Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 36444546
Results 451 to 456 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #451
    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
    ... I was addressing the gender argument which failed in Minnesota
    Its accurate to say that particular aspect of the gender argument failed in Minnesota.

    It's inaccurate to suggest it has failed in some broader sense for the plethora of reasons I've stated in my past few posts.

    If it isn't the same, so be it.
    As I've explained repeatedly, my argument isn't the same as was argued in Minnesota, because precedence regarding gender discrimination and what level of scrutiny is applied to it have changed since the ruling in Baker.

    but the MN decision in that case does raise a question
    This is true, there is a question as to whether or not gender discrimination in marriage is constitutional or not.

    I've acknowledged that from the very beginning. From the very beginning of my posting about that topic in this thread I acknowledge that this is my personal belief, not that it is factual constitutional law. I've also stated that I've yet to see what I would consider a legitimate or reasonable argument that there is an important state interest being substantially served by discriminating against gender in marriage.

    But I've never suggested that it is anything but "questionable" and up in the air from a legal stand point, because I fully recognize that it is.

    why didn't YOU mention it when I asked if it had been used before?
    For a few reasons.

    One, at the point that you asked me if it had been used before, we had already gone back and forth a number of posts with you continually and repeatedly treating my argument as if I was talking about orientation when I clearly wasn't. Given that it at least APPEARED that you were in no way taking the time to read and understand my posts I had no strong inclination to do research at your behest or answer your questions when you had yet to actually answer or engage me on my claims.

    Two, another poster addressed this with you (redress in post #338) highlighting a number of more recent and more relevant cases that dealt with Gender as part of the equation...one instance disagreeing with the claim (with Baker as part of that reasoning) and one actually agreeing with the claim. It also noted that the case that ruled it wasn't unconstitutional gender discrimination is an appeal that is being heard by the SCOTUS, while the one that deemed it unconstitutional gender discrimination was denied appeal by the SCOTUS. So more recent examples than Baker, that were far more relevant, were already mentioned.

    Three, as you state, I don't believe Baker is exceptionally relevant in and of itself to my argument. I've stated why I feel that way in multiple posts now. More importantly, since there are more modern cases...which have been mentioned in post #338...that rely on Baker, those cases function well enough to highlight that part of questionable legal precedence.

  2. #452
    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

    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.
    As a point, I haven't had an issue with you not responding to every part of my post. I fully understand that.

    My issue has been three fold:

    1. You ignoring my very clear primary points of a post. It's one thing to ignore some minute detail or some aside I make. That's not been the problem. The problem is with you ignoring, misrepresenting, or just seemingly misunderstanding the primary point I'm making. One exmaple of this was me clearly making it known my posts were talking about "gender" and yet you kept responding as if I was talking about orientation. Another example was me highlighting why I felt the slippery slope argument by itself was invalid, and you not acknowledging any reason I gave and simply continuing to state the same slippery slope argument.

    2. That every post of yours seems to be coming from a stance of disagreeing with my assertion, yet you refuse to give reasons WHY you disagree with it and when finally pressed you claim you "didn't claim to disagree". While you've not plainly claimed to disagree, every single post you've made towards me basically comes from a stance that you disagree.

    3. That you keep making statements or questions about my thoughts on things, when I've stated my thoughts repeated. A perfect example of this is me explaining repeatedly why I feel this argument isn't used often, and yet you keep citing the fact it's not used often as an argument against it without addressing any of my points I've made repeatedly on that matter. Another example is your continual citing of Baker or your story, despite me stating my thoughts on it numerous times without you actually responding to any of the points I made on the matte.r

    Those three issues, over the course of the thread, happening repeatedly is why it has at least FELT like you've either been not bothering to read my posts, ignoring my posts, or simply failing to actually understand what I'm saying.

    Generally I have been trying to be better with not being snarky...but it becomes hard in situations like this where it seems like I'm running around chasing my tail with someone who just wants to ask questions and deflect as opposed to engage in actual debate or at least discussion.

  3. #453
    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
    As a point, I haven't had an issue with you not responding to every part of my post. I fully understand that.

    My issue has been three fold:

    1. You ignoring my very clear primary points of a post. It's one thing to ignore some minute detail or some aside I make. That's not been the problem. The problem is with you ignoring, misrepresenting, or just seemingly misunderstanding the primary point I'm making. One exmaple of this was me clearly making it known my posts were talking about "gender" and yet you kept responding as if I was talking about orientation. Another example was me highlighting why I felt the slippery slope argument by itself was invalid, and you not acknowledging any reason I gave and simply continuing to state the same slippery slope argument.

    2. That every post of yours seems to be coming from a stance of disagreeing with my assertion, yet you refuse to give reasons WHY you disagree with it and when finally pressed you claim you "didn't claim to disagree". While you've not plainly claimed to disagree, every single post you've made towards me basically comes from a stance that you disagree.

    3. That you keep making statements or questions about my thoughts on things, when I've stated my thoughts repeated. A perfect example of this is me explaining repeatedly why I feel this argument isn't used often, and yet you keep citing the fact it's not used often as an argument against it without addressing any of my points I've made repeatedly on that matter. Another example is your continual citing of Baker or your story, despite me stating my thoughts on it numerous times without you actually responding to any of the points I made on the matte.r

    Those three issues, over the course of the thread, happening repeatedly is why it has at least FELT like you've either been not bothering to read my posts, ignoring my posts, or simply failing to actually understand what I'm saying.

    Generally I have been trying to be better with not being snarky...but it becomes hard in situations like this where it seems like I'm running around chasing my tail with someone who just wants to ask questions and deflect as opposed to engage in actual debate or at least discussion.
    To be honest, I had expected more snark ... that happens a lot on sites like this ... I don't understand it, but whatever.
    I usually handle a snarky site member in my own way and in my own time. (I imagine they have problems that simply manifest themselves that way in their comments).
    Otherwise I would have bailed on the thread days ago.
    As for not commenting on every part of every post, the intention was for you to assume either that I didn't disagree or simply had no basis for challenging what you said.
    Nothing more.
    Those kinds of "WTF" moments seem to be a byproduct of web beasts like this.
    And for the record, I understood your point about gender very early on and I was wondering why you hadn't accepted that and seemed to not understand mine.
    Given that, my intention throughout was to comment on what, to me as a layman, didn't seem to be a wise legal path.
    i.e. too broad and possibly harder to get the decision you wanted.

    But it's been fun.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  4. #454
    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
    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.
    Nope. That is your excuse or what you wish to believe. There is nothing about allowing same sex couples to marry the same as opposite sex couples are allowed to marry everywhere that expands any government power.

    The Constitution is meant to protect our rights from all government, not just federal. States are just as capable of ****ting on our rights as the federal government is.
    "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. #455
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    I do not normally bump older threads, but a ruling in the Nebraska case came down today that addresses specifically alot of what was discussed in this thread, and in a very well written, clear way: 8:14-cv-00356 #54 - Nebraska Memo and Order

    While the whole thing is fascinating, particularly the human cost associated with SSM bans, the parts of particular interest in this thread begin on page 13, and then again on page 26. Page 13 and carrying on a number of pages lays out in a wonderfully clear way the constitutional issues that are to be looked at in such a case, levels of scrutiny, and all those things we have looked it. Cannot recommend reading that part enough to understand what the law is. Page 26 starts with the actual ruling, and rules that Nebraska's SSM ban is illegal based on, in part, gender based discrimination:

    Under existing precedent, Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban is at least deserving of heightened scrutiny because the challenged amendment proceeds "along suspect lines," as either gender-based or gender-stereotype-based discrimination.
    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. #456
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    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.comwow 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 upagain 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 lolits just the way politics will be in 2016lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at allnext "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. good lordthe war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
    Agreed. The man is nothing but a grandstanding imbecile. This is even a bigger waste of time than his infamous Green Eggs and Ham Speech.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 36444546

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •