Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 215

Thread: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

  1. #101
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I think that MrVicchio agrees that it should be left to the states and the people. I can't be certain about this, but I don't believe he is in favor of a federal ban on SSM.
    I've said it like 4 times now in this thread, Dan has ignored such completely. Cause without that false claim on what I stand for he has little argument, its' getting old really.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #102
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    OK, I will see your question, and raise you the following question:

    Show me where in the Constitution you have a right to sell ice cream on Sundays. You find it, I'll concede, otherwise...

    Here is the fallacy in the question you just asked - You are asking to enumerate a specific right. If this is the way the Constitution were written, that document would not be able to fit in the space of the entire Smithsonian institution. Want to know what the Constitution does say about gay marriage? Here it is:



    In other words, if something is not expressly given to the Federal government, under the Constitution, then it is none of the Federal government's damn business. So let me turn your little straw man around, and ask that you show me specifically where the government prohibits same sex marriage. You find it, I'll concede. Otherwise.... The 10th Amendment applies, and it is up to the states and the people to decide.

    You just keep building these straw men, and I will just keep knocking them down.
    Wait, you're full of poop Dan. Your logic makes no sense at all.

    Gay Marriage has been defeated at every turn on the STATE LEVEL when the people vote, yet you post an article backing a guy using the FEDERAL COURTS to overturn said bans. Inconsistent Hypocrite, thy name is danarhea.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  3. #103
    Advisor Rightwingnutjob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    09-05-10 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    420

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    And you know what? Olsen is 100% correct. Conservatism argues for limited government, and greater individual freedom.

    Now, I know that a few in here are going to go off on a tirade and start calling me a fake Conservative again, so let me pose the following question: Which is more Conservative? That the government should get off the backs of the people, or that the government should get off the backs of the people, except where it should be on the backs of the people in cases where I don't agree with something? Think about it. Many who claim to be Conservatives simply are not who they say they are. And, of course, they are always the first to accuse others of not being Conservative. You can say "He who smelt it dealt it".

    DanaRhea's law of Conservatism - The term "Social Conservatism" is an oxymoron.

    BTW, before you call Ted Olsen a fake Conservative, you should know that he is the one who successfully argued before the Supreme Court the Bush side of Bush v. Gore in 2000. His Conservative credentials are beyond question. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Article is here.
    Dan, I'm thinking you're a bit closer to libertarian. Conservatives are often religiously motivated (not always). This is what drives the engine of 'traditional' marriage and other socially conservative views.

  4. #104
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Gay Marriage has been defeated at every turn on the STATE LEVEL when the people vote, yet you post an article backing a guy using the FEDERAL COURTS to overturn said bans. Inconsistent Hypocrite, thy name is danarhea.
    The Federal government will always trump the states as it relates to rights. That's just the way it is set up. A state could not ban free speech and claim federalism.

  5. #105
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    (The funniest part is, I am FOR Gay Marriage, just not right now, but no one acknowledges that)
    What is your reason for not being for it at the moment? I'm not sure if I've come across it.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  6. #106
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Oh and Dan, so do you support Polygamous marriages too? .
    Personally, i also believe in polygamous marriages, but I know that it probably won't change in my life time
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  7. #107
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,582

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value



    Here's the video. MrVicchio, why don't you try to tell Ted Olson, the former solicitor general under George W. Bush's administration, that he's wrong about everything he says and you're right. I'm sure he'd be very surprised to hear that.
    A working class hero is something to be

  8. #108
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The problem here is that the equal protection clause does not apply. This is an example of what I was saying in my previous post.

    The laws are actually gender neutral. There is not a separate law for women and a separate one for men.

    i.e. The laws are not:

    A man can only marry a woman and a woman can only marry a man.

    They are "Any person can only marry someone of the opposite gender"

    In essence, if person Person A wants to marry Person B, then Person A and Person B must be of opposite genders.

    The specific gender of person A is irrelevent to the way the laws are applied, because regardless of the gender of person A, Person B's gender must be the opposite.

    Thus, every person is afforded equal treatment by law.

    This is why the gender discrimination argument doesn't work. All people, regardless of gender, have the same law binding them. That difference in the wording of any such law is exactly how one bypasses the equal protection clause.
    That is where Supreme Court precedent comes in. The Levels of Scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause were established by the Supreme Court in 1976 and specifically explain in what cases laws can be determined unconstitutional based on sex, race, national origin, etc.

    The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

    * Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
    * Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.
    * Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

    In other words, since the anti same sex marriage side cannot explain to the courts how imposing a definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, it is unconstitutional to do so.

    Furthermore, using you reasoning, we could justfiy interracial marriage bans.

    The law can be written, "Any person can marry someone of their own race."

    As such, a black person cannot marry a white person and white person cannot marry a black person. Equal protection of the laws, right?

    No, as Loving versus Virginia decided, race cannot be used as a factor by the state to determine who can and cannot marry.

    There is no more legimate reason for state to discriminate based on race than there is for the state to discriminate based on sex.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-11-10 at 03:24 PM.

  9. #109
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    No one is being denied the right to marry, anyone of any gender may marry. There is just a defined parameter that one gender must marry one of another gender. A simple requirement for the union to be recognized as a marriage. If you do not wish to marry one of the opposite gender then that's your choice.
    The requirement is unconstitutional. The state has no legitimate reason to require people be of the opposite sex in order to marry. Therefore the state cannot use a person's sex as a means by which to determine who they can and cannot marry.

    BTW, do you REALLY want to go down the 14th amendment route and make this just a gender argument? What if three males wish to marry, why is it limited to only two? Discrimination!
    How does the number of partners relate to gender discrimination? You accuse me of faulty reasoning, but then you make an argument like that? Are you saying the state has no legitimate interest in limiting the number of partners in a marriage?
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-11-10 at 03:23 PM.

  10. #110
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Wait, you're full of poop Dan. Your logic makes no sense at all.

    Gay Marriage has been defeated at every turn on the STATE LEVEL when the people vote, yet you post an article backing a guy using the FEDERAL COURTS to overturn said bans. Inconsistent Hypocrite, thy name is danarhea.
    My fault. I posted too fast, and of course that made me a target. You got me. I should have also brought up the 9th Amendment, and failed to do so. Instead, I got carried away by the 10th Amendment which, in this case, made me ripe for being torn apart. LOL.

    Quote Originally Posted by 9th Amendment
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    This is the reason I believe that the courts were right to intervene. Same sex marriage is not addressed at all specifically in the Constitution, but the 9th Amendment makes clear that there are rights not specifically enumerated there. Otherwise, the Constitution would be large and unwieldy, as opposed to the simple document it is. The way I see it here, rights are based on property, which is what our forefathers laid out. If nobody is "damaging" you or your property, then your own rights are not being infringed, and therefore, the action by others, which does not damage you or your property IS a right.

    Now I will be the first to admit that I am not a great debater. Hell, I am not even one of the best debaters on an internet forum. Of course, this is why it is much easier for you to attack me instead of attacking Ted Olsen, who is a real heavyweight. Yes, you will call me all kinds of names, and you have, during this debate, and in many other debates on other issues, but I have yet to see you call Olsen a single name in this thread. Now why is that? Of course, we all know why. I am not that great of a debater, but Ted Olsen is. Now let me add just one more thing. I strongly believe that you are a very dishonest person. Why would I say that? Because you have gone out of your way, in this thread, and in other threads, to personally attack me, shooting the messenger, as it were, instead of going after the content that I posted. But that's OK with me. Won't be the last time I have been called names because I put my own head up my ass, and didn't think things through thoroughly before I posted. LOL.

    I would like you to tell us all why you believe that Ted Olsen is a fake Conservative. I am more than willing to read what you have to say about that. In fact, today I have all day to listen.
    Last edited by danarhea; 08-11-10 at 05:05 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •