• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

You oppose the Supreme Courts "Loving" decision?
 
Hard Truth said:
You oppose the Supreme Courts "Loving" decision?
Click to expand...

It's not my place to oppose SCOTUS however all of this should have been handled by legislation. States have the right to regulate marriage until the Feds amend the constitution. Both of those situations I'm ok with.
 
sawdust said:
It's not my place to oppose SCOTUS however all of this should have been handled by legislation. States have the right to regulate marriage until the Feds amend the constitution. Both of those situations I'm ok with.
Click to expand...

But they do not have the right to deny equal rights. And that is what some States has continued to do.
Under your Constitution, are Rights not a Federal area?
 
TeleKat said:
The whole concept of states' rights is riiculous to me. States don't have rights, people do. Like the right to enter into contract and the freedom of association.
Click to expand...

People can, depending on how they are defined. I never get people who act like the federal government is inherently evil, but somehow, the state governments are good. Why isn't *ALL* government evil? What's next, when the states refuse to do what they want, start insisting that only city government is valid? It's absurd.
 
sawdust said:
It's not my place to oppose SCOTUS however all of this should have been handled by legislation. States have the right to regulate marriage until the Feds amend the constitution. Both of those situations I'm ok with.
Click to expand...

With the Loving decision, which legalized interracial marriage in several states, the SCOTUS ruled that irrational discriminatory marriage laws are unconstitutional because they violate both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Hard Truth said:
With the Loving decision, which legalized interracial marriage in several states, the SCOTUS ruled that irrational discriminatory marriage laws are unconstitutional because they violate both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point. Once you have a couple of states where gay marriage is legal, it is fundamental that it be legal in all states because of the Equal Protection Clause. It's funny how these people only pay attention to the Constitution when it does what they want, then they become deaf, dumb and blind when it doesn't.
 
Cephus said:
People can, depending on how they are defined. I never get people who act like the federal government is inherently evil, but somehow, the state governments are good. Why isn't *ALL* government evil? What's next, when the states refuse to do what they want, start insisting that only city government is valid? It's absurd.
Click to expand...

The obsession with state's rights seems to be primarilly based on the fact that states are more willing to pass and uphold (in the courts) discriminatory laws that would not be upheld by federal courts.
 
Hard Truth said:
The obsession with state's rights seems to be primarilly based on the fact that states are more willing to pass and uphold (in the courts) discriminatory laws that would not be upheld by federal courts.
Click to expand...

The smaller the venue, the less supporters you have to seize control of it. I'm surprised they haven't started pushing for block patrol rights. That's about all the libertarians can muster.
 
sawdust said:
1.)You haven't cleared up anything.
2.) I think you are wrong about most of what you've written and because I don't respect your opinion I don't want or need your help.
3.) Your condesention is outstanding however.
Click to expand...

1.) sorry you are still confused but the facts wont change
2.) I havent offered you any opinion, i told you facts
3.) thanks but that is yet again another false assumption on your part :shrug:
I have law, facts, rights and court cases on my side, remind me what you have stated besides your opinions and feelings?
your opinions and feelings JUST LIKE MINE dont matter
I accept your concession though, like i said its a good idea to try to study up about this particular topic.

Fact remains:
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups



this fact wont change whether you understand them or not. Good luck
 
sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

so you are claiming history, the constitution, rights and over 25+ cases and 45+ judges got it wrong?
I would love to hear the facts supporting that
 
sawdust said:
It's not my place to oppose SCOTUS however all of this should have been handled by legislation. States have the right to regulate marriage until the Feds amend the constitution. Both of those situations I'm ok with.
Click to expand...

states have the power to regulate many things up to the point they violate individual rights then thier power ends and no legislation is needed or constitutional amendmet is needed, that fact is already true.
 
AGENT J said:
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. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
Click to expand...

It's a generational thing. The older generations, many democrats included and Obama for several years of his presidency, are against gay marriage. For younger generations, it isn't even a point of controversy. My view: So long as religious institutions are exempt from violating their constitutional rights, who cares. The party that makes this a core value is doomed to lose the 35 and younger crowd.
 
SBu said:
1.)It's a generational thing. The older generations, many democrats included and Obama for several years of his presidency, are against gay marriage. For younger generations, it isn't even a point of controversy.
2.) My view: So long as religious institutions are exempt from violating their constitutional rights, who cares.
4.) The party that makes this a core value is doomed to lose the 35 and younger crowd.
Click to expand...

1.) being against gay marriage doesnt mean people want to infringe on rights though
I know many people including myself that are against things but that doesnt motivate me to deny people rights
wanting to deny rights comes from bigotry and ignorance, plan and simple
2.) I agree but thats not even a valid concern, the constitution (like you mentioned) already protects them as it basically always has. The church has discriminated for years and they still do today based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc etc etc and thats thier right. And its a right i would also protect and fight for but that isnt needed.

The reality is religion isnt even a factor when discussing LEGAL marriage but many people try to mix them when they are indeed already 100% separate.

3.) they are doomed to loose more than that, Im not in that crowd and in real life there are very very few that want to "stop" equal rights. There are plenty that may not "like it" though.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) being against gay marriage doesnt mean people want to infringe on rights though
I know many people including myself that are against things but that doesnt motivate me to deny people rights
wanting to deny rights comes from bigotry and ignorance, plan and simple
2.) I agree but thats not even a valid concern, the constitution (like you mentioned) already protects them as it basically always has. The church has discriminated for years and they still do today based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc etc etc and thats thier right. And its a right i would also protect and fight for but that isnt needed.

The reality is religion isnt even a factor when discussing LEGAL marriage but many people try to mix them when they are indeed already 100% separate.

3.) they are doomed to loose more than that, Im not in that crowd and in real life there are very very few that want to "stop" equal rights. There are plenty that may not "like it" though.
Click to expand...

1.) In an ideal world, this is the case. However, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. The fact is that older generations are set in their ways; in what they learned and were taught in their youth while their minds and opinions were forming. They will stray not far from those origins, but fear not because this is a temporary phenom.

2.) Religious organizations, not just 'churches', will rightly fear government over-reach.

3.) This is probably true. An arbitrary age cut-off that I made up to reflect my opinion of the general generational line.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) sorry you are still confused but the facts wont change
2.) I havent offered you any opinion, i told you facts
3.) thanks but that is yet again another false assumption on your part :shrug:
I have law, facts, rights and court cases on my side, remind me what you have stated besides your opinions and feelings?
your opinions and feelings JUST LIKE MINE dont matter
I accept your concession though, like i said its a good idea to try to study up about this particular topic.

Fact remains:
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups



this fact wont change whether you understand them or not. Good luck
Click to expand...



I have experience with someone like you. My ex wife. It was impossible to argue with her because she claimed that what she said was fact. Good luck with your facts. Se was cute but her facts were less than believable.
 
SBu said:
1.) In an ideal world, this is the case. However, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. The fact is that older generations are set in their ways; in what they learned and were taught in their youth while their minds and opinions were forming. They will stray not far from those origins, but fear not because this is a temporary phenom.

2.) Religious organizations, not just 'churches', will rightly fear government over-reach.

3.) This is probably true. An arbitrary age cut-off that I made up to reflect my opinion of the general generational line.
Click to expand...

1.) lol niiiice I dont fear it though because equal rights is winning
2.) well those are not the same, churches should rest assured and have no fears, there isnt even any evidence that shows they are in danger of government overreach. Unless the constitution changes they are safe as can be.

"religious institutions" should have any fear either unless they fear breaking the law and getting caught, religious orgs for the most part have to play by the same rules as EVERYBODY, if they dont lie it, tough they can get out of the "non-religious" realm

3.) im just saying at least in my area the people around my age support equal rights, hell the majority do . . but there are people that dont like it
 
sawdust said:
1.)I have experience with someone like you. My ex wife.
2.)It was impossible to argue with her because she claimed that what she said was fact.
3.) Good luck with your facts.
4.) Se was cute but her facts were less than believable.
Click to expand...

1.) very telling
2.) this is your mistake, im not trying to argue, there are two things i point out that are in deed fact because the law rights and constitution makes them that way. It has nothing to do with what i "say".

what i say is meaningless to the fact. You are free to disagree but it only exposes your like of education on this particular subject.

Also if you disagree all you have to do is bring ONE fact to the table that supports your failed and proven wrong claims . . . one . . . why are you avoiding this?

I can back up with law and facts what i said, all you have provided so far is "nu-huh"

3.) another mistake, facts dont need luck they just are
4.) wow 3 for 3 in mistakes, again your belief doesnt matter to facts. You are free to believe 2 + 2 = 85.74 doenst change the fact you are wrong.

here are the facts:
Fact remains:
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups

I challenge you to present anything that factually proves otherwise

I bet you cant or you dodge it :shrug:
 
1750Texan said:
I to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman...What does that have to do with the Constitution? When did America become a Sharia law nation in which religious beliefs trump the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

When I said, "It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman," I was responding to Kobie's post in which he said, "It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue." Neither one of us said about the Constitution.
 
nota bene said:
When I said, "It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman," I was responding to Kobie's post in which he said, "It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue." Neither one of us said about the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Sincerity of belief does not make anyone any less of a bigot.

Racists can sincerly believe that black people are inherently inferior to white people. Their sincerity does not make them any less of a bigot.

nota bene said:
Here is a blog response that you might find useful: CounterPoint: Yes, Virginia, States Really Do Have Rights - The Liberty Papers

There has been tension between states rights and federal powers since the beginning.
Click to expand...

The fact that some blog on the internet says something only proves that some blog on the internet says something; it doesn't prove that what they say is true

States do not have rights. State govts have *powers*; they have no rights.
 
sangha said:
Sincerity of belief does not make anyone any less of a bigot.

Racists can sincerly believe that black people are inherently inferior to white people. Their sincerity does not make them any less of a bigot.



The fact that some blog on the internet says something only proves that some blog on the internet says something; it doesn't prove that what they say is true

States do not have rights. State govts have *powers*; they have no rights.
Click to expand...

some people simply arent interested in the truth or facts
and some people simply think "feelings" and "wants" and "beliefs" matter to rights and the constitution when they dont one single bit. . . its nothing more then adults having temper tantrums like little kids because people they dont like are getting rights

its hilarious watching them cry and pout
 
AGENT J said:
1.) very telling
2.) this is your mistake, im not trying to argue, there are two things i point out that are in deed fact because the law rights and constitution makes them that way. It has nothing to do with what i "say".

what i say is meaningless to the fact. You are free to disagree but it only exposes your like of education on this particular subject.

Also if you disagree all you have to do is bring ONE fact to the table that supports your failed and proven wrong claims . . . one . . . why are you avoiding this?

I can back up with law and facts what i said, all you have provided so far is "nu-huh"

3.) another mistake, facts dont need luck they just are
4.) wow 3 for 3 in mistakes, again your belief doesnt matter to facts. You are free to believe 2 + 2 = 85.74 doenst change the fact you are wrong.

here are the facts:
Fact remains:
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups

I challenge you to present anything that factually proves otherwise

I bet you cant or you dodge it :shrug:
Click to expand...

Who do you think you are? Challenge me? I'll speak to you if you can communicate without being a jerk. I challenge you to give it a try.
 
Just a ploy so that Ted Cruz can let everyone know that in addition to Green Eggs and Ham, he does like like Gay Marriage, Sam I am.
 
sawdust said:
Who do you think you are? Challenge me? I'll speak to you if you can communicate without being a jerk. I challenge you to give it a try.
Click to expand...

I see you've been formally introduced to AgentJ. He is incapable of separating fact from opinion, it really is NOT in his DNA.

Tim-
 
sawdust said:
Who do you think you are? Challenge me? I'll speak to you if you can communicate without being a jerk. I challenge you to give it a try.
Click to expand...
LMAO
translation: you cant back up your failed and proven wrong claims, thats what we thought.
let us know when you can, thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom