Page 45 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3543444546 LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #441
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 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
    The writer doesn't appear to think the gender discrimination argument was very strong, unless " ... that advocates of equality for same-sex couples had previously relied upon fairly heavily but more recently have given less emphasis." has some secret coded tricky implication.
    You get really loquacious & jacked up about this argument.
    Are you on somebody's legal team pushing it or something?
    You sure do seem to be hanging a lot on this one argument that's been tried and beaten.
    But I have to admire the consistent lengths of your comments.
    Is wordsmithing necessary for your work?
    The argument has not been "tried and beaten" as you claim, and as Zyphlin explained.
    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.

  2. #442
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Much better! Not only are you doing research but you are using one of the best sources. Now, it does not say quite what you claim, that the arrow missed the target(it hit at least once), but that it is not the primary argument.
    I should actually second Redress's statement here. While the blog article doesn't say what you seem to be implying it says, I appreciate the fact you sought out information that was relevant to the claim I'm actually making.

  3. #443
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,522

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Please explain to us all in what way expanding rights by striking down state laws such as the same sex marriage bans gives us an "all powerful government". This is what we are discussing, striking down same sex marriage bans, nothing else that the federal government might do. So, if your comment is not dealing with the federal government striking down those marriage laws, then it is way off topic.
    You are not expanding rights, you are expanding government power. You are giving it power that the Constitution does not give it. This is what I am concerned about.

    SSM just happens to be the issue du jour (and the Dems are happy to use you for it. They would swing the other way in a heartbeat if it would benefit them). If you want to give the government that power, you need to amend the Constitution.
    "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. #444
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,522

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You're the one defending authoritarianism. You are defending government restriction on individual choice.
    Wrong, again. Seems to be a habit of yours.
    "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

  5. #445
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,257

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I should actually second Redress's statement here. While the blog article doesn't say what you seem to be implying it says, I appreciate the fact you sought out information that was relevant to the claim I'm actually making.
    ... the argument (as 0f 2012 anyway) said what it said. I quoted it twice.
    But who is this Redresss, person?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  6. #446
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    The writer doesn't appear to think the gender discrimination argument was very strong, unless " ... that advocates of equality for same-sex couples had previously relied upon fairly heavily but more recently have given less emphasis." has some secret coded tricky implication.
    First, the writer's opinion on the matter is not some kind of absolute argument. I would argue that the writer's opinion on the worth of Baker as some means of closing the book on the issue is undoubtably no MORE valuable than that of a Supreme Court Justice:

    “The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. And the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so I don’t think we can extract much in Baker v. Nelson.” (SOURCE)
    To claim the notion has "missed the target" in such an emphatic and definitive way, when you have a SCOTUS Justice plainly stating that much can be extracted from that case given the changes in precedence since then, is ridiculous.

    Second, the writer's opinion came out prior to the Windsor decision regarding DOMA, which shifted the playing field so to speak as it came to constitutional law and marriage. Since Windsor, the majority of judges faced with an issue regarding Gender discrimination with regards to marriage have viewed [b]Baker[/i] as a relic who's precedence is no longer applicable. For example, from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals:

    In its 2-to-1 decision striking Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit noted that all federal court decisions since the Windsor decision have found that Baker was no obstacle to deciding the merits of the cases.

    “The Supreme Court’s willingness to decide Windsor without mentioning Baker speaks volumes regarding whether Baker remains good law,” wrote Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd. (SOURCE)
    Note, I stated a majority and not "all". There is still a dispute on the issue within the judicial system. However, the very notion that there is a dispute indicates it by no means is an issue that has outright and permanently "missed the target. The reality is that post Windsor, which altered the precedential landscape, the majority of judges have found that it is BAKER that missed the target, not the argument.

    Third, and not surprisingly given how you've been posting all thread, the blog article still did not offer up how discrimination against gender in terms of marriage is substantially related to an important state interest, the question I've asked from the beginning and that you've continually and incessantly avoided answering. Pointing to Baker doesn't actually answer that question, because Baker wasn't ruled on at a time where Gender was given intermediate scrutiny.

    You get really loquacious & jacked up about this argument.
    I get really loquacious on just about every argument. You've apparently not read much of my posts. It's kind of a running joke with long time posters that I'm excessively wordy. I'm a stream of conciousness typer, so I tend to be a bit long winded.

    I'm may appear "jacked up" because it's irritating taking the time to discuss something when someone continually basically ignores what you've written.

    Are you on somebody's legal team pushing it or something?
    Nope. No hand in any legal team. No real impact on me personally either, as I'm not really close currently with any individual who this would actually benefit. I'm just a guy on a political debate board that enjoys debating political things.

    You sure do seem to be hanging a lot on this one argument that's been tried and beaten.
    See my previous statement as to why it appears I may be "jacked up". This argument, the one I'm making, has not been "tried" because my argument hinges on it being intermediate scrutiny, which it was not in 1972 with Baker. As I already told you. Additionally, as I already stated as well and you've just ignored, the reality is that judicial opinion regarding the legitimacy of Baker as modern precedence is decidingly split, with the majority seeming to lean towards it being a non-factor on the issue now.

