Page 36 of 46 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #351
    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
    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?
    Trying to scavenge for what a career politician really believes is rather pointless

    What matters is there is *no way* obama could afford, at the time, to nominate a SCOTUS judge solely based on their position on SSM. That he has never pushed for a bill in the legislature, even when the vast majority of voters believes he should, indicates it's not a priority. I mean hell, he won't even push for ENDA, which passed the senate but not the house and is arguably a much bigger deal for gay rights

    5 years after his most recent nominee, 36 states at minimum have legal SSM before SCOTUS even takes up the case. You're crediting/blaming the wrong person, whether axelrod is correct or not
    Last edited by chromium; 02-18-15 at 10:05 AM.

  2. #352
    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
    Take it up with Zyph and Lursa ... they believe they're on to a winning argument.
    i didn't care to read their epic long legalise that dehumanizes the orientation aspect that is central to both the opposition and movement the past 20 years

    I could tell from your own replies the gist of what they were saying so i replied to you instead

    god forbid i make known to u i agree with something, or that others might see it

  3. #353
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.
    My logic is that marriage complies with the Constitution because all are treated equally as far as marriage is concerned. Thus, bans based on race were not Constitutional. But I just said that in my prior post. Your assertion that race based marriage is included in this is false, and is not Constitutional.

    I realize that you need to equate race with SSM, but anyone being honest with themselves know that they are not the same.
    "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

  4. #354
    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
    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.
    If it was truly that important, than why would the restrictions in place via laws be so absolutely narrowly defined. This is kind of like saying one's health is important and thus you won't drink soda; but you will eat fast food, smoke cigerettes, never exercise, and chug massive amounts of alcohol. While you could make an argument that health SHOULD be important, there's clear evidence that the person doesn't actually TREAT it like it's important and thus...to them...it is not important.

    Similarly, when the government allows for all sorts of marriages that would NOT reduce the cost of custody hearings, child support questions, adoptions, inheritance, foster care, etc then the question becomes are those things truly an IMPORTANT State interest? Because they clearly are not treating it as such.

    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.
    Actually scienitific evidence shows your absolutely wrong here. Additionally, this goes back to the problem with trying to claim this is an "important" state interest. It's important to protect children from abusive parents; I'd argue FAR more important, considering there's actual verifiable evidence to show that an abused child is more likely to be an abuser themselves. And yet, the state has seemingly no interest in disallowing those who came from an abusive family from getting married and having kids despite the fact they're more likely to abuse their child.

    Know who else can be legally married? Convicted pedophiles. For such a supposedly "important" state interest, it seems the state has no real "interest" in protecting children from such couples.

    You're not actually showing any "important" state interests; not in any way that actually shows the state could legitimately claim it to be important given the fact that they routinely allow for a multitude of marriages that don't actually support that interest and in some ways conflict with it. This clearly then shows that the discrimination on the basis of gender isn't substantially related to a state interest, but rather substantially related to some other desire for discrimination.

  5. #355
    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
    There is no such thing in the Constitution.
    There is nothing in the constitution stating that seperate but equal is equal treatment either. There is no possible way to adjudicate on a law that attempts to treat citizens as "seperate but equal" with a 100% literalistic interpritation of the constitution because the constitution gives zero definitions for what "equal means". That kind of thing is part of the reason that the constitution established the court systems.

    The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. It does not define "equal". Therefore there must be some arbiter to determine whether or not something is actually equal.

    This arbiter has been established as the court system, which has since defined "equal" in such a way that seperate laws allowing for SIMILAR, but not the same, actions by various groups is not actually "equal".

    Since you're seemingly desiring to ignorantly go with an absolute 100% literalistic reading of the constitution....please highlight to me where in the constitution it defines what "equal" is regarding the law.

    It does not separate people by sex. All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
    Which is seperating people by sex.

    Saying "All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" and claiming that is "equal" is akin to saying "All persons are allowed to eat at a resturant designated for their race" and claiming THAT is "equal". They are inherently NOT equal, they are seperate and similar, but they are not EQUAL under the law.

    There is no way you can get around the fact that a Man, under the law, can marry a woman. And under the law, a woman is not allowed to do that. That is fact. It is absolutely impossible to suggest otherwise, lest you can provide me some evidenec of the law allowing a woman to marry a woman.

    The law allows for a man to do something that it bars a woman from doing. That is not equal protection under the law for those of different genders.

  6. #356
    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
    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?
    I explained my thoughts on this in the very post you quoted. If you don't bother to read my posts why should I bother to retype what I've already stated.

    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?
    1. You haven't actually stated the "slippery slope byproduct". Perhaps if you actually made an argument as to what you think MIGHT occur then I could actually address the substance of what you're saying, as a slippery slope in and of itself is not an automatic disqualification of an argument that has additional factors surrounding it. The problem is that you've actually given zero argument. The ONLY thing you've offered is a slippery slope "Think of what it could lead to" statement without ANY actual argument or explanation of what the hell you're talking about. When you don't actually provide any useful information beyond the slippery slope it's hard to address anything BUT the slippery slope.

    2. The slippery slope isn't, in and of itself, an argument against the constitutionality of something. Someone stating we must allow the KKK to protest because of freedom of speech isn't countered on a constitutional basis by going "But if we let them speak, think of what that could lead to!". That is all you're doing. Pointing out your slippery slope doesn't tie your hands from actually offering up a counter to my point regarding the constitutionality of my argument; all it does is tie your hands from attempting to counter it simply by going "But think what could happen....!" and offering up no other intelligent argument.

  7. #357
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:57 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
    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."
    Really, no one? I wonder what google thinks about that....Wow, turns out they have been arguing that, and in court. And the courts are split on the topic. Here, let's look at one of the top returns...

    Same-sex marriage bans: Courts should strike them down as sex discrimination.

    But the courts disagreed about a different question: whether the state anti-gay marriage laws discriminate based on sex. The New Mexico Supreme Court and the federal court in Oklahoma both ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not discriminate based on sex, while the federal court in Utah held that it did
    Well...

    Here is the ruling in the Utah case: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf

    Starting on page 34, you will see that not only was it argued in front of the court, but the court agreed with the argument that it would be sex based discrimination.
    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.

  8. #358
    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
    My logic is that marriage complies with the Constitution because all are treated equally as far as marriage is concerned. Thus, bans based on race were not Constitutional. But I just said that in my prior post. Your assertion that race based marriage is included in this is false, and is not Constitutional.

    I realize that you need to equate race with SSM, but anyone being honest with themselves know that they are not the same.
    No, that is not your logic, that is your thinking, your attempt to justify the difference between how you feel about same sex couples and how you feel about interracial couples and the laws that affect/affected each of them. Logically, everyone is not treated the same because men cannot marry men, but women can marry men, just as a white person could not marry a black person, but a black person could marry a black person. In both cases, people are prevented from doing something based on a characteristic such as race or sex (note, that is sex, not sexuality). Or, according to your logic, everyone is treated equally because everyone is restricted from marrying someone based on that characteristic of either race or sex. It was your misuse of logic that is the problem, the same logic that was attempted to justify interracial marriage bans, you are using to attempt to justify same sex marriage bans.

    I am making a comparison between race and sex, since it is same sex marriage, and same sex couples that are being prevented.
    "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.

  9. #359
    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
    "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.
    What the hell is up with the polygamy/incest track lately? Do you even support these?

    Here are some reasons for you:

    incest leads to at minimum 20% of offspring having early death or major disability
    coercion/lack of consent is very likely when it involves direct family (similar to employer/worker marriage)

    polygamy would lead to multitudes of legal entanglements related to divorce/custody/inheritance/blackmail/testimony

    no one to my knowledge can only fall in love with multiple wives or their sister but that is not the case for homosexuals-same sex

    i don't know of any studies on genetically healthy offspring or even adoptions of incestuous/polygamous couples so the book is out on those

    hetero marriage has a lot more in common with SSM than SSM does with polygamy/incest. Gender of one partner is a rather trivial difference

    you have no evidence either slippery slope would come to pass, and indeed it has not in any country the past 15 years. Search gallup to see about 5% in *all* age groups support polygamy. Support for SSM hasn't been that low since 1960, so i'll get back to you in half a century. I can't even find a poll on incest. It's a nonstarter, the "universal taboo"

  10. #360
    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 Hamster Buddha View Post
    "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.
    Actually, both polygamy and incest have been "examined" and in fact challenged more often in the past (as in greater than about 15 years ago) and in the case of incest succeeded more at least in gaining changes in the laws (although not from court cases) before same sex marriage started to get challenged. First cousins, which is still incest, are legally able to get married in about 25 states, and this was true before any states allowed same sex couples to legally marry.

    We look into these things based on the reasoning the states have/can show for restricting/banning them, not on the reasons that they should be allowed or the fact alone that they are restricted, such relationships are not protected.
    "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.

Page 36 of 46 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... 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
  •