• 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

jet57 said:
I lean right on some issues myself. My comments are aimed more at Cruz's version of conservative; the right-wing. for those like yourself however, some pressure on the right-wing through your demands that Republicans separate themselves would be ore helpful than putting up with right-wing nonsense such as Cruz's bill and this notion that conservatives are constitutionalists, when we can clearly see from this example that that is not the case.

In my view, and I'm sure your's as well, all right-wing extremists in this country are idiots. But, as I said, the "conservatives" are claiming them as their own, so your point just gets buried when a bonfire needs to be set to flush the idiots out.
Click to expand...

Well I can do you one better, all extremest all idiots I don't waste time with any of them. And yes this move by cruz is extreme and idiotic.
 
bubbabgone said:
Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
Click to expand...

When the argument is " the Feds have no business in marriage because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution" then Loving becomes a very pertinent precedent.

Do you wish to alter your argument?
 
bubbabgone said:
Don't be silly.
When Obama made his appointments, for example, he was well aware, in general terms, how each would very likely decide cases that would come before them.
Haven't you ever heard that one of the advantages to a political Party is having a POTUS of your party in a position to make Judicial appointments?
Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

He hasn't made an appointee since 2010. Obama back then never declared support for SSM and the dems as a whole ran scared ****less from the subject. The decision will likely be 6-3. Most likely he never even asked any of his appointees about it and the series of federal court rulings all came in the past couple years, the vast majority appointed by other presidents who all did whatever they could to oppose SSM

Bush II tried to pass an amendment against SSM for christ sakes, but john roberts has changed his stance on it to the point it wouldn't surprise me if he voted with the majority in june. The justices aren't beholden to whatever promises they make and their opinions and interpretations change. They're appointed for life
 
LaylaWindu said:
At least you admit you have no real solid argument and you just make stuff up. That counts for something.
Click to expand...

Actually, I just like to lay in a little humor to lighten the mood. Unlike you, I don't take these debates personally or even that seriously. As far as me having something to say...

chromium said:
Uh, the poll asked specifically if they want gay relationships to be ILLEGAL and 30% said yes. If you believe that's somehow more permissible or doesn't reflect their hatred, it says a lot more about you than me. And hate myself, what are you even on about here? Thanks for the lovely psychoanalysis, i guess, but i'll go to some other shrink
Click to expand...

As I stated, believe what you want because I can be sure that one such as yourself hasn't actually sat down and tried to understand other sides arguments, to build the bridges necessary to spread tolerance. I'm guessing all you do is get on here just to vent, not caring who you lash out with in the process. It's all just raw anger at the injustices you perceive, and on a base level I can empathize with it; What appears to be the sheer irrationality of their viewpoint it makes no sense to you. So let me help you here, from one person whose been on both sides of the fence. What you don't get is the fact that most of the people that oppose SSM are conservative. And more than anything, conservatives value individual choice. Now keep in mind that those same conservatives are also the ones that believe that being gay is just a choice (they're wrong of course, but that's an issue for another day).

That's why I can be so sure that the vast majority of those who oppose SSM wouldn't lock someone up for being gay today, because all they'd be doing is locking them up for a choice. It's antithetical to the conservative way, after all. We saw this when there was such an uproar over those two gay gentlemen kissed during the NFL draft. The backlash had nothing to do with either of them being gay, but everything to do with it being on TV. As many would go to say, "I'm fine with them being gay as long as it's not shoved in my face." Now think back if you will to all the hubbub surrounding Michael Sam; at any point in time did you hear a single peep of people asking he be sent to jail? Of course not, and that is my point.

chromium said:
He is trying to come to power and he has a track record of trying to oppress homosexuals, even this week. Yeah he is the devil and the #1 enemy of the movement right now, within the US at least. I don't work with bigots either. There is no compromising away of equality or dignity
Click to expand...

You know what a bigot is? See most of the time the word is used whenever the issue of race or homosexuality is brought up, but the definition of bigot isn't at all so narrow. Here's just a couple of examples:

Google: Bigot said:
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Click to expand...

Dictionary.com Bigot said:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Click to expand...

The funniest thing about this whole issue is that you have become what you hate most: a bigot. Someone who is completely intolerable to view other than your own that you'll go nuclear at the first sign of someone offering a contrarian viewpoint. I suppose it isn't surprising though, as you use the word so much. Perhaps it's because you are so familiar with it?

Regardless, I don't disagree with you that Cruz is foremost spokesman for the opposition to SSM. But the #1 enemy of the movement? Not at all. You know how I know that's true? Even if someone in all their righteous anger was to strike down the devil himself, the movement would go on. Only now, you've empowered those that you oppose because you've just made him a martyr and showed to the world how intolerant those who argue for SSM can be. The real #1 enemy of the movement, is people like you that get on here and become so hostile with anyone that disagrees. Because that prevents people like myself, from connecting with those on the other side and showing them that there are alternatives to a complete dismantling of everything they know and hold dear.

Compromise isn't what is important with this issue, Understanding is. Once both sides understand what's important to each other, then it's all about making sure that the priorities of each side are met. At that point, no compromise is necessary.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Actually, I just like to lay in a little humor to lighten the mood. Unlike you, I don't take these debates personally or even that seriously. As far as me having something to say...
Click to expand...

You realize you just did it again right? You just totally made something up. Ill make note that just the type of poster you are.
 
LaylaWindu said:
You realize you just did it again right? You just totally made something up. Ill make note that just the type of poster you are.
Click to expand...

And what did I make up?

Edit: Also, you haven't actually argued with me on any points that I've seen. Could be wrong but, the only post I've noted was that slide in to jump onto another argument. Kind of makes you the little guy that is dancing around another's feet echoing them doesn't it?

If you have something of note to say, then say it.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
And what did I make up?

Edit: Also, you haven't actually argued with me on any points that I've seen. Could be wrong but, the only post I've noted was that slide in to jump onto another argument. Kind of makes you the little guy that is dancing around another's feet echoing them doesn't it?

If you have something of note to say, then say it.
Click to expand...

You made up that I take this personally and seriously, that's completely made up.

Again you can't be serious. My original points to you are still out there, you dodged them each time because you have nothing to back up your claims, the only one doing the dancing is you as many other posters pointed out. So there's the note, step up and defend that you said and address the points posters make or continue to have that pointed out by many hahaha you're funny.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
When the argument is " the Feds have no business in marriage because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution" then Loving becomes a very pertinent precedent.

Do you wish to alter your argument?
Click to expand...
It doesn't look like I'm getting through to you.
I'm agreeing that it will be used to argue the unconstitutionality of SSM bans.
I can't be any clearer.
Sheesh.
 
chromium said:
He hasn't made an appointee since 2010. Obama back then never declared support for SSM and the dems as a whole ran scared ****less from the subject. The decision will likely be 6-3. Most likely he never even asked any of his appointees about it and the series of federal court rulings all came in the past couple years, the vast majority appointed by other presidents who all did whatever they could to oppose SSM

Bush II tried to pass an amendment against SSM for christ sakes, but john roberts has changed his stance on it to the point it wouldn't surprise me if he voted with the majority in june. The justices aren't beholden to whatever promises they make and their opinions and interpretations change. They're appointed for life
Click to expand...

This whole notion about Presidents not having a good sense how their Judicial appointments would decide is almost too bizarre to entertain.
When your argument starts with and stays on the granular level (e.g. SSM) then there's never any common ground in sight.
Obama and every President looks at how their potential nominees have decided cases and then decides if they can get them through the process since the political opposition is doing the same thing.
That's all I'm saying and it's so obvious I get the feeling we're talking past each other.

In the case of Obama, his appointees have not disappointed him so far and likely won't with SSM.
And if you want to stay granular as with SSM itself, Obama has favored it before he was elected the 1st time and it's reasonable to assume he'd make appointments that he believed would decide that way.

You disagree with any of that?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Actually, I just like to lay in a little humor to lighten the mood. Unlike you, I don't take these debates personally or even that seriously.
Click to expand...
As far as me having something to say...



...
Click to expand...

Oh man, you nailed it. That one arrived with a lot of baggage.

The rest of your comment was on the mark also ... just too long to reproduce since you addressed more than 1 poster.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
And what did I make up?

Edit: Also, you haven't actually argued with me on any points that I've seen. Could be wrong but, the only post I've noted was that slide in to jump onto another argument. Kind of makes you the little guy that is dancing around another's feet echoing them doesn't it?

If you have something of note to say, then say it.
Click to expand...

I learned a painful lesson yesterday.
Some people are just given to strange behavior when they find themselves behind a keyboard.
Unfortunate but true.
 
bubbabgone said:
It doesn't look like I'm getting through to you.
I'm agreeing that it will be used to argue the unconstitutionality of SSM bans.
I can't be any clearer.
Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Then what is your argument?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Actually, I just like to lay in a little humor to lighten the mood. Unlike you, I don't take these debates personally or even that seriously. As far as me having something to say...



As I stated, believe what you want because I can be sure that one such as yourself hasn't actually sat down and tried to understand other sides arguments, to build the bridges necessary to spread tolerance. I'm guessing all you do is get on here just to vent, not caring who you lash out with in the process. It's all just raw anger at the injustices you perceive, and on a base level I can empathize with it; What appears to be the sheer irrationality of their viewpoint it makes no sense to you. So let me help you here, from one person whose been on both sides of the fence. What you don't get is the fact that most of the people that oppose SSM are conservative. And more than anything, conservatives value individual choice. Now keep in mind that those same conservatives are also the ones that believe that being gay is just a choice (they're wrong of course, but that's an issue for another day).

That's why I can be so sure that the vast majority of those who oppose SSM wouldn't lock someone up for being gay today, because all they'd be doing is locking them up for a choice. It's antithetical to the conservative way, after all. We saw this when there was such an uproar over those two gay gentlemen kissed during the NFL draft. The backlash had nothing to do with either of them being gay, but everything to do with it being on TV. As many would go to say, "I'm fine with them being gay as long as it's not shoved in my face." Now think back if you will to all the hubbub surrounding Michael Sam; at any point in time did you hear a single peep of people asking he be sent to jail? Of course not, and that is my point.



You know what a bigot is? See most of the time the word is used whenever the issue of race or homosexuality is brought up, but the definition of bigot isn't at all so narrow. Here's just a couple of examples:





The funniest thing about this whole issue is that you have become what you hate most: a bigot. Someone who is completely intolerable to view other than your own that you'll go nuclear at the first sign of someone offering a contrarian viewpoint. I suppose it isn't surprising though, as you use the word so much. Perhaps it's because you are so familiar with it?

Regardless, I don't disagree with you that Cruz is foremost spokesman for the opposition to SSM. But the #1 enemy of the movement? Not at all. You know how I know that's true? Even if someone in all their righteous anger was to strike down the devil himself, the movement would go on. Only now, you've empowered those that you oppose because you've just made him a martyr and showed to the world how intolerant those who argue for SSM can be. The real #1 enemy of the movement, is people like you that get on here and become so hostile with anyone that disagrees. Because that prevents people like myself, from connecting with those on the other side and showing them that there are alternatives to a complete dismantling of everything they know and hold dear.

Compromise isn't what is important with this issue, Understanding is. Once both sides understand what's important to each other, then it's all about making sure that the priorities of each side are met. At that point, no compromise is necessary.
Click to expand...

Well said. And I have seen a lot of people change their mind on the issue. In fact, most who change their mind do so because they actually meet and get to know gay folk and see their relationships firsthand. That is the difference. It takes time and patience.
 
bubbabgone said:
This whole notion about Presidents not having a good sense how their Judicial appointments would decide is almost too bizarre to entertain.
When your argument starts with and stays on the granular level (e.g. SSM) then there's never any common ground in sight.
Obama and every President looks at how their potential nominees have decided cases and then decides if they can get them through the process since the political opposition is doing the same thing.
That's all I'm saying and it's so obvious I get the feeling we're talking past each other.

In the case of Obama, his appointees have not disappointed him so far and likely won't with SSM.
And if you want to stay granular as with SSM itself, Obama has favored it before he was elected the 1st time and it's reasonable to assume he'd make appointments that he believed would decide that way.

You disagree with any of that?
Click to expand...

You really think that out of all the issues, Obama used SSM as a litmus test issue for justice appointments?
 
bubbabgone said:
I learned a painful lesson yesterday.
Some people are just given to strange behavior when they find themselves behind a keyboard.
Unfortunate but true.
Click to expand...

Did you learn what the constitution says? Because that should have been the lesson you learned yesterday.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The funniest thing about this whole issue is that you have become what you hate most: a bigot. Someone who is completely intolerable to view other than your own that you'll go nuclear at the first sign of someone offering a contrarian viewpoint. I suppose it isn't surprising though, as you use the word so much. Perhaps it's because you are so familiar with it?
Click to expand...

I'll just say that being intolerant of bigotry doesn't make one a bigot. It's an absurd use of the word - the KKK are bigots (for obvious reasons), and those who condemn the KKK are also bigots because they are intolerant of racists and antisemites? Sorry, but no....

I do agree sometimes that the "left", me included, are sometimes intolerant (bigoted) towards people who e.g. view homosexuality as a sin and condemn its practice. That's really none of my business - some people think alcohol is of the devil. Whatever.

But here Cruz is saying two things, 1) I believe marriage is between one man and one woman (this is perfectly fine, obviously consistent with mainstream Christianity), AND 2) I want the STATE to enforce my view of marriage on the entire population and PROHIBIT SSM. Being intolerant of position 1) is a form of bigotry, but opposing 2) is not.

It's what so many people also didn't get about the Mozilla CEO's stance on SSM. His step too far, IMO, was overseeing a workforce with significant numbers of gays, and supporting efforts to enforce his views on marriage through the CA Constitution.

Regardless, I don't disagree with you that Cruz is foremost spokesman for the opposition to SSM. But the #1 enemy of the movement? Not at all. You know how I know that's true? Even if someone in all their righteous anger was to strike down the devil himself, the movement would go on. Only now, you've empowered those that you oppose because you've just made him a martyr and showed to the world how intolerant those who argue for SSM can be. The real #1 enemy of the movement, is people like you that get on here and become so hostile with anyone that disagrees. Because that prevents people like myself, from connecting with those on the other side and showing them that there are alternatives to a complete dismantling of everything they know and hold dear.

Compromise isn't what is important with this issue, Understanding is. Once both sides understand what's important to each other, then it's all about making sure that the priorities of each side are met. At that point, no compromise is necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how possible that is when one side wants to ban the position of the other - have the state enforce their viewpoints. SSM supporters aren't taking any kind of aim at "traditional marriage." I'm traditionally married - if a gay couple also gets married, it has no effect on me or my relationship with my wife.
 
bicycleman said:
He's going to have to include social issues if he wants the Evangelical Christian vote, and he probably will since he is a Baptist. That will bring in the Evangelicals, who refused to vote for a Mormon so stayed home from the polls.
Click to expand...

Does he want the extremist vote or does he want to win?
 
LaylaWindu said:
Wow that is just a dip**** move. I'll never understand the push to stop people from having rights. I mean don't get me wrong people can believe whatever they want but who they hell are they to try to deny others the same great rights, protections and freedoms we share in this country? It's childish and pathetic, it reminds me of watching bullies on some tv show hahaha
Click to expand...

pretty much
 
jet57 said:
And the conservatives are so much FOR the constitution. Except of course when it crowds their agenda.
Click to expand...

well like i always there are millions of conservatives that are for the constitution and equal rights.
 
bicycleman said:
God defined marriage when he made Adam and Eve. He sure didn't make Adam and Steve.
Click to expand...

God and religion have nothing to do with legal marriage.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

"The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

The 14th says (among other things) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And that's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
Click to expand...

The 10th grants the states the power over all things not granted to the federal government.

The 14th grants the federal government the power to disallow states from denying people in their jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

Thus, the 14th doesn't granted the Federal Government power over the definition of marriage EXCEPT in terms of disallowing states to deny people equal protection under the law.

Note, the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about equal protection of the laws AS EXPLICITLY STATED IN TEH CONSTITUTION. Rather, it speaks of things in a broad sense. The state still has power over things that the constitution doesn't vest to the federal government, but when exercising that power they must not deny people equal protection of the law.

If the states marriage law does not deny those within it's jurisdiction equal protection under the law, then the state has the power to do whatever they want. HOWEVER, if the state tries to deny people equal protection with regards to marriage or any law, the federal government...via the 14th...has power to take action. This does not conflict with the 10th, because the 10th says only powers that the federal government isn't given is vested to the states, and the 14th specifically gives the federal government power over ANY law that a state has that denys equal protection.

Marriage laws forbidden same sex marriage do not provide equal protection under the law.
 
JasperL said:
I'll just say that being intolerant of bigotry doesn't make one a bigot.
Click to expand...

Actually it absolutely does. The problem is that people have so desperately wanted to take the word "bigot" and make it a universally insulting term, specifically so they can make themselves feel superior by having a special term to attack those they dislike, that they simply want to redefine the word to exclude themselves.

Yes, being intolerant of bigotry is being bigoted towards bigotry. Trying to suggest it doesn't make one a bigot it laughable. The far more reasonable and practical argument is to simply state that being a bigot is not inherently a "bad" thing, but rather it's a question of WHAT one is being bigoted against that is the problem. The issue for people, and why they don't do that, is because that indicates that "bigot" as a BAD thing is a "subjective" notion not an "objective" one, and they often badly want it to be OBJECTIVE to suit their elitist attitudes.

Yes, it's absolutely possible to be a "bigot" towards "bigotry". And the reality is often times what is portrayed as simply "bigotry towards bigotry" is actually "bigotry towards a wide variety of things, including benign things, but presented in a way as to make it appear that it's only really being done towards Bigotry".
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually it absolutely does. The problem is that people have so desperately wanted to take the word "bigot" and make it a universally insulting term, specifically so they can make themselves feel superior by having a special term to attack those they dislike, that they simply want to redefine the word to exclude themselves.
Click to expand...

It's Orwellian IMO to use the same term for the KKK and those who condemn the KKK.

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Click to expand...

And it simply HAS BEEN a universally negative term. If I say, "Bob is a bigot" it simply isn't a neutral term that is useless without context. Could be he is intolerant of racists and anti-semites, could be he is a white supremacist!!

BS. That's insulting, quite frankly. MLK wasn't a bigot (judged by the content of their character...) because he was intolerant of white racists and worked to eliminate rules that trampled on the rights of whites to discriminate against blacks. But white supremacists ARE bigots. Saudi Arabia's public policy towards religions other than Islam is bigoted. The U.S. tradition of religious tolerance is NOT.

If you want to condemn liberals for being intolerant of some Christians and some of their views, and label that as bigotry, that's fine. As I said, that is common. We are all bigots in some ways. But you don't have to redefine the word to get there.
 
Zyphlin said:
The 10th grants the states the power over all things not granted to the federal government.

The 14th grants the federal government the power to disallow states from denying people in their jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

Thus, the 14th doesn't granted the Federal Government power over the definition of marriage EXCEPT in terms of disallowing states to deny people equal protection under the law.

Note, the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about equal protection of the laws AS EXPLICITLY STATED IN TEH CONSTITUTION. Rather, it speaks of things in a broad sense. The state still has power over things that the constitution doesn't vest to the federal government, but when exercising that power they must not deny people equal protection of the law.

If the states marriage law does not deny those within it's jurisdiction equal protection under the law, then the state has the power to do whatever they want. HOWEVER, if the state tries to deny people equal protection with regards to marriage or any law, the federal government...via the 14th...has power to take action. This does not conflict with the 10th, because the 10th says only powers that the federal government isn't given is vested to the states, and the 14th specifically gives the federal government power over ANY law that a state has that denys equal protection.

Marriage laws forbidden same sex marriage do not provide equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
You've summed up what I've been saying except with your last line you've leaped past the USSC ruling.
I, too, suggested that they will rule that way but it's still up to them and it's not quite a slam dunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom