Page 9 of 46 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #81
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I've yet to hear an argument for allowing SSM that couldn't be applied to polygamy or incest.
    Incest isn't hard - there are well documented health risks associated with it. And if it's between parent and child, obvious issues of control, coercion, etc.

    Someone against polygamy will have to make that argument - I'm agnostic so haven't given it much thought or any study. If six women want to marry Romney.... whatever.... Not my life, not my choice is my initial reaction.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    `
    A marriage is a legal contract covered by the federal Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted by all 50 states.

  3. #83
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    True, as contract law is much the province of the state, not the federal.

    I don't oppose recognition, but not under the term "marriage", as it, obviously, violates respect for words and their true meaning and the reasonable and customary beloved social cultures built upon them, which is why I don't call a cat a dog or try to enter a cat in a dog show.

    Regardless, such determination, whether out of intelligence or ignorance, belongs to the state from a federal constitutional perspective.

    And, regarding much time wasted on this issue, oh that is soooo true! The vast majority of Americans really don't care one way or the other from a social perspective. When people are asked to weigh in on a poll, then they make a choice, but it's just a choice on a question, not all that important.

    In fact, in a recent relevant poll on the matter, 37% favored the oxymoronic "gay marriage", 33% favored recognition but under a different term than marriage (like, say, "homarriage", or something), and 30% were opposed to recognition at all. This makes it crystal clear that there is no cultural traditional long-standing precedent for the oxymoronic "gay marriage", as although 70% favor recognition, 63% oppose the oxymoronic "gay marriage" in these polls.

    If the SCOTUS said state's rights, the great majority would be just fine with that. If the SCOTUS said state's rights but that recognition is required under a different term, the great majority would be just fine with that.

    Sadly, the Supreme Court is loaded now with enough left-wing ideologist weight, thanks to Obama's two appointees, that the relevant matter before the SCOTUS could be 4-4 .. leaving the quiet megalomaniac Kennedy to once again stamp his signature on "an earthshaking" decision, about which the great majority of Americans would be opposed .. but most of whom really wouldn't care all that much.

    Truly sad.
    I agree with most of this. Personally, I'm more interested in process and protection of the constitution than anything else. There is a process to deal with gay marriage which is constitutional. It's proponents however have chosen the easy road to get what they want which is to treat the constitution as a living document which can be changed on the fly by opinion.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  4. #84
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,797

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    We agree. Because of the history of this political fight, the fallout is a level of polarization that by the numbers is putting social conservatives into a minority. The further we go, the more it appears that minority status is not going to improve. Politically cornered, especially given where certain voter blocks are holding the Republican Party hostage to yesteryear ideologies. Democrats on the other hand have already transitioned from the days of Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Just during Obama's time we have seen the marriage equality support numbers jump up enough to ensure Republicans have a national level losing position on this. Hence, trying to make this a State's rights issue.
    well no amount of magic will ever make its a state rights issue, theres no honest logic supporting that not to mention history, rights and the many cases already on the books
    its over on this issue, they will have to pick another
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #85
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,797

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    1.)You can't support states rights which regulate the institution of marriage and then claim the states don't have the right to regulate the actions of the people who are affected by the regulation.
    2.) It's laid out in article 1 section 8. If the country decides the constitution needs to be amended, there is a procedure for that.
    3.) I wouldn't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with the way the document is being abused.
    1.) of course i can because anybody with common sense knows that how it works LMAO
    the states regulations ENDS at the constitution and individual rights, basic rights 101 this isnt rocket science, states have powers but they dont get to violate the constitution or my individual rights.

    example" can a state decide thier own death penalty procedures? yes
    can the state just start using the death penalty on anybody or using anyway to kill a person they want? no if it violates rights and the Constitution.

    very simple concept

    2.) constitution doesnt need amended for equal rights
    3) in this case its not
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #86
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:37 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,884

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    PS - States cannot "regulate" marriages insofar as to who a person can or cannot marry. Loving v Virgina shot down all the miscegenation laws in the US which by regulation, would not legally recognize a black/white marriage.
    Yes they can regulate, and they do without objection: Age, # of existing spouses, & blood relation.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    He can argue till Kingdom come...but when the courts rule that a state does not have the right to ban marriage based on sexual orientation...a federal law will not trump that ruling.
    That's not how the US system of laws work. A new law immediately becomes enforceable and trumps a court decision, until a new court decision(injunction, constitutional review, etc) is made.

  7. #87
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) of course i can because anybody with common sense knows that how it works LMAO
    the states regulations ENDS at the constitution and individual rights, basic rights 101 this isnt rocket science, states have powers but they dont get to violate the constitution or my individual rights.

    example" can a state decide thier own death penalty procedures? yes
    can the state just start using the death penalty on anybody or using anyway to kill a person they want? no if it violates rights and the Constitution.

    very simple concept

    2.) constitution doesnt need amended for equal rights
    3) in this case its not
    Rights aren't created because you say they exist. Words mean things and law codifies our rights. Again, I don't oppose equal rights but gay rights are something created in the courts in the late 20th century. It's a clumsy way to handle the issue and because they were created in the courts and not the legislature, now it's nothing but a cluster phuque.

    I will say this, and some may disagree. I don't know when gay's were granted a special class like those granted to people of different race, nationality or gender, but they are the only class who are identified by an activity. I believe that some people are born with identity differences and some people are gay as a result of nurture. I don't mean to denigrate anyone in the class and I wouldn't personally discriminate or agree with anyone who discriminates with anyone who is gay, but laws protecting their rights should have been structured much differently because their class is a recent construct and they are not identified by physical traits of birth.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  8. #88
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,797

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    1.)Rights aren't created because you say they exist.
    2.) Words mean things and law codifies our rights.
    3.) Again, I don't oppose equal rights but gay rights are something created in the courts in the late 20th century.
    4.) It's a clumsy way to handle the issue and because they were created in the courts and not the legislature, now it's nothing but a cluster phuque.
    5.) I will say this, and some may disagree. I don't know when gay's were granted a special class like those granted to people of different race, nationality or gender, but they are the only class who are identified by an activity.
    6.) I believe that some people are born with identity differences and some people are gay as a result of nurture. I don't mean to denigrate anyone in the class and I wouldn't personally discriminate or agree with anyone who discriminates with anyone who is gay
    7.) but laws protecting their rights should have been structured much differently because their class is a recent construct and they are not identified by physical traits of birth.
    1.) i agree goodd thing i never claimed otherwise
    2.) 100% correct another thing i never said differently
    3.) again never said you did and no they weren't created, nobody honest buys that lol, they were simply no longer DENIED
    4.) no what was clumsy is denying them and the cluster **** is that people think that since they were denied them before its ok and they dont deserve them and dont want them to have them (not saying you just saying)
    5.) gays aren't a special class nor are they identified by an activity
    6.) not being rude but your beliefs dont matter on the subject nor do mine or anybody's
    7.) no they are perfectly fine the way they are, they are not a recent construct by any means, and physical traits of birth are meanignless to rights . .. . see RELIGION . . . see DISABLED . . .and see AGE discrimination etc etc . . .

    it seems you have some serious studying up on this subject and how rights work.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 02-12-15 at 04:06 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #89
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) i agree goodd thing i never claimed otherwise
    2.) 100% correct another thing i never said differently
    3.) again never said you did and no they weren't created, nobody honest buys that lol, they were simply no longer DENIED
    4.) no what was clumsy is denying them and the cluster **** is that people think that since they were denied them before its ok and they dont deserve them and dont want them to have them (not saying you just saying)
    5.) gays aren't a special class nor are they identified by an activity
    6.) not being rude but your beliefs dont matter on the subject nor do mine or anybody's
    7.) no they are perfectly fine the way they are, they are not a recent construct by any means, and physical traits of birth are meanignless to rights . .. . see RELIGION . . . see DISABLED . . .and see AGE discrimination etc etc . . .

    it seems you have some serious studying up on this subject and how rights work.
    I know how rights work. Some people say that some rights are inalienable. My observation is that rights are created by government. When I said special class you can interpret that as minorities. Certainly government created extra rights for disabled with the ADA. I cannot claim a handicapped parking space by limping. Government says I need a sticker, and that sticker grants a handicapped person the right to park there the rest of society doesn't have. That's what I mean by extra rights. Gays were not a minority recognized by government in the 50's and had no legislation protecting their rights. As I said, that changed in the late 20th century and now their class is among the other protected minorities. Gay's are indistinguishable from the rest of the population and can only be part of the protected class by claiming they are gay. A closeted gay cannot claim protection for housing violations without coming out and claiming to be part of the class for example. That's part of what I meant when I said activity, excluding the sex part of coarse.

    I know that my opinions are my opinions. Put me in charge and I'd fix all this crap.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  10. #90
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,797

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    1.)I know how rights work. Some people say that some rights are inalienable. My observation is that rights are created by government.
    2.) When I said special class you can interpret that as minorities.
    3.) Certainly government created extra rights for disabled with the ADA.
    4.) I cannot claim a handicapped parking space by limping.
    5.) Government says I need a sticker, and that sticker grants a handicapped person the right to park there the rest of society doesn't have. That's what I mean by extra rights.
    6.) Gays were not a minority recognized by government in the 50's and had no legislation protecting their rights.
    7.) As I said, that changed in the late 20th century and now their class is among the other protected minorities.
    8.) Gay's are indistinguishable from the rest of the population and can only be part of the protected class by claiming they are gay.
    9.) A closeted gay cannot claim protection for housing violations without coming out and claiming to be part of the class for example.
    10.) That's part of what I meant when I said activity, excluding the sex part of coarse.
    11.)I know that my opinions are my opinions.
    12.)Put me in charge and I'd fix all this crap.
    1.) it doesnt seem you do from some of your claims
    2.) minorities arent a special class
    3.) just equal protections
    4.) correct
    5.) nor is it needed
    6.) they dont have legislation now nor is it needed, they were always protected under equal rights people simply denied them that protection
    7.) what other protected minorities? there are none this is a perfect example of why you dont understand rights
    8.) so is race sometimes and so is religion and religion
    9.) 100% false, another example of how you dont understand rights. since the illegal discrimination is against sexual orientation, its not needed for them to come out.??????
    10.) and again like the fact i pointed out, there doesnt have to be an activity
    11.) yes they are but the issue is you are pushing some of this as fact and it simply is not, its 100% wrong
    12.) fix what crap? the fix is easy and its already on its way, equal rights . . . .

    how would you fix it?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 9 of 46 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •