Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 233

Thread: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

  1. #71
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    If you are trying to make a point, I don't know what it is. If state marriage laws no longer are constitutional because of a Supreme Court decision, complying with that decision requires states to amend or repeal those marriage laws. Otherwise, they cannot continue to perform marriages. The fact a law for whatever reason may remain on the books after it has become invalid does not make it any less invalid. The provisions in the state constitutions you refer to were unenforceable as soon as Loving was decided.
    No, complying with the constitutional interpretation of the SCOTUS does not require "amending" the actual laws. Amending a law is an actual process, completely outside of a law being made valid or not. No laws have to be "amended" to comply with a SCOTUS ruling that makes same sex marriage bans unconstitutional.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #72
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And please share with us how many rulings that was? You seem to believe it was some sort of huge number especially in comparison to those rulings that claimed otherwise.
    You can start here (look under Case Law):
    Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Nope. You made the claim, wrongly. The SCOTUS does not "rewrite" the Constitution. They uphold the Constitution, usually in support of people's rights (although they have had their instances).
    No, they rewrite it. Take for instance copyright law. The constitution explicitly states 14 years as the period of patent before it enters the public domain. The SCOTUS ruled that could mean 2000 years if congress set that as the figure. That is a direct rewrite of the text of the constitution.

  3. #73
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetron View Post
    Marriage as a concept predates government as a concept. While there are exceptions to the rule of marriage being between a man and a woman by the very nature of them being exceptions they prove the rule. Throughout the history of man the principle of marriage, and the religious institution of marriage has always been Man to Woman, for the procreation of children. The governmental recognition of this institution is in no way an interference in church and state as the government is allowed to recognize religious institutions.

    As mentioned homosexual couples want the word marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do, and this is absolutely true. Homosexual couples want their union to be declared as normal as the union between heterosexual couples. They want the government to legislate the moral equivalency of these marriages. As this is in contrast with the history of the concept of marriage it is an attempt to redefine a basic concept in order to alter the morality of a same sex union. While in the legal sense the traditional view of marriage does not own that word, the redefinition of that word to include new groups under its heading is problematic. This would require that marriage not be based on historical concepts but based on the idea that if any grouping of people want to get married they can and are due all protections and benefits under the law. The first issue with this is that it creates a false moral equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. But beyond this it creates other issues. Why for instance do those who advocate same sex marriage rail against polygamous marriages. If marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, why cant one man have multiple wives. On the same topic why cant a man marry any woman, or man of any age.

    There is a reason marriage has held its definition through the ages. Marriage as it is traditionally recognized created a much needed social stabilization. The joining together of a reproductive unit for the purpose of having and supporting offspring created a stable nucleus around which to build a society. This concept over time obtained legal trappings but the very fact that marriage between a homosexual couple is not already an existing concept proves that it is outside the traditional definition of marriage. If it was in fact an equivalent union then an institution would already exist. The very debate shows that it is outside the historical concept of marriage.

    If homosexual couples wish to insure that their spouses are legally entitled to their benefits, or belongings then there are legal procedures that can be instituted for such requirements. It is even possible to endow civil unions with such rights without having to alter the traditional institution of marriage. The problem is homosexual couples are not seeking legal equality they are seeking moral equality which is not something the government can or should try to give anyone.
    Marriage as a concept predates all current religions. It was mainly about joining families for various reasons, especially as a recognizable social construct.

    There are no "legal procedures" equivalent to marriage in the US. Marriage already exists for opposite sex couples and same sex couples, whether you approve of them using the term "marriage" or not. You nor religion nor opposite sex couples own that term. You must "share" it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #74
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,270

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The SCOTUS does not "rewrite" the Constitution.
    The hell it doesn't. Some of its decisions have tortured the meaning of this or that part of the Constitution beyond recognition. Its substantive due process decisions in general have involved the justices in substituting their personal views for the constitutional text. The Court itself commented on that very problem in at least one decision, in effect saying it recognized it had been guilty of excesses in the bad old days of the "Substantive Due Process Era" from 1904 to 1937, and pledging to sin no more. And in the context of economic regulations, which most of the SDP Era decisions involved, it hasn't. But it has felt no need for restraint when it comes to other social issues. In Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Court went on a real SDP bender, making the Constitution say whatever it wanted it to.
    Last edited by matchlight; 05-12-15 at 04:58 PM.

  5. #75
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    You can start here (look under Case Law):
    Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    No, they rewrite it. Take for instance copyright law. The constitution explicitly states 14 years as the period of patent before it enters the public domain. The SCOTUS ruled that could mean 2000 years if congress set that as the figure. That is a direct rewrite of the text of the constitution.
    The Constitution does not talk of copyright law so they do not in any way rewrite the text of the Constitution by ruling on any such laws. You are making absolutely no sense.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #76
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The hell it doesn't. Some of its decisions have tortured the meaning of this or that part of the Constitution beyond recognition. Its substantive due process decisions in general have involved the justices in substituting their personal views for the constitutional text. The Court itself commented on that very problem in at least one decision, in effect saying it recognized it had been guilty of excesses in the bad old days of the "Substantive Due Process Era" from 1904 to 1937. But it had conveniently forgotten about all that, at least outside the context of economic regulations, by 1973, when it once again went on a SDP bender in Roe v. Wade.
    In other words "they don't rule the way I want them to for certain cases so that means they are "rewriting" the laws". It is bull****.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetron View Post

    If homosexual couples wish to insure that their spouses are legally entitled to their benefits, or belongings then there are legal procedures that can be instituted for such requirements.
    Separate but equal has been found to be unConstitutional.

    And why should the govt invent a whole new bureaucracy in order to provide the exact same things for the exact same purposes? Are most looking for less 'big govt?'
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetron View Post
    The problem is homosexual couples are not seeking legal equality they are seeking moral equality which is not something the government can or should try to give anyone.
    Tell that to all the gay couples that tried to get health coverage for their partners, that were denied access to their partners in hospitals, that tried to adopt, that need equal legal recognition in custody battles, that want state inheritance laws to apply to their partners and kids...the list is huge.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #79
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,405

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I could go all, "it's a fact" on you. But yes, just as your opinion seems to be that the two are tied somehow.
    I support abortion- I do not support the DP -
    But one could argue it is the State taking lives in each instance.
    If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.

  10. #80
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The Constitution does not talk of copyright law so they do not in any way rewrite the text of the Constitution by ruling on any such laws. You are making absolutely no sense.
    Indeed it does, it's known as the Copyright Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •