View Poll Results: Read OP:

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

    4 16.00%
  • No

    21 84.00%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 88

Thread: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

  1. #51
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    You are confusing the sacrament of marriage with a blanket assumption about civil unions.
    The "sacrament" of marriage has nothing to do with the marriage that we enter into when we sign the marriage license or are simply recognized in by the state. The "sacrament" of marriage is a personal part of marriage, between the couple and their God/gods, and not every couple enters into a "sacrament" when it comes to marriage (I don't consider "God", any of them, to be part of my marriage).
    "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.

  2. #52
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. "1623 Catechism of the Catholic Church"

    You cannot prove that marriage is not a sacrament, nor will you be able to redefine marriage!
    It's really easy to prove that marriage is not a sacrament for all people. As well as that it is a sacrament to some same sex couples entering into it. That is because the sacrament of marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage, the marriage being discussed in this thread. The law has pretty much nothing to do with whether marriage is a sacrament. If all marriages stopped be recognized by the government, you could still become involved with the "sacrament" of marriage within your church.
    "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.

  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I agree. You know the Constitution requires Congress to have a super majority rule to overturn a President's veto. What do you think about new law requiring a super majority in the Supreme Court to overturn state laws?
    No. The SCOTUS is fine the way it is. The states need to have their rights restricted in favor of protecting the rights of individuals, which is the main point of the Constitution.
    "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. #54
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    Show me where I am forcing anything on you! Interracial marriage, between a man and a woman, was upheld a long time ago! What is it about that that has you upset today? It is a human right because of the need to procreate. A civil union maybe a marriage or it may not be, but a marriage is between a human man and a human woman!

    Living and let living is about tolerance, something the LGBT movement and anti-Christian's repeatedly fail to consider when discussing religious issues.
    Show me a single marriage law within the US, ever, that requires married couples be able to procreate with each other.

    I can show you several that say the opposite in fact, that certain couples must show they can't or are unlikely to procreate with each other in order to be able to legally marry.
    "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.

  5. #55
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I think there must be a collectivist website somewhere that is recommending the argument by analogy to Loving v. Virgian to all the comrades. It is sheer nonsense, for reasons I have gone into in detail several times here on other threads. The Virginia miscegenation statutes that made it a felony for a white person and a colored person to marry each other had its origins in slavery laws and was designed to maintain white supremacy. The statutes did the very thing it was the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent.

    The notion that the people who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and ratified it in 1868 ever meant it to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry each other against infringement by the states, or that it had ever been understood after that to guarantee any such right, does not even pass the laugh test. Justice Scalia made the point concisely in his dissenting opinion:

    When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. (citing Town of Greece v. Galloway for that proposition; emphasis added)



    Nowhere had the Supreme Court ever suggested before Obergefell, in Loving, Skinner, Meyer, Reynolds, or in any other decision where it had affirmed marriage as a basic right, that it was referring to anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. The claim that the Court ever meant "marriage, period" leads to the absurd conclusion the Court meant to say there was not only a fundamental right to homosexual marriage, but also to child marriage, incestuous marriage, bigamy, and polygamy.



    I agree. Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow philosopher-kings had no right to force their personal definition of marriage on the many tens of millions of Americans, a majority in seventy per cent of the states, who did not agree with it.
    And Pace argued and succeeded quite well just after the 14th was put into place that it was never meant to apply to interracial marriages.

    The voters and legislators of those states had "no right" to deny entry into legal marriage on the basis of relative sex/gender because there is no legitimate state interest furthered in such a restriction.
    "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.

  6. #56
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    54,533

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, I was out having a few drinks. It's Saturday, sue me
    I will. And then I will demand compensation for the intense emotional damages that have occurred as the result of this slight and rejection. I have had, since you cruelly implied that me - as a random internet person - wasn't worth your time, fear, stress, weight gain, bouts of depression, feelings of being overwhelmed, wounds received under assault from waves of flying monkeys, incontinence, impotence, and incense. My Feels > Your Drinks, Hatuey.

    I perfectly understand where you're coming from. However, there are quite a list of bans/amendments which specifically singled out gay marriage
    Agreed. Simply for the purposes of this, I think it's worth pointing out that you shouldn't lump all of the state moves that would prohibit SSM together.

