Page 42 of 46 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #411
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    (shouldn't you be working instead of chatting with me? you're gonna get in trouble)
    They can't be depended on to be separate issues legally speaking in the future given its precedence.
    That's how these things work, doncha know.
    That's where the importance of language comes in.... especially language in any resulting law.
    I mean, look at what the inclusion of the word "State" could likely do to the ACA Law.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  2. #412
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Dude, srsly, you should have at least tried to look like you read his post first...
    At this point I'm asking why do I even bother, especially considering the ONLY argument he's provided against what I'm saying is the slippery slope.

    That would be like being back in the past and saying that we shouldn't allow interracial marriage because it may lead to dogs marrying children.

    Something possibly being used by others sometime in the future to push an entirely different issue isn't a legitimate argument against the thing being discussed then. An individual situation should be judged by it's own individual merits and faults, not it's potential (not guaranteed) impact on an entirely different situation. All that is doing is acknowledging one has no actual faults to provide for the issue at hand, and thus they need to try to tie it to something they CAN think of faults for.

    Whether or not someone in the future may use something to do wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't do right in the current.

    If you create a weapon to protect yourself, you create the chance that someone may use that weapon in the future to harm an innocent person. However, if that is the ONLY argument against creating said weapon, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't create it to protect yourself.

    Similarly if you allow two men to be mraried, you create the chance that someone may try and use that as a means of suggesting some other type of marriage should occur. However, if that is the ONLY argument against alowing said marriage, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't allow the two individuals to marry each other.

    Denying people a benefit under the law because someone else entirely might point to it as justification for allowing some other entirely different group with an entirely different set of circumstances atg some point in the future is not a legitimate argument. It wasn't a legitimate argument against interracial marriage, it's not a legitimate argument against same sex marriages.

    That doesn't mean there may not be legitimate arguments. However, it's not incumbant on me to create arguments against myself. If bubba has some arguments against it beyond a "what if" one of the slippery slope then he's more than welcome to present it. Thus far, he's been utterly and completely unable to do so.

  3. #413
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    At this point I'm asking why do I even bother, especially considering the ONLY argument he's provided against what I'm saying is the slippery slope.

    That would be like being back in the past and saying that we shouldn't allow interracial marriage because it may lead to dogs marrying children.

    Something possibly being used by others sometime in the future to push an entirely different issue isn't a legitimate argument against the thing being discussed then. An individual situation should be judged by it's own individual merits and faults, not it's potential (not guaranteed) impact on an entirely different situation. All that is doing is acknowledging one has no actual faults to provide for the issue at hand, and thus they need to try to tie it to something they CAN think of faults for.

    Whether or not someone in the future may use something to do wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't do right in the current.

    If you create a weapon to protect yourself, you create the chance that someone may use that weapon in the future to harm an innocent person. However, if that is the ONLY argument against creating said weapon, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't create it to protect yourself.

    Similarly if you allow two men to be mraried, you create the chance that someone may try and use that as a means of suggesting some other type of marriage should occur. However, if that is the ONLY argument against alowing said marriage, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't allow the two individuals to marry each other.

    Denying people a benefit under the law because someone else entirely might point to it as justification for allowing some other entirely different group with an entirely different set of circumstances atg some point in the future is not a legitimate argument. It wasn't a legitimate argument against interracial marriage, it's not a legitimate argument against same sex marriages.

    That doesn't mean there may not be legitimate arguments. However, it's not incumbant on me to create arguments against myself. If bubba has some arguments against it beyond a "what if" one of the slippery slope then he's more than welcome to present it. Thus far, he's been utterly and completely unable to do so.
    Your example made me think of Alfred Nobel. Was that intentional?

    And as far as SSM bans being overturned leading to incest bans being overturned, as I stated in an earlier post, that would only work if the court rules that marriage, as a fundamental right, requires Strict Scrutiny, which so far every judge has shied away from, though most acknowledge it in their rulings. If they rule gender discrimination and therefor Intermediate Scrutiny, that does not open the door for other forms of marriage. One of the reasons why gender based discrimination is pushed during oral arguments at each of the cases is because it offers judges a nice, safe way to make a narrow ruling. It has the benefit of ensuring a ruling against the SSM ban as there is no chance they stand up to Intermediate Scrutiny, and it does it without declaring protected classes based on orientation. To avoid his slippery slope, he should be advocating for a gender discrimination ruling.
    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.

  4. #414
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    They can't be depended on to be separate issues legally speaking in the future given its precedence.
    Which seems to indicate you have no actual understanding of what precedence means.

    Incestuous Marriage and Same Sex Marriage are absolutely unable to be treated as analogs under constitutional law.

    Same Sex Marriage, in relation the conversation here, is discrimination on the basis of gender. Constitutional Law has long since established gender as a middle teir category under the EPC, requiring that the government must demonstrate discrimination on such a basis must be substantially related to an important state interest.

    Incestuous marriage is discrimination on the basis of family relationship. Constitutional law has shown absolutely zero evidence of this being treated as a middle or higher teir classification. As such, barring a court setting entirely new precedence regarding that classification, discrimination against it must simply be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

    The bar is set much higher for the government to discriminate against gender compraed to discrimination based on familiar relationship. As such, the court finding that the laws do discriminate on gender doesn't indicate what so ever that the discrimination based on familiar relationship is unconstitutional, because the government has a much lower bar to cross for that classification.

    Additionally, the context surrounding both are significantly different. For example, when talking about the "welfare of the children" reason so often referenced by people. It is much easier from a legal stand point to make an argument that such a reason is a LEGITIMATE state interest, but it is far more difficult to make an argument that it's an IMPORTANT state interest in this context. Additionally, it's far easier to suggest a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in regards to incestuous couples, given the scientific evidence regarding the potential genetic damage to a child born of incest, than it is to suggest how barring same sex couples is substantially related to that interest (and even more so, the fact that said interest may not actually reach the level of "important" in the case of gender).

    So would the case provide some very minor levels of precedence that could possibly be built off of? Sure. Every case ever provides for that. However, that is not a legitimate constitutional reason against something.

    A court case declaring that the KKK is free to have marches COULD set precedence that someone then uses to suggest that the KKK should be free to have marches where they're depicting lynching black people. However, if that is the only reason against allowing them to act on their rights to speech and assembly then it is not a legitimate argument, because the slippery slope that is being pointed to is an entirely seperate issue that can be dealt with based on it's own merits and faults at a latter time IF it even happens...which is not gauranteed.

    Now I'm done playing your game, since it seems even when I attempt to honestly answer your meandering line of questions you still dishonestly misrepresent or flat out ignore what I'm saying. You have STILL yet to provide an answer, outside of the slippery slope, regarding my initial claim. If you actually have an argument please present it. Otherwise, I'm not going to continue to indulge your attempts to simply hide and deflect the fact you have no legitimate argument against the claim that it's unconstitutional on the basis of gender.

  5. #415
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,564

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    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.




    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.
    Boy, you sure will go to any lengths to justify what a democrat does, even right after you are horrified that a republican did it. Unbelievable. Oh, so Clinton had to sign it, the republicans made him?

    Then, you say there was a veto proof majority, as if that some how supports you??? Veto proof means it had to have bipartisan support! Democrats voted for it!

    Why don't you all just admit the truth? You (plural) want SSM, you don't care how it gets done. If it takes just one judge to ignore the Constitution and vote for it, you are just fine with that. Screw the Constitution, screw everyone else.

    Me? I want it to go through the way we've decided things are supposed to work. The Constitution protects me, and you from a federal government that just dictates as it pleases.

    God, you people have no credibility at all.
    "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

  6. #416
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    There's two basic thoughts I have with regards to amendments.

    The first, similar in mindset to what Redress posted earlier, I don't think it should be used for things that are relatively minor and/or very narrow in scope. Especially if it's something that can be easily left in the states hands. I don't see marriage as something that needs or is worth while to have constitutionally defined, be it as two people or man and woman. That doensn't mean it CAN'T be used in that fashion, but rather that my personal opinion is thatit generally shouldn't be used in such a way.

    The second is that I don't believe the Constitution should be used to restrict or limit the rights of CITIZENS. Prohibition is an example of an amendment that I would have significant issues with. The constitution is a document detailing the strict limitation that government has in terms of restricting our rights, both natural and societal. I don't believe it should be used as a means of limiting an individuals rights, except in instances where said limitation is significantly needed to uphold the rights of others. Again, not saying it can't be used for this purpose, but that I don't agree with using it in such a way.

    An amendment mandating that marriage be only be between a man and woman violates both of those basic principles. It is stepping in on a matter that is very narrow in my mind and has long been the purview of the state, and it is limiting individual rights by codifying gender discrimination without being significantly needed to uphold any persons rights.

    An amendment mandating that marriage be between any two individuals violates only one of those princpiles. It is stepping in on a matter that is very narrow in my mind and has long been the purview of the states. HOWEVER, it is not limiting an individuals rights because it is not codifying any particular form of discrimination or limitation onto citizens.

    As such, I'd have an issue with either amendment, but I'd have a larger issue with the former rather than the latter.

  7. #417
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,441

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Boy, you sure will go to any lengths to justify what a democrat does, even right after you are horrified that a republican did it. Unbelievable. Oh, so Clinton had to sign it, the republicans made him?

    Then, you say there was a veto proof majority, as if that some how supports you??? Veto proof means it had to have bipartisan support! Democrats voted for it!

    Boy, you sure will go to any lengths to justify what republicans do!

    Clinton did sign it - but you are quick to make that your focal point, when you know damn well, it's an attempt at diversion.

    As rogue said:

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.
    It WAS the GOP who sponsored DOMA and pushed it through, (and painted anyone who was against it mid-1990's as anti-family - sly bastards) and the GOP held steadfast for near 20 years defending it - on something YOU said they the feds couldn't have even defined! Ha!


    Why don't you all just admit the truth? You (plural) want SSM, you don't care how it gets done. If it takes just one judge to ignore the Constitution and vote for it, you are just fine with that. Screw the Constitution, screw everyone else.

    Me? I want it to go through the way we've decided things are supposed to work. The Constitution protects me, and you from a federal government that just dictates as it pleases.

    God, you people have no credibility at all.
    You seem to be getting irate it's going to happen, and you *know* it's going to happen. It's been well over 50 Federal judges ruling this way, and soon, SCOTUS -- way more than "one judge."

    The "way things are supposed to work" - is SCOTUS rules when laws are in conflict / people petition the government for redress being their rights are being violated. Courts rule. People appeal. it moves up. Way it works.

    Get ready: This June.


    I'm guessing there will be a whole lot of gnashing of the teeth going on.

  8. #418
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Which seems to indicate you have no actual understanding of what precedence means.

    Incestuous Marriage and Same Sex Marriage are absolutely unable to be treated as analogs under constitutional law.

    Same Sex Marriage, in relation the conversation here, is discrimination on the basis of gender. Constitutional Law has long since established gender as a middle teir category under the EPC, requiring that the government must demonstrate discrimination on such a basis must be substantially related to an important state interest.

    Incestuous marriage is discrimination on the basis of family relationship. Constitutional law has shown absolutely zero evidence of this being treated as a middle or higher teir classification. As such, barring a court setting entirely new precedence regarding that classification, discrimination against it must simply be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

    The bar is set much higher for the government to discriminate against gender compraed to discrimination based on familiar relationship. As such, the court finding that the laws do discriminate on gender doesn't indicate what so ever that the discrimination based on familiar relationship is unconstitutional, because the government has a much lower bar to cross for that classification.

    Additionally, the context surrounding both are significantly different. For example, when talking about the "welfare of the children" reason so often referenced by people. It is much easier from a legal stand point to make an argument that such a reason is a LEGITIMATE state interest, but it is far more difficult to make an argument that it's an IMPORTANT state interest in this context. Additionally, it's far easier to suggest a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in regards to incestuous couples, given the scientific evidence regarding the potential genetic damage to a child born of incest, than it is to suggest how barring same sex couples is substantially related to that interest (and even more so, the fact that said interest may not actually reach the level of "important" in the case of gender).

    So would the case provide some very minor levels of precedence that could possibly be built off of? Sure. Every case ever provides for that. However, that is not a legitimate constitutional reason against something.

    A court case declaring that the KKK is free to have marches COULD set precedence that someone then uses to suggest that the KKK should be free to have marches where they're depicting lynching black people. However, if that is the only reason against allowing them to act on their rights to speech and assembly then it is not a legitimate argument, because the slippery slope that is being pointed to is an entirely seperate issue that can be dealt with based on it's own merits and faults at a latter time IF it even happens...which is not gauranteed.

    Now I'm done playing your game, since it seems even when I attempt to honestly answer your meandering line of questions you still dishonestly misrepresent or flat out ignore what I'm saying. You have STILL yet to provide an answer, outside of the slippery slope, regarding my initial claim. If you actually have an argument please present it.
    Otherwise, I'm not going to continue to indulge your attempts to simply hide and deflect the fact you have no legitimate argument against the claim that it's unconstitutional on the basis of gender.
    I never said it wasn't.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  9. #419
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,564

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, House 342-67. Signed by Bill Clinton. So, keep telling us all how the GOP forced it through. I guess they forced through Obamacare too.

    Unfortunately, you really don't seem to have a clue how things are supposed to work. Good luck with the all powerful government you crave.
    "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. #420
    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
    DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, House 342-67. Signed by Bill Clinton. So, keep telling us all how the GOP forced it through. I guess they forced through Obamacare too.

    Unfortunately, you really don't seem to have a clue how things are supposed to work. Good luck with the all powerful government you crave.
    No one is claiming a lot of Dems in the 90s supported SSM, but none of those 14, and 67 who voted against it were Republicans and even after pretty much all Dems and Independents supported same sex marriage, few Republicans did.
    "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 42 of 46 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... 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
  •