    Oh come on, it takes away their right to self-righteousness and religious superiority!
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #148
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Whether the state does or does not endorse homosexual marriages has no bearing on your freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with something others have to give you and state sanctioned marriage is a concession from the state and it's no restriction of your freedom if you don't have it.
    Anyone that considers not being married to be a restriction of their freedom is a little nuts, anyway.


    Denying gay people the right to be married while granting that right to straight people in an unconstitutional restriction on gay people's rights.

  9. #149
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,127

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
    You are not incorrect. However, the equal protection clause is an exception because its purpose was to limit state powers. The real question is then not whether their is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage but whether or not states have the Constitutional authority to ban same-sex marriage. That is where your side has failed to provide a sufficient argument as to the rationality of these bans. But if you do not even recognize the legitimacy of the courts to interpret the Constitution then there really is no debate to be had. You reject the very notion of how the government has been run for over 200 years.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    100% WRONG.

    It serves the purpose of giving gay people the same rights that straight people have and takes nothing away from straight people.
    You're entitled to your opinion. And the people of MY STATE are entitled to theirs. And the people of this state's opinion is the one that matters. Gay people already have the same rights everyone else does and the state of Ohio sees no benefit in creating a new type of marriage just to accomodate people with alternative lifestyles. If you want to enjoy an alternative lifestyle, then an alternative to marriage makes perfect sense. Homosexuals should pursue that instead of trying to mimic the heterosexual model that they detest.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Page 15 of 83 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... 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
  •