Page 16 of 46 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #151
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    No, actually in context he is wrong.
    well only he can answer that so youll have to wait for him but right now you are GUESSING, as was i admit, but im guessing my guess was right

    in context he isnt wrong at all

    which part?
    let me guess again

    you dont like his wording of discrimination? under the assumption he logically and possibly meant ANY/ALL discrimination and wasnt just referring to illegal discrimination which i bet he was? am i right?

    hey maybe you are right, maybe he meant any and all, maybe im 100% wrong, it is possible

    but again he'll have to answer that
    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

  2. #152
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    well only he can answer that so youll have to wait for him but right now you are GUESSING, as was i admit, but im guessing my guess was right

    in context he isnt wrong at all

    which part?
    let me guess again

    you dont like his wording of discrimination? under the assumption he logically and possibly meant ANY/ALL discrimination and wasnt just referring to illegal discrimination which i bet he was? am i right?

    hey maybe you are right, maybe he meant any and all, maybe im 100% wrong, it is possible

    but again he'll have to answer that
    No, he is in fact wrong. Period. The government can and does discriminate. In marriage. It could discriminate against gays if they have a reason that holds up to the appropriate level of scrutiny.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #153
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    No, he is in fact wrong. Period. The government can and does discriminate. In marriage. It could discriminate against gays if they have a reason that holds up to the appropriate level of scrutiny.
    just like i said you are assuming he means any and all discrimination and wasn't talking about illegal discrimination which was the context
    sorry thats not a fact until he confirms your assumption which i dont think will be case
    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. #154
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    to expand on that, the govt can not only discriminate, it can limit people's rights. However, in order to do so, it must show that the govt has a legitimate interest in doing so and that the discrimination (or limiting of rights) serves that interest

    I can't think of a legitimate governmental interest that is served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples.
    I can't think of one that I've ever heard an argument that convinced me it could arguably be substantially related to serving an important state interest...as would be the case with gender.

    However...

    Even though I may not fully agree with them, I at least think there are some reasonable arguments that I've seen in suggesting that its rationally related to serving a legitimate interest.

    While I may not always share a persons views or stances, it is possible to objectively put myeslf into the shoes of someone else and attempt to view a situation honestly from a different position than mine.

    Given the pyramid scheme system we have implace in this country in terms of welfare benefits, specifically speaking of social security, I think a legitimately plausible argument could be made that "adding to the amount of children born in this country" is a "legitimate" interest of the state. New tax payers are absolutely necessary to continue the current system. I aslo think it could reasonably be argued that providing marriage benefits is rationally related to that since married couples are more likely to have children, and because a same-sex couple is significantly less likely to CREATE a child (as opposed to adopt) due to the simple realities (either logistically, or financially) in doing it there is not a similar rational relationship between providing them marriage benefits.

    Ultimately, I think there are some flaws and issues in the argument based on my personal opinions and views, but I also recognize my opinions are views are not objective truth and fact. Stepping outside of my own biases, I can see the argument as one worthy of actual thought and consideration.

    An example that actually IS going into my own biases and thoughts is the notion of upholding tradition. I think one can actually argue a legitimate state interest, but absolutely not an "important" one, in upholding and maintaining a foundational "tradition" regarding various things within the country. I believe it's beneficial to a nation for the majority of it's citizenry to have various ideals and traditions that are widely held that help to establish a baseline "oneness" that enhances the tribalism of said citizens which is an absolute benefit to the state. And I do see how disallowing the change of same sex marriage, when being viewed rom a lower teir standard, could be rationally related to serve that. However, what muddies it is that sexual orientation is technically a lower teir classification, but judicial precedence suggests that a bit of extra weight can be required on the part of the state interest in cases involving it...not to the level of needing to be an "important" interest, but needing to be slightly more than simply "legitimate". I personally don't know if I believe that this interest reaches that level, but I do think it's inaccurate to act like the state does not have a legitimate interest at all in facilitating a tribalisic/patriotic mentality within it's populatoin through the maintenance of "traditions".

    That's two off the top of my head. I can think of some definitely reasonable arguments regarding legitimate state interest and/or how disallowing same sex marriage rationally relates to it. I generally don't agree with most of them, but I don't think they're generally wholely unreasonable to make.
    Last edited by Zyphlin; 02-13-15 at 03:22 PM. Reason: Edited to be less needlessly condenscending

  5. #155
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I can't think of one that I've ever heard an argument that convinced me it could arguably be substantially related to serving an important state interest...as would be the case with gender.

    However...

    Even though I may not fully agree with them, I at least think there are some reasonable arguments that I've seen in suggesting that its rationally related to serving a legitimate interest.

    While I may not always share a persons views or stances, it is possible to objectively put myeslf into the shoes of someone else and attempt to view a situation honestly from a different position than mine.

    Given the pyramid scheme system we have implace in this country in terms of welfare benefits, specifically speaking of social security, I think a legitimately plausible argument could be made that "adding to the amount of children born in this country" is a "legitimate" interest of the state. New tax payers are absolutely necessary to continue the current system. I aslo think it could reasonably be argued that providing marriage benefits is rationally related to that since married couples are more likely to have children, and because a same-sex couple is significantly less likely to CREATE a child (as opposed to adopt) due to the simple realities (either logistically, or financially) in doing it there is not a similar rational relationship between providing them marriage benefits.

    Ultimately, I think there are some flaws and issues in the argument based on my personal opinions and views, but I also recognize my opinions are views are not objective truth and fact. Stepping outside of my own biases, I can see the argument as one worthy of actual thought and consideration.

    An example that actually IS going into my own biases and thoughts is the notion of upholding tradition. I think one can actually argue a legitimate state interest, but absolutely not an "important" one, in upholding and maintaining a foundational "tradition" regarding various things within the country. I believe it's beneficial to a nation for the majority of it's citizenry to have various ideals and traditions that are widely held that help to establish a baseline "oneness" that enhances the tribalism of said citizens which is an absolute benefit to the state. And I do see how disallowing the change of same sex marriage, when being viewed rom a lower teir standard, could be rationally related to serve that. However, what muddies it is that sexual orientation is technically a lower teir classification, but judicial precedence suggests that a bit of extra weight can be required on the part of the state interest in cases involving it...not to the level of needing to be an "important" interest, but needing to be slightly more than simply "legitimate". I personally don't know if I believe that this interest reaches that level, but I do think it's inaccurate to act like the state does not have a legitimate interest at all in facilitating a tribalisic/patriotic mentality within it's populatoin through the maintenance of "traditions".

    That's two off the top of my head. I can think of some definitely reasonable arguments regarding legitimate state interest and/or how disallowing same sex marriage rationally relates to it. I generally don't agree with most of them, but I don't think they're generally wholely unreasonable to make.
    I agree that an argument could be made that the govt has a legitimate interest in ensuring that people have babies. However, limiting marriage does not in any way affect the birth rate of heterosexual couples and I could make the argument that not allowing homosexuals to marry decreases their birth rate (note that homosexuals can and do have children of their own) because it denies them the legal protections marriage offers and some homosexuals may be discouraged from having children in the absence of such protections.

    As far as traditions promoting unity, that's a trickier one but I don't see the promotion of tradition as being a legitimate interest seeing as how it goes right up against freedom of belief, etc. It places the govt in the role of enforcing a certain level of conformity which, as far as I know, has no basis in the law. IOW, I do see a certain amount of philosophical coherence there, but it seems to be in contradiction of our legal traditions and practices.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #156
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    just like i said you are assuming he means any and all discrimination and wasn't talking about illegal discrimination which was the context
    sorry thats not a fact until he confirms your assumption which i dont think will be case
    I am assuming nothing, though you certainly are. I am reading his words, which you certainly do not appear to be doing.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #157
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I am assuming nothing, though you certainly are. I am reading his words, which you certainly do not appear to be doing.
    if you say so but you are ignoring content, like i said until he confirms you are assuming

    and yes i am assuming also

    the content was about marriage and equal protection which is stopping ILLEGAL discrimination so its logical to assume thats what he mean
    IMO its very illogical to assume he mean any and all discrimination when he knows fully well discrimination in general happens all the time
    fact remains untill he confirms what he mean all you have is an assumption
    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

  8. #158
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,716

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    States do have the ability to apply local regulations to gun ownership, as the licensing laws in New York. I'm not claiming that the Feds can't do anything they want, certainly they can and they prove that daily. I am saying that they are exceeding the constitutional limits, not only in marriage but in many other areas of governance.

    In addition, It's my opinion that SCOTUS shouldn't have standing in the upcoming challenge. My opinion won't stop them but I believe that the only way the Federal government should be involved is by amendment.
    This isn't "the federal government" getting involved. It is the US constitution, which is binding for the states. SCOTUS has standing because the conflict here is with the US constitution.

    Alabama is the entity here that exceeded their constitutional authority.
    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. #159
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    another dodge, thats what i thought
    fact remains:
    action is NOT needed to be gay
    there are no protected minority groups
    Take a ****ing hint. I don't deal with jerks.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  10. #160
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Take a ****ing hint. I don't deal with jerks.
    i get it you cant defend you proven wrong claims but that wont stop me from pointing that fact out
    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

Page 16 of 46 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •