• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex[W:141]

Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
Okay, let me spell it out for you. There is already equality under the law on the basis of gender. If you don't agree, please spell out where you believe the inequalities lie...
Click to expand...

Did you see the word "approve" in that post you just quoted?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

WorldWatcher said:
There was no federal court case in the states that saw states approve SSCM at the general election ballot box (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington).



>>>>
Click to expand...

Yep, all FOUR of them, out of fifty. Math not your strong suit?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Deuce said:
Did you see the word "approve" in that post you just quoted?
Click to expand...

And the game continues. Dude, your setup was transparent and failed. Try another tack.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Deuce said:
Did you see the word "approve" in that post you just quoted?
Click to expand...

Are you really this dense? What is the answer you're looking to get?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

clownboy said:
And the game continues. Dude, your setup was transparent and failed. Try another tack.
Click to expand...

He hasn't said whether or not he approves. He says it exists. Why do you think he's so unwilling to say he approves of equality under the law on the basis of gender?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
Are you really this dense? What is the answer you're looking to get?
Click to expand...

Whether or not you approve of equality under the law on the basis of gender.

I can't make it any more obvious.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
Yes women should be able to be women and men, men. Now if you believe this, you would have to acknowledge that religious institutions do not need to provide services to anyone that go against their beliefs...
Click to expand...

thats a non factor and a strawman since religion is meaningless to legal marriage.

Churches ALREADY turn away straight couples, couples not religious enough and couples based on race, they have that right and gay marriage as ZERO impact on that
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Deuce said:

Whether or not you approve of equality under the law on the basis of gender.

I can't make it any more obvious.
Click to expand...

Of course I approve as we already have established under the laws of our states. Do you believe there is some type of inequality, and if so, what?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

WorldWatcher said:
#1 You do realize that of the 17 legal entities that now have same sex Civil Marriage (16 States + DC), over 2/3rds of them did it based on Legislative Action or directly at the Ballot box.

#2 The SCOTUS has not issued a decision on SSCM since it's Baker dismissal in 1972.

#3 The "Federal Judiciary" is only responsible for ONE of the 17 entities having SSCM and that would be California's Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional.


*****************

So the meme that it's "the courts" that have done it is pretty bogus.



>>>>
Click to expand...

dont use facts it just confuses some people
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AGENT J said:
thats a non factor and a strawman since religion is meaningless to legal marriage.

Churches ALREADY turn away straight couples, couples not religious enough and couples based on race, they have that right and gay marriage as ZERO impact on that
Click to expand...

Shoo fly......
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
Shoo fly......
Click to expand...

translation: theres no defense for that failed strawman, facts defeat your post again
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
Why don't you talk to them?
Click to expand...

Hey YOU'RE the one saying it's no big deal remember? So since they are making a big deal out of it, YOU should talk to them about it. If not, stop whining about it.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
Of course I approve as we already have established under the laws of our states. Do you believe there is some type of inequality, and if so, what?
Click to expand...

Finally. Yes, I believe the government is making a gender-based classification that is unconstitutional. Here's why:

A same-sex marriage ban is a classification on the basis of gender. A legal contract exists under the law. I cannot enter this contract with you, because I am male and you are male. This isn't a classification of sexuality, we're both straight. And no marriage law says anything about sexuality. Ask any married man, marriage and sex are not the same thing!!

When challenged under equal protection, gender-based classifications must show an "important state interest" and that the law is "substantially related to that interest."

Proponents of same-sex marriage bans have failed to demonstrate that state interest. No state interest is served by preventing two people of the same gender from entering this legal contract. Therefore the ban is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AGENT J said:
translation: theres no defense for that failed strawman, facts defeat your post again
Click to expand...

Your "facts" do not compute in the real world, and I'm a bit bored responding. Get over it...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

TheNextEra said:
Hey YOU'RE the one saying it's no big deal remember? So since they are making a big deal out of it, YOU should talk to them about it. If not, stop whining about it.
Click to expand...

He's not the one obsessed who starts daily threads on the subject covering the same ground over and over again. Look for the source of the whine elsewhere.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Deuce said:
Finally. Yes, I believe the government is making a gender-based classification that is unconstitutional. Here's why:

A same-sex marriage ban is a classification on the basis of gender. A legal contract exists under the law. I cannot enter this contract with you, because I am male and you are male. This isn't a classification of sexuality, we're both straight. And no marriage law says anything about sexuality. Ask any married man, marriage and sex are not the same thing!!

When challenged under equal protection, gender-based classifications must show an "important state interest" and that the law is "substantially related to that interest."

Proponents of same-sex marriage bans have failed to demonstrate that state interest. No state interest is served by preventing two people of the same gender from entering this legal contract. Therefore the ban is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

And now you have gained what? There is no Constitutional ban. It's a States' issue...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
And now you have gained what? There is no Constitutional ban. It's a States' issue...
Click to expand...

Um, I was talking about laws passed by states. A states law must pass this test.

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan said:
Our decisions also establish that the party seeking to uphold a statute that classifies individuals on the basis of their gender must carry the burden of showing an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the classification.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
Your "facts" do not compute in the real world, and I'm a bit bored responding. Get over it...
Click to expand...

yet i can support them with real world facts and all you post is "nu-huh"

so when you are ready please by all means provide one fact to support all your lies and failed claims . . one

also are you claiming its NOT a fact that churches already turn away straight couples now for any reason they choose? i hope not cause thats a fact too and that lie will also be destroyed

all you have to do is back up your claims that have been destroyed by facts and multiple posters
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Deuce said:
Um, I was talking about laws passed by states. A states law must pass this test.
Click to expand...

State laws should not not be subject to federal judicial review...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

clownboy said:
He's not the one obsessed who starts daily threads on the subject covering the same ground over and over again. Look for the source of the whine elsewhere.
Click to expand...

no pro-equal rights people are whining in this celebration thread,can you show otherwise? id love to read it.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AlabamaPaul said:
State laws should not not be subject to federal judicial review...
Click to expand...

of course they should if they violate rights LMAO
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Sherman123 said:
*sigh* this fight is over. You'll get rearguard comments on this for years after its legal in every state. Eventually as the years wear on no one will talk about it. This part of the 'culture war' is over and the last shots are being fired as we type. May take years yet before you get all 50 but its obviously going to happen. I just wish some people could give up the ghost and move on so we can talk about other things.
Click to expand...

Just like Roe v Wade . . . it'll never end.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AGENT J said:
yet i can support them with real world facts and all you post is "nu-huh"

so when you are ready please by all means provide one fact to support all your lies and failed claims . . one

also are you claiming its NOT a fact that churches already turn away straight couples now for any reason they choose? i hope not cause thats a fact too and that lie will also be destroyed

all you have to do is back up your claims that have been destroyed by facts and multiple posters
Click to expand...

Listen dick, I have not mentioned churches/straight couples, that's your domain...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AGENT J said:
I love the fear that Equal Rights brings out in people that support discrimination, inequality and or bigotry, its hilarious!

the writing is on the wall and they know they are losing and they have lost, its just a matter of time now and they are panicked.

All the failed arguments against equal rights for gays were heard time and time again against slavery, equal rights for woman/minorities and against interracial marriage.

Eventually they all failed because they were illogical, bigoted and or mentally retarded them and that holds true today.

#EQUALRIGHTSISWINNING
Click to expand...

#equalityiswinningsmellthefear
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

AGENT J said:
of course they should if they violate rights LMAO
Click to expand...

Gawd, you're so dumb...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom