Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

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

  1. #21
    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 chromium View Post
    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.



    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




    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
    Holy moly! Seems I stumbled upon an Obama-drone of the likes we've never seen.

    You somehow turned a rational conversation into defending Obama in ways that weren't even mentioned. Crreeeeepppyyyyyy

  2. #22
    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
    Where have you been? Obviously they cannot. Our Congress is just as stupid as our President. They all can't do anything.
    that's more an argument for ceasing to elect a senate than to excuse them for failing to do their jobs

  3. #23
    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
    Holy moly! Seems I stumbled upon an Obama-drone of the likes we've never seen.

    You somehow turned a rational conversation into defending Obama in ways that weren't even mentioned. Crreeeeepppyyyyyy
    How in the world do you glean that from my post. I dislike obama intensely and included him in my "prez candidates from both parties cowered on the issue until 2012." Really now, you posted so quick did you even read my whole post? I said clearly he failed to uphold his oath by not pushing for legislation

    Only defended him on not handing out jobs left and right. That's actually not in his oath

    For all vitriol towards bush on this issue, and he certainly deserves it don't get me wrong, it was clinton who rubber stamped *two* federal laws that have been ruled unconstitutional for discriminating against gays. I despise both parties equally
    Last edited by chromium; 01-14-15 at 10:32 AM.

  4. #24
    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 chromium View Post
    How in the world do you glean that from my post. I dislike obama intensely and included him in my "prez candidates from both parties cowered on the issue until 2012." Really now, you posted so quick did you even read my whole post? I said clearly he failed to uphold his oath by not pushing for legislation

    Only defended him on not handing out jobs left and right. That's actually not in his oath

    For all vitriol towards bush on this issue, and he certainly deserves it don't get me wrong, it was clinton who rubber stamped *two* federal laws that have been ruled unconstitutional for discriminating against gays. I despise both parties equally
    Well then, thank you for explaining. You rubbed off initially as such, but I now retract my previous comment.

  5. #25
    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 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.
    So why don't heteros go call their relationships domestic partner and gay couples call it marriage? Oh right, because you view one as inferior to the other. There was simply never a push for DPs with equal right to marriage. That never happened, because the same assholes opposing SSM were opposing DPs. That and the 2nd class insult of needless new terminology is why we're at this point.

    I don't know where you get these analogies...Gay people are not so fundamentally different that it's like cats and dogs. You've explained this yourself - the difference is the attractions brought on by brain chemistry and that's it. Yes, still human. The love is the same, the commitment is the same, the consensual nature of it is the same, and some even want to raise kids just like any hetero couple.

  6. #26
    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
    Well then, thank you for explaining. You rubbed off initially as such, but I now retract my previous comment.
    Np, i mean, i would not consider romney in 2012, but i wouldn't have voted for obama then either, despite he suddenly supported SSM, because it was obvious he wouldn't have the gall to do anything about it. I also disagreed too strongly about other constitutional points, like habeus corpus violations

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •