Page 39 of 42 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 411

Thread: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

  1. #381
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,550
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    The courts have seized certain powers they were never intended for, you are right about that. However, enforcing equal protection is not one of those. It is in the constitution the same as the 1st or 2nd amendment. It's definitely in the court's purview. You know why? Because the amendment says "equal protection" NOT "equal protection of heterosexuals, right handers, people 6 foot or taller" etc. If these groups become oppressed in the course of time, the 14th has been violated. The courts are mandated to render judgment on whether that has occurred in specific cases, such as the ballots in 13 states that have still banned SSM

    The legislature is free to repeal or create new amendments, as it tried to ban SSM under Bush II, but they failed. They lost, get over it
    Given that the marriage laws were 100% equally applied to everybody without exception and everybody, gay, straight, or whatever had to play by the same rules in each and every state, even though the state laws do vary a bit from state to state, it is hard for me to see how the laws that existed violated equal protection for anybody.

    The courts should not require any state to change its laws when they already apply equally to everybody and harm nobody.

    If the existing law does not meet the needs of those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or who cannot marry or who don't want to marry somebody of the opposite sex, then create a new law to accommodate those who can't or don't want to benefit from the existing law but who need what a legally recognized family provides. Don't make everybody else change a definition that has been part of human culture for more than four millennia.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  2. #382
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,828

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Beats the **** out of me. What a foolish question.
    It's not a foolish question, and your dodge is telling.

    See, you claimed the Feds don't have the right to interfere with a state's right to define marriage. I offered up a potential definition, and now suddenly you "don't know" whether states have the right to do that.

    So do states have unlimited right to define marriage, or does any state definition of marriage still have to comply with the US constitution?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #383
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It's not a foolish question, and your dodge is telling.

    See, you claimed the Feds don't have the right to interfere with a state's right to define marriage. I offered up a potential definition, and now suddenly you "don't know" whether states have the right to do that.

    So do states have unlimited right to define marriage, or does any state definition of marriage still have to comply with the US constitution?
    You asked a question which involves the first amendment. It was a foolish question.
    "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. #384
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,450

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    If what you say were true, gay marriage would be legal throughout the country. I probably will be some day but not today.
    ....
    Not today, but give or take a few days, marriage equality will be achieved Monday, June 29, 2015, shortly after 10:00 am EDT.

    Plan on it.

  5. #385
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,828

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Given that the marriage laws were 100% equally applied to everybody without exception and everybody, gay, straight, or whatever had to play by the same rules in each and every state, even though the state laws do vary a bit from state to state, it is hard for me to see how the laws that existed violated equal protection for anybody.

    The courts should not require any state to change its laws when they already apply equally to everybody and harm nobody.

    If the existing law does not meet the needs of those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or who cannot marry or who don't want to marry somebody of the opposite sex, then create a new law to accommodate those who can't or don't want to benefit from the existing law but who need what a legally recognized family provides. Don't make everybody else change a definition that has been part of human culture for more than four millennia.
    They made the same argument about interracial marriage. "Everyone already has the same right to marry someone of the same race!" This is not a compelling argument. Here's why:

    This isn't an equal footing situation. If the state wishes to make a distinction of race in any law for any reason, that distinction is subject to challenge under strict constitutional scrutiny. The burden is on the state. The measure in question must be "narrowly tailored" to meeting a "compelling state interest." There is no compelling state interest in preventing a white person from marrying a black person. The state has nothing to gain from this.


    Now, it's true that same-sex marriage bans aren't a distinction of race, so the same standard does not necessarily apply. Traditionally, strict scrutiny has applied to issues of race, religion, or any constitutionally-enumerated or "fundamental" right. SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental right before, so some argue that strict scrutiny applies.

    Issues of gender fall under an intermediate level of scrutiny. The measure in question must be "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest." Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is clearly a distinction of gender, so I would argue that intermediate scrutiny applies at a minimum. Once again, we find that no state interest is furthered by preventing a man from marrying a man, or a woman from marrying a woman. In fact, significant state interest lies in promoting stable family units that are more likely to be self-sufficient and successfully raise children. Marriage furthers this interest, which is why various rights and benefits are given to married couples in the first place. Same-sex couples are more likely to be monogamous, stable, and better able to raise children if they are married.

    The burden is on the state wishing to restrict a choice, not the individual wanting to make it. If you can't provide a sufficient reason to prevent a man from signing a legal contract with a man, you don't get to stop that choice.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #386
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,828

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    You asked a question which involves the first amendment. It was a foolish question.
    Excellent. You've gone with the second option. The federal constitution still restricts the actions of the state via the first amendment.

    So you've agreed that the state's right to define marriage is still subject to constitutional restrictions. This includes the 14th amendment. So the real issue here isn't "states rights vs federal powers," it's "states actions vs the 14th amendment." The underlying question is whether or not a same-sex marriage ban violates the 14th amendment. States' rights aren't in question here. They have the power to define marriage. But they have to do it in compliance with equal protection under the law.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #387
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Excellent. You've gone with the second option. The federal constitution still restricts the actions of the state via the first amendment.

    So you've agreed that the state's right to define marriage is still subject to constitutional restrictions. This includes the 14th amendment. So the real issue here isn't "states rights vs federal powers," it's "states actions vs the 14th amendment." The underlying question is whether or not a same-sex marriage ban violates the 14th amendment. States' rights aren't in question here. They have the power to define marriage. But they have to do it in compliance with equal protection under the law.
    I actually don't know what you're talking about with respect to what I've said. Let me try again.

    Carson said he thinks marriage is between a man and woman but he also said that the states have the duty to regulate marriage. If the states allow gay marriage, he accepts the decision of the state even though he disagrees with it. Some people have called it hypocritical. I've repeatedly said that it's possible to support states rights and disagree with state policy.

    I've also said that I personally don't give a **** about gay marriage. If fact I don't care enough about it to talk about it. I do care about states rights and the separation of power between the federal government and the states. I favor decentralized power and limited government and states rights are the only reason for me to waste my time talking about it.


    And your question was foolish.
    "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. #388
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,828

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    I actually don't know what you're talking about with respect to what I've said. Let me try again.

    Carson said he thinks marriage is between a man and woman but he also said that the states have the duty to regulate marriage. If the states allow gay marriage, he accepts the decision of the state even though he disagrees with it. Some people have called it hypocritical. I've repeatedly said that it's possible to support states rights and disagree with state policy.

    I've also said that I personally don't give a **** about gay marriage. If fact I don't care enough about it to talk about it. I do care about states rights and the separation of power between the federal government and the states. I favor decentralized power and limited government and states rights are the only reason for me to waste my time talking about it.


    And your question was foolish.
    My question illustrated a point: states do not have a right to violate the federal constitution. They can't define marriage as between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman because that is a distinction of religion that both the 1st and 14th amendments would prohibit.

    They can't define marriage as between a male and a female because the 14th amendment prohibits this.
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
    Such a power is prohibited by the constitution and therefore not reserved to the States.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #389
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    My question illustrated a point: states do not have a right to violate the federal constitution. They can't define marriage as between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman because that is a distinction of religion that both the 1st and 14th amendments would prohibit.

    They can't define marriage as between a male and a female because the 14th amendment prohibits this.


    Such a power is prohibited by the constitution and therefore not reserved to the States.
    Your question was just to make a point to yourself. Congratulations. I hope you got your point. In an attempt to get back to reality, rights come from government and rights don't exist until government codifies them into law. You can amendment this and that but until the law is changed in every state the right for gays to marry each other simply isn't universal in this country. It's certainly not universal in the world. ISIS is pushing people off the roofs of multi story building just for being suspected of being gay. Being gay in Iran can get you seriously hurt, or dead. I think gay marriage is a rather minor issue.
    "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. #390
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,815

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Like i said before he is drowning before the race even started.
    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 39 of 42 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... 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
  •