Page 55 of 61 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 609

Thread: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

  1. #541
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Pro-gm is not forcing anything on anti-gm....wait didn't someone just force a stereotype of Britney Spears and drive-through chapels on conservative Christians (who, by the way, are not the people using said drive-through chapels, etc)?
    I think this is fuuny. I read it as supporting my position. Good man.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #542
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    This comment makes ZERO sense. How is being inclusive and believing that rights and privileges extended to one group should be extended to all = to Bigotry?
    It is the opposite of Bigotry.

    Bigotry is believing that only certain groups should be entitled to rights/privileges because they are somehow more deserving than other groups.

    Now...lets apply this to the current situation: I believe that the right/privilege to marry should be extended to everyone regardless of race,gender, sexual orientation.
    You believe that only certain people should be extended that privilege.

    I think it is pretty clear where the bigotry lies.
    IMO "marriage" should be extended to any child rearing couple regardless, to even include incest, and should not be extended to non child rearing couples. The right is not denied to anyone who qualifies, nor is it given to anyone who the right does not apply.

    If that makes me a bigot in your book, I'm ok with that.

  3. #543
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We did vote and in my state the constitution clearly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The majority of the nation has banned same sex marriage at the state level by amending their state constitutions. It is purely in line with the Constitution of the United States and none have been shot down by the Supreme Court. It isn't unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, and it's completely legal to enact laws because religious individuals voted to uphold/create them. We aren't some atheist form of theocracy (I understand atheism isn't a faith, I use the term theocracy loosely) that bans all laws because religious people have voted on them. The Supreme Court can't overturn these bans because the are constitutional. The states have rights and so do the voters.

    Yes, and the Constitution gives the people and states the right to vote and make policy. As far as I see it, homosexuals aren't being segregated or denied rights that I don't have. Their union just isn't being recognized as marriage because by definition it isn't marriage. The Constitution doesn't support setting up an anti-religious moral system that in a totalitarian fashion forces secular morals and definitions upon the majority. Again, banning same sex marriage is not unconstitutional, many states have done it and none have been overturned in court.
    What a foolish argument. It hasn't been overturned because it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court. You're accurate, but it adds as much to the debate as stating the sky is blue.

    The debate is will it meet 14th Amendment Equal Protection clauses. 4 of the 5 states where it HAS been challenged, their state Supreme Courts stated that it fails to meet their own Equal Protection clauses. And remember, as we learned in Romer v. Evans - discriminatory amendments to State Constitutions can and have been overturned.

    God knows what the current Court will do (although Kennedy has voted for gay rights causes more than against them by a 3 to 1 margin); but where it has been taken to Court, most Courts find that it doesn't hold up under Equal Protection.

    And you can claim it all you like, but you ARE denying rights to others that you possess. You may enter into a legal contract with the person you love and the government will in turn grant you benefits including inheritance and protection of government benefits, visitation, power of attorney, and tax benefits. If there weren't any benefits, whey were people bitching about and overturning the "marriage penalty" a few years back?

    And specifically, the California voters didn't only restrict the rights of other citizens with their vote, they actually took the right away from people who had it - even worse in my opinion. So I lose no sleep when I say that the California voters who voted to strip people of their rights are selfish, arrogant, hateful people. They should be chastised. They looked someone in the eye and said: You were once equal, but I'm going to turn you into a 2nd Class Citizen. As of today, you mean nothing to me nor to the state and you are a lesser human being than myself.

  4. #544
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    IMO "marriage" should be extended to any child rearing couple regardless, to even include incest, and should not be extended to non child rearing couples. The right is not denied to anyone who qualifies, nor is it given to anyone who the right does not apply.

    If that makes me a bigot in your book, I'm ok with that.
    Jerry and I have had this discussion and I'm okay with his views. He simply states that no benefits should be extended to any couples until they have children and the tax benefits should only be extended to couples upon having children.

    And if I'm right, this includes same-sex couples, correct, Jerry?

    I see no bigotry in his MO. Now, my only concern with this is up until that point to vote against gay marriage is a little discriminatory, in my book - because you're settling for inequality under the status quo before your equalizing solution occurs.

    But your philosophy isn't bigoted at all.

  5. #545
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-18 @ 11:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,203

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    IMO "marriage" should be extended to any child rearing couple regardless, to even include incest, and should not be extended to non child rearing couples. The right is not denied to anyone who qualifies, nor is it given to anyone who the right does not apply.

    If that makes me a bigot in your book, I'm ok with that.
    Actually, Jerry, you are consistent in your view and your view does not use race,ethnicity or sexual orientation to determine who you feel is entitled to the privilege to marry. While I disagree with your belief that marriage should only be extended to child-rearing couples, your argument at least has some basis in rationality unlike those who believe that marriage should be restrict to heterosexuals or Christian couples.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #546
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    IMO "marriage" should be extended to any child rearing couple regardless, to even include incest, and should not be extended to non child rearing couples. The right is not denied to anyone who qualifies, nor is it given to anyone who the right does not apply.

    If that makes me a bigot in your book, I'm ok with that.
    Although I don't agree with you, at least you have a non-discriminatory stance.

    I don't see this actually working out well, just because there are a lot of opposite couples who have no desire to raise kids or can't raise kids, who might object to same sex marriage, but certainly don't want to lose their own marriage status. I think there are a lot of anti-gm people out there, that if it came down to a choice between recognition for gay marriage or possibly losing recognition for their own marriages (or potential to get married), then they would go ahead and allow same sex marriage.
    "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. #547
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It is not unconstitutional and fits perfectly in line with our laws and founding documents. No where in the constitution does it say homosexuals must have the right to marriage.
    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say heterosexuals have a right to marriage so...hand over that marriage license now, kiddo.

    These laws and propositions of defining marriage have been challenged pretty much every time they were pushed, and they were never stopped or ruled unconstitutional.
    You are flat our wrong. They were ruled unconstitutional in California, Vermont, and Hawaii.

    People can challenge DOMA, but realize it passed with overwhelming support and is completely constitutional.
    Realize this: the contention is that it is not constitutional. The constitutionality of it is in question right now else we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't care how many religious nutjobs supported it: the courts will have the final say.

    A state has the right to extend a civil contract, and others have the right to dissolve them. Please stop with your flame bait language referring to those against the homosexual agenda as "religious zealots." The fact is that it's perfectly legal to define marriage as it is a social institution upheld at the state level. The federal government has defined marriage as a union between man and woman, but they also give the states their rights to define marriage and issue the marriage licenses. The fact is that a homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage, and this it should not be recognized as such a union. They can call it a civil union or whatever, but it isn't marriage.
    If you find my apt description of the anti-gay marraige base to be personally insulting, take it up with a mod. I'm tired of hearing your whining about how butthurt you feel about the descriptions of the people you align yourself with. As to the actual substance of the above quote, the state may not extend privileges to a group of people without giving equal access to those institutions which confer those privileges. You keep falling back on an argument that was settled by the SCotUS in Loving v Virginia and Sharp v Perez.

    Christianity is fading in this country, that doesn't mean we can't see a revival or growth.
    Perish the thought...

    Although, the fading of Christianity is perfectly in line with what the Bible says. It says as the end times approach, the world will begin to go into a depraved and warped sense of wicked morality, and that the righteous will become few in number and persecuted. I have nothing further to say about your offensive and completely irrelevant comments regarding Christianity and my faith.
    That also sounds like the persecution and separation philosophy of every other dying cult in history.

    Great, so through dishonesty and rage they will force homosexuality to be recognized as marriage, or deny everyone's rights to have marriage as a legal contract That is true bigotry.
    First, I think you need to learn what the word bigotry actually means. Secondly, do I detect a little angst at having the same denial of your rights turned back on you that you seem to be perfectly ok with denying me? The irony in that is just thick.



    And one again, people using "inclusive definitions" to attempt to "justify" their bigotry.
    And once again you cry "boo-hoo you're a bigot because you won't accept my bigotry".

  8. #548
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So no gays will ever use a drive-though chapel is what you're arguing? No gay youth celeb will ever marry and have his life fall apart?

    I thought you said gays were just like everyone else?
    I know one thing: none of that has happened with homosexuals but it already has happened with heterosexuals.

    I'm not making any arguments based on what we don't know. I am making arguments based on what we do know for sure.

  9. #549
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,119

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say heterosexuals have a right to marriage so...hand over that marriage license now, kiddo.
    And no where does it say homosexuals have a right to marriage. It's a social issue, therefore society gets to speak and vote on it as the Constitution would suggest.

    You are flat our wrong. They were ruled unconstitutional in California, Vermont, and Hawaii.
    Has Prop 8 been ruled unconstitutional? Vermont and Hawaii... I would expect nothing less from those states, of course they would substitute what is lawful for their liberal moral system. It was challenged here in TN too and many other states, and they found it to be constitutional in court.
    Realize this: the contention is that it is not constitutional. The constitutionality of it is in question right now else we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't care how many religious nutjobs supported it: the courts will have the final say.
    The courts will have their final say, and those who declare its unconstitutional largely do it to force their morality upon others. I saw no problem before the California elections with any group saying it was unconstitutional to have on the ballot. You deal with things like that before the election, not afterwards when you don't get your way. They lost in the popular election, so now they are turning to plan B, legislating from the bench. Where was the homosexual rights outcry when they thought about putting Prop 8 on the ballot? Everyone thought it would pass in liberal California so there was no objection.
    If you find my apt description of the anti-gay marraige base to be personally insulting, take it up with a mod. I'm tired of hearing your whining about how butthurt you feel about the descriptions of the people you align yourself with. As to the actual substance of the above quote, the state may not extend privileges to a group of people without giving equal access to those institutions which confer those privileges. You keep falling back on an argument that was settled by the SCotUS in Loving v Virginia and Sharp v Perez.
    I find your description of religious individuals and anti-gay marriage supporters to be bigoted and offensive. All I am asking for is a rational debate free from insults and offensive language. I have great respect for you as an individual and poster, and I feel debates should be rational and insult free. Forgive me if I am whining or act "butthurt," I just want a logical and rational debate. There is another place for users to flame as they please, and it isn't here.
    That also sounds like the persecution and separation philosophy of every other dying cult in history.
    Christianity isn't a "dying cult." Western nations are becoming increasingly secular, but many other parts of the world are seeing a boom in Christianity (like in Africa).
    First, I think you need to learn what the word bigotry actually means. Secondly, do I detect a little angst at having the same denial of your rights turned back on you that you seem to be perfectly ok with denying me? The irony in that is just thick.
    Homosexuals don't have the right to exalt their relationship as equal to marriage when the populace has voted and decided that it isn't marriage. I believe they have a right to legal status. but not to call their relationship/union marriage, because it isn't marriage.


    And once again you cry "boo-hoo you're a bigot because you won't accept my bigotry".
    [/quote]
    No, I'm merely exposing the hypocrisy. The ones interjecting bigotry are those who want to blanket every anti-gm supporter as a bigot and close their eyes to their own bigotry through forcing their definition of marriage on others.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #550
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,119

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    What a foolish argument. It hasn't been overturned because it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court. You're accurate, but it adds as much to the debate as stating the sky is blue.
    The point is that we can't say it's unconstitutional when it hasn't been decided as such. Plus in my state, the state court deemed it was perfectly legal to pass Tennessee Amendment 1 in 2006.
    The debate is will it meet 14th Amendment Equal Protection clauses. 4 of the 5 states where it HAS been challenged, their state Supreme Courts stated that it fails to meet their own Equal Protection clauses. And remember, as we learned in Romer v. Evans - discriminatory amendments to State Constitutions can and have been overturned.
    I won't deny that there may be some Constitutional clash in regards to the 14th Ammendment, but that doesn't mean states can't define marriage. All it would mean is that they can't make marriage licenses in another state void upon moving to their state.
    God knows what the current Court will do (although Kennedy has voted for gay rights causes more than against them by a 3 to 1 margin); but where it has been taken to Court, most Courts find that it doesn't hold up under Equal Protection.
    I would like to know which states have done this, and why the 1 state didn't rule it as wrong. Are you saying they are waiting to challenge all of them in the Supreme Court until they have enough activist judges that would support gay marriage?
    And you can claim it all you like, but you ARE denying rights to others that you possess. You may enter into a legal contract with the person you love and the government will in turn grant you benefits including inheritance and protection of government benefits, visitation, power of attorney, and tax benefits. If there weren't any benefits, whey were people bitching about and overturning the "marriage penalty" a few years back?
    I am not denying rights to others, because it's my belief that they don't have that right. I define marriage, and believe that homosexual unions can apply for civil unions if they want to. There is nothing that says homosexuals have the right to force upon everyone else that their relationship and union is marriage.
    And specifically, the California voters didn't only restrict the rights of other citizens with their vote, they actually took the right away from people who had it - even worse in my opinion. So I lose no sleep when I say that the California voters who voted to strip people of their rights are selfish, arrogant, hateful people. They should be chastised. They looked someone in the eye and said: You were once equal, but I'm going to turn you into a 2nd Class Citizen. As of today, you mean nothing to me nor to the state and you are a lesser human being than myself.
    They didn't restrict anything, they simply didn't extend the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions. And those who had marriage licenses did not obtain them legally, therefore they should have them removed because their "marriage" does not fit the proper definition of the state. I won't deny that there are arrogant hateful anti-gm people, but not all of us are that way. I have several times exposed and expressed my anger at hypocrisy at the Christian right on this forum. However, there is also selfish, arrogant, and hateful people on the pro-gm side who are bigoted towards socially conservative Christians. The mayor of San Fransisco is a prime example of one when he exclaimed "You will have gay marriage weather you like it or not!" There is much hatred towards Christians from the pro-gm side, neither side is spotless.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 55 of 61 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... 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
  •