Page 25 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1523242526273575 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 830

Thread: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

  1. #241
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Incorrect. The laws apply equally to you whether you are heterosexual or not. A heterosexual can't marry someone of the same sex, either. This isn't an equal rights issue.
    and with SSM being legalized it is equal since you too can marry someone of the same sex. Why do you hate equality? Maybe Iran or ISIS is more suitable to your beliefs.

  2. #242
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Yeah, thanks for reminding me how much i despise my state
    Minnesota didn't have to be forced into recognizing marriage equality. Marriage inequality came up for vote and we shot that nonsense down at the ballot, and our legislature saw the writing on the wall and legalized it shortly after. We did the right thing, all on our own. Like grownups. :smug:
    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. #243
    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: 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.
    Don't pretend that to you it's about the constitution, instead of simply prejudice, not that the constitution forbids SSM either. Even if the constitution explicitly stated "Marriage is between two adults of any gender," you would find another reason to object, just like you object to every other right or dignity for gays.
    Last edited by chromium; 10-13-14 at 10:43 PM.

  4. #244
    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: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    From my understanding the 13th-15th could not have passed if they had pursued such rights for women. This possibility was raised as a tactic by those opposing the amendments. They figured that somehow, if slavery dies, women will get to vote next, and interracial marriage will be kosher. Today, most of us indeed see those as intrinsic to any free society, but the fact it took 50 and 100 years respectively gives us a sense of the hostility to them in 1870. I doubt the 15th could have passed if it included women and unlike the 14th, it was tailored as a specific response ("race, color, or previous servitude") to specific southern tactics to undermine the 1866 Civil Rights Act ("black codes").

    That the 14th's equal protection clause *doesn't* mention race leads me to believe it was left intentionally broad. It could be used gradually by the courts to achieve equality for different groups once there was sufficient support, instead of having to go thru the damn amendment process over every single issue.

  5. #245
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,853

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    State endorsement of marriage at the state level is very much about taxes. Homosexual marriage will lower state and federal revenues. Basically, it's a tax dodge for homosexuals.
    It's not a "tax dodge" any more than my 23 year marriage next week is a tax dodge. Besides, marriage will result in lower taxes for some straight AND gay couples and higher taxes for others (see, Marriage Penalty). The net effect of SSM on tax revenues is fairly modest, according to the only decent estimate I've seen.

    Revisiting the state and federal income tax effects of legalizing same-sex marriages Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

    - Twenty-three states would realize a net fiscal benefit from legalization of same-sex marriage, the greatest gain being in New York, with an estimated $16 million in additional revenue. California would lose an estimated $29 million, and 20 other states would also experience a decline in revenue. The remaining seven states do not levy an income tax and therefore would be unaffected.

    - The aggregate impact on revenue across all states would be negative, but small relative to the size of overall state revenues, ranging from a loss of $2.6 million to $18 million

    - At the federal level the government would lose revenue, with the decline estimated to be between $187 million and $580 million. While not insignificant, it is just 0.02% of total revenue for the U.S. federal government in 2013, $2.8 trillion.
    Those estimates assume (unrealistically) that 100% of same sex couples living together get married, so if, say, only half do, cut those figures in half. But roughly 30 states will benefit or see no change, and 20 will see revenues drop.

  6. #246
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,415

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the childhood saying, "Cutting off your nose off to spite your face...."

    Whether government should recognize straight marriages has literally NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
    Why. What exactly justifies a special status for people decide to live together and probably reduce the number of sex partners? That can be better handled with civil contracts.

  7. #247
    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: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I should have restricted that to the multitude of homosexuals who use slurs like "breeders" when referring to heterosexuals.... and those like my brother that think marriage is a farce that homosexuals are too smart to get involved in.... or at least that was his position before homosexual marriage became the politically correct cause for homosexuals like himself. It is a generalization. But it's not an "overgeneralization" nor is it a prejudice. I know there are exceptions, but most homosexuals I've known (and I've known a LOT of them) always thought marriage was a "hetero" thing until very recent years and I'm very suspicious of the motivation for this sudden embracing of homosexual marriage by a community that previously thought it was the dumbest institution man ever created.
    If someone "detests" marriage, they've no reason to take part in it, so what you say doesn't apply to those homosexuals who DO wish to marry.

    You're right that we've by and large thought of marriage as a hetero institution, until recently. That's simply because it wasn't seen as possible before and it was just one of several reasons to wish to be heterosexual instead. But that wasn't possible either, so there was no recourse but to feel hated and bitter about the whole thing. It's not that it was "dumb" but the institution did serve to oppress (including single heteros) who did not take part.

    Now that homosexuality is becoming accepted and other rights, not just marriage, are becoming reality, a lot of the hostility and mockery of this institution can fade without accepting 2nd class status. It's no longer threatening and in fact, your suspicion answers itself since marriage really is no longer exclusively a hetero thing. The embracing of it is a reaction to no longer being excluded, go figure.

  8. #248
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,988

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.

    I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering.
    Who is it 'not equal' for?
    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. #249
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,988

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    It doesn't have to impact my life directly in order for it to matter. It impacts my SOCIETY. It impacts my state taxes. It impacts our court systems. It is not something my state needs or wants because my state doesn't consider homosexual unions to be the fundamental building block of society that it feels needs to be endorsed, encouraged and supported. I think it is quite reasonable enough that the state does not consider homosexuality to be a criminal behavior and does not interfere with people living with or having sex with whomever they choose. Homosexuals may enjoy their homosexual relationships without interference from the state - but also without the state's blessing. I know it's just awful that all the homosexuals in Ohio can't say "we're just as normal as heterosexuals" but our state just isn't interested in perpetuating that lie.
    They and their families are a part of your society. And it only affords more legal protections and benefits for the children of those families.

    No society is better off disenfranchising perfectly good, contributing segments of it's population. Esp. segments that have not been shown to do any harm to individuals or society.

    No society should support bigotry. (Again...esp, in the face of the fact that there is no harm done or shown...then it's just personal beliefs. Bigotry)
    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. #250
    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 chromium View Post
    From my understanding the 13th-15th could not have passed if they had pursued such rights for women. This possibility was raised as a tactic by those opposing the amendments. They figured that somehow, if slavery dies, women will get to vote next, and interracial marriage will be kosher.
    Looks like they were right. I see the inexorable march of progress as a very good sign.

    Today, most of us indeed see those as intrinsic to any free society, but the fact it took 50 and 100 years respectively gives us a sense of the hostility to them in 1870. I doubt the 15th could have passed if it included women and unlike the 14th, it was tailored as a specific response ("race, color, or previous servitude") to specific southern tactics to undermine the 1866 Civil Rights Act ("black codes").
    Imagine what we're hostile to that will be seen that way in another century... It's difficult to imagine that equal rights for gays isn't one such issue. But I imagine that there will be things we haven't even thought of yet that will be fundamental rights to future generations.

    That the 14th's equal protection clause *doesn't* mention race leads me to believe it was left intentionally broad. It could be used gradually by the courts to achieve equality for different groups once there was sufficient support, instead of having to go thru the damn amendment process over every single issue.
    I agree. This is likewise why we don't need a constitutional amendment endorsing SSM. Unfortunately, we might need one to completely protect the rights of women. Too often, legislation and the courts don't live up to the promises in the 14th amendment when it comes to issues for women.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

Page 25 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1523242526273575 ... 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
  •