  7. #447
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    ... the argument (as 0f 2012 anyway) said what it said. I quoted it twice.
    The argument you posted said what it said, I never disagreed with that. My claim was that it did not say what you were implying that it said. Specifically, that MY argument has "missed the target" in some sort of definitive fashion.

    You've implied that the article you posted asserted that gender argument I was making had "missed the target". The article says no such thing, nor implied such a thing.

    First, it plainly acknowledges that it's absolutely plausible for the current SCOTUS to consider the issue despite Baker. Your source states:

    "The answer to that depends upon how the Supreme Court currently would interpret a one-line decision it issued in 1972, in the case of Baker v. Nelson."

    The very fact that he's acknowledging that it DEPENDS upon how the SCOTUS will act indicates CLEARLy that the argument has not inherently "missed the target" completely and IS still plausible to be something that the current SCOTUS listens to.

    Second, you've pointed out where the article suggests that "recently" (as of 2012) the gender argument has seen less use as an argument than before. The argument not being used as heavily is not defacto proof that it's "missed the target". And...going back once more as to why I may seem "jacked up"...I've given my opinion on why it's likely seen less use repeatedly now and I'm not going to repeat myself yet again for you to simply ignore it once more.

    Finally, third, your article does not actually address the argument I was making. It addresses whether or not it is gender discrimination in a broad sense, at any time in judicial history. That was not the argument I was making. The argument I was making was that given the fact that Gender is now viewed with intermediate scrutiny, the discrimination on the basis of gender for marriage is not substantially related to an important state interest. Your article doesn't address this argument what so ever because it's only focus is on Baker, which is a case that occur PRIOR to Gender being viewed as needing intermediate scrutiny and thus was not a ruling that states it's constitutional discrimination given the modern precedence.

    But who is this Redresss, person?
    Redress is another post who has been responding to you, and who's words you've likely been ignoring similar to what you have by and large done with my posts.

  8. #448
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 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
    ...I'm excessively wordy....
    I would not say "excessively"...














    ...or at least not out loud.
    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.

  9. #449
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,257

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The argument you posted said what it said, I never disagreed with that. My claim was that it did not say what you were implying that it said. Specifically, that MY argument has "missed the target" in some sort of definitive fashion.
    You've implied that the article you posted asserted that gender argument I was making had "missed the target". The article says no such thing, nor implied such a thing.

    First, it plainly acknowledges that it's absolutely plausible for the current SCOTUS to consider the issue despite Baker. Your source states:

    "The answer to that depends upon how the Supreme Court currently would interpret a one-line decision it issued in 1972, in the case of Baker v. Nelson."

    The very fact that he's acknowledging that it DEPENDS upon how the SCOTUS will act indicates CLEARLy that the argument has not inherently "missed the target" completely and IS still plausible to be something that the current SCOTUS listens to.

    Second, you've pointed out where the article suggests that "recently" (as of 2012) the gender argument has seen less use as an argument than before. The argument not being used as heavily is not defacto proof that it's "missed the target". And...going back once more as to why I may seem "jacked up"...I've given my opinion on why it's likely seen less use repeatedly now and I'm not going to repeat myself yet again for you to simply ignore it once more.

    Finally, third, your article does not actually address the argument I was making. It addresses whether or not it is gender discrimination in a broad sense, at any time in judicial history. That was not the argument I was making. The argument I was making was that given the fact that Gender is now viewed with intermediate scrutiny, the discrimination on the basis of gender for marriage is not substantially related to an important state interest. Your article doesn't address this argument what so ever because it's only focus is on Baker, which is a case that occur PRIOR to Gender being viewed as needing intermediate scrutiny and thus was not a ruling that states it's constitutional discrimination given the modern precedence.



    Redress is another post who has been responding to you, and who's words you've likely been ignoring similar to what you have by and large done with my posts.
    ... I was addressing the gender argument which failed in Minnesota ... if your argument was the exact same argument then, yes, it's fair to say your argument would have failed then also. If it isn't the same, so be it.
    ... but the MN decision in that case does raise a question ... unless the mention of it was buried in one of your briefs and I missed it, why didn't YOU mention it when I asked if it had been used before?
    You didn't think it was relevant?

    As for your posts, I tried to comment on the parts that I wanted to respond to.
    Couldn't respond to each part ... site bandwidth and all that.

    But I hope I haven't personally offended you by creeping toward personal questions.
    You seem like a good & decent fellow.

    And, no, I haven't seen many of your comments on the board.
    I guess we're attracted to different topics.

    And seriously, I do admire your way with words, apparent subject knowledge, and resistance to display snarkiness (generally) or worse.
    That kind of thing has taught me to ignore people sometimes.
    Clearly I don't think you're one of them.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  10. #450
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,729

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It's not a "false banner" though. Just like the word "marriage" does not belong to straight couples, same sex marriage does not "belong" to gay couples either. You don't get to determine why people of any combination of sexual attractions get married. That is a personal decision of theirs, and it should be none of the business of the courts either or public either so long as there is no illegal coercion involved, such as blackmail or undue influence or abuse.
    Thanks for those responses. I couldnt bother to take the time. And wouldnt have been as thorough. Good explanations.
    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.

Page 45 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3543444546 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
  •