Page 31 of 46 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #301
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 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
    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.
    Actually, that is not at all what you have been saying. Quite the opposite.
    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. #302
    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
    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.
    Should've made it clearer I guess...

    The last line was not a statement of fact or suggesting what the USSC WILL rule, but rather my opinion regarding the issue. I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws.

  3. #303
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.

    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".

    This is similar to the popular talking point that liberals somehow are supposed to be tolerant of everything, which I know of no liberal actually claiming it. Liberals tend to talk about tolerance in terms of what people are, racially, orientationwise, religiously, and so on. I know of no liberal that thinks we need to be tolerant of every action or belief of any one. And so I m frequently called intolerant when I complain about actions people have taken, which I embrace. I am intolerant of my actions and beliefs, and make no claims otherwise.
    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.

  4. #304
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Should've made it clearer I guess...

    The last line was not a statement of fact or suggesting what the USSC WILL rule, but rather my opinion regarding the issue. I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws.
    I am still not convinced SCOTUS will buy into the gender argument. I have a feeling they will look at it from an orientation view, determine rational basis review for it, and then rule from that starting point. I have a feeling though that I may sit and watch a feed of the transcript of the arguments, as I really do think the justices are going to have some fascinating questions in both parts of the oral arguments, whether SSM bans are constitutional, and whether states can not recognize other states marriages. No matter how they rule on this, there are going to be some fascinating precedents set that could go well beyond the realm of 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.

  5. #305
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Should've made it clearer I guess...

    The last line was not a statement of fact or suggesting what the USSC WILL rule, but rather my opinion regarding the issue.
    I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws
    .
    In the Louisiana case, plaintiffs argued that barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation. Judge Feldman disagreed, writing in his decision to uphold the gay marriage ban that “neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual orientation as a protected class, despite opportunities to do so.”

    The 3 Arguments Against Gay Marriage That May Decide It Once and for All | TakePart

    So from that, it appears the argument in favor of the bans and their conflict with the EPC will be that while gender has been ruled to be a protected class relative to marriage, orientation hasn't ... yet.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  6. #306
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Actually, it is not true that a new law would immediately become enforceable until it went back up to the Court. For instance, a state could not make a law reenacting segregation or punishing interracial couples for getting married, banning interfaith couples from getting married and legitimately believe that such laws would be enforceable. People will likely try to enforce them, but that doesn't mean they couldn't face legal penalties/punishment of some kind for doing so since we already have Court decisions dealing with these issues.
    If lets say New York passed a segregation law, it would immediately become enforceable when the ink dries on the Governor's signature. However, you can bet that there would be a court injunction that go into effect at that same moment blocking enforcement.

    That's how our system works: Legislation becomes enforceable law when the Executive signs it, until such a time as the Judiciary invalidates it.

  7. #307
    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 Redress View Post
    I know of no liberal that thinks we need to be tolerant of every action or belief of any one.
    I agree. But I've known plenty of liberals that try to act or flat out claim they're not intolerant, because intolerance towards things they believe shouldn't be tolerated is somehow not intolerance in their view. Thankfully you generally aren't one of those, as indicated by...

    I am intolerant of my actions and beliefs, and make no claims otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I am still not convinced SCOTUS will buy into the gender argument.
    Oh, I agre. I don't think the SCOTUS will likely address the issue in this view. As I've said for some time...this issue, to me, isn't really ABOUT marriage. Marriage is simply the vehicle to get to the destination. What this really about is whether or not Sexual Orientation is some kind of designation that should be on par with things like race, religion, gender. If this gets ruled on from a gender perspective I think it'll likely not really solve anything from a legal stand point beyond this narrow question...and I think the SCOTUS understands this. So I think rather than addressing it in that fashion, especially since the people bringing it forward aren't addressing it in that fashion, they'll likely focus on it from an orientation fashion only.

    That doesn't change the fact that I personally think the clearest means of deciding this SPECIFIC issue is one of gender discrimination. In my mind there's legitimate questions as to whether or not marriage laws violate the lowest tier criteria of the EPC as I discussed earlier in this thread. There is NO question in my mind however that it doesn't violate the middle tier requirement. So that's why I tend to think of it, when talking about my personal views, in that fashion. But Yeah...I have no illusions that the SCOTUS is going to take it in that fashion.

    Agree 100% though, there's a lot of potential for interesting ramifications regarding precedence from this case.

  8. #308
    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
    In the Louisiana case, plaintiffs argued that barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation. Judge Feldman disagreed, writing in his decision to uphold the gay marriage ban that “neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual orientation as a protected class, despite opportunities to do so.”

    The 3 Arguments Against Gay Marriage That May Decide It Once and for All | TakePart

    So from that, it appears the argument in favor of the bans and their conflict with the EPC will be that while gender has been ruled to be a protected class relative to marriage, orientation hasn't ... yet.
    Read my post again, because your response makes it clear you didn't grasp it.

    I personally view this issue as not one of sexual orientation, but of GENDER. This is why I speak of it as "same sex marriage" not "homosexual marriage". To me, there IS a question as to whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against sexual orientation with regards to marriage. Which is what your link addresses.

    What I DON'T believe there's a legitimate question on is whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against gender with regards to marriage. Your links don't address that at all.

    Sexual orientation currently is viewed under the law as a lowest tier group in the EPC, though essentially one of the highest of that lowest tier (thus second basis rational test applying to it).

    Gender is currently viewed under the law as a middle their group in the EPC, and that requires a significantly higher criteria than does the sexual orientation argument.

    For Gender discrimination, you must show that it's substantially related to an important state interest.

    The reason I suggest it's gender discrimination is as such...

    A man can marry a woman. A woman can not marry a woman. Thus a man can do something under the law a woman cannot legally do.

    A woman can marry a man. A man can not marry a man. Thus a woman can do something under the law a man cannot legally do.

    Therefore, the law is discriminating on the basis of gender. To do that it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest; and I've simply not seen an argument that reaches that criteria in my opinion.

  9. #309
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    If lets say New York passed a segregation law, it would immediately become enforceable when the ink dries on the Governor's signature. However, you can bet that there would be a court injunction that go into effect at that same moment blocking enforcement.

    That's how our system works: Legislation becomes enforceable law when the Executive signs it, until such a time as the Judiciary invalidates it.
    And they would be subject to legal penalties for enforcing such a law.
    "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.

  10. #310
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Read my post again, because your response makes it clear you didn't grasp it.

    I personally view this issue as not one of sexual orientation, but of GENDER. This is why I speak of it as "same sex marriage" not "homosexual marriage". To me, there IS a question as to whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against sexual orientation with regards to marriage. Which is what your link addresses.

    What I DON'T believe there's a legitimate question on is whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against gender with regards to marriage. Your links don't address that at all.

    Sexual orientation currently is viewed under the law as a lowest tier group in the EPC, though essentially one of the highest of that lowest tier (thus second basis rational test applying to it).

    Gender is currently viewed under the law as a middle their group in the EPC, and that requires a significantly higher criteria than does the sexual orientation argument.

    For Gender discrimination, you must show that it's substantially related to an important state interest.

    The reason I suggest it's gender discrimination is as such...

    A man can marry a woman. A woman can not marry a woman. Thus a man can do something under the law a woman cannot legally do.

    A woman can marry a man. A man can not marry a man. Thus a woman can do something under the law a man cannot legally do.

    Therefore, the law is discriminating on the basis of gender. To do that it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest; and I've simply not seen an argument that reaches that criteria in my opinion.
    Believe me ... I understand your point.

    It's not complex, it's been said before, and I'm sure it's going to be part of what's presented for USSC review.

    However, you said "I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws "

    So all I was doing was giving you an example of analysis by someone who follows this who has seen such an example being presented.
    They're suggesting it's not gender discrimination but rather orientation that's at issue.
    You may not buy it and I'm not saying I buy it, but there it is and we don't matter.
    That's all.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

Page 31 of 46 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •