Page 41 of 46 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #401
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,716

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    And who signed it into law?


    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.
    I'm not sure what your issue is. I can oppose an action even if its constitutional.
    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.

  2. #402
    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
    And who signed it into law?


    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.
    A choice of either sign it in (which it was passed basically veto proof in the first place) or have congress work to pass a Constitutional Amendment that there was very possibly support for at the time and would be much harder to get rid of? Lesser of two evils.
    "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. #403
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,251

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    I'm happy you recognized that rulings are usually quite long.
    And they sure do seem to pop up again and again, that darn precedent thing.
    Consequently, do you see why I couldn't answer your persistent request for an example that can't be given without knowing what the ruling said?

    But let's play anyway.

    So after you win and the USSC makes it's ruling, laws regarding incestual marriages between individuals of the same gender might be ...... what ...?
    Kept in place but at least without that same-sex hurdle to overcome when they're challenged?
    There are already efforts to eliminate those nasty incest laws but some narrow-minded folks might think that applies to opposite gender pairs.
    Will a ruling based on gender help make it more accessible to same gender pairs?
    Why or why not?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  4. #404
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I'm happy you recognized that rulings are usually quite long.
    And they sure do seem to pop up again and again, that darn precedent thing.
    Consequently, do you see why I couldn't answer your persistent request for an example that can't be given without knowing what the ruling said?

    But let's play anyway.

    So after you win and the USSC makes it's ruling, laws regarding incestual marriages between individuals of the same gender might be ...... what ...?
    Kept in place but at least without that same-sex hurdle to overcome when they're challenged?
    There are already efforts to eliminate those nasty incest laws but some narrow-minded folks might think that applies to opposite gender pairs.
    Will a ruling based on gender help make it more accessible to same gender pairs?
    Why or why not?
    Laws against incestuous marriage have to follow the same 14th amendment just as every other law. That is how it is now, that is how it is in the future. Same sex marriage bans limit marriage by gender. Incest marriage laws limit marriage by relationship. In both cases the state has to show some legitimate at least interest(depending on the group discriminated against and the type of right, the allowable threshold is different) in the ban. Overturning SSM bans on 14th amendment grounds would not affect incest laws unless(and this is possible if unlikely) the court rules that strict scrutiny applies due to marriage being a fundamental right.

    Really, you probably should learn a bit about the issues before you come up with this stuff...
    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.

  5. #405
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    ...offe rany...
    I am glad I am not the only one who makes that particular typo of putting the space in one character early.

    Carry on with your arguing against people who still are not sure what it is you are arguing.
    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.

  6. #406
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    But let's play anyway.
    This is the last time I'm "playing" with you without you actually addressing my previous points.

    So after you win and the USSC makes it's ruling, laws regarding incestual marriages between individuals of the same gender might be ...... what ...?
    The ruling had zero to do with incestual marriages, as the ruling specifically only dealt with the matter of gender discrimination within the law for marriages. The only thing that would change is that gender could no longer be a determining factor of who could be married. That has zero impact on incestual marriages.

    The laws regarding incestual marriage is that a man and woman, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married.

    If said hypothetical ruling occured, that would simply change to "two individuals, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married".

    The only thing that would change in those laws would be the gender portion, which is not the portion of the laws that disallow incestrual marriage.

    There are already efforts to eliminate those nasty incest laws but some narrow-minded folks might think that applies to opposite gender pairs.
    And said issue can be addressed based on it's own merits or faults. Again, you're highlighting the fact that you have ZERO argument for maintaining the gender discrimination, or for why disallowing gender discrimination is a bad thing, OTHER than the fact it MIGHT provide an unknown level of additional support for something else that you think its bad.

    Once again, highlighting that you're ONLY argument seems to be a fallacious one.

    Laws against incest are their own entity that must stand on their own merits and regards. Whether or not changing something else is irrelevant to that fact.

    Will a ruling based on gender help make it more accessible to same gender pairs?
    Yes. Specifically, a ruling based on gender means that GENDER can't be used as a determining feature of who can or can't get married to each other. That is all.

    Now if you want to keep "playing" you need to actually address my original point.

    What important state interest is substantially served by disallowing a woman from marrying a woman, but allowing a man to marry one?

  7. #407
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,707

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com



    wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

    again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol

    its just the way politics will be in 2016

    lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all

    next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that.

    good lord
    the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
    Now now, Cruz is just bitter over that time that he took it up the butthole from Rick Perry. He just wants to make sure that nobody else makes the same mistake.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  8. #408
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,251

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This is the last time I'm "playing" with you without you actually addressing my previous points.



    The ruling had zero to do with incestual marriages, as the ruling specifically only dealt with the matter of gender discrimination within the law for marriages. The only thing that would change is that gender could no longer be a determining factor of who could be married. That has zero impact on incestual marriages.

    The laws regarding incestual marriage is that a man and woman, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married.

    If said hypothetical ruling occured, that would simply change to "two individuals, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married".

    The only thing that would change in those laws would be the gender portion, which is not the portion of the laws that disallow incestrual marriage.



    And said issue can be addressed based on it's own merits or faults. Again, you're highlighting the fact that you have ZERO argument for maintaining the gender discrimination, or for why disallowing gender discrimination is a bad thing, OTHER than the fact it MIGHT provide an unknown level of additional support for something else that you think its bad.

    Once again, highlighting that you're ONLY argument seems to be a fallacious one.

    Laws against incest are their own entity that must stand on their own merits and regards. Whether or not changing something else is irrelevant to that fact.



    Yes. Specifically, a ruling based on gender means that GENDER can't be used as a determining feature of who can or can't get married to each other. That is all.

    Now if you want to keep "playing" you need to actually address my original point.

    What important state interest is substantially served by disallowing a woman from marrying a woman, but allowing a man to marry one?
    Or a man marry his son ... or a woman marry her daughter ... or brother-brother ... etc.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  9. #409
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Or a man marry his son ... or a woman marry her daughter ... or brother-brother ... etc.
    Only if the state doesn't already have a law on the books disallowing marriages from individuals related to a certain degree (I believe some states limit it to anything closer than a cousin, others extend it out to second cousin, etc).

    If a state has such law on the books then no, a man can't marry his son. A woman can't marry her daughter. A brother can't marry their brother.

    The only way they could do that is if, prior to this warning, a man could marry his daughter or a woman could marry her son. Then yes...if they could do that before with a family member of the opposite sex then they could do it with a family member of the same sex after the ruling.

    But if prior to the ruling they couldn't do it with a member of hte opposite sex, this ruling would not allow them to do it with a member of the same sex. Rather, it would simply mean said law would apply to BOTH sexes for both sexes

    --------

    Prior to the ruling:

    A man can marry any woman, barring X, Y, Z caveats (woman is underage, woman is related to him by X degrees, woman is already married to someone else, etc).

    After the ruling:

    A man can marry any person, barring X, Y, Z caveats (person is underage, person is related to him by X degrees, person is already married to someone else, etc.)

    The blue words are the gender descriptors relevant to the laws. The only thing that would change based on a verdict regarding gender discrimination would be the gender requirements. All other lawful requirements would not be altered, save for their gender discriminatory portions.

    A ruling stating you can't discriminate on the basis of gender in marriage laws DOES NOTHING and SAYS NOTHING regarding the ability to discriminate on the basis of familiar relationship (which is what incestuous marriage laws would be about.

    Those are two seperate issues legally speaking. While they're both relate to marriage, neither is directly connected to the other in terms of legality.

  10. #410
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Or a man marry his son ... or a woman marry her daughter ... or brother-brother ... etc.
    Dude, srsly, you should have at least tried to look like you read his post first...
    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.

Page 41 of 46 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... 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
  •