Page 112 of 184 FirstFirst ... 1262102110111112113114122162 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,120 of 1834

Thread: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

  1. #1111
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    The definition of marriage needs to be finalized, .
    A lot of people I bet thought the same when anti miscegenation laws were around.

  2. #1112
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    The definition of marriage needs to be finalized, obviously the DOMA hasn't kept the issue from wasting our court system time. An amendment that was carefully structured and could not be misinterpretted by the most radical of courts is sorely needed.
    You mean an amendment that says that marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation?

  3. #1113
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Please explain if civil unions give all the same legal benefits of marraige, what is the problem?
    If civil unions truly did offer all the same legal benefits of marriage, then gays would not have an extraordinary argument to make for same sex marriage. However, it is an irrelevant argument to make because civil unions don't offer all the same legal benefits as marriage. There are over a thousand federal rights that are reserved specifically for marriage.

    Makes it no less a fact.
    It makes it a fallacy, and therefore invalid and irrelevant.

    Same sex marraige has been outlawed by the Constitutions of 6 states and is illegal in the other 31.
    Yup.

  4. #1114
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    You mean an amendment that says that marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation?
    As we've just seen the holidays come and go, namely Christmas...you no doubt took time to watch Yukon Cornelius on Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer...and in his infamous words..you eat what you eat, I'll eat what I eat. We gnash teeth, we debate above board, we present both points of view, and then We the People decide our cultural institutions ans what the definitions are. If a court misinterprets, we rewrite the law. If an exec take it upon him or herself to write in law, we use our Constitutional right to referendum and strike it down.

    Those preferring to wed their sisters....as it passes your muster above...those wishing to marry more then one person at the same time....whether it passes your moral compass or not...will all have their say. Will all help determine the outcome and definition.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  5. #1115
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    As we've just seen the holidays come and go, namely Christmas...you no doubt took time to watch Yukon Cornelius on Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer...and in his infamous words..you eat what you eat, I'll eat what I eat. We gnash teeth, we debate above board, we present both points of view, and then We the People decide our cultural institutions ans what the definitions are. If a court misinterprets, we rewrite the law. If an exec take it upon him or herself to write in law, we use our Constitutional right to referendum and strike it down.

    Those preferring to wed their sisters....as it passes your muster above...those wishing to marry more then one person at the same time....whether it passes your moral compass or not...will all have their say. Will all help determine the outcome and definition.
    Except, you can't pass laws that violate the 14th amendment.

    If you guys want discriminatory laws to remain constitutional, then you'll have to amend the 14th amendment. Why not try that tactic?

  6. #1116
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    No, because the Court moves slowly. Just look to Loving v Virginia to see how wrong you are. It took the Court 99 years after passage of the 14th amendment to use it to strike down laws that prohibited interracial marriage. According to your logic, it should've happened years earlier. Try explaining that.

    So if a state defines marriage as that between one black man and one black woman, and one white man and one white woman; it applies equally to everyone in the state. Sure a black person couldn't marry a white person, but neither could a white person marry a black person; therefore no discrimination. Care to explain why the Court didn't buy that argument?
    Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? It's not very hard to distinguish. The Loving court said that race is irrelevant to the institution. To wit, you had some men and women who could marry each other, but some men and women who couldn't, for an arbitrary reason. That's unequal application. And a re-definition of marriage along racial lines is discriminatory on its face.

    But when defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there's no one who can do something that someone else can't. There is no prima facie discrimination and no unequal application.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #1117
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post

    But when defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there's no one who can do something that someone else can't. There is no prima facie discrimination and no unequal application.
    I can do something a woman can not do. Marry a woman.

  8. #1118
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I can do something a woman can not do. Marry a woman.
    But using the Loving analysis, that's not irrelevant to the institution.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #1119
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Except, you can't pass laws that violate the 14th amendment.
    We do it all the time, what in heavens name are you talking about? Can you wed your first cousin in your state? Cuz...you cannot in mine. Cannot the 14the amendment apply to first cousins....or even brother/sister....why...of course it can. But we do not permit a license to be given to first cousins. And if you're already in a marriage contract, we deny you as well, the 14th amendment doesn't apply there either. Same with same sex marriage, and when we amend, we amend speaking to the 14th amendment, speaking to marriage, using clear and concise language so that it cannot be misinterpreted.

    If you guys want discriminatory laws to remain constitutional, then you'll have to amend the 14th amendment. Why not try that tactic?
    Because we consistently don't believe this is a judicial matter. We would rather take the much more appropriate path of a legislative endeavor that specifically defines marriage and if any court claims it unconstitutional....we simply return and rewrite or amend the Constitution.

    My state a perfect example, the Legislature went to the judiciary and asked for language......that couldn't be confused. What language or how should we amend our state Constitutuion so that this law cannot be misinterpretted? The Courts said we disagree with our Constituents decisions but....in if we actually intended to specifically define marriage, here would be the language needed.

    And another reason why I support a federal amendment. To finally and outright define this institution and make the courts clearly aware of We the People's wishes on the matter. Close this case for good....it's a political distraction anyway, meaningless to our nation as well as any others.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  10. #1120
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? It's not very hard to distinguish. The Loving court said that race is irrelevant to the institution. To wit, you had some men and women who could marry each other, but some men and women who couldn't, for an arbitrary reason. That's unequal application. And a re-definition of marriage along racial lines is discriminatory on its face.

    But when defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there's no one who can do something that someone else can't. There is no prima facie discrimination and no unequal application.
    Discrimination on the basis of race is no worse than discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

Posting Permissions

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