Page 125 of 189 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125126127135175 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1241
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I would say the best that you could hope for is that SCOTUS holds up California's right to deny same sex couples the right to marry. It will not effect gay marriage in any other state that has it, so the issue will not go away.
    Every scholar that has gave and opinion on the issue has said the SCOTUS will reverse the decision on a 5 to 4 basis with Kennedy casting the deciding vote and you libs don't have time to put any more lefties on it......sorry.........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  2. #1242
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Every scholar that has gave and opinion on the issue has said the SCOTUS will reverse the decision on a 5 to 4 basis with Kennedy casting the deciding vote and you libs don't have time to put any more lefties on it......sorry.........
    That is odd, I have been seeing the opposite...not every scholar, but most, even conservative ones. Something about the facts of the case being determined by this judge.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #1243
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Every scholar that has gave and opinion on the issue has said the SCOTUS will reverse the decision on a 5 to 4 basis with Kennedy casting the deciding vote and you libs don't have time to put any more lefties on it......sorry.........
    Every scholar?

    Like these?

    Scholars: Prop 8 Ruling May Be Tough To Overturn : NPR

  4. #1244
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Moderator's Warning:
    California gay marriage ban overturned: reportThe Prof has been thread banned. If he posts in this thread again he will be infracted for each post he makes.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  5. #1245
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    tell it to her dad
    be happy to. My dad learned it himself, too, when I was sixteen and having sex with someone over 18.

  6. #1246
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    You guys are ridiculous for even spending 3+ pages for debating the definition of jail bait. Anyways, I guess this fight isn't over and honestly it doesn't really seem to definitive which way it will go right now.
    "Weíre going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and thatís crazy." -Reagan

  7. #1247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Every scholar that has gave and opinion on the issue has said the SCOTUS will reverse the decision on a 5 to 4 basis with Kennedy casting the deciding vote and you libs don't have time to put any more lefties on it......sorry.........
    Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck don't have law degrees.

    Maybe you should check out what real actual lawyers are saying...

  8. #1248
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,581

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Wait a second... gay marriage? I heard that there was a bill passed to protect the sanctity of marriage... you mean this wasn't a bill to make divorce illegal? So then, let me just see if I've got the facts right:
    If divorce is the leading contributor to destroying the sanctity of marriage and no effort to make divorce illegal has ever been well known or popular in modern history then why would efforts to prevent homosexuals from getting married come before efforts to make divorce illegal? I can only come to one logical conclusion: proponents of the bill are basing their support on religious belief. If you want theocracy, there's several countries in the middle east that would love to have you I'm sure.

    All men are created equal, right? I'm not sure how I could be reading that wrong.
    A working class hero is something to be

  9. #1249
    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: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And that doesn't matter.
    LOL How can you say that? Your stance is based on the law or is it based on emotion?

    The first cases of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with assault weapons, and the original intent behind the 2nd never even likely imagined such things. And yet you'd believe they're covered right?
    You think you can relate a semi vs a full auto to hetero and homosexuals? Please tell me you're kidding.

    Simply because the broad thing, such as marriage or arms, has only been applied to specific subsets of it does not necessarily mean it is regulated ONLY to that subset.
    Full auto vs semi is a laughable comparison to sexual orientation and you know it. Why are you so against going through the same process for law that is actually in the Constitution?

    Besides, once again, I am not arguing this based on sexual preference, I'm arguing it based off gender.
    But that isn't the law for marriage. The only court rulings have been on race and never ever sexual orientation.

    Actually, no. Read my posts, because its evident by your repeated statements that are either countering things I didn't say or ignoring things I've said that you're not.
    Cheap words without evidence to support it weighs very small.

    You can DEFINITELY discriminate against people....however the state has to show a certain level of proof of a certain level of necessity based on what status is being discriminated against. While currently it is questionable, and is likely going to be answered by the Supreme Court in time, at what tier sexual orientation will fall under it is not a question when it comes to gender. That one is clearly already defined as the mid-tier "Quasi-Suspect", and requires the state to substantially show an important governmental interest in performing said discrimination. Of which I argue has not been shown when it comes to same sex marriage, not to the level that would be needed to discriminate against gender.
    Again you did not answer the question. How can you limit marriage to 2 people or two people over 18, 16 or whatever if you conclude marriage is based off gender alone? The answer is you can't. And you could never point to any sexual orientation and claim there is interest in performing discrimination if you claim that gender alone validates marriage. That is the trap you keep falling into.

    I'll leave this one up to CC,
    LOL I wouldn't if I were you.

    but the vast majority of studies I've seen linked or referenced that are legitimately peer reviewed and undebunked regarding sexual orientation point to nature over nurture in regards to said orientation.
    Not a single study showed any common traits or natural behavior in even a majority of homosexuals and the ones that keep getting peddled around here are based off questionnaires filled out in private or based off fruit flies or twin studies and each and ever time there was never a proven pattern in even 75% of the subjects of the study. And no legitimate scientist or therapist would ever base their findings off such an uncontrolled environment as a private questionnaire. Its laughable to say the least.

    Even so, as I said, while I understand where people are coming from arguing sexual orientation and think there's a decent case for it, my personal feeling on it does not deal with orientation at all. It deals with gender.
    Which again is no basis for marriage in any law or judgment ever made. You can't make up law when you want to support a personal conclusion. You go through the process of creating the law you want but for some reason you don't want to play by the rules set forth in the Constitution. You want to avoid them and let a judge for the second time invalidate the votes of 7 million people

    Nope, it doesn't. It doesn't have to.
    YES is does if you are going to base changing law on it.

    Number of people is not a "grouping", such as race, gender, ethnicity, religious designation, etc. So arguing "You allow me to marry one person but not two people" is not arguing discrimination against an equally protected group but discrimination based on the number. There is no constitutional protection against discrimination based on such a thing. If I say every person can have one spouse, then everyone can have one spouse. You can not point me to a specific group that is getting something another group does not get or can not have.
    Then you cannot discriminate how many spouses, how old they are or any other limitation based off that argument. Again that is the trap you keep falling into. You generalize your argument so far out you couldn't even begin to stop anyone or any sexual orientation from asking for the same thing using the gender argument.

    However if you say everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex, I can point you to men and say "they can't marry females but females can" and I can point to females and say "they can't marry males but males can". That is specifically showing you a grouping of people who are able to do something under the law that the other grouping can not do. More than that, there is legal basis showing that gender is unquestionably protected under the EPC and at a medium tier of scrutiny. There is no court case I can think of in any way shape or form that suggests "number of people" falls into such a thing.
    What stops polygamists from claiming you can't discriminate against them based on gender? What about the sicko who wants to marry a child and they base it off gender? You can't point to the laws against polygamy or any other law since you want to disregard the laws on the books today that prohibit same sex marriage.

    The Constitution specifies how laws are to be created and it was never through the court system but since your side continues to loose each and every public vote, you use judicial activism to get what you want but don't pretend you are following the constitution because its clear you aren't nor do you take into account the incredible slippery slope you fall into with such general arguments based on nothing but gender.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  10. #1250
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    Wait a second... gay marriage? I heard that there was a bill passed to protect the sanctity of marriage... you mean this wasn't a bill to make divorce illegal? So then, let me just see if I've got the facts right:
    If divorce is the leading contributor to destroying the sanctity of marriage and no effort to make divorce illegal has ever been well known or popular in modern history then why would efforts to prevent homosexuals from getting married come before efforts to make divorce illegal? I can only come to one logical conclusion: proponents of the bill are basing their support on religious belief. If you want theocracy, there's several countries in the middle east that would love to have you I'm sure.

    All men are created equal, right? I'm not sure how I could be reading that wrong.
    They don't call it religious beliefs they call it "tradition" and it's much more important to make sure that the traditional gender roles of marriage are state mandated than to fight divorce. I mean clearly women and men play different roles in a marriage and a child is denied something important when they are missing a mother or father. They don't tell you exactly what that something important is, but they argue that it is essential to the institution and must be protected or the social norms of marriage will decay to the point that no one wants to get married.

Posting Permissions

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