Page 14 of 43 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #131
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    You can go ahead and marry your boyfriend now. Congrats.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #132
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's all the state deals with now...soooo...changing the name is pointless.

    You're saying the state shouldn't recognize what has been ruled to be a Fundamental Right, that the state should leave this right to private entities and not protect it.

    What other rights do you suppose the State shouldn't protect?
    It’s not a name change. It’s the difference between legal and custom.
    We have the right to (voluntarily and within the confines of the law) contract without interference.
    We do not have the right to a sweet 16 party (custom).
    This is the difference!
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  3. #133
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    So when is Stalin von Fidel, Benny-Toe, McHitler going to rise from the grave as a result of this ruling?
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  4. #134
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    And who is classifying marriage as that?
    LOL I have to list the people who claim marriage is a right for homosexuals? I can start with my favorite, Jallman followed by Hateuy and a slew of others.

    Certainly not the judge who rules on this. I posted a bunch from his ruling, which I read in it's entirety. Good reading.
    His reasoning could not be more flawed. First of all he argued people against gay marriage is "irrational prejudice" He is supposed to interpret the law not offer his personal opinion. That was the first clue to what a joke this judge is.

    And secondly, the state cannot dictate what the government pays or doesn't pay out in benefits including social security.

    It was a ridiculous argument with no basis in the law. He used personal opinion to rule against it.

    The crime in Massachusetts is the government denied the voters a right to vote on the issue not once but twice. It was nothing short of fascism to deny their right to vote on this issue.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  5. #135
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    \
    The crime in Massachusetts is the government denied the voters a right to vote on the issue not once but twice. It was nothing short of fascism to deny their right to vote on this issue.
    We're not a direct democracy. You don't get to vote on a lot of things.
    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. #136
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    We're not a direct democracy. You don't get to vote on a lot of things.
    Show us in the Constitution where its written that the government should deny voters the right to vote on propositions.

    Go ahead.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    First let me say that I did read your post in it's entirety, however I'm going to respond to specific parts purely for the sake of space.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    First, are you suggesting that everything that has been ruled a fundamental right is unquestionably a fundamental right in exactly the way its been ruled?
    No. I mean only that it is as it stands presently until enacted upon again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Second, I don't believe in a fundamental "right" of marriage because marriage in and of itself is a man made creation. I believe fundamental rights are ones that can be exercised without the aid of anything else or through a social contract.
    I argue that a right is a biological imperative. Your typical healthy adult has a psychological need to exist in stable relationships. When you combine that imperative with the imperative to reproduce, you get marriage.

    So to is self defense a biological imperative, which is why I argue that the right to keep and bear arms is a Fundamental Right pre-existing and surviving this government timelessly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Third, I do not believe marriage is a constitutional right.
    I agree. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Federal Constitution, so it is therefore not a Constitutional right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Fourth, I do however believe that its in the interest of the state for a variety of reasons to recognize a union of two people. From taxes, property, power of attorny, etc there are a lot of reasonable reasons why its in the states interest to allow for this kind of thing. And I do think that if they recognize unions then, under equal protection, there is a constitutional right that if they are going to recognize a union of two people then people have a right to enter into such unions. IE the government can not say "You 5 people can enter into various unions, but you, Bob, you're not allowed".
    I think the State has the right to decide which unions it will support and which it will allow to exist without support, as per the 10th Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As it stands, if "marriage" is going to be used by the government then when speaking of it in regards to a government setting it has ZERO religious meaning.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    That means whatever religious traditions may be connected to it and what kind of infringement someone may think rules regarding it would have on religion is irrelevant, because in regards to the government its a 100% SECULAR term because our government is secular.
    Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As such, the notion that "its always been a man and woman" is irrelevant when it comes to the government because there is no overriding law or ruling with regards to government laws that says "laws that are one way must always be that way". As such there is no need for "defense of marriage" because its simply a secular government term for a government sponsored union, and under equal protection said unions should not be barred from people of specific classes of people. This includes discrimination towards sex, suggesting that the only benefit the government has in regards to combined tax laws, property laws, etc is when a man and woman are involved.
    Sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As such, there is any talk about the "Sanctity" of marriage is irrelevent because its not a sacred nor religious thing in this discussion, its a secular thing of the state. The only way to actually make it sacred would be to remove it from the secular wording all together and thus allow it once more to fall into the hands of religion and religion alone.
    Only the people in the union can make a marriage sacred. Religion can't impose it, the Church can't impose it, the State can't impose it. The value of sacrament has to come from within or it will simply not be present.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    By seperating "Marriage" from the governmental terms you successfully assure its sanctity by making every individual religion or church having full and complete control over "marriage" with the government simply having domain over "unions" that bestow upon them recognition and benefits from the state.
    I defend Atheists who are in perfectly healthy marriages here when I argue that marriage is not religious, it is sociological. No religion, church, or other external force can make a marriage succeed or fail. It is purely in the hands of the married people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Any religious arguments, sanctity arguments, tradition arguments are irrelevant in regards to marriage as a secular, governmental term.
    Right, I agree. Those traditions are of the people, not the State.

    ***
    The People want "marriage". Not only heteros, gays want "marriage" too. That is the name humans have given the union. Changing the name does nothing at best, and damages it's meaning in a symbolic interaction way at worse. It simply doesn't solve any problems.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Irrelevant in this discussion. If Marriage is no longer a state entity, as in the term, then if you get married at a church and that church views you as married it matters NOTHING to the state and you don't get those benefits.

    If you chose to ALSO enter into a "civil union" with regards to the state, then you'd get those benefits.

    The suggestion is making Civil Union = Government, Marriage = Private.



    And they shouldn't. As long as "marriage" is the governments term for a union, under equal protection they should be able to access it and all the benefits the government has deemed to be a right of marriage. If the government passes a law decrying a certain right unto its citizens then based on the constitution they can not discriminate in the application of said right. By limiting it to male/female unions you are discriminating by gender by specifically requiring individual genders for the right to be garnered. IE females ONLY have the choice of a male, males ONLY have the choice of a female, thus making their choices unequal.
    We agree that the government should extend marriage buffs to any coupling which is not demonstratively destructive to society.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Talk about an insurance nightmare.
    Don't worry, we'll all be forced under Obama'Care soon enough anyway.

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by peepnklown View Post
    It’s not a name change. It’s the difference between legal and custom.
    We have the right to (voluntarily and within the confines of the law) contract without interference.
    We do not have the right to a sweet 16 party (custom).
    This is the difference!
    Then why can't heteros today do that?

Page 14 of 43 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •