Page 32 of 46 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #311
    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
    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.
    No you weren't, because the links you provided didn't speak about the issue from a gender stand point but from an oreintation standpoint. Those are two different things with two different arguments and two different standards.

  2. #312
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,295

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No you weren't,
    because the links you provided didn't speak about the issue from a gender stand point
    but from an oreintation standpoint. Those are two different things with two different arguments and two different standards.
    Gender is protected
    That's already been decided.
    Why would you want anyone to show how current marriage laws protect gender?
    Yes. They are different. Gender & orientation are different. Obviously.
    I believe it was the end of the piece that I was referring to.
    The point was that the argument would be that the Court should not be deciding the case in terms of gender but rather orientation.
    That gender should not be considered above orientation.
    The argument would be that orientation is not protected (and the piece claimed it has never been given that protection) regardless of the fact that every person also possesses a gender.

    Now what?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  3. #313
    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
    This whole notion about Presidents not having a good sense how their Judicial appointments would decide is almost too bizarre to entertain.
    When your argument starts with and stays on the granular level (e.g. SSM) then there's never any common ground in sight.
    Obama and every President looks at how their potential nominees have decided cases and then decides if they can get them through the process since the political opposition is doing the same thing.
    That's all I'm saying and it's so obvious I get the feeling we're talking past each other.

    In the case of Obama, his appointees have not disappointed him so far and likely won't with SSM.
    And if you want to stay granular as with SSM itself, Obama has favored it before he was elected the 1st time and it's reasonable to assume he'd make appointments that he believed would decide that way.

    You disagree with any of that?
    The public should pay more attention and there should be more grilling of the candidates based on their standards for appointing federal judges, because it's one of the most significant decisions the president makes. That being said, obama has appointed a whopping 2 of 9 judges so blaming him for the inevitable outcome is nonsense, particularly in light of comments like these:

    "I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know thatís true in the African-American community, for example." - interview with a *gay newspaper* as illinois senator

    "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ó for me ó for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. Godís in the mix.Ē - 2008 presidential race, sounding a lot like ted cruz or any other bigot

    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage" - also 2008

    "I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage" - October 2010, after nominating the 2 judges to SCOTUS who will vote in this year's case

    "Iíve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.Ē - May 9, 2012, earliest public statement of his i can find that supports SSM

    So are you saying that by 2010, when he appointed these 2 judges, he demanded voting to strike down ALL bans on SSM as some kind of litmus test? Where is your evidence for THAT?

  4. #314
    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 vesper View Post
    From what I gather Cruz's bill is focused on states rights. If states stop issuing marriage licenses, what then?
    The governor and the legislature get voted out and the law repealed.
    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..

  5. #315
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Gender is protected
    That's already been decided.
    Why would you want anyone to show how current marriage laws protect gender?
    Yes. They are different. Gender & orientation are different. Obviously.
    I believe it was the end of the piece that I was referring to.
    The point was that the argument would be that the Court should not be deciding the case in terms of gender but rather orientation.
    That gender should not be considered above orientation.
    The argument would be that orientation is not protected (and the piece claimed it has never been given that protection) regardless of the fact that every person also possesses a gender.

    Now what?

    You srill do not understand the point Zyphlin is making. He is saying that anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination, not discrimination based on orientation. The logic goes thus: there is no current laws stating a gay person cannot marry, nor am I familiar with any such laws. There are no test for orientation when you get married. What anti-SSM laws do he is arguing is discriminate on the basis of gender. There is something a woman can do a man cannot, namely marry a man. And likewise vice versa. As such anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination which would fall under Intermediate Scrutiny, which such laws would clearly not be able to pass. The only chance for anti-SSM laws is if Rational Basis Review is used, and even then anti-SSM laws could very well be ruled to violate EPC. Whether homosexuals are a protected class is mostly irrelevant.

    Oh, and your source is a good example why some one with a film studies degree who writes fluff pieces should not write their opinions about complex issues.
    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. #316
    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 Hamster Buddha View Post
    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
    I grew up around that mentality. It was so suffocating that you could not have an actual discussion. It was just "screw the homos" and any disagreement would be social death. So i've listened enough for a lifetime. It's not that i don't get it, but that i fundamentally reject their position at all levels. Now...

    Well, although i do know a fair number don't care either way and will despise gay couples regardless, i always disagree with those who say it being a choice or not makes no diff. If it were a choice, the response from just about everyone would simply be "So stop being gay and get a hetero marriage," and that's the end of it. The paradox here is that removes any real choice from the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    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.
    Was there a choice to blacks under jim crow? Could they stop being black in order to enter the restaurant? Did that stop them from arresting rosa parks? You just don't get that many are so hateful they DO NOT CARE to see things from another human's perspective. It is about hate of the 'other' and refusal to conform, *not* conservatism. That's why many liberals opposed gay rights until recently, and many conservatives are now supporting it. The ones who do not are merely hiding their hate behind conservative label


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    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."
    That would be seriously off topic but yes, in plenty of online comments there were "kill the fags" and so on. You seem really in denial about the depth hatred can sink to and why, because your grandma (what we call anecdotal evidence) told you otherwise?

    But anyway, i'm no more sympathetic to "keep it out of my face" whining. It's the same idiocy. I can post here dozens of pics of hetero athletes in make out sessions with their girlfriends, right in front of tv camera. For christ sakes, Sam was kissing his bf right in his own house!

    So yes, it had everything to do with them being gay


    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'm under no obligation to put up with neanderthals (if you prefer that word more) who insist i am a 2nd class citizen and inferior to them, just because my brain tells me to like dick. Intolerance of intolerance etc


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    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.
    i called ted cruz a bigot, not you, because he is one. You take it personally because of your grandma? Well that is not my problem. My problem is that she can and probably has voted to deny my rights.

    Find me an argument against SSM that i can't paraphrase as "i'm better than you" and perhaps i will change my mind that opposing SSM is bigotry. I conclude this because i've yet to hear any such argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    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.
    Know what the #1 cause of changing opinions on SSM? Befriending a gay person. Finding out they aren't all pedophiles, in collusion with the devil to destroy the family, and all the other sordid insults i have heard. In 2015, that should not be difficult. That's really on the opposition for refusing to be too afraid to even be in a position to understand.

  7. #317
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You srill do not understand the point Zyphlin is making. He is saying that anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination, not discrimination based on orientation. The logic goes thus: there is no current laws stating a gay person cannot marry, nor am I familiar with any such laws. There are no test for orientation when you get married. What anti-SSM laws do he is arguing is discriminate on the basis of gender. There is something a woman can do a man cannot, namely marry a man. And likewise vice versa. As such anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination which would fall under Intermediate Scrutiny, which such laws would clearly not be able to pass. The only chance for anti-SSM laws is if Rational Basis Review is used, and even then anti-SSM laws could very well be ruled to violate EPC. Whether homosexuals are a protected class is mostly irrelevant.

    Oh, and your source is a good example why some one with a film studies degree who writes fluff pieces should not write their opinions about complex issues.
    I think the biggest problem that the laws/states face even at the rational basis review level is that animus toward homosexuals can be shown in these laws because of the fact that many of them specifically deny all rights and privileges that come with legal marriage to same sex couples. That, coupled with the recent spat of laws that some states with these bans are trying to pass that show even further animus, only add to the validity of the animus claim, something the Court has looked down upon in laws at least a few times.
    "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.

  8. #318
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    I don't like Jindal. He seems fake. The guy even changed his name. Why did he change his name? He should be proud of his heritage. He seems like a follower.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Add Jindal to the list
    Jindal won't 'evolve' on same-sex marriage - CNN.com

    he wants a constitutional amendment in favor of bans lol, does he also plan on removing the 14th? lol

  9. #319
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,295

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    The public should pay more attention and there should be more grilling of the candidates based on their standards for appointing federal judges,
    because it's one of the most significant decisions the president makes. That being said,
    obama has appointed a whopping 2 of 9 judges so blaming him for the inevitable outcome is nonsense
    , particularly in light of comments like these:

    "I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example." - interview with a *gay newspaper* as illinois senator

    "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - 2008 presidential race, sounding a lot like ted cruz or any other bigot

    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage" - also 2008

    "I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage" - October 2010, after nominating the 2 judges to SCOTUS who will vote in this year's case

    "I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” - May 9, 2012, earliest public statement of his i can find that supports SSM

    So are you saying that by 2010, when he appointed these 2 judges, he demanded voting to strike down ALL bans on SSM as some kind of litmus test? Where is your evidence for THAT?
    1) You can grill a candidate until you both pass out but every candidate's answers will be the same. Doesn't hurt to ask, though ... maybe one of them will slip up and tell the truth.

    2) As for his 2 appointments, curious you suggest there'd be "blame" if SSM bans are ruled unconstitutional. The point is that Obama and every President has a very comfortable sense of their nominees "temperament" before they nominate them. In Obama's case, his 2 Liberal nominees replace 2 somewhat centrist Justices so, yes, he made a ban on the ban more likely.

    3)Those Obama quotes that are meant to indicate how he had been opposed to SSM before he was for it were identified as bullcrap by no less than David Axelrod who spilled the beans on Obama in his book.
    This may be a shock to some people, but Obama lied.
    He does that a lot, you know.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  10. #320
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
    Who cares? It was the sincere belief of many people, esp. in the South, that marriage between the races was wrong.

    This is about equal treatment under the law. Personal beliefs should not permit harm to others for no good reason (the states have not been able to prove that there any harm to state interests).

    Politicians should be aware of this, dont you think? Such willful waste of taxpayer $ is irresponsible....just obvious pandering.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 32 of 46 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... 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
  •