Page 34 of 46 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #331
    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 Blue_State View Post
    Why do we accept the state's ability to say who can and can't marry who? All for a damn tax write off. Ridiculous. But of course...taxation doesn't take any power away from you.
    No, for protection that comes from a recognition of kinship. That is the most important part about legal marriage. It establishes a legal kinship, just as birth certificates and adoption records establish a legal kinship between parents and children.
    "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.

  2. #332
    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 Lursa View Post
    IMO however, there is definitely such state interest. The benefits of marriage extend to more protections for the children in these families, regarding things like custody, adoption rights for both parents, additional stability for the family unit, etc.
    The question isn't whether or not there is a state interest.

    The question, when it comes to gender discrimination, isn't even if there is a legitimate state interest.

    The question for gender discrimination is whether or not there is an important state interest.

    Your state interest you seem to be speaking about is that the notion of promoting a stable "family units" and "protection" for children.

    While a reasonable argument can be put forth to suggest this is a legitimate state interest, I think it's hard to put forward one suggesting it's an important state interest. If this was such an "important" state interest then why does the state allow for people who have zero intent to become a "Family unit" consistent of children get married? If its to promote having children while also supposedly to help promote the safety of the children, why do they allow it for women over age 40 which significantly increases the chances of the child being born with significant birth defects. 10% of all couples in this country experience issues of infertility making their ability to actually form such a "family unit" a medical improbability, and yet they're allowed to be married. You bring up adoption, seemingly as some basis for creating this family unit, but in such cases disallowing same sex coupling actually lowers the potential pool of individuals in such a stable relationship to gain such children.

    While one could potentially argue this is a legitimate state interest, it is extremely difficult to argue that it's a truly important state interest when the state seemingly time and time and time again has absolutely zero problems with allowing for marriages in situations where said "State interest" won't actually come into play. If it was truly an important state interest it would stand to reason that the state would seek to disallow such situations in more ways than SIMPLY same sex marriages.

    This also goes back to the fact that for the gender discrimination to be legitimate, the state must not only show that it has an important state interest but that the discrimination is substantially related to serving that state interest.

  3. #333
    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
    Zyph, the fact that a gay man can marry a straight woman and a straight man can marry a gay woman (if that's your entire point) and so SSM is an EPC Constitutional right may be a novel argument to make but are you sure you want to make it as the foundation of the fight against SSM ban?
    Think about the implications.
    I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but you clearly are not seeming to understand me by your continual effort to address my point from the notion of sexual orientation, such as above by talking about gay men, straight women, etc.

    My statements on gender have NOTHING to do with orientation.

    A MAN is legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

    A WOMAN is not legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

    As such, under the law a Man is legally allowed the ability to do something (marry a woman) that a woman is not allowed to do.

    That is discrimination based on gender. That is the law allowing a man to do something that it does not allow a woman to do (and vise versa).

    For that discrimination to be constitutional, it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest.

    My point has NOTHING to do with orientation. Nothing at all. None. It is SOLELY focused on gender and gender discrimination.

    It is solely focused on the law allowing a woman to do something that it does not allow a man to do (marry a man), and allowing a man to do something a woman is not allowed to do (marry a woman).

    As to what I "want"...I've stated clearly, this is my opinion regarding why I feel our marriage laws are unconstitutional, and it's my opinion that it's far and away the strongest constitutional argument against our marriage laws. Significantly stronger than arguing against them from a basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. Whether or not other people wish to use it as the foundation of their argument against our marriage laws is entirely irrelevant to me, nor does it have any impact as to the legitimacy of the logic I put forward. Furthermore, attempting to appeal to emotion by pointing to an imaginary slippery slope also is not a legitimate counter argument to the logic I am putting forth, but rather is simply an attempt to raise the specter of a boogeyman to attempt to silence such claims.

  4. #334
    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
    I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but you clearly are not seeming to understand me by your continual effort to address my point from the notion of sexual orientation, such as above by talking about gay men, straight women, etc.

    My statements on gender have NOTHING to do with orientation.

    A MAN is legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

    A WOMAN is not legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

    As such, under the law a Man is legally allowed the ability to do something (marry a woman) that a woman is not allowed to do.

    That is discrimination based on gender. That is the law allowing a man to do something that it does not allow a woman to do (and vise versa).

    For that discrimination to be constitutional, it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest.

    My point has NOTHING to do with orientation. Nothing at all. None. It is SOLELY focused on gender and gender discrimination.

    It is solely focused on the law allowing a woman to do something that it does not allow a man to do (marry a man), and allowing a man to do something a woman is not allowed to do (marry a woman).

    As to what I "want"...I've stated clearly, this is my opinion regarding why I feel our marriage laws are unconstitutional, and it's my opinion that it's far and away the strongest constitutional argument against our marriage laws. Significantly stronger than arguing against them from a basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. Whether or not other people wish to use it as the foundation of their argument against our marriage laws is entirely irrelevant to me, nor does it have any impact as to the legitimacy of the logic I put forward. Furthermore, attempting to appeal to emotion by pointing to an imaginary slippery slope also is not a legitimate counter argument to the logic I am putting forth, but rather is simply an attempt to raise the specter of a boogeyman to attempt to silence such claims.
    I understand you but I can't imagine anyone would try to argue that before the SC.
    Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.
    You know it does and so does everyone else.
    The Court would recognize that too.
    You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.
    You stood on your head to try to make it appear otherwise.
    But that's what the fight is all about.
    Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  5. #335
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,578

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but you clearly are not seeming to understand me by your continual effort to address my point from the notion of sexual orientation, such as above by talking about gay men, straight women, etc.

    My statements on gender have NOTHING to do with orientation.

    A MAN is legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

    A WOMAN is not legally allowed under our marriage laws to marry a woman. The orientation of both are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

    As such, under the law a Man is legally allowed the ability to do something (marry a woman) that a woman is not allowed to do.
    Those that want the feds to get involved in the bedroom invoke the 14th amendment, even though it is common knowledge that it was written to solidify rights for former slaves, and had nothing to do with SSM.

    They try to apply it to fit what they want, yet ignore the unambiguous fact that you stated, that marriage is applied equally to all. They ignore that they seek to change the definition of marriage, since there is no way to apply the 14th to that at all.

    So their strategy is to ignore those facts, skip over them, and act as if they just don't exist.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #336
    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
    Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.
    I'm not suggesting the law has nothing to do with orientation. I'm suggesting that the reason why I think it's unconstitutional has nothing to do with orientation.

    Whether or not other people have an issue with it in terms of orientation doesn't actually offer up any counter point for my argument regarding gender.

    You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.
    I'm not dismissing that there's a legitimate question regarding the constitutional nature of our marriage laws as it relates to sexual orientation.

    I'm simply suggesting that is not the ONLY way in which the marriage laws are potentially unconstitutional.

    The fact you have still yet to put forward ANY counter to the argument I've put forth other than simply trying to go "That doesn't matter" speaks VOLUMES.

    Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)
    I have not heard that people are arguing before the court based on gender. Indeed, I've stated repeatedly in this thread and others that I don't believe people will generally push the issue on that means, because I believe most of those pushing the issue of same sex marriage before the courts aren't actually concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of our marriage laws but rather that they have a broader issue with regards to the status of sexual orientation and it's protection within the law and the simply see marriage as a vehicle to push that issue. As such, it would be counter productive to their TRUE intent to push the issue from the basis of gender discrimination. I've acknowledged this repeatedly here, and elsewhere, in stating that I don't expect that this angle to be pushed in the court system to any substantial degree.

    However, it's not entirely off base as a legal argument, as there has been court cases where Judges have suggested in their opinions that there may be a legitimate question regrading the constitutionality of the laws as it relates to gender.

    As to your "repeat" statement, I will once again "repeat" that you pushing a slipper slope boogeyman is not a legitimate argument against the point that I've continued to make (and you've continued to fail to provide one actual reason why it's wrong), but is rather simply a fallacious attempt to suggest that the point should simply be ignored due to potential unknown consequences that MAY occur.

  7. #337
    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 Anthony60 View Post
    Those that want the feds to get involved in the bedroom invoke the 14th amendment
    Marriage has nothing to do with feds being in the bedroom. Rather, it has everything to do with individual citizens demanding special privileges under the law for entering into a contract with one another.

    even though it is common knowledge that it was written to solidify rights for former slaves, and had nothing to do with SSM.
    Actually, the correct statement would be the 14th was written to solidify that individual citizens must have equal protection under the law. If the intent was to be narrowly and singularly applied to slaves than it would have been written in such a way to specify that it was to only apply to slaves and only apply to specific situations. It was not written in such a way. Thus, just as the 2nd amendment is a broadly stated right, so too is the 14th....citizens are protected from the government treating them unequally under the law.

    unambiguous fact that you stated, that marriage is applied equally to all.
    I have stated no such "fact", because said "fact" you claim is actually absolutely false.

    Marriage laws are NOT equally applied to all.

    Unless you're telling me that a man is able to do the same thing under the law as a woman and marry a man?

    Remember, constitutional precedence establishes "separate but equal" is equal treatment under the law. Just as you can not say "Every citizen is free to eat at restaurants, specifically restaurants that are made for their race", it is also not right to say "Every citizen is free to marry another citizen, specifically another citizen of the gender we designate". In both situations you're providing an instance under the law where you are trying to claim is "Separate but equal". Separate but equal is unequal.

  8. #338
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,358
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I understand you but I can't imagine anyone would try to argue that before the SC.
    Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.
    You know it does and so does everyone else.
    The Court would recognize that too.
    You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.
    You stood on your head to try to make it appear otherwise.
    But that's what the fight is all about.
    Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)

    Ummmm...that thing you cannot imagine being argued in from of the SC...it not only could be, but almost definitely will as it was part of the ruling that is being challenged. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in part that the case did not merit heightened scrutiny and rejected arguments of gender discrimination. That also happens to be one of the cases that SCOTUS will be hearing arguments on, and the case that led to SCOTUS having to act. Another case, Kitchen v. Herbert, the US District Court stated specifically that heightened Scrutiny was called for due to it being gender discrimination, though went on to say the law failed even under Rational Basis Review. SCOTUS denied appeal on that one, leaving that ruling intact.

    There is nothing wrong with not knowing all the details about the legal issues. There are alot of them and it gets complex, especially when you do not really understand the issues involved. But instead of telling people who know more about the issue why they are wrong, you might instead ask them why they feel they are right, and learn and study(I recommend starting with SCOTUSBlog as having some great writeups on most of the cases) before you say things as patently absurd as no one is going to argue a fundamental point of the case.
    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.

  9. #339
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The question isn't whether or not there is a state interest.

    The question, when it comes to gender discrimination, isn't even if there is a legitimate state interest.

    The question for gender discrimination is whether or not there is an important state interest.

    Your state interest you seem to be speaking about is that the notion of promoting a stable "family units" and "protection" for children.

    While a reasonable argument can be put forth to suggest this is a legitimate state interest, I think it's hard to put forward one suggesting it's an important state interest. If this was such an "important" state interest then why does the state allow for people who have zero intent to become a "Family unit" consistent of children get married? If its to promote having children while also supposedly to help promote the safety of the children, why do they allow it for women over age 40 which significantly increases the chances of the child being born with significant birth defects. 10% of all couples in this country experience issues of infertility making their ability to actually form such a "family unit" a medical improbability, and yet they're allowed to be married. You bring up adoption, seemingly as some basis for creating this family unit, but in such cases disallowing same sex coupling actually lowers the potential pool of individuals in such a stable relationship to gain such children.

    While one could potentially argue this is a legitimate state interest, it is extremely difficult to argue that it's a truly important state interest when the state seemingly time and time and time again has absolutely zero problems with allowing for marriages in situations where said "State interest" won't actually come into play. If it was truly an important state interest it would stand to reason that the state would seek to disallow such situations in more ways than SIMPLY same sex marriages.

    This also goes back to the fact that for the gender discrimination to be legitimate, the state must not only show that it has an important state interest but that the discrimination is substantially related to serving that state interest.
    I believe it's an important state's interest because it can reduce costs custody hearings, child support questions, adoptions, inheritance, foster care (for ex. currently if not married, only one person in the couple can be the legal adoptor. If the couple breaks up, the other person has no legal right to the child). In general it saves overall because if the couple is legally married, all the questions resolving these issues, and more, are settled.

    It also serve to further protect the children of gay couples which I also believe is in the state's and children's best interests.

    Regarding some of your questions....the state does not currently control the reproduction of straight or gay people. Seems irrelevant.

    I have never disputed that this seems clearly a gender discrimination issue however I also see clear reasons for the states to support it.
    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.

  10. #340
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I understand you but I can't imagine anyone would try to argue that before the SC.
    Saying the law has nothing to do with orientation is an obfuscation on your part.
    You know it does and so does everyone else.
    The Court would recognize that too.
    You can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't.
    You stood on your head to try to make it appear otherwise.
    But that's what the fight is all about.
    Did you actually hear what you've been proposing will be a legal argument? (and I repeat, think about the implications if it's successful)
    Gay people, as has been pointed out, have always been allowed to marry. There are no questions, no relevant criteria, in the marriage 'contract' regarding that. So sexual orientation doesnt seem to be the issue. Same gender couples does. That is gender discrimination.
    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 34 of 46 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •