• 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

Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...


i love that I have destryed so many of your posts that it has this effect on you
tell me what part i said wasnt fact? Id love for you to show us, i bet youcan't and you dodge it like always.

here ill help you

Facts
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups

please tell us which one is not fact . . .this is gonna be great!
 
From a constitutional stand point, I have issue with our marriage laws because I think it's inherently a EPC violation due to gender discrimination. Taking that out of the equation though....

I have zero issue with States deciding if they want to issue the liscences in their state or not.

I have issue with a state deciding it won't recognize the liscence of another state, or the federal goverment not recognizing one issued by a state.

I also have a MASSIVE issue with using the amendment process to EMPOWER the government to restrict the rights that citizens have. No other amendment, other than prohibition, actively sought to empower the government to restrict the rights that citizens have, except in instances where said rights were clearly infringing upon the rights of another. The amendment process absolutely should not be used to WEAKEN the amount of freedom a citizen without said freedom conflicting with another citizens freedom, and it absolutely should not be used to EMPOWER the government further without said empowerment occuring in order to legitimately protect the freedoms of a citizen.

NO ONES inalienable rights are being infringed by two people of the same sex being married.
 
AGENT J said:
i love that I have destryed so many of your posts that it has this effect on you
tell me what part i said wasnt fact? Id love for you to show us, i bet youcan't and you dodge it like always.

here ill help you

Facts
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups

please tell us which one is not fact . . .this is gonna be great!
Click to expand...

Not only can you not separate fact from opinion, now it seems you have a grandiose recollection of memory. ;)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Not only can you not separate fact from opinion, now it seems you have a grandiose recollection of memory. ;)

Tim-
Click to expand...
BOOM! called it
you cant prove either of those facts false so you deflect and dodged it.
thanks thats what we thought
 
AGENT J said:
BOOM! called it
you cant prove either of those facts false so you deflect and dodged it.
thanks thats what we thought
Click to expand...

Huh? Called what? :)

I don't even know what you're talking about?

Facts action is NOT needed to be gay
Click to expand...

Um, what? Who said it was, and what do you mean by "action"?

there are no protected minority groups
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Are you saying that the civil rights laws of the 60's does not protect minority groups, such as Blacks? Laws protecting women, and age discrimination, disabled etc.. These are all minority groups, and in the case of women, gender, and in some states, and now the Federal government, we have laws protecting sexual orientation from discrimination? Unless you think they're protecting them from something else, please elucidate? Besides all that, I never made any such comments in this regard to you or anyone else in this thread, so perhaps based on the available evidence, you really are having a grandiose memory of me? ;)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
1.)Huh? Called what? :)
1.) Um, what? Who said it was, and what do you mean by "action"?



What do you mean? Are you saying that the civil rights laws of the 60's does not protect minority groups, such as Blacks? Laws protecting women, and age discrimination, disabled etc.. These are all minority groups, and in the case of women, gender, and in some states, and now the Federal government, we have laws protecting sexual orientation from discrimination? Unless you think they're protecting them from something else, please elucidate? Besides all that, I never made any such comments in this regard to you or anyone else in this thread, so perhaps based on the available evidence, you really are having a grandiose memory of me? ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

you said i dont know facts, these are the facts i posted in this thread

now are they fact or arent they not, simply question, yes or no

Facts
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups
 
Zyphlin said:
From a constitutional stand point, I have issue with our marriage laws because I think it's inherently a EPC violation due to gender discrimination. Taking that out of the equation though....

I have zero issue with States deciding if they want to issue the liscences in their state or not.

I have issue with a state deciding it won't recognize the liscence of another state, or the federal goverment not recognizing one issued by a state.
Click to expand...

This is one very possible outcome of the SCOTUS ruling due in June. That states are allowed to decide who gets married in their states, but that once a state marries some one, they are married in all 50 states. Probably not the most likely outcome, but certainly high on the list of possible outcomes.

I also have a MASSIVE issue with using the amendment process to EMPOWER the government to restrict the rights that citizens have. No other amendment, other than prohibition, actively sought to empower the government to restrict the rights that citizens have, except in instances where said rights were clearly infringing upon the rights of another. The amendment process absolutely should not be used to WEAKEN the amount of freedom a citizen without said freedom conflicting with another citizens freedom, and it absolutely should not be used to EMPOWER the government further without said empowerment occuring in order to legitimately protect the freedoms of a citizen.

NO ONES inalienable rights are being infringed by two people of the same sex being married.
Click to expand...

We need more conservatives like this. Not because it ends up in agreement with me on an SSM issue, but because he does not want to use the constitution to limit what others do. That is one of the more important issues with me, though I extend it to not using the constitution(ie amending it) for little ****. Far too often the response for some people is to call to amend the constitution, and is annoys me no end. We should not amend the constitution to get around Citizens United, or to get around SSM rulings, or to get around Roe v Wade or any other ruling. It should not be done for petty things like a proposed flag burning amendment. It should only be done for big, important issues where it can't be done other ways and a right needs protecting.
 
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 do have the right to regulate marriage, nobody is contesting that.

However, state actions are still bound by the constitution. For example, a state cannot issue a blanket firearm ban as that would violate the second amendment. Similarly, the state cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman because this violates the 14th amendment, or so says the constitutional challenge that SCOTUS will hear this June.

So, the only real question at hand is whether or not same sex marriage bans violate the 14th amendment. This isn't a "federal government versus state government" issue.
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO
translation: you cant back up your failed and proven wrong claims, thats what we thought.
let us know when you can, thanks
Click to expand...


No, I just don't have any patience for speaking to someone who can't maintain a modicum of civility. If you drop your passage aggressive tone perhaps you'd get further with your communicative skills.
 
Hicup said:
Huh? Called what? :)

I don't even know what you're talking about?



Um, what? Who said it was, and what do you mean by "action"?



What do you mean? Are you saying that the civil rights laws of the 60's does not protect minority groups, such as Blacks? Laws protecting women, and age discrimination, disabled etc.. These are all minority groups, and in the case of women, gender, and in some states, and now the Federal government, we have laws protecting sexual orientation from discrimination? Unless you think they're protecting them from something else, please elucidate? Besides all that, I never made any such comments in this regard to you or anyone else in this thread, so perhaps based on the available evidence, you really are having a grandiose memory of me? ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

I feel I should point out that these laws protect race and gender, not black or female. White men are protected in the same way.
 
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...

They can defend state rights, but the States are held to the Constitution as is the federal government. Government cannot discriminate. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract. That's pretty much the end of it.
 
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...


No, that just means that gays won't vote for him, but then again, Cruz doesn't expect to get any gays to swing his way, anyway. No loss.
 
Ikari said:
They can defend state rights, but the States are held to the Constitution as is the federal government. Government cannot discriminate. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract. That's pretty much the end of it.
Click to expand...

100% correct..:bravo:
 
Deuce said:
States do have the right to regulate marriage, nobody is contesting that.

However, state actions are still bound by the constitution. For example, a state cannot issue a blanket firearm ban as that would violate the second amendment. Similarly, the state cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman because this violates the 14th amendment, or so says the constitutional challenge that SCOTUS will hear this June.

So, the only real question at hand is whether or not same sex marriage bans violate the 14th amendment. This isn't a "federal government versus state government" issue.
Click to expand...

States do have the ability to apply local regulations to gun ownership, as the licensing laws in New York. I'm not claiming that the Feds can't do anything they want, certainly they can and they prove that daily. I am saying that they are exceeding the constitutional limits, not only in marriage but in many other areas of governance.

In addition, It's my opinion that SCOTUS shouldn't have standing in the upcoming challenge. My opinion won't stop them but I believe that the only way the Federal government should be involved is by amendment.
 
bicycleman said:
No, that just means that gays won't vote for him, but then again, Cruz doesn't expect to get any gays to swing his way, anyway. No loss.
Click to expand...

it means many more people than gays wont vote for him, it means many people that support equal rights and the Constitution wont vote for him

but i agree, him making sure he wont be president is no loss
 
Deuce said:
I feel I should point out that these laws protect race and gender, not black or female. White men are protected in the same way.
Click to expand...

True, but these laws were born out of a need to protect those mentioned from white men, and men in general. They were minorities, and YOU and I both know it. The law protects us all, but why the need for such laws was to protect only a few, contemporaneous with the times.


Tim-
 
sawdust said:
No, I just don't have any patience for speaking to someone who can't maintain a modicum of civility. If you drop your passage aggressive tone perhaps you'd get further with your communicative skills.
Click to expand...

another dodge, thats what i thought
fact remains:
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups
 
AGENT J said:
it means many more people than gays wont vote for him, it means many people that support equal rights and the Constitution wont vote for him

but i agree, him making sure he wont be president is no loss
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about Cruz. I'd like to see a ticket with Ben Carson and Scott Walker. They'd make a good team.
 
Ikari said:
They can defend state rights, but the States are held to the Constitution as is the federal government. Government cannot discriminate. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract. That's pretty much the end of it.
Click to expand...

Geez, randomly run into you in two threads today. In this case you are somewhat wrong. The government can and does discriminate. What the government needs to be able to discriminate is a good reason. For example, using marriage again as an example, the government discriminates against young people by not allowing people under a certain age get married. They have a damn good reason for that discrimination however and it would easily survive constitutional challenge.
 
sawdust said:
States do have the ability to apply local regulations to gun ownership, as the licensing laws in New York. I'm not claiming that the Feds can't do anything they want, certainly they can and they prove that daily. I am saying that they are exceeding the constitutional limits, not only in marriage but in many other areas of governance.

In addition, It's my opinion that SCOTUS shouldn't have standing in the upcoming challenge. My opinion won't stop them but I believe that the only way the Federal government should be involved is by amendment.
Click to expand...

The courts don't need standing to hear a case. They need jurisdiction, and SCOTUS does have jurisdiction
 
bicycleman said:
I couldn't care less about Cruz. I'd like to see a ticket with Ben Carson and Scott Walker. They'd make a good team.
Click to expand...

LMAO you HAVE to be joking . . . .

Ben Carson has ZERO chance of winning, he is in the group with Palin, Bachmann, and Cain as far as changes in the white house

walker has a better chance if he can keep social issues out of his platform, thats just the way its going to be in 2016
 
Redress said:
Except that he is in fact wrong.
Click to expand...

not in context he isnt

yes if you take his statments out of context and just read them as stand alones then yes they could be wrong
 
Redress said:
Geez, randomly run into you in two threads today. In this case you are somewhat wrong. The government can and does discriminate. What the government needs to be able to discriminate is a good reason. For example, using marriage again as an example, the government discriminates against young people by not allowing people under a certain age get married. They have a damn good reason for that discrimination however and it would easily survive constitutional challenge.
Click to expand...

to expand on that, the govt can not only discriminate, it can limit people's rights. However, in order to do so, it must show that the govt has a legitimate interest in doing so and that the discrimination (or limiting of rights) serves that interest

I can't think of a legitimate governmental interest that is served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples.
 
AGENT J said:
not in context he isnt

yes if you take his statments out of context and just read them as stand alones then yes they could be wrong
Click to expand...

No, actually in context he is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom