Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

  1. #11
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.

    In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.

    If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.

    The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.

    The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".

    The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.

    The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

    It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

    Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

    These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-26-17 @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,697

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    no biggie, it happens, i figured it was just a "slip of the keyboard"
    millions of conservatives support equal rights
    I'm just ready for it to be over and legalized so we can move forward.

  3. #13
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by 11Bravo View Post
    I'm just ready for it to be over and legalized so we can move forward.
    agreed so is the majority of america
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #14
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,988

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by 11Bravo View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't see the cons accepting SSM. However, I still think that a Republican is certainly electable. Especially if Hillary runs.
    Fortunately they dont have to accept it. They arent allowed an opinion on who marries who now....on the 2 individuals, straight or not. Dont see why they should for gays either.
    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.

  5. #15
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.

    In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.

    If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.

    The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.

    The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".

    The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.

    The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

    It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

    Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

    These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.
    i love when you show how severely uneducated you are on this specific topic.

    just for some more facts that further destroy your false claims
    Fact: this is an equal rights issue
    Fact: many states also have banns on same sex unions/partnerships etc
    Fact: there is no such thing as hommariage with regards to legal marriage in the us
    Fact: referring to same sex couples as married is not an oxymoron
    Fact: claiming that its analogous to calling a cat show a dog show is 100% false and not analogous
    Fact: the below couple was legally married and in a legal marriage no matter how much anybody cries about it or lies about it
    g1.jpg

    sorry but nobody educated, honest and objective will ever buy the intellectually inane, logically inept, dishonest and mentally retarded "claims" in your post

    if you disagree simply provide any facts that support your posted lies

    as usual your posts fails is completely destroyed and facts win again
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #16
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,988

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post


    The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

    It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

    Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

    These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.
    LOL So your analogy has gays being non-Homo sapien? Different species from straight people? LOL

    The standards by which cats and dogs are judged are very different....marriage for gay and straight people are exactly the same except for gender....which makes absolutely no difference in the relationship, families, the laws of the marriage contract, the benefits and legal privileges that are accorded them.

    What a ridiculous and un-conservative idea: a different name for the same institution and license. More bureaucracy, more paperwork, bigger govt to accommodate it and in the end:

    People will STILL SAY they are married! LOL There will be no distinction legally OR socially. heh. And the prehistoric stigma will eventually disappear.
    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.

  7. #17
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by 11Bravo View Post
    I guess that makes sense. I mean, it should be a protected right so yes the feds should secure it. I still stand by the rest of what I said though. I think social issues should come after economic and foreign policy IMO.
    The government can do several things at once. Advantage of having more than two or three people running it.
    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.

  8. #18
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.

    In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.

    If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.

    The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.

    The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".

    The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.

    The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

    It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

    Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

    These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.
    Oh look it's the same ridiculous, flawed, completely irrelevant example of dog shows. It is utterly comical that you think an animal show is "of an analogous nature" to a private legal contract between human beings. It is also utterly comical that you blatantly ignore all of the judicial actions to date and actually convince yourself that SCOTUS is going to take your side in this argument. Even Antonin Scalia sees the writing on the wall, he knows full well what the ramifications of Lawrence and Windsor are. You? You just seem to pretend those decisions don't exist.

    Dog shows are private events. If the people running that event want to allow cats to enter, they can do that. If they want to bar cats from entry, they can do that.

    The American government doesn't have the same freedom. It is constrained by the constitution, and the 14th amendment bars the government from enforcing gender restrictions on a private contract in absence of an important state interest.
    Last edited by Deuce; 01-13-15 at 09:10 PM.
    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.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-26-17 @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,697

    Re: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The government can do several things at once. Advantage of having more than two or three people running it.
    Where have you been? Obviously they cannot. Our Congress is just as stupid as our President. They all can't do anything.

  10. #20
    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: South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

    Quote Originally Posted by 11Bravo View Post
    That said, issues like SSM and abortion (social) are electing Presidents these days.
    what evidence do you have of this? Even the dem candidates cowered on the issue until 2012.

    That said, I would use it as a litmus myself, because no one so imbecilic as to oppose gay rights should be the head of state. I think we can do better than that. In addition, he/she would in the process fail to uphold the oath to defend the constitution.

    Yes, the economy is important, but the president doesn't have authoritarian control over that either. He can't waive a wand and everything is fixed. Nowhere does the constitution mention a right to employment and a living wage. Perhaps it should but until then, it's not in his job description. If anything, he's far more responsible for the outcome of minority rights, since he appoints SCOTUS judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by 11Bravo View Post
    SSM should be a state right. Once all the states legalize it, the feds will too, not matter the President. In reality, no matter who wins in 2016, it's likely SSM will be federally recognized.
    no it should not be a state right, and the bigoted voter ballot outcomes prove that. It's "no matter the president" because he failed to uphold the constitution and push for federal legislation, which would make court intervention unnecessary


    Quote Originally Posted by 11Bravo View Post
    I am totally cool with SSM and enjoy seeing these rights finally coming to light. However, I think it's time our leaders begin thinking of our nation as a whole, and propping us back up!
    Cool but SSM federal law could've been done quickly and they could've 'move on' long ago. It sure didn't take congress long to pass the "patriot act", didn't even read the bill in fact, or the bank bailouts. The politicians instead in their cowardice failed to protect the rights of a minority and uphold their oaths. They should all be ****canned

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •