Page 27 of 46 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #261
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
    Basically is still not correct. Your contention is that the Federal government is determining and redefining "marriage". That is incorrect.

    The Supreme court in Windsor v US stated that the states...not the federal government had the historical authority to define and regulate marriage. The ruling also established that the states could not violate the rights of their resident in doing so.

    So lets recap. Federal government ruled not to have a historical right to regulate marriage in Windsor and DOMA.

    States do have the right to regulate marriage based on historical precedent...and states although have the right to regulate, do not have the right to violate the rights of their residents in the applications of their rules...[14th].

    That will be the judicial reasoning used in the court to affirm that states can not ban SS couples from marring and by violating their equal protections under the law..


  2. #262
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,128

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
    I really do not think you understand. You should probably start by reading Loving. V. Virginia.

  3. #263
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Hey Redress, Ya know what's the best part of trying to talk with someone we all recognize as deliberately irritating and full of themselves as you?
    It's knowing that while chuckling at post after post of growing bizarre obnoxious behavior, sooner or later you'll screw up so bad even you can't deny it.
    You quoted the 14th Amendment, my friend, not the 13th.
    How sweet it is.
    The really sweet part is how badly you failed to identify a simple typo.
    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.

  4. #264
    One with the Force
    LaylaWindu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Rouguenuke said "...the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later."

    Listen, I've been polite to you, why are you adopting the worst attitude of the worst on this site so soon?
    If you want to do that, practice on someone else.
    If you think pointing out strawmen is "the worst attitude" and "not polite" you are going to have a lot of issues until you stop. Looks to me a few posters have pointed this out to you. If you are that sensitive you'll have to change the way you post. But in all fairness/politeness what is the alternative? What do you recommend for me to do, just let you make stuff up that I never said and not call you on it?

    Do you think its polite to just make stuff up? Because I don't consider that polite.

    You'll need to post in a more honest way if you want your posts to be viewed as such. How about this simply back up what you said. Can you quote that person saying the 14th voids the 10th? If you can do that or admit you simply misunderstood then maybe there can be a polite conversation.
    Last edited by LaylaWindu; 02-15-15 at 12:59 PM.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  5. #265
    One with the Force
    LaylaWindu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    And the conservatives are so much FOR the constitution. Except of course when it crowds their agenda.
    Don't group us all together, I certainly lean right and many on the right are for the constitution. Don't let that idiot set a bad example for the group.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  6. #266
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    4 of the Justices are solid, and a fifth is almost certain due to his previous stances on such issues.
    The SCOTUS would be screwing itself, subjecting it and many other US courts to a ton of legal cases in the future on this issue if they don't strike down these laws. This isn't going away until the SCOTUS rules that same sex couples must be allowed to legally marry in every state.
    Agreed.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  7. #267
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I really do not think you understand. You should probably start by reading Loving. V. Virginia.
    Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
    As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  8. #268
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    Basically is still not correct. Your contention is that the Federal government is determining and redefining "marriage". That is incorrect.

    The Supreme court in Windsor v US stated that the states...not the federal government had the historical authority to define and regulate marriage. The ruling also established that the states could not violate the rights of their resident in doing so.

    So lets recap. Federal government ruled not to have a historical right to regulate marriage in Windsor and DOMA.

    States do have the right to regulate marriage based on historical precedent...and states although have the right to regulate, do not have the right to violate the rights of their residents in the applications of their rules...[14th].

    That will be the judicial reasoning used in the court to affirm that states can not ban SS couples from marring and by violating their equal protections under the law..

    I'm not denying any of that now and haven't before.
    How is what you said different than what I said in #254?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  9. #269
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,333
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    You did say basically voided ... but let's let that go.
    The 14th does not void the 10th. The 10th refers to powers either not granted the federal government, or not denied state governments by the constitution. The14th is part of the constitution. This is not rocket surgery.

    I think we're in basic agreement.
    Really, the question is, will the 14th Amendment be successfully used to overturn SSM prohibitions nationally or will enough of the Justices be swayed by a States Rights argument since marriage isn't specifically addressed as a matter for Congress in the Constitution.
    I'd imagine the 14th might have greater weight with the USSC.
    The part you do not seem to understand: no one is denying that states have a right to decide who can and cannot get married in their state. No one is denying that they have to do that within the framework of the constitution, which includes the 14th amendment. How the court rules(and they are specifically ruling on two aspects, something else you seem confused by) on SSM bans will not supersede or enforce the 10th, as it is pretty irrelevant to the issue. EPC is a limit to states powers within the constitution, therefore the 10th does not apply in EPC cases.
    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.

  10. #270
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,333
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
    As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
    You do not seem to understand how Loving is a precedent. Loving was one of the early cases where marriage as a right was identified. That is important to SSM cases, as denying rights is harder to do than denying things that are not considered rights. Loving also established that the EPC as relevant to marriage.
    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.

Page 27 of 46 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •