Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 85

Thread: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

  1. #41
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We'll see. I certainly hope that the courts uphold state's right and the right of a state to legally adopt the definition of marriage that has been commonly accepted since the founding of our nation and for hundreds of years.
    People don't have the ****ing right to deny people equal protection under the law, period. Just like no state can vote to ban inter-racial marriage, no state should be able to vote to ban SSM.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  2. #42
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We'll see. I certainly hope that the courts uphold state's right and the right of a state to legally adopt the definition of marriage that has been commonly accepted since the founding of our nation and for hundreds of years.
    Definitions like interracial bans? Is that a state's right? It was commonly accepted!
    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.

  3. #43
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    Literally, she could dam a small pond
    So, you think same-sex marriages will be allowed, huh?
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Because civil rights are not up for debate. They just are. Marriage, as you are debating it, is a religious definition, but there are more and more churches which will perform SSM ceremonies, so it's not an issue for some religions. Further, marriage is not exclusively a religious function and therein lies the problem. The intermingling of religion and government. The government bestows benefits and rights for marriage. So it has become a function of government and commerce in that insurance companies, for instance, allow for spouses to be covered by insurance, but not partners. There needs to be uniformity across the nation so as to avoid discrimination.
    It's not just a religious definition, but the secular traditional definition as well as has been used and legalized by the majority of states and for hundreds of years. SSM is a policy issue whether or not a state wants to redefine marriage and extend the legal definition to same sex couples. No state constitution and it's definition of marriage has anything legally to do with religion, and it's within people's rights to define marriage and vote based on their religious convictions just as it is for those to do so based on secular/atheistic convictions.

    States can discriminate as is in line with their policies. Licensure in many professional areas is a prime example. When I graduate and take my board exams I will apply to be licensed in my state. It would be illegal for me to practice pharmacy in another state and they do not need to recognize my license. State boards of pharmacy and medicine also regulate scopes of practice and other legal issues. I may be able to prescribe medications without residency training under a collaborate practice agreement like NPs and PAs have, but another state that has additional requirements makes it illegal for me to do so in the other state. Pharmaceutical distributors must also be licensed by the FDA and state board of pharmacy. There was a lawsuit not to long ago where a physician was importing drugs from another state for office use, the distributor was not licensed in his state of practice and that was illegal. I could even work for the VA and prescribe medications under federal guidelines, but if I step outside of the VA and go to a state hospital across the street I could not do so since state law would prohibit it.

    States do not need to recognize the policy of others. Not all licenses and recognitions are covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause and it's not unlawful discrimination for states to have differing policies. Equally so, it is discrimination against the voters of a state to say that their right to vote and their beliefs that have been legally placed into law regarding SSM cannot be honored due to one state setting policy for everyone else. If we want uniformity then the federal government needs to be the one issuing marriage certificates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    People don't have the ****ing right to deny people equal protection under the law, period. Just like no state can vote to ban inter-racial marriage, no state should be able to vote to ban SSM.
    Exactly, and people don't have the right to tell others that they cannot keep the traditional definition of marriage when it's legally up to the state to do so. That's your opinion, but the fact remains that you shouldn't be allowed to deny people equal rights to vote within their state to set policy regarding changing the definition of marriage at a legal level just because you don't like the policy.
    Last edited by digsbe; 03-25-13 at 03:56 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #45
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It's not just a religious definition, but the secular traditional definition as well as has been used and legalized by the majority of states and for hundreds of years. SSM is a policy issue whether or not a state wants to redefine marriage and extend the legal definition to same sex couples. No state constitution and it's definition of marriage has anything legally to do with religion, and it's within people's rights to define marriage and vote based on their religious convictions just as it is for those to do so based on secular/atheistic convictions.

    States can discriminate as is in line with their policies. Licensure in many professional areas is a prime example. When I graduate and take my board exams I will apply to be licensed in my state. It would be illegal for me to practice pharmacy in another state and they do not need to recognize my license. State boards of pharmacy and medicine also regulate scopes of practice and other legal issues. I may be able to prescribe medications without residency training under a collaborate practice agreement like NPs and PAs have, but another state that has additional requirements makes it illegal for me to do so in the other state. Pharmaceutical distributors must also be licensed by the FDA and state board of pharmacy. There was a lawsuit not to long ago where a physician was importing drugs from another state for office use, the distributor was not licensed in his state of practice and that was illegal. I could even work for the VA and prescribe medications under federal guidelines, but if I step outside of the VA and go to a state hospital across the street I could not do so since state law would prohibit it.

    States do not need to recognize the policy of others. Not all licenses and recognitions are covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause and it's not unlawful discrimination for states to have differing policies. Equally so, it is discrimination against the voters of a state to say that their right to vote and their beliefs that have been legally placed into law regarding SSM cannot be honored due to one state setting policy for everyone else. If we want uniformity then the federal government needs to be the one issuing marriage certificates.
    Correct, full faith and credit doesn't cover every state action. But marriage has a precedent of being a "basic civil right."
    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. #46
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Correct, full faith and credit doesn't cover every state action. But marriage has a precedent of being a "basic civil right."
    And marriage is the union of one man and one woman in the vast majority of states...
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #47
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    And marriage is the union of one man and one woman in the vast majority of states...
    It was between a man and a woman of the same race before that. For some reason nobody is crying over the loss of that state right.
    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.

  8. #48
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post

    Exactly, and people don't have the right to tell others that they cannot keep the traditional definition of marriage when it's legally up to the state to do so. That's your opinion, but the fact remains that you shouldn't be allowed to deny people equal rights to vote within their state to set policy regarding changing the definition of marriage at a legal level just because you don't like the policy.
    Really, you telling me that marriage equality throughout the US is discrimination against people? That's rich
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #49
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It's not just a religious definition, but the secular traditional definition as well as has been used and legalized by the majority of states and for hundreds of years. SSM is a policy issue whether or not a state wants to redefine marriage and extend the legal definition to same sex couples. No state constitution and it's definition of marriage has anything legally to do with religion, and it's within people's rights to define marriage and vote based on their religious convictions just as it is for those to do so based on secular/atheistic convictions.

    States can discriminate as is in line with their policies. Licensure in many professional areas is a prime example. When I graduate and take my board exams I will apply to be licensed in my state. It would be illegal for me to practice pharmacy in another state and they do not need to recognize my license. State boards of pharmacy and medicine also regulate scopes of practice and other legal issues. I may be able to prescribe medications without residency training under a collaborate practice agreement like NPs and PAs have, but another state that has additional requirements makes it illegal for me to do so in the other state. Pharmaceutical distributors must also be licensed by the FDA and state board of pharmacy. There was a lawsuit not to long ago where a physician was importing drugs from another state for office use, the distributor was not licensed in his state of practice and that was illegal. I could even work for the VA and prescribe medications under federal guidelines, but if I step outside of the VA and go to a state hospital across the street I could not do so since state law would prohibit it.

    States do not need to recognize the policy of others. Not all licenses and recognitions are covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause and it's not unlawful discrimination for states to have differing policies. Equally so, it is discrimination against the voters of a state to say that their right to vote and their beliefs that have been legally placed into law regarding SSM cannot be honored due to one state setting policy for everyone else. If we want uniformity then the federal government needs to be the one issuing marriage certificates.



    Exactly, and people don't have the right to tell others that they cannot keep the traditional definition of marriage when it's legally up to the state to do so. That's your opinion, but the fact remains that you shouldn't be allowed to deny people equal rights to vote within their state to set policy regarding changing the definition of marriage at a legal level just because you don't like the policy.
    The laws are made to keep a minority of people from imposing their will on the civil rights of others. Even the majority of the people can't do that.

    Bottomline is, we're dealing with the individual rights of people TO access government institutions, not the right of others to DENY access the right to state institutions.

    Holy Matrimony is what you are thinking about. Church related. NOT a state marriage license.

    laws have continually changed in this nation.

    History of Marriage Rights - Timeline History of Laws Affecting Marriage Rights

    1883
    In Pace v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alabama's ban on interracial marriages - and, with it, similar bans in nearly all of the former Confederacy. The ruling would stand for 84 years.
    1953
    Divorce has been a recurring issue in the history of U.S. civil liberties, starting with 17th-century laws that banned divorce altogether except in documented cases of adultery. Oklahoma's 1953 law allowing no-fault divorces finally allowed couples to make the mutual decision to divorce without declaring a guilty party; most other states gradually followed suit, beginning with New York in 1970.
    1967
    The single most important marriage case in U.S. Supreme Court history was Loving v. Virginia (1967), which finally ended Virginia's 276-year ban on interracial marriage and explicitly declared, for the first time in U.S. history, that marriage is a civil right.
    Marriage has been declared a CIVIL RIGHT.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It was between a man and a woman of the same race before that. For some reason nobody is crying over the loss of that state right.
    I don't understand why so many people default to that straw man argument when it comes to SSM. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. Race is constitutionally protected. It's unconstitutional to deny a man and woman the ability to marry due to race. However, I don't think it's within the Constitution to suddenly force the traditional and legal definition of marriage that has been around for hundreds of years to change because public opinion has changed and it's somehow "gender discrimination" to uphold the correct and traditional definition of marriage that has been honored since the nation's creation.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •