Page 30 of 46 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #291
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 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
    I learned a painful lesson yesterday.
    Some people are just given to strange behavior when they find themselves behind a keyboard.
    Unfortunate but true.
    Did you learn what the constitution says? Because that should have been the lesson you learned yesterday.
    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.

  2. #292
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,843

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    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?
    I'll just say that being intolerant of bigotry doesn't make one a bigot. It's an absurd use of the word - the KKK are bigots (for obvious reasons), and those who condemn the KKK are also bigots because they are intolerant of racists and antisemites? Sorry, but no....

    I do agree sometimes that the "left", me included, are sometimes intolerant (bigoted) towards people who e.g. view homosexuality as a sin and condemn its practice. That's really none of my business - some people think alcohol is of the devil. Whatever.

    But here Cruz is saying two things, 1) I believe marriage is between one man and one woman (this is perfectly fine, obviously consistent with mainstream Christianity), AND 2) I want the STATE to enforce my view of marriage on the entire population and PROHIBIT SSM. Being intolerant of position 1) is a form of bigotry, but opposing 2) is not.

    It's what so many people also didn't get about the Mozilla CEO's stance on SSM. His step too far, IMO, was overseeing a workforce with significant numbers of gays, and supporting efforts to enforce his views on marriage through the CA Constitution.

    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.
    I'm not sure how possible that is when one side wants to ban the position of the other - have the state enforce their viewpoints. SSM supporters aren't taking any kind of aim at "traditional marriage." I'm traditionally married - if a gay couple also gets married, it has no effect on me or my relationship with my wife.

  3. #293
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bicycleman View Post
    He's going to have to include social issues if he wants the Evangelical Christian vote, and he probably will since he is a Baptist. That will bring in the Evangelicals, who refused to vote for a Mormon so stayed home from the polls.
    Does he want the extremist vote or does he want to win?
    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. #294
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by LaylaWindu View Post
    Wow that is just a dip**** move. I'll never understand the push to stop people from having rights. I mean don't get me wrong people can believe whatever they want but who they hell are they to try to deny others the same great rights, protections and freedoms we share in this country? It's childish and pathetic, it reminds me of watching bullies on some tv show hahaha
    pretty much
    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

  5. #295
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    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.
    well like i always there are millions of conservatives that are for the constitution and equal rights.
    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

  6. #296
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bicycleman View Post
    God defined marriage when he made Adam and Eve. He sure didn't make Adam and Steve.
    God and religion have nothing to do with legal marriage.
    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

  7. #297
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

    "The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

    The 14th says (among other things) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    And that's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
    The 10th grants the states the power over all things not granted to the federal government.

    The 14th grants the federal government the power to disallow states from denying people in their jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

    Thus, the 14th doesn't granted the Federal Government power over the definition of marriage EXCEPT in terms of disallowing states to deny people equal protection under the law.

    Note, the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about equal protection of the laws AS EXPLICITLY STATED IN TEH CONSTITUTION. Rather, it speaks of things in a broad sense. The state still has power over things that the constitution doesn't vest to the federal government, but when exercising that power they must not deny people equal protection of the law.

    If the states marriage law does not deny those within it's jurisdiction equal protection under the law, then the state has the power to do whatever they want. HOWEVER, if the state tries to deny people equal protection with regards to marriage or any law, the federal government...via the 14th...has power to take action. This does not conflict with the 10th, because the 10th says only powers that the federal government isn't given is vested to the states, and the 14th specifically gives the federal government power over ANY law that a state has that denys equal protection.

    Marriage laws forbidden same sex marriage do not provide equal protection under the law.

  8. #298
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I'll just say that being intolerant of bigotry doesn't make one a bigot.
    Actually it absolutely does. The problem is that people have so desperately wanted to take the word "bigot" and make it a universally insulting term, specifically so they can make themselves feel superior by having a special term to attack those they dislike, that they simply want to redefine the word to exclude themselves.

    Yes, being intolerant of bigotry is being bigoted towards bigotry. Trying to suggest it doesn't make one a bigot it laughable. The far more reasonable and practical argument is to simply state that being a bigot is not inherently a "bad" thing, but rather it's a question of WHAT one is being bigoted against that is the problem. The issue for people, and why they don't do that, is because that indicates that "bigot" as a BAD thing is a "subjective" notion not an "objective" one, and they often badly want it to be OBJECTIVE to suit their elitist attitudes.

    Yes, it's absolutely possible to be a "bigot" towards "bigotry". And the reality is often times what is portrayed as simply "bigotry towards bigotry" is actually "bigotry towards a wide variety of things, including benign things, but presented in a way as to make it appear that it's only really being done towards Bigotry".

  9. #299
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,843

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Actually it absolutely does. The problem is that people have so desperately wanted to take the word "bigot" and make it a universally insulting term, specifically so they can make themselves feel superior by having a special term to attack those they dislike, that they simply want to redefine the word to exclude themselves.
    It's Orwellian IMO to use the same term for the KKK and those who condemn the KKK.

    : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
    And it simply HAS BEEN a universally negative term. If I say, "Bob is a bigot" it simply isn't a neutral term that is useless without context. Could be he is intolerant of racists and anti-semites, could be he is a white supremacist!!

    BS. That's insulting, quite frankly. MLK wasn't a bigot (judged by the content of their character...) because he was intolerant of white racists and worked to eliminate rules that trampled on the rights of whites to discriminate against blacks. But white supremacists ARE bigots. Saudi Arabia's public policy towards religions other than Islam is bigoted. The U.S. tradition of religious tolerance is NOT.

    If you want to condemn liberals for being intolerant of some Christians and some of their views, and label that as bigotry, that's fine. As I said, that is common. We are all bigots in some ways. But you don't have to redefine the word to get there.

  10. #300
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    The 10th grants the states the power over all things not granted to the federal government.

    The 14th grants the federal government the power to disallow states from denying people in their jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

    Thus, the 14th doesn't granted the Federal Government power over the definition of marriage EXCEPT in terms of disallowing states to deny people equal protection under the law.

    Note, the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about equal protection of the laws AS EXPLICITLY STATED IN TEH CONSTITUTION. Rather, it speaks of things in a broad sense. The state still has power over things that the constitution doesn't vest to the federal government, but when exercising that power they must not deny people equal protection of the law.

    If the states marriage law does not deny those within it's jurisdiction equal protection under the law, then the state has the power to do whatever they want. HOWEVER, if the state tries to deny people equal protection with regards to marriage or any law, the federal government...via the 14th...has power to take action. This does not conflict with the 10th, because the 10th says only powers that the federal government isn't given is vested to the states, and the 14th specifically gives the federal government power over ANY law that a state has that denys equal protection.

    Marriage laws forbidden same sex marriage do not provide equal protection under the law.
    You've summed up what I've been saying except with your last line you've leaped past the USSC ruling.
    I, too, suggested that they will rule that way but it's still up to them and it's not quite a slam dunk.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

Page 30 of 46 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •