View Poll Results: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 32.39%
  • No

    47 66.20%
  • I'm really not sure

    1 1.41%
  • What's marriage?

    0 0%
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 206

Thread: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

  1. #191
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Yes. What is your point?
    This country was built on slavery, Manifest Destiny, keeping the Chinese doped up on cheap opium, and exploiting the weaknesses of "undesirables", such as the Jews, Germans, and Irish.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  2. #192
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,593

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    So you're one of those that feels that only those rights written into the Constitution are guaranteed? You do understand that marriage has been deemed a right by the SC? Why? Because in order to list every right individuals possess we would need a lot of paper/computer memory to do so.

    The Constitutional right to marriage along with the right of Equal Protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That is what gives people the right to be in a same sex legal marriage.
    Marraige is a state contract, not a federal power. Just because federal law REFERS to a state contract status does not make it into a federal issue (or power). What denies the right of the people to polygamy? What denies the right to vote to convicted felons, but bestows most other rights to them without restriction? Many things simply are, yet that is why we have constitutional amendment, to change the things that simply are.

    You assert that the SCOTUS can simply say something and it serves as an amendment, like Roe vs. Wade, making abortion kind of a right (yet it specifically said 'during the first trimester' but that just got blown off). It took constitutional amnendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol, yet none to ban herione, marijuana, cocaine, LSD or many other recreational drugs. We now seem to accept "close" or "related" to mean "stated" as it applies to constituional law.

    How many state referemdums and laws have been passed relating to this SSM 'issue'? If something can not pass the test of the voters, we now seek to find a 'like minded' judiciary to "git-r-done", rather than actually admit that this is beyond the control of the constitution as stated.

    The constituion envisioned "postal roads", yet made no provision that the states may charge license fees for or regulate travel on them, it just sort of happened, limitting our freedom as citizens to travel. Many rights can be implied or infered, especially given judges with the 'correct' attitude. I would bet that if the SCOTUS was 5 to 4, leaning to the right, then Roe vs. Wade would not have ever happened and that a constitutional "abortion rights" amendment will NEVER happen. We need to stick to making the constitutional law work as intended, not simply do "what seems right at the current time".
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 05-30-12 at 12:45 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #193
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Marraige is a state contract, not a federal power. Just because federal law REFERS to a state contract status does not make it into a federal issue (or power). What denies the right of the people to polygamy? What denies the right to vote to convicted felons, but bestows most other rights to them without restriction? Many things simply are, yet that is why we have constitutional amendment, to change the things that simply are.

    You assert that the SCOTUS can simply say something and it serves as an amendment, like Roe vs. Wade, making abortion kind of a right (yet it specifically said 'during the first trimester' but that just got blown off). It took constitutional amnendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol, yet none to ban herione, marijuana, cocaine, LSD or many other recreational drugs. We now seem to accept "close" or "related" to mean "stated" as it applies to constituional law.

    How many state referemdums and laws have been passed relating to this SSM 'issue'? If something can not pass the test of the voters, we now seek to find a 'like minded' judiciary to "git-r-done", rather than actually admit that this is beyond the control of the constitution as stated.

    The constituion envisioned "postal roads", yet made not provision that the states may charge license fees for or regulate travel on them, it just sort of happened, limitting our freedom as citizens to travel. Many rights can be implied or infered, especially given judges with the 'correct' attitude. I would bet that if the SCOTUS was 5 to 4, leaning to the right, then Roe vs. Wade would not have ever happened and that a constitutional "abortion rights" amendment will NEVER happen. We need to stick to making the constitutional law work as intended, not simply do "what seems right at the current time".
    So answer the question. Was the SC right in asserting that interracial marriage must be legal in every state due to the 14th Amendment? Were they right to assert that a state could not give preference to a male heir over a female heir due to their gender due to the 14th Amendment?

    Polygamy has already been addressed. The characteristic in question is number of people trying to enter into a contract. The state can show a legitimate state interest in limiting that number, particularly with the benefits and rights that currently come with the contract in question.
    "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.

  4. #194
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    This country was built on slavery, Manifest Destiny, keeping the Chinese doped up on cheap opium, and exploiting the weaknesses of "undesirables", such as the Jews, Germans, and Irish.
    All true. But it is also true that slavery was ended, Manifest Destiny no longer applies, we no longer keep the chinese doped up on opium and we no longer legally exploit the weaknesses of "undesirables".

    Why? Because individual rights are paramount to our law. Even if it is not always practiced.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #195
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    All true. But it is also true that slavery was ended
    True, but only well after the Constitution was written. Which means a lot of people, including our founding fathers, thought that rights existed for them, but not the "negroes", who they believed weren't even people.

    Manifest Destiny no longer applies
    In name, no, but you can't argue that we have stopped taking what we want by force, inhabitants of the land and resources be damned.

    we no longer keep the chinese doped up on opium
    Cheap, mass produced psychoactive medications work so much better on the lower working class as a whole.

    and we no longer legally exploit the weaknesses of "undesirables".
    Mexicans.

    Why? Because individual rights are paramount to our law. Even if it is not always practiced.
    It's never been practiced, unless there was an underlying agenda that had to do with pocket lining, or staying in office. The spirit is very much the same.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  6. #196
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Marraige is a state contract, not a federal power. Just because federal law REFERS to a state contract status does not make it into a federal issue (or power). What denies the right of the people to polygamy? What denies the right to vote to convicted felons, but bestows most other rights to them without restriction? Many things simply are, yet that is why we have constitutional amendment, to change the things that simply are.
    Marriage is not just a state contract. Marriage is also a federally recognized institution. (and a scotus deemed right) Marriage also has many federally granted abilities. (over 1200 last I looked)

    As for polygamy, I've stated time and again that it should be legal also. All for the same reasons that I think SSM should be legal. Just because it is not does not mean that it shouldn't be.

    As for convicted felons the Constitution does address this in the 5th Amendment, the due process clause.

    Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Because of the bolded it shows that "liberty" can be taken away with due process of the law. Part of that liberty includes things like, the right to vote or the right to own a gun. Just because other rights have not generally been taken away before does not mean that they cannot be taken away.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    You assert that the SCOTUS can simply say something and it serves as an amendment, like Roe vs. Wade, making abortion kind of a right (yet it specifically said 'during the first trimester' but that just got blown off). It took constitutional amnendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol, yet none to ban herione, marijuana, cocaine, LSD or many other recreational drugs. We now seem to accept "close" or "related" to mean "stated" as it applies to constituional law.
    It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol because drinking it was considered a right. (it also was not considered a drug back then)

    Roe v Wade may have specifically mentioned "first trimester" but it also specifically mentioned "viability".

    Also no SCOTUS decision is considered an amendment. It can however ban certain laws from being enacted or overturn current laws based on what is in the Constitution and what previous SCOTUS decisions have upheld. This does not create a new amendment. It just strikes certain laws from the books. IE it adds no new laws or amendments. If however an amendment was added to the US Constitution that banned alcohol then they cannot strike down any state law that also bans alcohol. The only way that Prohibition was able to be gotten rid of was via another amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    How many state referemdums and laws have been passed relating to this SSM 'issue'? If something can not pass the test of the voters, we now seek to find a 'like minded' judiciary to "git-r-done", rather than actually admit that this is beyond the control of the constitution as stated.
    I've already shown you how it is not beyond the control of the Constitution. And just because the majority of voters wanted something it does not mean that they should get that something. The majority of voters also wanted to keep miscegation laws. That wasn't allowed though. This country is not based on strict democracy. Mob rule should never be allowed to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The constituion envisioned "postal roads", yet made not provision that the states may charge license fees for or regulate travel on them, it just sort of happened, limitting our freedom as citizens to travel. Many rights can be implied or infered, especially given judges with the 'correct' attitude. I would bet that if the SCOTUS was 5 to 4, leaning to the right, then Roe vs. Wade would not have ever happened and that a constitutional "abortion rights" amendment will NEVER happen. We need to stick to making the constitutional law work as intended, not simply do "what seems right at the current time".
    As for state charging license fees and regulating travel on roads...that is where the 10th Amendment comes into play.

    Also the Roe v Wade vote was 7-2. You are probably thinking of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in which the vote was 5-4. But regardless of what could have happened...well...that is not what did happen.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #197
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    True, but only well after the Constitution was written. Which means a lot of people, including our founding fathers, thought that rights existed for them, but not the "negroes", who they believed weren't even people.
    Again true. But what the founders wanted, idividual rights, was still evident. The reason that slavery existed for them and not "negroes" is because many at the time did not think that "negroes" were fully human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    In name, no, but you can't argue that we have stopped taking what we want by force, inhabitants of the land and resources be damned.
    Agreed. Hopefully it will stop one day though. There are lots of things which take time to accomplish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    Cheap, mass produced psychoactive medications work so much better on the lower working class as a whole.
    This is only true if you think that is why they produce medications. I don't happen to think that is why though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    Mexicans.
    Knew you would use this. It is also why I said "legally".

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    It's never been practiced, unless there was an underlying agenda that had to do with pocket lining, or staying in office. The spirit is very much the same.
    This kind of reasoning could be applied to anything and everything.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #198
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post

    As for state charging license fees and regulating travel on roads...that is where the 10th Amendment comes into play.
    Agreed. Unless you are hauling the mail, I don't see that you have a federal case against tolls.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  9. #199
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    You have a few problems here.

    First, if a guy gouges out your dogs eyes then he is no longer with in his rights because his rights ends where yours start. So if he gouges out your dog's eyes then he is damaging your property. Which means he interfered with your rights. If you recipocate the gouging of eyes by gouging out his eyes then not only is it not an "eye for an eye" (because his eyes are not equal to your dog's eyes) but you are then interfering with HIS rights as your rights ends where his rights start. So no, the 9th would not apply to this scenario. Everyone's rights ends where someone else's rights begin.

    Next, by stealing food you are stealing someone else's property. So the same precept applies here as it does above. Your rights end where someone else's rights start.
    Obviously.....I'm pointing out your reasoning.


    And while this country might have been based off of Judeo-Christian beliefs (debateable), the Constitution does not run off of Judeo-Christian beliefs. It runs on laws and rights. Remember, the 1st Amendment puts a seperation between Church and State.
    Again....obviously, and irrelevant to the argument.


    Next, you do have a right to life...until the courts deem that you do not deserve it (death penalty) because you killed a dozen people.
    HAHAHAHAHAHA you're funny. Completely irrelevant and an invalid argument. The right to live is already given, that is an obvious and completely different exception that again has a giant UNLESS!!!!. Nothing to do with law abiding citizens.

    You also do have a right to liberty, so long as you do not interfere in someone elses right to liberty. And no one has the right to happiness. If everyone had a right to happiness then everyone would be rich and own porche's and never go hungry and always had free medical care that would help take care of any little problem that arose.
    Again obviously.....just pointing out your reasoning.

    So in conclusion your protest about the 9th being invalid is not correct. The 9th Amendment was put there to protect any other fundemental right that was not put into the original Bill of Rights. That was not just its reason for being. It was the MAIN reason for it being put into the original Bill of Rights. With your type of arguement then no matter what the 9th Amendment would be invalid. In which case why the hell would it have been put in there to begin with?
    Wrong. The 9th amendment was written to protect things that are ours and to give further restraint on government. To protect things like the privacy and the sanctity of ones home, and abortion. Not sexual preferences.

    You've got this backwards. Since Marriage has been determined to be a fundemental right it doesn't give the government more power. It restricts the government in its power. Since marriage is a fundemental right that means that the government is not allowed to make laws that restrict one class of people from getting married over another class...such as they tried to do during the miscegation era.
    That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Giving the federal government one more social issue for them to make a decision and set a law is giving them more power. Also, you and everyone else that this was directed too have still failed to point out where marriage is Constitutionally sanctioned and/or is called a fundamental right. Which is utterly ridiculous... You talk about this country being a land of laws and rules yet, you act like we live ina fundamentally religious country where marriage is sanctioned about a federal Constitution.

    You argue for the rights of States to decide in the case of SSM, which gives them all the power...power which is generally abused. We argue that since marriage is a fundemental right, and does not interfere with anyone elses right then neither the State, nor the Federal government can make laws against SSM. However we do look to the Federal government in enforcing that no other State makes laws against SSM because that is the Federal Governments main job...to protect the individual rights that each and every citizen of this country has.
    Oh look who's advocating fair and Constitutional action....Says the one that wants the federal government to simply overstep it's boundaries again and rule on something it's not allowed to.

    Now personally I could care less if you hate, despise, love, like the LGBT community or not. The ONLY reason that I participate in SSM threads is to promote the right of two consenting human adults to marry. I believe that no one has the right to deny them something which I have as a right but they are not allowed just because they happen to be of the same gender. The only way that I would ever agree to deny SSM is if you can come up with a valid reason to deny it. Such as it harming another, outside person or interfering with another persons rights. Can you do this? Yes or no?
    First of all, it's not gender, it's sex. There is a difference. Learn proper English please...Second of all.
    Last edited by Lightning; 05-30-12 at 04:48 PM.

  10. #200
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Obviously.....I'm pointing out your reasoning.
    No, you applied your reasoning to what I said....falsely I might add.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Again....obviously, and irrelevant to the argument.
    You're the one that brought up that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs (again, debateable). Funny how when you bring it up first its relevent but when I point out why that it is irrelevent you back track and say its irrelevent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    HAHAHAHAHAHA you're funny. Completely irrelevant and an invalid argument. The right to live is already given, that is an obvious and completely different exception that again has a giant UNLESS!!!!. Nothing to do with law abiding citizens.

    Again obviously.....just pointing out your reasoning.
    Ok, if you agree with me then what was your whole point to "right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" bit all about? Or were you just trying to wax poetic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Wrong. The 9th amendment was written to protect things that are ours and to give further restraint on government. To protect things like the privacy and the sanctity of ones home, and abortion. Not sexual preferences.
    Privacy and sanctity of ones home was already protected via the 4th amendment (and a combination of others but for now this is good enough to refute you). And abortion was protected via the 14th Amendment. Not the 9th. And even then it wasn't abortion that was directly protected...but the womans privacy. So sorry but you fail in this attempt. You really need to study up on the history and reason for the 9th Amendment. Here is a good starting place for ya...

    findlaw.com ~ Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Giving the federal government one more social issue for them to make a decision and set a law is giving them more power. Also, you and everyone else that this was directed too have still failed to point out where marriage is Constitutionally sanctioned and/or is called a fundamental right. Which is utterly ridiculous... You talk about this country being a land of laws and rules yet, you act like we live ina fundamentally religious country where marriage is sanctioned about a federal Constitution.
    If you truely believe this then all of the Bill of Rights amendments is nothing more than government interference and gives them more power. Do you actually believe this?

    And yes, I have shown you which SCOTUS cases state that marriage is a fundemental right. And I have shown you how the Constitution applies to it because of that. I'm starting to think that you really need to read up on just how our government works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Oh look who's advocating fair and Constitutional action....Says the one that wants the federal government to simply overstep it's boundaries again and rule on something it's not allowed to.
    Show me where SCOTUS cannot rule on what is and isn't a right.
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 05-30-12 at 08:07 PM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 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
  •