Page 28 of 46 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #271
    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
    I'm not denying any of that now and haven't before.
    How is what you said different than what I said in #254?
    I didn't say you were denying it...I said you were incorrect in your assessments. #254 and all the rest.


  2. #272
    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
    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.
    This is proof positive you have little understanding or judicial reasoning.


  3. #273
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,315

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    This is proof positive you have little understanding or judicial reasoning.
    The Loving decision is being used as a precedent in the argument in favor of striking laws banning SSM.
    You're mistaken if you say it isn't.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  4. #274
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:59 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,761

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by LaylaWindu View Post
    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.
    I lean right on some issues myself. My comments are aimed more at Cruz's version of conservative; the right-wing. for those like yourself however, some pressure on the right-wing through your demands that Republicans separate themselves would be ore helpful than putting up with right-wing nonsense such as Cruz's bill and this notion that conservatives are constitutionalists, when we can clearly see from this example that that is not the case.

    In my view, and I'm sure your's as well, all right-wing extremists in this country are idiots. But, as I said, the "conservatives" are claiming them as their own, so your point just gets buried when a bonfire needs to be set to flush the idiots out.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  5. #275
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    The Loving decision is being used as a precedent in the argument in favor of striking laws banning SSM.
    You're mistaken if you say it isn't.
    I doubt that is the part he is taking issue with. You said that some are saying Loving is not relevant. It is, in two clear ways, and no one who has any understanding of the issues claims otherwise. Loving stated marriage as a right. Loving stated that 14th Amendment protections apply to that right. Those are simple facts. Also a simple fact is that Loving was a precedent for the Windsor case, which will certainly be referenced in the upcoming case. To quote Windsor ruling:

    State law defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g. Loving v. Virginia
    SO any one who is saying Loving is not relevant is ignorant of the issues being discussed.
    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.

  6. #276
    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
    I lean right on some issues myself. My comments are aimed more at Cruz's version of conservative; the right-wing. for those like yourself however, some pressure on the right-wing through your demands that Republicans separate themselves would be ore helpful than putting up with right-wing nonsense such as Cruz's bill and this notion that conservatives are constitutionalists, when we can clearly see from this example that that is not the case.

    In my view, and I'm sure your's as well, all right-wing extremists in this country are idiots. But, as I said, the "conservatives" are claiming them as their own, so your point just gets buried when a bonfire needs to be set to flush the idiots out.
    Well I can do you one better, all extremest all idiots I don't waste time with any of them. And yes this move by cruz is extreme and idiotic.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  7. #277
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    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.
    When the argument is " the Feds have no business in marriage because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution" then Loving becomes a very pertinent precedent.

    Do you wish to alter your argument?

  8. #278
    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: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Don't be silly.
    When Obama made his appointments, for example, he was well aware, in general terms, how each would very likely decide cases that would come before them.
    Haven't you ever heard that one of the advantages to a political Party is having a POTUS of your party in a position to make Judicial appointments?
    Why do you think that is?
    He hasn't made an appointee since 2010. Obama back then never declared support for SSM and the dems as a whole ran scared ****less from the subject. The decision will likely be 6-3. Most likely he never even asked any of his appointees about it and the series of federal court rulings all came in the past couple years, the vast majority appointed by other presidents who all did whatever they could to oppose SSM

    Bush II tried to pass an amendment against SSM for christ sakes, but john roberts has changed his stance on it to the point it wouldn't surprise me if he voted with the majority in june. The justices aren't beholden to whatever promises they make and their opinions and interpretations change. They're appointed for life

  9. #279
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by LaylaWindu View Post
    At least you admit you have no real solid argument and you just make stuff up. That counts for something.
    Actually, I just like to lay in a little humor to lighten the mood. Unlike you, I don't take these debates personally or even that seriously. As far as me having something to say...

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Uh, the poll asked specifically if they want gay relationships to be ILLEGAL and 30% said yes. If you believe that's somehow more permissible or doesn't reflect their hatred, it says a lot more about you than me. And hate myself, what are you even on about here? Thanks for the lovely psychoanalysis, i guess, but i'll go to some other shrink
    As I stated, believe what you want because I can be sure that one such as yourself hasn't actually sat down and tried to understand other sides arguments, to build the bridges necessary to spread tolerance. I'm guessing all you do is get on here just to vent, not caring who you lash out with in the process. It's all just raw anger at the injustices you perceive, and on a base level I can empathize with it; What appears to be the sheer irrationality of their viewpoint it makes no sense to you. So let me help you here, from one person whose been on both sides of the fence. What you don't get is the fact that most of the people that oppose SSM are conservative. And more than anything, conservatives value individual choice. Now keep in mind that those same conservatives are also the ones that believe that being gay is just a choice (they're wrong of course, but that's an issue for another day).

    That's why I can be so sure that the vast majority of those who oppose SSM wouldn't lock someone up for being gay today, because all they'd be doing is locking them up for a choice. It's antithetical to the conservative way, after all. We saw this when there was such an uproar over those two gay gentlemen kissed during the NFL draft. The backlash had nothing to do with either of them being gay, but everything to do with it being on TV. As many would go to say, "I'm fine with them being gay as long as it's not shoved in my face." Now think back if you will to all the hubbub surrounding Michael Sam; at any point in time did you hear a single peep of people asking he be sent to jail? Of course not, and that is my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    He is trying to come to power and he has a track record of trying to oppress homosexuals, even this week. Yeah he is the devil and the #1 enemy of the movement right now, within the US at least. I don't work with bigots either. There is no compromising away of equality or dignity
    You know what a bigot is? See most of the time the word is used whenever the issue of race or homosexuality is brought up, but the definition of bigot isn't at all so narrow. Here's just a couple of examples:

    Quote Originally Posted by Google: Bigot
    a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary.com Bigot
    a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
    The funniest thing about this whole issue is that you have become what you hate most: a bigot. Someone who is completely intolerable to view other than your own that you'll go nuclear at the first sign of someone offering a contrarian viewpoint. I suppose it isn't surprising though, as you use the word so much. Perhaps it's because you are so familiar with it?

    Regardless, I don't disagree with you that Cruz is foremost spokesman for the opposition to SSM. But the #1 enemy of the movement? Not at all. You know how I know that's true? Even if someone in all their righteous anger was to strike down the devil himself, the movement would go on. Only now, you've empowered those that you oppose because you've just made him a martyr and showed to the world how intolerant those who argue for SSM can be. The real #1 enemy of the movement, is people like you that get on here and become so hostile with anyone that disagrees. Because that prevents people like myself, from connecting with those on the other side and showing them that there are alternatives to a complete dismantling of everything they know and hold dear.

    Compromise isn't what is important with this issue, Understanding is. Once both sides understand what's important to each other, then it's all about making sure that the priorities of each side are met. At that point, no compromise is necessary.

  10. #280
    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 Hamster Buddha View Post
    Actually, I just like to lay in a little humor to lighten the mood. Unlike you, I don't take these debates personally or even that seriously. As far as me having something to say...
    You realize you just did it again right? You just totally made something up. Ill make note that just the type of poster you are.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

Page 28 of 46 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •