Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 258

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

  1. #61
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    again if you think it is widely accepted then put it up to a vote and let the people decide.
    the only reason that you would bulk is that you don't think it is widely accepted as you think it is or claim.
    Apparently you are unable to read or understand the argument being made, or perhaps you're just refusing to acknowledge it. Across the US, it is that widely accepted, but voting doesn't work that way. Legislation doesn't work that way. The Court challenge is made and is completely reasonable as a method to change unconstitutional laws.

    You never did answer my question. Should the Lovings have waited and only pushed for legislation?
    "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.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,586

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Apparently you are unable to read or understand the argument being made, or perhaps you're just refusing to acknowledge it. Across the US, it is that widely accepted, but voting doesn't work that way. Legislation doesn't work that way. The Court challenge is made and is completely reasonable as a method to change unconstitutional laws.

    You never did answer my question. Should the Lovings have waited and only pushed for legislation?
    you have yet to rebuttal mine. you and Disney both made the claim that it is such widely accepted, but when put to the challenge up if you refuse to accept it.
    and go off on some other tangent that has nothing to do with your original argument.

    if it is widely accepted then put it to a vote period end of story.
    back up your claim with something other than I say so.

    if you think it is so widely accept then this shouldn't be an issue.

  3. #63
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    the writing IS on the wall

    I was thinking they were gonna punt or delay until after the 5th and 11th decisions but no with this verbiage it seem like they are just doing it.

    while this shouldn't even be a question and isnt to any normal person im so grateful and thankful to witness this in my lifetime. There was a time just a little over 5 years ago i didnt think i would get to see america right this wrong but that all changed and was firmly cemented with the fall of DOMA!
    It is so exciting! back in the mid80s, a few years out of college, I wrote a letter to the editor in favor of same sex marriage. I had no idea I'd see it happen in my lifetime!

    Now all we need is a woman president, and all my major life wishes will be met

  4. #64
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,586

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    LOL.....you showed nothing. All you did was attempt to engage in "My dad can beat your dad up" games. I don't have the time or patience for that kind of juvenile activity. Constitutional rights should never be put to a popular vote. Take a look at the polling all around the country. It says exactly the opposite of the childish games you want to play.
    not at all.

    you said it was widely accepted. I said it wasn't which it wasn't. the only reason it has gone through is that courts have ruled that it is allowed.
    you still make the claim that it is widely accepted. if so then putting it to a vote shouldn't be a problem and it should pass in landslides.

    you refuse to put it to a vote which means you don't think it is accepted as what you think.

    asking 1000 people out of millions isn't my idea of accurate. polls have been wrong before and when people deemed them absolutely correct.
    people voted the opposite of what the poll suggested.

    case in point FL medical marijuana. all the way put through the election it showed that it had 70%+ approval in the state.
    on the day of election it failed to get the 60% required to pass.

    the poll was wrong. they have had plenty of election polls that have gone the other way than what they were thought.

    I am not being childish at all. if you are so secure in your assertion then why resist putting it to a vote? according to you it should pass with overwhelming support.
    yet you refuse. that says you are not so secure in your position as you would have someone believe.

  5. #65
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    not at all.

    you said it was widely accepted. I said it wasn't which it wasn't. the only reason it has gone through is that courts have ruled that it is allowed.
    you still make the claim that it is widely accepted. if so then putting it to a vote shouldn't be a problem and it should pass in landslides.

    you refuse to put it to a vote which means you don't think it is accepted as what you think.

    asking 1000 people out of millions isn't my idea of accurate. polls have been wrong before and when people deemed them absolutely correct.
    people voted the opposite of what the poll suggested.

    case in point FL medical marijuana. all the way put through the election it showed that it had 70%+ approval in the state.
    on the day of election it failed to get the 60% required to pass.

    the poll was wrong. they have had plenty of election polls that have gone the other way than what they were thought.

    I am not being childish at all. if you are so secure in your assertion then why resist putting it to a vote? according to you it should pass with overwhelming support.
    yet you refuse. that says you are not so secure in your position as you would have someone believe.

    You absolutely are.....you are still trying to engage in juvenile games. Sorry....not gonna take that bait. If you put slavery to a popular vote, it would fail big time. It doesn't mean that we should. Constitutional rights should never be put to a popular vote. That is WHY we HAVE a Constitution. If you want to debate with the big boys......pick up a book and do a little homework and then come back.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #66
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,742

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    As always, the same old same old missing the foundational point is what you succumb to.

    The government most certainly has the authority to restrict a legal contract on the basis of failure to quality for the contractual terms.

    If the very contract is defined as "a man and a woman as husband and wife", then, absolutely, the government can verify to see if the contract terms are fulfilled before awarding it .. and disallow awarding the contract to two people of the same sex.

    Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", always has, always will, no matter what teeny, tiny pocketed erroneously based anomalies may occur from time to time.

    The marriage contract requires two people, and, of opposite sex, and, to be husband and wife.

    That's what marriage is; anything else isn't marriage.

    The SCOTUS, sadly, will be deciding on who, the people of a state or the federal government, gets the opportunity to "redefine" marriage.

    There is no constitutional right to marry.

    Thus the SCOTUS simply isn't going to Roe-v-Wade "legislate" one a la "right to privacy" .. and thus put religious organizations in a position to conflict with a U.S. government regulation. Not a chance.

    The likely outcome will be that it's back to the states to decide .. not a great decision .. but the lesser of the two evils.
    Nope. Sorry. "Failure to qualify for the contractual terms" is not blanket authority to provide discrimination. The government could define employment contracts as being between men only, so women can't ever hold a job. That's not going to stand up to constitutional scrutiny: it's a restriction of gender in a private contract that isn't backed up by a sufficiently powerful interest.

    No difference in marriage. Sure, you define marriage as between a man and a woman, but you're still pretending that only one definition of a word can exist, and that these definitions can never be altered. That's just foolish, dog. Wait, did I call you a canine? No. You see, "dog" is often used as slang for "friend."

    You are wrong about SCOTUS too. What you describe? Not what they are deciding. Don't believe me? Ask them:

    The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
    1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
    2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
    They aren't discussing the "definition" of marriage, and they aren't discussing "who gets to define" it. The question is whether or not the 14th amendment requires recognition of same-sex marriage. This isn't a "state versus federal" question, that question is already decided. States get to define marriage, however, all state legislation is still subject to the 14th amendment.

    It should be obvious. I mean, surely you don't think "states get to define marriage" means that states can ban interracial marriage, right? Because that would violate equal protection under the law, right? So, the relevant question isn't a definition or states rights, it's about the 14th amendment. Are you familiar with the varying degrees of constitutional scrutiny applied under the 14th? A distinction of gender must be backed up by an "important state interest" that the measure in question is "substantially related to" furthering.

    Now, some argue that intermediate scrutiny isn't the correct level. Some will argue that because SCOTUS has previously defined marriage as a "fundamental right," that strict scrutiny applies. (the test then is a "compelling state interest" and the measure must be "narrowly tailored" to meeting that interest) I'm not sure I buy the argument, but some of the courts have applied this level. Others say that this is about sexuality rather than gender (although I disagree, since the requirement is a man and a woman), so only the rational basis test would apply. (the measure must be "rationally related" to a "legitimate state interest.")

    So, the challenge issued to proponents of a same-sex marriage to answer that question. What is the state interest furthered by banning same-sex marriage? Can it even meet the rational basis test?

    I offer up that challenge to anyone supporting a same-sex marriage ban. Provide this interest. It's what SCOTUS is asking for.

    And Ontologuy, you seem very confident in the outcome. In that case, I will bet money on it. 3 to 1 odds. My $30 dollar DP forum donation versus your $10 forum donation that SCOTUS will rule same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.
    Last edited by Deuce; 01-17-15 at 11:44 AM.
    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.

  7. #67
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,742

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    so put it up for a vote.
    No. There isn't any number of votes that can uphold a law that violates the constitution.
    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. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,586

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    You absolutely are.....you are still trying to engage in juvenile games. Sorry....not gonna take that bait. If you put slavery to a popular vote, it would fail big time. It doesn't mean that we should. Constitutional rights should never be put to a popular vote. That is WHY we HAVE a Constitution. If you want to debate with the big boys......pick up a book and do a little homework and then come back.
    there is no bait. it is not my fault that you put forth an assertion and now do not want to back that assertion up or support it.
    you are just making a claim but back down when challenged.

    really when has it been ruled a constitutional right? please name the SCOTUS court case.
    you are far from a big boy in this. you made an assertion that when challenge you refuse to support your own assertion instead you just ad populum.

  9. #69
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, the SCOTUS did not decide that "decades ago".
    yes it did, in the case of prisoners.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,586

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No. There isn't any number of votes that can uphold a law that violates the constitution.
    name the SCOTUS that says it violates the constitution.

Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •