Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 258

Thread: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

  1. #201
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,571

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Actually, the majority would be the ones giving any state/government the power to limit people with incomes under 50K from having kids, since that is where all laws start and are only challenged on their consitutionality up to the SCOTUS. You obviously have no clue how the Federal Court system works.
    Put together a coherent thought that I can respond to, this is too general. Who are you talking about, the "majority"? The Congress makes federal law.

    "that is where all laws start and are only challenged on their consitutionality up to the SCOTUS". What??? Another non coherant rambling. Clean that up so it has a purpose.


    You show how juvenile your argument is
    What is that with the left, you just can't go very long without calling names and making personal attacks? Ah, but you sure are not juvenile, that must be me.

    when you blatantly ignore what I said, which included that it wasn't just the SCOTUS and their decisions, but also how well the people took those decisions as to what was or wasn't constitutional. If the people did not approve in supermajorities of a decision the SCOTUS made, then the people could blatantly change the Constitution or simply ignore the decision if they wanted to do so. But the key is they have to have the numbers to back up their defiance, whether it is defying a ruling legally (say not issuing marriage licenses to interracial couples) or changing the Constitution via Amendment (such as perhaps an Amendment that plainly stated that states controlled who could get married in their state completely, by popular vote or legislative action or that marriage was only between x person and y person, and no others were eligible to be recognized).
    Oh, are the people going to vote the SC justices out of office or something? Nope, they are pretty well insulated from any consequences of their decisions. But, another rambling, incoherent mishmash there.

    If that's so easy, why not just amend the Constitution to give the federal government power to allow ssm? That would be the best way to do it, crisp and clear.
    "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

  2. #202
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post

    Put together a coherent thought that I can respond to, this is too general. Who are you talking about, the "majority"? The Congress makes federal law.

    "that is where all laws start and are only challenged on their consitutionality up to the SCOTUS". What??? Another non coherant rambling. Clean that up so it has a purpose.

    What is that with the left, you just can't go very long without calling names and making personal attacks? Ah, but you sure are not juvenile, that must be me.

    Oh, are the people going to vote the SC justices out of office or something? Nope, they are pretty well insulated from any consequences of their decisions. But, another rambling, incoherent mishmash there.

    If that's so easy, why not just amend the Constitution to give the federal government power to allow ssm? That would be the best way to do it, crisp and clear.
    You show your ignorance with every post, particularly on how our government works.

    Your argument is that the states have the power, yet that tramples individual rights much more often than the federal government trampling individual rights. So if you oppose the rulings of the SCOTUS to uphold individual rights over state rights (since this has absolutely nothing to do with federal laws or a conflict between state and federal government, only state laws and the Constitution), this means you support tyranny of the majority, so long as it is in states and likely as long as it is what you agree with, with little power for the federal government (and there isn't anyone else to protect our rights from those state tyrannies) to actually uphold the constitutional guarantees of individual rights.

    The Constitution is supposed to be a limit on government power over the people, not to restrict only federal power, allowing the states to trample on individual rights to their hearts' content.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #203
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Why are you being dishonest about what I obviously was replying to? It isn't that hard to figure out that what you quoted from me had to do with other comments you made, since I do not break up my arguments.
    Everyone can clearly see that's your post #176 directly replying to my post #175. Those are your words exactly and kept in perfect context. There's no point in denying it.


    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And it doesn't matter how few people marry for other reasons, it still occurs and doesn't change my argument. Sex/gender is still being used to discriminate against people.
    Yes, it does occur. It just doesn't matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The sexes are not treated the same.
    Both sexes are treated the same. Each can do what the other can, and neither can do what the other cannot. It's not called "woman-woman-marriage" or "man-man marriage", it's called "same-sex marriage". Pay attention to the words used, words means things. Pro-SSM knows this and that's why they dropped "gay-marriage" early into the legal fight realizing that a case couldn't be made. Call it a "fee" and Obama'Care is illegal but change only the word it's called to "tax" and *poof* perfectly constitutional.


    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Laws limiting number of legal spouses would be at the lowest level of scrutiny...
    We're still talking about the fundamental right to marry, which means Strict Scrutiny applies just as with same-sex marriage. Polygamy also involves religious practice, so SCOTUS will need to invent the Ultra Scrutiny level. If one of them is a different race then SCOTUS will have to dream up the Ultra Mega Scrutiny level. Toss a gay into the mix and SCOTUS will need to call the power rangers in to form the Ultra Mega Thunder Scrutiny Level Zord.


    Or we can skip all the expensive court battles and pass an Amendment, the exact text of which to read:

    Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to marry shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    But there I go proposing concise logical solutions which actually solve the problem in the cheapest and most drama-free way again. Can't have that kind of efficiency in the government, no votes to be had, no lecture fees and book deals.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No one can marry someone who currently married just as no one can legally marry a five year old
    In that case no one can marry someone of the same sex just as no one can legally marry a five year old. See how that argument doesn't work?

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    I hesitate to call you a troller, but really -
    It's an emotional subject. People call me a troll when they experiences a dopamine surge in the frontal cortex momentarily inhibiting their self control and filter in response to reading words on their computer screen which I had typed on mine. It evidences a lack of self control and inability to take responsibility for themselves.

  4. #204
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,571

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You show your ignorance with every post, particularly on how our government works.
    Oh, gee, what a surprise, more personal attacks.

    Your argument is that the states have the power, yet that tramples individual rights much more often than the federal government trampling individual rights.
    Is this a response to my post? I'm just going to assume that English is not your first language, and I'll try to figure it out.
    So, my argument is "the states have the power"? I guess you are making reference to the fact that all powers that are not given to the federal government remain with the States and the people. Not really my argument, just a fact from the text of the Constitution.

    You know the idea of the Constitution is to have the government do the bare minimum, give it the least amount of power possible? Do you think that is what we have today?


    So if you oppose the rulings of the SCOTUS to uphold individual rights over state rights (since this has absolutely nothing to do with federal laws or a conflict between state and federal government, only state laws and the Constitution), this means you support tyranny of the majority, so long as it is in states and likely as long as it is what you agree with, with little power for the federal government (and there isn't anyone else to protect our rights from those state tyrannies) to actually uphold the constitutional guarantees of individual rights.
    I think you are trying to make the point that if you don't support a SCOTUS ruling that deals with individuals, then you support only majority rule, 100% of the time? That can't be it because there is no basis for that in anything I posted and makes no sense at all. Although, I can't rule it out based on your sense of logic.
    What about the individuals that support traditional marriage? You support tyranny over the will of the people. And you really seem to be resisting the fact that marriage is available to all equally, and does not discriminate at all based on sex. Who, exactly is barred from getting married? And don't throw out scenarios that are not marriage, like same sex people.

    The Constitution is supposed to be a limit on government power over the people, not to restrict only federal power, allowing the states to trample on individual rights to their hearts' content.
    Yeah, says the person that supports an iron-fisted federal government, through a handful judges, overturning the will of the people, time after time.

    As I said before, just pass an amendment to the Constitution, that's all you need.
    "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

  5. #205
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Oh, gee, what a surprise, more personal attacks.

    Is this a response to my post? I'm just going to assume that English is not your first language, and I'll try to figure it out.
    So, my argument is "the states have the power"? I guess you are making reference to the fact that all powers that are not given to the federal government remain with the States and the people. Not really my argument, just a fact from the text of the Constitution.

    You know the idea of the Constitution is to have the government do the bare minimum, give it the least amount of power possible? Do you think that is what we have today?

    I think you are trying to make the point that if you don't support a SCOTUS ruling that deals with individuals, then you support only majority rule, 100% of the time? That can't be it because there is no basis for that in anything I posted and makes no sense at all. Although, I can't rule it out based on your sense of logic.
    What about the individuals that support traditional marriage? You support tyranny over the will of the people. And you really seem to be resisting the fact that marriage is available to all equally, and does not discriminate at all based on sex. Who, exactly is barred from getting married? And don't throw out scenarios that are not marriage, like same sex people.

    Yeah, says the person that supports an iron-fisted federal government, through a handful judges, overturning the will of the people, time after time.

    As I said before, just pass an amendment to the Constitution, that's all you need.
    We don't need an Amendment. It has already been passed, the 14th and Equal Protection gives the rights, the power to the individual people rather than the states. You lost the Civil War so the people could have their freedom from tyrannical state governments, ruled by the whim of the majorities or those in power within the state governments.

    The will of the people violates the rights of others guaranteed by the US Constitution so therefore it should be trumped by the Constitution and decisions that abide by it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #206
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    None of my business who consenting adults choose to marry, just as it was none of anyone else's business that my husband & I chose to marry each other all those years ago. I don't know why anyone considers it a right to decide who other adults should be able to marry, especially if it doesn't impact you or your life in any way. I'll include polygamy in that statement as well. Marriage should be a contract that any and all consenting adults should be able to enter into, regardless of sex and number of partners.

    I'm glad that SCOTUS is finally taking this on. This issue needs to be settled once and for all, and it needs to be settled in the only logical manner - if you're a consenting adult, you get to marry whomever the hell you choose to marry.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  7. #207
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    We don't need an Amendment. It has already been passed, the 14th and Equal Protection gives the rights, the power to the individual people rather than the states. You lost the Civil War so the people could have their freedom from tyrannical state governments, ruled by the whim of the majorities or those in power within the state governments.

    The will of the people violates the rights of others guaranteed by the US Constitution so therefore it should be trumped by the Constitution and decisions that abide by it.
    I'm a programmer, so I deal with logic. The same rule is applied to all, so I don't understand the equal protection claim.

    I see marriage laws as code:

    public boolean canMarry(boolean[] sexes) { return sexes.length == 2 && sexes[0] != sexes[1]; }

    Its equally applied.

  8. #208
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    None of my business who consenting adults choose to marry, just as it was none of anyone else's business that my husband & I chose to marry each other all those years ago. I don't know why anyone considers it a right to decide who other adults should be able to marry, especially if it doesn't impact you or your life in any way. I'll include polygamy in that statement as well. Marriage should be a contract that any and all consenting adults should be able to enter into, regardless of sex and number of partners.

    I'm glad that SCOTUS is finally taking this on. This issue needs to be settled once and for all, and it needs to be settled in the only logical manner - if you're a consenting adult, you get to marry whomever the hell you choose to marry.
    I think it will be safe to say, no matter what the SCOTUS ruling is, there will be a large segment of the population who will declare "they are so wrong and I don't believe it".

  9. #209
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    I think it will be safe to say, no matter what the SCOTUS ruling is, there will be a large segment of the population who will declare "they are so wrong and I don't believe it".
    It wouldn't be America if that didn't happen.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  10. #210
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    I'm a programmer, so I deal with logic. The same rule is applied to all, so I don't understand the equal protection claim.

    I see marriage laws as code:

    public boolean canMarry(boolean[] sexes) { return sexes.length == 2 && sexes[0] != sexes[1]; }

    Its equally applied.
    That is not true at all. Just as it wasn't true when it was a restriction that prevented interracial couples from getting married, people are not being treated equally under the law if their sex/gender is being used to determine who they can or cannot marry. There is no reasonable state interest furthered by basing marriage off of sex/gender.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... 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
  •