    Those that don't specifically mention gay marriage were adopted within the same political climate.
    Which is immaterial. The law is (well, it is supposed to be) the law. In a scenario where the law stated simply that marriage was between a man and a woman, polygamous relationships would not be able to argue that "well, the climate was SSM, so really we're still good".

    Though your post doesn't deny that, I think it's pretty clear that the rest of the amendments/bans were adopted to fit that climate, and were also adopted with gays in mind.
    Probably. Just as the Civil Rights Act was adopted with blacks in mind, but would apply to asians, hispanics, jews, gentiles, turks, arabs, whites, and indians. But not hippies. Never hippies.

    There simply was no wide scale movement to legalize other types of unions at the time. There still aren't.
    No - it is still small. But they will be successful more quickly than the SSM folks were - a lot of their groundwork has already been laid.

    So while some efforts to ban gay marriage were pretty up front about their intentions, others simply used vague wording that would cover it. Don't you think?
    I think that the law is the law - and that attempts to set down in stone what marriage was were attempts to set that down from all attempts to alter it. If it happened in the context of a debate over SSM, that does not mean that the clear text is also intended to protect against things like polygamy.
    Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 08:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,019
    Blog Entries
    3

    States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Show me a single marriage law within the US, ever, that requires married couples be able to procreate with each other.

    I can show you several that say the opposite in fact, that certain couples must show they can't or are unlikely to procreate with each other in order to be able to legally marry.
    Irrelevant to the definition of marriage as many states have Constitutionally defined it as being between a man and woman. It is not discriminatory to then allow and recognize same sex civil unions and marriages equally within the law. Anything less is intolerant to the strongly held beliefs of society as marriage has been defined for centuries and the majority that still define a marriage as such!
    Last edited by Disputatious71; 07-12-15 at 08:37 PM.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  8. #58
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    Irrelevant to the definition of marriage as many states have Constitutionally defined it as being between a man and woman. It is not discriminatory to then allow and recognize same sex civil unions and marriages equally within the law. Anything less is intolerant to the strongly held beliefs of society as marriage has been defined for centuries and the majority that still define a marriage as such!
    No. Many state wrongfully placed restrictions on marriage based on relative sex of the participants, which has absolutely zero to do with furthering any state interest. Most of those states banned same sex civil unions with those amendments as well. And yes, it would be discriminatory to have same sex couples recognized by civil unions and opposite sex couples recognized by marriages, when they would be the exact same thing under the law in everything but name.

    I don't care two squats about a few people's "strongly held beliefs". Strongly held beliefs were responsible for a good deal of the bad things in this country, including slavery, Jim Crow laws, women having less rights than men for a long time, segregation, interracial marriage bans, and more.
    "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.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 08:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,019
    Blog Entries
    3

    States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No. Many state wrongfully placed restrictions on marriage based on relative sex of the participants, which has absolutely zero to do with furthering any state interest. Most of those states banned same sex civil unions with those amendments as well. And yes, it would be discriminatory to have same sex couples recognized by civil unions and opposite sex couples recognized by marriages, when they would be the exact same thing under the law in everything but name.

    I don't care two squats about a few people's "strongly held beliefs". Strongly held beliefs were responsible for a good deal of the bad things in this country, including slavery, Jim Crow laws, women having less rights than men for a long time, segregation, interracial marriage bans, and more.
    Read my post again and you will understand my position! What you want I will not give so stop your intolerance and try to understand.

    Then again since you don't care "two squats" there is no reason for me to continue to discuss anything with you...another strongly held belief I am sure you disagree with but one I do not care what you think or reply over!
    Last edited by Disputatious71; 07-13-15 at 05:42 AM.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  10. #60
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    Read my post again and you will understand my position! What you want I will not give so stop your intolerance and try to understand.

    Then again since you don't care "two squats" there is no reason for me to continue to discuss anything with you...another strongly held belief I am sure you disagree with but one I do not care what you think or reply over!
    Your position is not based on any legal basis. States "defined" marriage at one time as being "between two people of the same race". That was just as much a spurious definition as defining it by the sex restriction. In reality, state marriage is defined in what it does, which is establishing a legal kinship between two people, a kinship that is known as spouses and that comes with certain rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities under the law.
    "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.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •