Page 40 of 46 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #391
    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
    Please let me know when you have scientific evidence that legalizing gay marriage wont provide more protections for the children in those families.
    I never stated it wouldn't provide more protection. I actually suggested that there's evidence suggesting that gay couples offer MORE protections for children then many of the types of couples/individuals that the law currently allows to get married.

    That was kind of my point...

    You can't say that discriminating against gender in marriage is "substantially related" to an "important state interest", when there are numerous forms of coupling that is legally allowed to occur under the law that poses a far greater threat to the well being of a child than same-sex marriage.

    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seemed as if you were arguing that there IS an important state interesting in discriminating against people on the basis of gender. And that one of those "important state interests" was to keep kids from being raised by "gays" because that somehow is a bad thing for them. However in this post you seem to be saying the opposite, which has me rather confused.

  2. #392
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,571

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    They sure tried when the GOP sponsored bill called DOMA was pushed and passed a couple decades ago.
    And who signed it into law?

    Q: Did you vote for the party that has in its Platform a call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriage nationwide - thus completely removing the option for "the States to decide?"
    So, you are against them doing it the right way, the Constitutional way? I guess you would also be against an amendment from the other side changing marriage to include same sex.
    "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

  3. #393
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    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.
    *crickets*
    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.

  4. #394
    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 Hamster Buddha View Post
    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.
    Some of the arguments that people use to push for legalization of SSM can apply in a similar or equal fashion to incest/polygamy. However, in my personal opinion, most of those are some of the weakest and poorest arguments for legalization of SSM. They are also typically NOT the actual LEGAL arguments for allowing same sex marriage.

    Things like "People should be able to marry the ones they love!" or "It doesn't hurt your marriage!" or "The government shouldn't discriminat!" are to me worthless arguments on this matter; typically born simply out of emotion rather than any kind of logic or legal basis.

    HOWEVER, when it comes to the LEGAL basis...even going off the notion of orientation...there are MANY differences between the arguments allowing SSM and the arguments allowing for polygamy and incest.

    For example, sexual orientation has an actual precedence as a legally protected classification under the Equal Protection Claus, being afforded a "second-order rational basis test". "Polygamist" has no such legal precedence as being viewed under that stricter version of the lowest teir. As such, polygamy would have a higher bar to jump than that of gay marriage.

    Another issue between the polygamy angle and gay marriage is how it's rationally related to a particular state interest. One of the state interest sometimes pushed is the notion that the state wants to promote a stable family environment for children. There's actually more scientific evidence out there of polygamist marriages resulting in a less stable atmosphere for chlidren than gay couples.

    Finally, another issue is regarding other portions of legitimate state interest. The state has a legitimate interest in regards to the potential impacts and pitfalls that allowing certain benefits will necessitate. Changes to the marriage laws to allow homosexual marriage would have very little true impact on various laws connected to marriage at a federal or state level. The reason for this is that these laws, in general, don't actually take gender into account at all. The assumption is that it's a man and woman, but ultimately there are few instances where there's some kind of specific preference to the "husband" or "wife", as opposed to the same preference being granted both "spouses". Changing it to allow for two people of the same sex is a very minor alteration to the law logistically speaking. This is not the case with a polygamist marriage, where the variable in play is the NUMBER of spouses. Many laws regarding marriage are very much tied to a two person situation and changing that would be a substantial effort logistically speaking. For example, current law essentially assumes significant legal power goes to your spouse...such a thing would not be doable if you have two spouses as it'd need to be defined which was power and which doesn't. This becomes even more problematic if you are talking of Polygamy and polyamory as one in the same, as most people do, as you have a situtaion of a man being married to one woman and that woman married to another man, but those two men not tied together in any fashion. Can both men claim that woman as a spouse for tax purposes. Can Man A claim the Man B as a dependent if Man B doesn't work and is supported by their mutral wife utilizing Man A's money? There are numerous significant hurdles to altering the legal code in the country to allow for polygamous/polyamorous marriages that simply don't exist with regards to homosexual marriage. So the state interest issue is different for both in that regard.

    That's just a few issues with it. The reality is that while some of the non-legal, emotinoal/platitude based arguments for gay marriage may be applicable to something like polygamy, the actual LEGAL arguments are generally are not direct analogs.

  5. #395
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, there are TONS of laws that limit peoples personal freedom. That's the entire point.

    If the "slippery slope" argument....BY ITSELF, as you've presented it....was a legitimate argument against it, then we would not have any of those laws because we'd be able to say "But a law that limits someone's personal freedom could lead to BAD THING! so we can't have it".

    Our current legal system is a perfect example of why the slippery slope argument, exlcusionary from anything else, is a poor one. We would have anarchy, rather the rule of law, if the slippery slope alone was a legitimate argument against something.

    If a law is a bad law then there will be plenty of arguments against THAT ACTUAL LAW, not against what might happen at some point of time with an entirely different law. If there are no such arguments then all that exists is the slippery slope fallacy, and that is not a legitimate reason against doing something, thus why we have various laws that do put restrictions on individual freedoms.

    Stating that something is bad because of [X], [Y], and [Z] as well as because it could lead to [A] is not simply arguing the slippery slope, but is putting forth numerous arguments while acknowledging the potential for the slippery slope. In such a case, the slippery slope is simply a supporting argument, not the primary one. In such a case, the slippery slope doesn't disqualify the entire stance, because there are multiple other arguments that are present OTHER than the slippery slope.

    Stating that something is bad because it could lead to [A] is singularly arguing the slipper slope, putting forth no other actual arguments and thus using the slippery slope as the primary argument rather than a supporting one. In such a case, the slippery slope disqualifies the entire stance, becuase the only support that said stance has IS the slippery slope.

    Stay with me on this.
    I'm going somewhere with it.
    Let's say your argument was presented to the USSC and a majority has ruled in your favor.
    How was the ruling worded, were there any resulting Laws written by Congress (that's the US Congress because the State legislatures would be irrelevant), and how was the Law(s) written.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  6. #396
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,571

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    *crickets*
    Your post isn't worthy of a response, I couldn't care less about who has what kind of sex, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I am arguing about with the Constitution.

    You had no real response for me, so I have none for you. You got nuthin', that's why you get "crickets". Nothing to be proud of.
    "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

  7. #397
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,458

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    And who signed it into law?
    Whether Clinton signed it or not, it would have been law. There was a veto-proof majority, and they were ready to overide it.

    It doesn't change the fact it was the GOP who pushed it through, and did in fact do what you said the Gov't had no power to define. In addition, the GOP fought it tooth and nail all along the way in the near 20 years after it became law, the last culminating in Windsor, where the GOP spent millions of dollars defending it before SCOTUS.


    So, you are against them doing it the right way, the Constitutional way? I guess you would also be against an amendment from the other side changing marriage to include same sex.
    Many would say literally enshrining discrimination into the Constitution, and removing "States' rights" (which the GOP claims as its rallying cry, but only out one side of its mouth) and enshrining *that* into the Constitution -- goes against everything American stands for.

    It tells us the GOP doesn't give a **** about States' Rights. I hope they keep it in their next platform. Hypocrites.

  8. #398
    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
    Stay with me on this.
    I'm going somewhere with it.
    Let's say your argument was presented to the USSC and a majority has ruled in your favor.
    How was the ruling worded, were there any resulting Laws written by Congress (that's the US Congress because the State legislatures would be irrelevant), and how was the Law(s) written.
    Well, considering you've repeatedly refused to actually offer any kind of response to any of my posts other than frivilous fallacies or discussions about totally seperate arguments, I in no means plan to "go somewhere" with you to the extent you're asking. Considering the length that USSC rulings are, I by no means am going to take the effort to go in depth regarding what it would look like if it as ruled to be gender discrimination. But for the sake of POSSIBLY finally getting something legitimate out of you, I'll go short hand.

    I would suggest the ruling would be worded in such a way to suggest that current state laws regarding marriage, written and/or enforced in a fashion that limits it marriages to 1 man and 1 woman, are unconstitutional based on gender discrimination that is not substantially related to any important state interest, and thus said restrictions would be stricten.

    Contrary to your claim, this would not render state legislatures irrelevant. Rather, it would simply require the state legislators to adhere to the constitution. I imagine it would be dealt with in one of two ways. Either State laws for marriage thus would have to be rewritten without a restriction on gender as it relates to the marriage contract. OR, it could be that the laws themselves would not be stricten but simply the requirement of it being 1 man/1 woman, and thus the laws would remain on the books but would not be barred by any standard of gender.

    Thus, I would either see those laws being written in such a way that they would be identical to the current marriage laws, with the sole difference being that it would be defined as between any two individuals as opposed to being between one man and one woman. OR the current laws staying in place, but simply not being limited in any fashion by gender.

  9. #399
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Your post isn't worthy of a response, I couldn't care less about who has what kind of sex, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I am arguing about with the Constitution.

    You had no real response for me, so I have none for you. You got nuthin', that's why you get "crickets". Nothing to be proud of.
    Of course it addressed your post. You claimed that for the govt to get involved in SSM it implied 'what goes on in peoples' bedrooms" was their business. Er, does that sound Constitutional to you? Not to me, it sounded glib and obfuscatory. But since that was your claim (as you implied it), that's how I responded to it.

    I realize that it's now hard to justify your comment. No problem. It's here for all to see.
    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. #400
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Ah, so you want to separate people out based on gender, but you don't want to separate them based on race? I don't want to separate them on either. That sounds like... Hmmm. Well, I'll just call it flawed logic.
    Defining marriage as between a man and a woman separates people out based on gender.
    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.

Page 40 of 46 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... 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
  •