Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

Anthony60 said:

And who signed it into law?


So, you are against them doing it the right way, the Constitutional way? I guess you would also be against an amendment from the other side changing marriage to include same sex.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your issue is. I can oppose an action even if its constitutional.

Anthony60 said:

And who signed it into law?


So, you are against them doing it the right way, the Constitutional way? I guess you would also be against an amendment from the other side changing marriage to include same sex.

Click to expand...

A choice of either sign it in (which it was passed basically veto proof in the first place) or have congress work to pass a Constitutional Amendment that there was very possibly support for at the time and would be much harder to get rid of? Lesser of two evils.

Zyphlin said:

Well, considering you've repeatedly refused to actually offer any kind of response to any of my posts other than frivilous fallacies or discussions about totally seperate arguments,

I in no means plan to "go somewhere" with you to the extent you're asking.

Click to expand...

Considering the length that USSC rulings are, I by no means am going to take the effort to go in depth regarding what it would look like if it as ruled to be gender discrimination.

Click to expand...

But for the sake of POSSIBLY finally getting something legitimate out of you, I'll go short hand.

I would suggest the ruling would be worded in such a way to suggest that current state laws regarding marriage, written and/or enforced in a fashion that limits it marriages to 1 man and 1 woman, are unconstitutional based on gender discrimination that is not substantially related to any important state interest, and thus said restrictions would be stricten.

Contrary to your claim, this would not render state legislatures irrelevant. Rather, it would simply require the state legislators to adhere to the constitution. I imagine it would be dealt with in one of two ways. Either State laws for marriage thus would have to be rewritten without a restriction on gender as it relates to the marriage contract. OR, it could be that the laws themselves would not be stricten but simply the requirement of it being 1 man/1 woman, and thus the laws would remain on the books but would not be barred by any standard of gender.

Thus,

I would either see those laws being written in such a way that they would be identical to the current marriage laws, with the sole difference being that it would be defined as between any two individuals as opposed to being between one man and one woman. OR the current laws staying in place, but simply not being limited in any fashion by gender.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm happy you recognized that rulings are usually quite long.
And they sure do seem to pop up again and again, that darn precedent thing.
Consequently, do you see why I couldn't answer your persistent request for an example that can't be given without knowing what the ruling said?

But let's play anyway.

So after you win and the USSC makes it's ruling, laws regarding incestual marriages between individuals of the same gender might be ...... what ...?
Kept in place but at least without that same-sex hurdle to overcome when they're challenged?
There are already efforts to eliminate those nasty incest laws but some narrow-minded folks might think that applies to opposite gender pairs.
Will a ruling based on gender help make it more accessible to same gender pairs?
Why or why not?

bubbabgone said:

I'm happy you recognized that rulings are usually quite long.
And they sure do seem to pop up again and again, that darn precedent thing.
Consequently, do you see why I couldn't answer your persistent request for an example that can't be given without knowing what the ruling said?

But let's play anyway.

So after you win and the USSC makes it's ruling, laws regarding incestual marriages between individuals of the same gender might be ...... what ...?
Kept in place but at least without that same-sex hurdle to overcome when they're challenged?
There are already efforts to eliminate those nasty incest laws but some narrow-minded folks might think that applies to opposite gender pairs.
Will a ruling based on gender help make it more accessible to same gender pairs?
Why or why not?

Click to expand...

Laws against incestuous marriage have to follow the same 14th amendment just as every other law. That is how it is now, that is how it is in the future. Same sex marriage bans limit marriage by gender. Incest marriage laws limit marriage by relationship. In both cases the state has to show some legitimate at least interest(depending on the group discriminated against and the type of right, the allowable threshold is different) in the ban. Overturning SSM bans on 14th amendment grounds would not affect incest laws unless(and this is possible if unlikely) the court rules that strict scrutiny applies due to marriage being a fundamental right.

Really, you probably should learn a bit about the issues before you come up with this stuff...

Zyphlin said:

...offe rany...

Click to expand...

I am glad I am not the only one who makes that particular typo of putting the space in one character early.

Carry on with your arguing against people who still are not sure what it is you are arguing.

bubbabgone said:

But let's play anyway.

Click to expand...

This is the last time I'm "playing" with you without you actually addressing my previous points.

So after you win and the USSC makes it's ruling, laws regarding incestual marriages between individuals of the same gender might be ...... what ...?

Click to expand...

The ruling had zero to do with incestual marriages, as the ruling specifically only dealt with the matter of gender discrimination within the law for marriages. The only thing that would change is that gender could no longer be a determining factor of who could be married. That has zero impact on incestual marriages.

The laws regarding incestual marriage is that a man and woman, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married.

If said hypothetical ruling occured, that would simply change to "two individuals, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married".

The only thing that would change in those laws would be the gender portion, which is not the portion of the laws that disallow incestrual marriage.

There are already efforts to eliminate those nasty incest laws but some narrow-minded folks might think that applies to opposite gender pairs.

Click to expand...

And said issue can be addressed based on it's own merits or faults. Again, you're highlighting the fact that you have ZERO argument for maintaining the gender discrimination, or for why disallowing gender discrimination is a bad thing, OTHER than the fact it MIGHT provide an unknown level of additional support for something else that you think its bad.

Once again, highlighting that you're ONLY argument seems to be a fallacious one.

Laws against incest are their own entity that must stand on their own merits and regards. Whether or not changing something else is irrelevant to that fact.

Will a ruling based on gender help make it more accessible to same gender pairs?

Click to expand...

Yes. Specifically, a ruling based on gender means that GENDER can't be used as a determining feature of who can or can't get married to each other. That is all.

Now if you want to keep "playing" you need to actually address my original point.

What important state interest is substantially served by disallowing a woman from marrying a woman, but allowing a man to marry one?

AGENT J said:

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com



wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol

its just the way politics will be in 2016

lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all

next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors

Click to expand...

Now now, Cruz is just bitter over that time that he took it up the butthole from Rick Perry. He just wants to make sure that nobody else makes the same mistake.

Zyphlin said:

This is the last time I'm "playing" with you without you actually addressing my previous points.



The ruling had zero to do with incestual marriages, as the ruling specifically only dealt with the matter of gender discrimination within the law for marriages. The only thing that would change is that gender could no longer be a determining factor of who could be married. That has zero impact on incestual marriages.

The laws regarding incestual marriage is that a man and woman, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married.

If said hypothetical ruling occured, that would simply change to "two individuals, related to a certain degree, may not be legally married".

The only thing that would change in those laws would be the gender portion, which is not the portion of the laws that disallow incestrual marriage.



And said issue can be addressed based on it's own merits or faults. Again, you're highlighting the fact that you have ZERO argument for maintaining the gender discrimination, or for why disallowing gender discrimination is a bad thing, OTHER than the fact it MIGHT provide an unknown level of additional support for something else that you think its bad.

Once again, highlighting that you're ONLY argument seems to be a fallacious one.

Laws against incest are their own entity that must stand on their own merits and regards. Whether or not changing something else is irrelevant to that fact.



Yes. Specifically, a ruling based on gender means that GENDER can't be used as a determining feature of who can or can't get married to each other. That is all.

Now if you want to keep "playing" you need to actually address my original point.

What important state interest is substantially served by disallowing a woman from marrying a woman, but allowing a man to marry one?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Or a man marry his son ... or a woman marry her daughter ... or brother-brother ... etc.

bubbabgone said:

Or a man marry his son ... or a woman marry her daughter ... or brother-brother ... etc.

Click to expand...

Only if the state doesn't already have a law on the books disallowing marriages from individuals related to a certain degree (I believe some states limit it to anything closer than a cousin, others extend it out to second cousin, etc).

If a state has such law on the books then no, a man can't marry his son. A woman can't marry her daughter. A brother can't marry their brother.

The only way they could do that is if, prior to this warning, a man could marry his daughter or a woman could marry her son. Then yes...if they could do that before with a family member of the opposite sex then they could do it with a family member of the same sex after the ruling.

But if prior to the ruling they couldn't do it with a member of hte opposite sex, this ruling would not allow them to do it with a member of the same sex. Rather, it would simply mean said law would apply to BOTH sexes for both sexes

--------

Prior to the ruling:

A man can marry any woman, barring X, Y, Z caveats (woman is underage, woman is related to him by X degrees, woman is already married to someone else, etc).

After the ruling:

A man can marry any person, barring X, Y, Z caveats (person is underage, person is related to him by X degrees, person is already married to someone else, etc.)

The blue words are the gender descriptors relevant to the laws. The only thing that would change based on a verdict regarding gender discrimination would be the gender requirements. All other lawful requirements would not be altered, save for their gender discriminatory portions.

A ruling stating you can't discriminate on the basis of gender in marriage laws DOES NOTHING and SAYS NOTHING regarding the ability to discriminate on the basis of familiar relationship (which is what incestuous marriage laws would be about.

Those are two seperate issues legally speaking. While they're both relate to marriage, neither is directly connected to the other in terms of legality.

bubbabgone said:

Or a man marry his son ... or a woman marry her daughter ... or brother-brother ... etc.

Click to expand...

Dude, srsly, you should have at least tried to look like you read his post first...

Zyphlin said:

Only if the state doesn't already have a law on the books disallowing marriages from individuals related to a certain degree (I believe some states limit it to anything closer than a cousin, others extend it out to second cousin, etc).

If a state has such law on the books then no, a man can't marry his son. A woman can't marry her daughter. A brother can't marry their brother.

The only way they could do that is if, prior to this warning, a man could marry his daughter or a woman could marry her son. Then yes...if they could do that before with a family member of the opposite sex then they could do it with a family member of the same sex after the ruling.

But if prior to the ruling they couldn't do it with a member of hte opposite sex, this ruling would not allow them to do it with a member of the same sex. Rather, it would simply mean said law would apply to BOTH sexes for both sexes

--------

Prior to the ruling:

A man can marry any woman, barring X, Y, Z caveats (woman is underage, woman is related to him by X degrees, woman is already married to someone else, etc).

After the ruling:

A man can marry any person, barring X, Y, Z caveats (person is underage, person is related to him by X degrees, person is already married to someone else, etc.

The blue words are the gender descriptors relevant to the laws. The only thing that would change based on a verdict regarding gender discrimination would be the gender requirements. All other lawful requirements would not be altered, save for their gender discriminatory portions.

A ruling stating you can't discriminate on the basis of gender in marriage laws DOES NOTHING and SAYS NOTHING regarding the ability to discriminate on the basis of familiar relationship (which is what incestuous marriage laws would be about.

Those are two seperate issues legally speaking.

Click to expand...

While they're both relate to marriage, neither is directly connected to the other in terms of legality.

Click to expand...

(shouldn't you be working instead of chatting with me? you're gonna get in trouble)
They can't be depended on to be separate issues legally speaking in the future given its precedence.
That's how these things work, doncha know.
That's where the importance of language comes in.... especially language in any resulting law.
I mean, look at what the inclusion of the word "State" could likely do to the ACA Law.

Redress said:

Dude, srsly, you should have at least tried to look like you read his post first...

Click to expand...

At this point I'm asking why do I even bother, especially considering the ONLY argument he's provided against what I'm saying is the slippery slope.

That would be like being back in the past and saying that we shouldn't allow interracial marriage because it may lead to dogs marrying children.

Something possibly being used by others sometime in the future to push an entirely different issue isn't a legitimate argument against the thing being discussed then. An individual situation should be judged by it's own individual merits and faults, not it's potential (not guaranteed) impact on an entirely different situation. All that is doing is acknowledging one has no actual faults to provide for the issue at hand, and thus they need to try to tie it to something they CAN think of faults for.

Whether or not someone in the future may use something to do wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't do right in the current.

If you create a weapon to protect yourself, you create the chance that someone may use that weapon in the future to harm an innocent person. However, if that is the ONLY argument against creating said weapon, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't create it to protect yourself.

Similarly if you allow two men to be mraried, you create the chance that someone may try and use that as a means of suggesting some other type of marriage should occur. However, if that is the ONLY argument against alowing said marriage, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't allow the two individuals to marry each other.

Denying people a benefit under the law because someone else entirely might point to it as justification for allowing some other entirely different group with an entirely different set of circumstances atg some point in the future is not a legitimate argument. It wasn't a legitimate argument against interracial marriage, it's not a legitimate argument against same sex marriages.

That doesn't mean there may not be legitimate arguments. However, it's not incumbant on me to create arguments against myself. If bubba has some arguments against it beyond a "what if" one of the slippery slope then he's more than welcome to present it. Thus far, he's been utterly and completely unable to do so.

Zyphlin said:

At this point I'm asking why do I even bother, especially considering the ONLY argument he's provided against what I'm saying is the slippery slope.

That would be like being back in the past and saying that we shouldn't allow interracial marriage because it may lead to dogs marrying children.

Something possibly being used by others sometime in the future to push an entirely different issue isn't a legitimate argument against the thing being discussed then. An individual situation should be judged by it's own individual merits and faults, not it's potential (not guaranteed) impact on an entirely different situation. All that is doing is acknowledging one has no actual faults to provide for the issue at hand, and thus they need to try to tie it to something they CAN think of faults for.

Whether or not someone in the future may use something to do wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't do right in the current.

If you create a weapon to protect yourself, you create the chance that someone may use that weapon in the future to harm an innocent person. However, if that is the ONLY argument against creating said weapon, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't create it to protect yourself.

Similarly if you allow two men to be mraried, you create the chance that someone may try and use that as a means of suggesting some other type of marriage should occur. However, if that is the ONLY argument against alowing said marriage, it is not a legitimate argument as to why you shouldn't allow the two individuals to marry each other.

Denying people a benefit under the law because someone else entirely might point to it as justification for allowing some other entirely different group with an entirely different set of circumstances atg some point in the future is not a legitimate argument. It wasn't a legitimate argument against interracial marriage, it's not a legitimate argument against same sex marriages.

That doesn't mean there may not be legitimate arguments. However, it's not incumbant on me to create arguments against myself. If bubba has some arguments against it beyond a "what if" one of the slippery slope then he's more than welcome to present it. Thus far, he's been utterly and completely unable to do so.

Click to expand...

Your example made me think of Alfred Nobel. Was that intentional?

And as far as SSM bans being overturned leading to incest bans being overturned, as I stated in an earlier post, that would only work if the court rules that marriage, as a fundamental right, requires Strict Scrutiny, which so far every judge has shied away from, though most acknowledge it in their rulings. If they rule gender discrimination and therefor Intermediate Scrutiny, that does not open the door for other forms of marriage. One of the reasons why gender based discrimination is pushed during oral arguments at each of the cases is because it offers judges a nice, safe way to make a narrow ruling. It has the benefit of ensuring a ruling against the SSM ban as there is no chance they stand up to Intermediate Scrutiny, and it does it without declaring protected classes based on orientation. To avoid his slippery slope, he should be advocating for a gender discrimination ruling.

bubbabgone said:

They can't be depended on to be separate issues legally speaking in the future given its precedence.

Click to expand...

Which seems to indicate you have no actual understanding of what precedence means.

Incestuous Marriage and Same Sex Marriage are absolutely unable to be treated as analogs under constitutional law.

Same Sex Marriage, in relation the conversation here, is discrimination on the basis of gender. Constitutional Law has long since established gender as a middle teir category under the EPC, requiring that the government must demonstrate discrimination on such a basis must be substantially related to an important state interest.

Incestuous marriage is discrimination on the basis of family relationship. Constitutional law has shown absolutely zero evidence of this being treated as a middle or higher teir classification. As such, barring a court setting entirely new precedence regarding that classification, discrimination against it must simply be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The bar is set much higher for the government to discriminate against gender compraed to discrimination based on familiar relationship. As such, the court finding that the laws do discriminate on gender doesn't indicate what so ever that the discrimination based on familiar relationship is unconstitutional, because the government has a much lower bar to cross for that classification.

Additionally, the context surrounding both are significantly different. For example, when talking about the "welfare of the children" reason so often referenced by people. It is much easier from a legal stand point to make an argument that such a reason is a LEGITIMATE state interest, but it is far more difficult to make an argument that it's an IMPORTANT state interest in this context. Additionally, it's far easier to suggest a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in regards to incestuous couples, given the scientific evidence regarding the potential genetic damage to a child born of incest, than it is to suggest how barring same sex couples is substantially related to that interest (and even more so, the fact that said interest may not actually reach the level of "important" in the case of gender).

So would the case provide some very minor levels of precedence that could possibly be built off of? Sure. Every case ever provides for that. However, that is not a legitimate constitutional reason against something.

A court case declaring that the KKK is free to have marches COULD set precedence that someone then uses to suggest that the KKK should be free to have marches where they're depicting lynching black people. However, if that is the only reason against allowing them to act on their rights to speech and assembly then it is not a legitimate argument, because the slippery slope that is being pointed to is an entirely seperate issue that can be dealt with based on it's own merits and faults at a latter time IF it even happens...which is not gauranteed.

Now I'm done playing your game, since it seems even when I attempt to honestly answer your meandering line of questions you still dishonestly misrepresent or flat out ignore what I'm saying. You have STILL yet to provide an answer, outside of the slippery slope, regarding my initial claim. If you actually have an argument please present it. Otherwise, I'm not going to continue to indulge your attempts to simply hide and deflect the fact you have no legitimate argument against the claim that it's unconstitutional on the basis of gender.

Paperview said:

Whether Clinton signed it or not, it would have been law. There was a veto-proof majority, and they were ready to overide it.

It doesn't change the fact it was the GOP who pushed it through, and did in fact do what you said the Gov't had no power to define. In addition, the GOP fought it tooth and nail all along the way in the near 20 years after it became law, the last culminating in Windsor, where the GOP spent millions of dollars defending it before SCOTUS.




Many would say literally enshrining discrimination into the Constitution, and removing "States' rights" (which the GOP claims as its rallying cry, but only out one side of its mouth) and enshrining *that* into the Constitution -- goes against everything American stands for.

It tells us the GOP doesn't give a **** about States' Rights. I hope they keep it in their next platform. Hypocrites.

Click to expand...

Boy, you sure will go to any lengths to justify what a democrat does, even right after you are horrified that a republican did it. Unbelievable. Oh, so Clinton had to sign it, the republicans made him?

Then, you say there was a veto proof majority, as if that some how supports you??? Veto proof means it had to have bipartisan support! Democrats voted for it!

Why don't you all just admit the truth? You (plural) want SSM, you don't care how it gets done. If it takes just one judge to ignore the Constitution and vote for it, you are just fine with that. Screw the Constitution, screw everyone else.

Me? I want it to go through the way we've decided things are supposed to work. The Constitution protects me, and you from a federal government that just dictates as it pleases.

God, you people have no credibility at all.

There's two basic thoughts I have with regards to amendments.

The first, similar in mindset to what Redress posted earlier, I don't think it should be used for things that are relatively minor and/or very narrow in scope. Especially if it's something that can be easily left in the states hands. I don't see marriage as something that needs or is worth while to have constitutionally defined, be it as two people or man and woman. That doensn't mean it CAN'T be used in that fashion, but rather that my personal opinion is thatit generally shouldn't be used in such a way.

The second is that I don't believe the Constitution should be used to restrict or limit the rights of CITIZENS. Prohibition is an example of an amendment that I would have significant issues with. The constitution is a document detailing the strict limitation that government has in terms of restricting our rights, both natural and societal. I don't believe it should be used as a means of limiting an individuals rights, except in instances where said limitation is significantly needed to uphold the rights of others. Again, not saying it can't be used for this purpose, but that I don't agree with using it in such a way.

An amendment mandating that marriage be only be between a man and woman violates both of those basic principles. It is stepping in on a matter that is very narrow in my mind and has long been the purview of the state, and it is limiting individual rights by codifying gender discrimination without being significantly needed to uphold any persons rights.

An amendment mandating that marriage be between any two individuals violates only one of those princpiles. It is stepping in on a matter that is very narrow in my mind and has long been the purview of the states. HOWEVER, it is not limiting an individuals rights because it is not codifying any particular form of discrimination or limitation onto citizens.

As such, I'd have an issue with either amendment, but I'd have a larger issue with the former rather than the latter.

Anthony60 said:

Boy, you sure will go to any lengths to justify what a democrat does, even right after you are horrified that a republican did it. Unbelievable. Oh, so Clinton had to sign it, the republicans made him?

Then, you say there was a veto proof majority, as if that some how supports you??? Veto proof means it had to have bipartisan support! Democrats voted for it!

Click to expand...

Boy, you sure will go to any lengths to justify what republicans do!

Clinton did sign it - but you are quick to make that your focal point, when you know damn well, it's an attempt at diversion.

As rogue said:

roguenuke said:

A choice of either sign it in (which it was passed basically veto proof in the first place) or have congress work to pass a Constitutional Amendment that there was very possibly support for at the time and would be much harder to get rid of? Lesser of two evils.

Click to expand...

It WAS the GOP who sponsored DOMA and pushed it through, (and painted anyone who was against it mid-1990's as anti-family - sly bastards) and the GOP held steadfast for near 20 years defending it - on something YOU said they the feds couldn't have even defined! Ha!

Why don't you all just admit the truth? You (plural) want SSM, you don't care how it gets done. If it takes just one judge to ignore the Constitution and vote for it, you are just fine with that. Screw the Constitution, screw everyone else.

Me? I want it to go through the way we've decided things are supposed to work. The Constitution protects me, and you from a federal government that just dictates as it pleases.

God, you people have no credibility at all.

Click to expand...

You seem to be getting irate it's going to happen, and you *know* it's going to happen. It's been well over 50 Federal judges ruling this way, and soon, SCOTUS -- way more than "one judge."

The "way things are supposed to work" - is SCOTUS rules when laws are in conflict / people petition the government for redress being their rights are being violated. Courts rule. People appeal. it moves up. Way it works.

Get ready: This June.


I'm guessing there will be a whole lot of gnashing of the teeth going on.

Zyphlin said:

Which seems to indicate you have no actual understanding of what precedence means.

Incestuous Marriage and Same Sex Marriage are absolutely unable to be treated as analogs under constitutional law.

Same Sex Marriage, in relation the conversation here, is discrimination on the basis of gender. Constitutional Law has long since established gender as a middle teir category under the EPC, requiring that the government must demonstrate discrimination on such a basis must be substantially related to an important state interest.

Incestuous marriage is discrimination on the basis of family relationship. Constitutional law has shown absolutely zero evidence of this being treated as a middle or higher teir classification. As such, barring a court setting entirely new precedence regarding that classification, discrimination against it must simply be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The bar is set much higher for the government to discriminate against gender compraed to discrimination based on familiar relationship. As such, the court finding that the laws do discriminate on gender doesn't indicate what so ever that the discrimination based on familiar relationship is unconstitutional, because the government has a much lower bar to cross for that classification.

Additionally, the context surrounding both are significantly different. For example, when talking about the "welfare of the children" reason so often referenced by people. It is much easier from a legal stand point to make an argument that such a reason is a LEGITIMATE state interest, but it is far more difficult to make an argument that it's an IMPORTANT state interest in this context. Additionally, it's far easier to suggest a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in regards to incestuous couples, given the scientific evidence regarding the potential genetic damage to a child born of incest, than it is to suggest how barring same sex couples is substantially related to that interest (and even more so, the fact that said interest may not actually reach the level of "important" in the case of gender).

So would the case provide some very minor levels of precedence that could possibly be built off of? Sure. Every case ever provides for that. However, that is not a legitimate constitutional reason against something.

A court case declaring that the KKK is free to have marches COULD set precedence that someone then uses to suggest that the KKK should be free to have marches where they're depicting lynching black people. However, if that is the only reason against allowing them to act on their rights to speech and assembly then it is not a legitimate argument, because the slippery slope that is being pointed to is an entirely seperate issue that can be dealt with based on it's own merits and faults at a latter time IF it even happens...which is not gauranteed.

Now I'm done playing your game, since it seems even when I attempt to honestly answer your meandering line of questions you still dishonestly misrepresent or flat out ignore what I'm saying. You have STILL yet to provide an answer, outside of the slippery slope, regarding my initial claim. If you actually have an argument please present it.

Otherwise, I'm not going to continue to indulge your attempts to simply hide and deflect the fact you have no legitimate argument against the claim that it's unconstitutional on the basis of gender.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't.

DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, House 342-67. Signed by Bill Clinton. So, keep telling us all how the GOP forced it through. I guess they forced through Obamacare too.

Unfortunately, you really don't seem to have a clue how things are supposed to work. Good luck with the all powerful government you crave.

Anthony60 said:

DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, House 342-67. Signed by Bill Clinton. So, keep telling us all how the GOP forced it through. I guess they forced through Obamacare too.

Unfortunately, you really don't seem to have a clue how things are supposed to work. Good luck with the all powerful government you crave.

Click to expand...

No one is claiming a lot of Dems in the 90s supported SSM, but none of those 14, and 67 who voted against it were Republicans and even after pretty much all Dems and Independents supported same sex marriage, few Republicans did.

Anthony60 said:

DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, House 342-67. Signed by Bill Clinton. So, keep telling us all how the GOP forced it through. I guess they forced through Obamacare too.

Unfortunately, you really don't seem to have a clue how things are supposed to work. Good luck with the all powerful government you crave.

Click to expand...

I can only speak for me, but an all powerful government EXPANDING human rights isn't on my "Top Ten Things to Worry About" list.

That's the beauty of SSM. We can extend the right (or privilege if you prefer) to gay couples without requiring any sacrifice from traditionally married couples.

JasperL said:

I can only speak for me, but an all powerful government EXPANDING human rights isn't on my "Top Ten Things to Worry About" list.

That's the beauty of SSM. We can extend the right (or privilege if you prefer) to gay couples without requiring any sacrifice from traditionally married couples.

Click to expand...

OMG, does anyone here read at all? You are are responding to me with this? Jeez.

Anthony60 said:

DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, House 342-67. Signed by Bill Clinton. So, keep telling us all how the GOP forced it through. I guess they forced through Obamacare too.

Unfortunately, you really don't seem to have a clue how things are supposed to work. Good luck with the all powerful government you crave.

Click to expand...

You keep trying to shift this off to dems, don't you? Why? Think about why you might be doing that.

It's true, as I said, the bill was veto-proof - strong R congress, but it needed Dem support. This wasn't hard, as

1) there was not that much support 20 years ago even amongst some dems,

2) the GOP painted it very stark (I remember well the debates at the time) -- if you were against the measure, you were against families. Might as well hold a bill asking if you were against apple pie & baseball. The optics were hugely in favor (now listen close)

of the party that pushed DOMA.

3) The GOP wanted - as was stated earlier -- a Constitutional Amendment to ban SSM nationwide!

All those combined helped DOMA pass.

And listen more carefully now: For twenty ****ing years, Republicans defended it! (Some still do)

That's something you cannot run away from, and something the dems didn't do -- and the GOP even spent MILLIONS -- after the administration said it would no long defend it in court,-- fighting for it.

Millions. Just a few years ago. Then Windsor dealt its might blow.

The horrible bill - calling for the "Defense of Marriage" - (which ironically was authored by a GOP twerp, who was on his third marriage - ha!) was, for a good portion, trashed as being Unconstitutional. As it should have been.

Anthony60 said:

OMG, does anyone here read at all? You are are responding to me with this? Jeez.

Click to expand...

Please explain to us all in what way expanding rights by striking down state laws such as the same sex marriage bans gives us an "all powerful government". This is what we are discussing, striking down same sex marriage bans, nothing else that the federal government might do. So, if your comment is not dealing with the federal government striking down those marriage laws, then it is way off topic.

Sounds like a modern day George Wallace.