Page 35 of 46 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #341
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,833

    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, 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.
    Are the feds involved in the bedrooms of straight couples? If they have sex, ever? How many times? Anal? Oral? Then why do you assume that SSM is about that?

    Is your marriage defined by the kind and amount of sex that you have? Hell, most married couples have less and less sex as time goes on, lol.

    This has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom...many straight couples do ALL the same things. Are their marriages scrutinized? Limited? No.

    It's about gender and equal protection under the law.
    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.

  2. #342
    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
    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.

    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.
    i would expect someone like ted cruz or rick santorum to say they'd pick a SCOTUS judge based on what god tells them to do

    we should believe david axelrod, who was *selling a book*, because?

    i said years ago i believe obama is atheist. However, that is a far cry from suggesting he would pick a SCOTUS judge based solely on their stance on SSM. It wouldn't matter anyway, because opinions change. I doubt very much Roberts would've been nominated if he had supported SSM at the time, yet it wouldn't surprise me at all if he voted in favor in june. Same with the other 3 judges who will vote in favor that were on the bench long before obama was prez

  3. #343
    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
    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.
    It would not only fail, but we hardly need to detract from the real issue, which is it's about gay rights, not gender rights.

    This idea that a hetero man is deprived of the right to marry another hetero man, or for 2 hetero females to marry, not only undermines the struggle of gay couples but is obviously absurd. Heterosexuals being unable to marry the same sex, where is the harm done? How would they even be granted standing in a court?

  4. #344
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,559

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Remember, constitutional precedence establishes "separate but equal" is equal treatment under the law.
    There is no such thing in the Constitution.

    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.
    It does not separate people by sex. All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's why you can't prohibit marriage based on race. The rules of marriage are applied equally to all. There is no requirement to like, love, or be attracted to that person.
    "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

  5. #345
    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 Anthony60 View Post
    There is no such thing in the Constitution.

    It does not separate people by sex. All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's why you can't prohibit marriage based on race. The rules of marriage are applied equally to all. There is no requirement to like, love, or be attracted to that person.
    Wait, what? The rules of marriage were applied equally to all when it came to race and interracial marriage bans according to your logic since all persons were allowed to marry someone of the same race. Everyone treated equally under those laws, according to the same logic that would say everyone is treated equally by the laws if they are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
    "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.

  6. #346
    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 Lursa View Post
    While I dont really care if either of those was legal, I have yet to hear any arguments why they should not. Some may exist, but they havent been examined to the extent that SSM has (that I've seen).
    "Homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being offered the same protections as heterosexual marriages!"

    Insert either polygamy/incest in place of homosexual. Now I do agree that they haven't been examined as much, and part of that lies in the fact that so long as there is a state that bans SSM, then we're not ever going to examines these instances. It's like trying to legalize cocaine before everyone has a chance to see that legalizing marijuana won't make the sky fall. In truth, I think it all should be legal as long as the same caveats that are in place for straight couples apply.

    Now that I think of it, the same reasons for maintaining a SSM ban are the same as would be for incest/polygamy, i.e. it's disgusting or think of the kids sort of stuff.

  7. #347
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.



    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.



    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.
    I've known what your argument has been but if no one has been arguing against SSM bans using your gender argument, why do you think that is?
    And you claim that I haven't given a reason why your argument is wrong while at the same time dismissing its' resulting slippery slope byproduct kind of ties my hands a bit, don't you think?
    To that you'd say "The slippery slope is not a legal argument" and to that I'd say "When you think about it, the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom."
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  8. #348
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    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.
    That's long ago been established as the proposition by Zyph.
    But it's still a red herring.
    I hesitate to continue this because I have that whole other thing going here, but how many same gender couples who aren't gay do you know of who want to marry?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  9. #349
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    It would not only fail, but we hardly need to detract from the real issue, which is it's about gay rights, not gender rights.

    This idea that a hetero man is deprived of the right to marry another hetero man, or for 2 hetero females to marry, not only undermines the struggle of gay couples but is obviously absurd. Heterosexuals being unable to marry the same sex, where is the harm done? How would they even be granted standing in a court?
    Take it up with Zyph and Lursa ... they believe they're on to a winning argument.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  10. #350
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    i would expect someone like ted cruz or rick santorum to say they'd pick a SCOTUS judge based on what god tells them to do

    we should believe david axelrod, who was *selling a book*, because?

    i said years ago i believe obama is atheist. However, that is a far cry from suggesting he would pick a SCOTUS judge based solely on their stance on SSM. It wouldn't matter anyway, because opinions change. I doubt very much Roberts would've been nominated if he had supported SSM at the time, yet it wouldn't surprise me at all if he voted in favor in june. Same with the other 3 judges who will vote in favor that were on the bench long before obama was prez
    There is other evidence about Obama and SSM beside Axelrod's book.
    Do I really need to present it to you?
    You really find it hard to believe seeing what you've seen these past 6 years?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

Page 35 of 46 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •