Page 191 of 193 FirstFirst ... 91141181189190191192193 LastLast
Results 1,901 to 1,910 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1901
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,105

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    What you mean is that you knew there were at least 4 members of the Court that do not agree with your personal interpretation of the Constitution. Just as most of us knew that at least two/three of the Justices had an interpretation of the Constitution that matched yours, which was extremely limited because they support states' rights over individual rights.
    No, you are in error. My personal view does not enter into it. There should be no party affiliation detectable in a Supreme Court Justice, they should all be able to read the Constitution and do what it says.

    And it's not that the four liberals can't do that, it's that they won't do it. The Constitution is in conflict with their liberal agenda, so they ignore it. Has nothing to do with me. Today's democrats have strayed so far left, and far from what this country was founded on, that the Constitution isn't even in their ballpark.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  2. #1902
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    No, you are in error. My personal view does not enter into it. There should be no party affiliation detectable in a Supreme Court Justice, they should all be able to read the Constitution and do what it says.

    And it's not that the four liberals can't do that, it's that they won't do it. The Constitution is in conflict with their liberal agenda, so they ignore it. Has nothing to do with me. Today's democrats have strayed so far left, and far from what this country was founded on, that the Constitution isn't even in their ballpark.
    All of this is a partisan rant that only recognizes the partisanship of one side and refuses to recognize that the US Constitution has been interpreted many different ways, by many different people for hundreds of years. You trying to change that to your fixed definition is still your subjective opinion. It has everything to do with you because you are the one making the claims of partisanship then going off on "the other side" (Democrats, liberals) in one of the most partisan rants I've seen in a while.
    "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.

  3. #1903
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14,433

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    It is astounding to me that there are now nearly 2000 posts in this one thread on a ruling that will have zero impact on the lives of 95% of the people on here, and will have no impact at all on the lives of 100% of the people that are angry about the decision.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #1904
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,049

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Okay, I see you don't understand how it works. In short, the SC should have just said that it's not a federal issue and sent it back to the States. Since gay marriage is so popular, as claimed in this thread, there should have been no problem getting it passed in most every State. No need for the SC to get involved.
    I understand how it works perfectly. You just didn't like the ruling. Your argument simply fails on the grounds of what SCOTUS has done historically. It has ruled on the constitutionality of marriage bans, and the like.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #1905
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,105

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    All of this is a partisan rant that only recognizes the partisanship of one side....
    And yet, you are unable to refute it.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #1906
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,105

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I understand how it works perfectly. You just didn't like the ruling. Your argument simply fails on the grounds of what SCOTUS has done historically. It has ruled on the constitutionality of marriage bans, and the like.
    But, you demonstrate that you don't understand, or are willing to understand, how it works. Here is a little pointer... it's not a marriage ban, it's changing marriage to include more combinations than just a man and a woman. No one was banned.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  7. #1907
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,049

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    But, you demonstrate that you don't understand, or are willing to understand, how it works.
    Given the number of cases where SCOTUS has ruled on marriage? Nope, I definitely do. Continuing to claim the opposite is contrary to reality.

    Here is a little pointer... it's not a marriage ban, it's changing marriage to include more combinations than just a man and a woman. No one was banned.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...unions_by_type

    Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. states passed several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as defense of marriage amendments.[1] The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.
    Please, please stop this.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 07-07-15 at 07:13 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #1908
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    But, you demonstrate that you don't understand, or are willing to understand, how it works. Here is a little pointer... it's not a marriage ban, it's changing marriage to include more combinations than just a man and a woman. No one was banned.
    People were banned from marrying someone of the same sex, just as people were banned from marrying someone of a different race.
    "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.

  9. #1909
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,730
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Judge to Bakers: No Free Speech for You - Rachel Lu, The Federalist

    By decree of the great state of Oregon, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa must pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple whom they “mentally raped” by refusing to bake their wedding cake. This was expected, but the final judgment, handed down last Thursday, came with another twist. Aaron and Melissa Klein have also been given a “cease and desist” order, which effectively decrees they must refrain from stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs.

    Land of the What-Was-That?

    Let’s be clear on why this is so sinister. There are times when speech rights conflict with other legitimate social goods. The public’s right to know can conflict with individual privacy rights. Sometimes threats to public safety warrant keeping secrets. There can be interesting debates about intellectual property rights. These cases can get tricky, and we should all understand that speech rights necessarily do have certain pragmatic limits.

    None of those concerns apply here. The Kleins did not threaten public safety. They violated no one’s privacy or property rights. Rather, the Oregon labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, wanted to silence them because the content of their speech. Presumably he was angry that the Kleins’ defiant stance had earned them a potentially profitable reputation as heroes for religious freedom. They were meant to be humiliated and cowed; instead there was a real chance they would land on their feet. So they had to be gagged to prevent that from happening.

    If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a case like this, it is meaningless. . . .


    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  10. #1910
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    People were banned from marrying someone of the same sex, just as people were banned from marrying someone of a different race.
    Barring legal recognition is not the same thing as banning marriage altogether.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •