Page 37 of 46 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #361
    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
    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
    Okay ... lemme say this one more time.
    A POTUS won't quiz a potential Judicial nominee about their position on particular issues likely to come before them and if he did the honest Judge wouldn't answer.
    He/she doesn't have to ask anything that specific.
    The Judges' backgrounds and decisions are known and thoroughly reviewed by a POTUS' staff before ever being suggested as a nominee.
    Obama would never think to nominate a Scalia, for instance.
    Now, can a nominee unpleasantly surprise his/her nominating POTUS after they take the Bench? Sure. I can think of a couple off-hand. But far and away a POTUS will get what they expected.

    As far as Obama evolving on SSM, you can believe he's been sincere but sincerity has never been one of his strengths.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  2. #362
    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 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?
    It can win on gay rights alone, but it is still gender discrimination being used to restrict marriage when it comes to same sex marriage bans, hence the "sex" part. This restriction however affects homosexuals mainly because they are the ones most likely to enter into a same sex marriage.

    It is the same as with interracial marriage bans going down. Very few people, even today (although the amount are slowly increasing), exercise their right to enter into an interracial marriage, but everyone has the legal right to do so and everyone was restricted from doing so based on their race, not their attractions in the past. Now, everyone is restricted from entering into a same sex marriage, not just homosexuals. Homosexuals are just the most likely to do so. Homosexuals enter into opposite sex marriages all time, many as cover or for money (such as in the military to gain benefits). Removing restrictions on same sex marriages removes them for all, not just homosexuals.

    Logically, the argument that same sex marriage restrictions are gender discrimination is absolutely sound. The problem is that people don't want to admit that marriages take place for reasons other than love or some fairy tale belief. Even our courts try this. In reality though, sexuality should not really matter when it comes to standing, what should matter is that if two people of the same sex are prevented from marrying each other when they want to make each other their legal spouses, it shouldn't matter what each of their sexualities are. If my divorced mother and her best friend (a recently widowed woman she has known for about 20 years) decided that getting married would benefit them, what difference is that from my grandmother and grandfather who were divorced and considering getting remarried only because it would benefit them (not because they were actually in love)?
    "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.

  3. #363
    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
    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
    Boy, epic is right.
    It's like some people can't accept that you understand what they're saying but that you simply don't agree because you see it as an end-around play run to provide deniability about the obvious.
    But who the hell knows...in the end they could win the decision with it.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  4. #364
    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 bubbabgone View Post
    Boy, epic is right.
    It's like some people can't accept that you understand what they're saying but that you simply don't agree because you see it as an end-around play run to provide deniability about the obvious.
    But who the hell knows...in the end they could win the decision with it.
    It is more like people don't want to hear anything past "marry for love". That is not reality. Marriage occurs even in the US for many reasons.
    "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.

  5. #365
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,625

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    No, that's what I'm saying. SSM is an issue, must like drugs incidentally, that the nation has been softening on for about a decade. And there are serious legal issues raises when you try to extend the 14th amendment to protect legal agreements (which is really what SSM is all about). It opens up the doors for all sorts of other issues like incest and polygamy. I'm not saying that loving someone of the same sex is a choice, but to enter into a legal agreement that says such is. See the difference?
    Same 'logic' can be used for interracial marriage leading to men marrying goats...

    A fail then, a fail now.

    You can 'what if' any legal topic... the bottomline is the law can't deny a citizen equal access.

  6. #366
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    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.
    Sex-based marriage is similarly unconstitutional.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #367
    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
    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.



    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
    You mean you can't envision any examples without my help? Would any example matter to you if you could?
    I get to ask some questions too so, again, is this true or not ... "the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom." .
    And if it's not true, give me examples.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  8. #368
    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 bubbabgone View Post
    You mean you can't envision any examples without my help? Would any example matter to you if you could?
    I get to ask some questions too so, again, is this true or not ... "the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom." .
    And if it's not true, give me examples.
    Slippery slope isn't how our system works though. Slippery slope is an argument that says that, without regard to any other arguments, if one thing happens, it means this similar thing must also happen, even if there are some other, bigger differences in these things from a legal standpoint.
    "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. #369
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    There is nothing in the constitution stating that seperate but equal is equal treatment either.
    I don't think they wanted anything like that in there.

    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 does not establish the court system, just the Supreme Court. Congress established the court system.

    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.
    Well, that's a pretty basic word, well defined, no need to define it in the Constitution.

    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".
    Of course it's not equal if it only qualifies as similar. We don't need a court system to tell us that. But, it was, in fact, the Supreme Court that said "separate but equal" was Constitutional, when it was not. They have made many blunders, and continue to do so.

    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.
    Like I said, we know what equal means. What are you for, a 75% reading of the Constitution?

    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.
    Well, no, it's not. One has a racial component, and was does not. You are comparing one thing that includes all people, and another that separates them by race. Doesn't work.

    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.
    Well, now you are separating people based on sex.

    And to be clear, my point is that the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that is something for the States to decide. Whatever they decide, that's cool.
    "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

  10. #370
    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 roguenuke View Post
    It can win on gay rights alone, but it is still gender discrimination being used to restrict marriage when it comes to same sex marriage bans, hence the "sex" part. This restriction however affects homosexuals mainly because they are the ones most likely to enter into a same sex marriage.

    It is the same as with interracial marriage bans going down. Very few people, even today (although the amount are slowly increasing), exercise their right to enter into an interracial marriage, but everyone has the legal right to do so and everyone was restricted from doing so based on their race, not their attractions in the past. Now, everyone is restricted from entering into a same sex marriage, not just homosexuals. Homosexuals are just the most likely to do so. Homosexuals enter into opposite sex marriages all time, many as cover or for money (such as in the military to gain benefits). Removing restrictions on same sex marriages removes them for all, not just homosexuals.

    Logically, the argument that same sex marriage restrictions are gender discrimination is absolutely sound. The problem is that people don't want to admit that marriages take place for reasons other than love or some fairy tale belief. Even our courts try this. In reality though, sexuality should not really matter when it comes to standing, what should matter is that if two people of the same sex are prevented from marrying each other when they want to make each other their legal spouses, it shouldn't matter what each of their sexualities are. If my divorced mother and her best friend (a recently widowed woman she has known for about 20 years) decided that getting married would benefit them, what difference is that from my grandmother and grandfather who were divorced and considering getting remarried only because it would benefit them (not because they were actually in love)?
    It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare

    Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.

    What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting

    Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"

    Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties

Page 37 of 46 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... 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
  •