Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Supreme Court is going to listen to SSM cases

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:01:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Yea I saw this. My position is that ultimately government should stay out of marriage, and that if two people love each other, even if they're the same sex, they should be able to marry. If it's not harming anybody else, then why should we be banning this. Ultimately, I think these religious and neo-conservative protesters of same sex marriage will be viewed, in the future, the same as the people who protested equal rights for blacks.

Obviously if you look at the election results, America is becoming progressively liberal, in terms of social issues. Also, a very recent finding in the Huffington Post found that within the past 4 years, support for SSM has increased from 36% to 48%, while only 46% oppose. Its only going to be a matter of time before gay marriage will be legal everywhere
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:03:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:01:03 PM, emj32 wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Yea I saw this. My position is that ultimately government should stay out of marriage, and that if two people love each other, even if they're the same sex, they should be able to marry. If it's not harming anybody else, then why should we be banning this. Ultimately, I think these religious and neo-conservative protesters of same sex marriage will be viewed, in the future, the same as the people who protested equal rights for blacks.

Obviously if you look at the election results, America is becoming progressively liberal, in terms of social issues. Also, a very recent finding in the Huffington Post found that within the past 4 years, support for SSM has increased from 36% to 48%, while only 46% oppose. Its only going to be a matter of time before gay marriage will be legal everywhere

I sadly agree. But I didn't post this to debate SSM.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:10:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."
Well I don't believe that the activist judges are against gay marriage.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:12:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:10:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."
Well I don't believe that the activist judges are against gay marriage.

I always thought "activist" judge was an empty phrase that simply meant "a judge whose ruling I don't like" and, therefore, could be at any place on the political spectrum.

However, this is fantastic. I am almost certain that DOMA will get overturned and SSM will be upheld in California. After that happens, it should be a rather simplistic domino effect across the country.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:16:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."

Activist judges overrule state laws and add things to the constitution (like Roe v. Wade, in a way). If Scalia negates he's not being an activist, he's upholding 41 state laws and much of the time state constitutions.

But it will likely win, it depends though. Lawrence v Texas was on same sex partnership, not marriage.

But yes, I suspect a 6-3 ruling for SSM.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:19:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:10:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."
Well I don't believe that the activist judges are against gay marriage.

Scalia is an activist judge. He'd reverse court precendent without the need to, that's what an activist judge does. Just because he isn't liberal doesn't mean he can't be activist in a conservative manner. Overturning precedent without good justification is the essence of judicial activism. Ironically, I got that definition from Scalia himself.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:20:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:16:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."

Activist judges overrule state laws and add things to the constitution (like Roe v. Wade, in a way). If Scalia negates he's not being an activist, he's upholding 41 state laws and much of the time state constitutions.

But it will likely win, it depends though. Lawrence v Texas was on same sex partnership, not marriage.

But yes, I suspect a 6-3 ruling for SSM.

Activist judges are those that overturn precedent without reason. You can be an activist and a conservative.

For instance, overthrowing Roe v Wade just because you didn't like the original ruling is the act of an activist judge.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:21:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:19:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:10:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."
Well I don't believe that the activist judges are against gay marriage.

Scalia is an activist judge. He'd reverse court precendent without the need to, that's what an activist judge does. Just because he isn't liberal doesn't mean he can't be activist in a conservative manner. Overturning precedent without good justification is the essence of judicial activism. Ironically, I got that definition from Scalia himself.

Well, that begs the question: does he have no good justifications?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:24:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:20:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:16:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:08:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
If the justices take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, gay marriage will win. Scalia explicitly said as much in Lawrence.

However, Scalia et al have a nasty habit of being HORRIBLE F*CKING HYPOCRITES when it comes to judicial "activism" so chances are they'll say "let's just overturn the last ruling I didn't like."

Activist judges overrule state laws and add things to the constitution (like Roe v. Wade, in a way). If Scalia negates he's not being an activist, he's upholding 41 state laws and much of the time state constitutions.

But it will likely win, it depends though. Lawrence v Texas was on same sex partnership, not marriage.

But yes, I suspect a 6-3 ruling for SSM.

Activist judges are those that overturn precedent without reason. You can be an activist and a conservative.

I agree; its not ideologically bound.

For instance, overthrowing Roe v Wade just because you didn't like the original ruling is the act of an activist judge.

Justices give reasons for them. For example, lets say the court reversed that ruling, and they argued that the former ruling was unjust, immoral, against the founders intentions, etc. (again, hypothetical.) if they have a just reason, it wouldn't be activism. And like Roe, I think adding to the constitution (their job is to interpret) would be activism. Regardless on abortion opinion, I see it hard to say my analogy was erroneously flawed.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:25:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Your view is logically and constitutionally illegitimate...just as a sidenote. The case has the 2 esteemed lawyers from Bush v. Gore working together in defense of gay marriage. Be prepared for another Roe v. Wage, in my liberal America.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:28:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Your view is logically and constitutionally illegitimate...just as a sidenote. The case has the 2 esteemed lawyers from Bush v. Gore working together in defense of gay marriage. Be prepared for another Roe v. Wage, in my liberal America.

Hey Ike, would you be forcing churches to wed same sex couples, or would you leave it to local religious institutions to act how they wish without government intervention?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:31:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some people still haven't got over that black people can marry white people.

Its immoral........

If we let them marry it will lead to bestiality......

It's against Gods will.......

Well the bible says.........

It's unnatural........

I think we have seen this movie before.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:32:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:28:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Your view is logically and constitutionally illegitimate...just as a sidenote. The case has the 2 esteemed lawyers from Bush v. Gore working together in defense of gay marriage. Be prepared for another Roe v. Wage, in my liberal America.

Hey Ike, would you be forcing churches to wed same sex couples, or would you leave it to local religious institutions to act how they wish without government intervention?

I'm sure the Justices would say that Churches would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. They have before and I see no reason why they would stop.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:33:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:28:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Your view is logically and constitutionally illegitimate...just as a sidenote. The case has the 2 esteemed lawyers from Bush v. Gore working together in defense of gay marriage. Be prepared for another Roe v. Wage, in my liberal America.

Hey Ike, would you be forcing churches to wed same sex couples, or would you leave it to local religious institutions to act how they wish without government intervention?

I wasn't aware that churches for forced to wed any sort of couple... If that's the case, then I would not support it. Any private sovereign institution should have the right to dictate its own rules within the capacity of fairness and decency.

But I kind of feel like you're forcing some diametric opposition to this issue just so your views fall in step with the rightwing paragon... I feel like you're looking for a way to controvert the case in favor of SSM for partisan reasons. And that's a pretty poor reason for arguing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:35:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Those with opinions on both sides seem to take no issue at all with having to sign our overlord's permission slips to be married. All's well, as long as we get our benefits.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:37:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:31:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some people still haven't got over that black people can marry white people.

Its immoral........

If we let them marry it will lead to bestiality......

It's against Gods will.......

Well the bible says.........

It's unnatural........

I think we have seen this movie before.

Yeah. The difference here is that in the past, those people were misusing Biblical passages to reinforce their prejudices and racism. Interracial marriage is not forbidden in the Bible. Moses married an Ethiopian women with no fanfare from God.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:38:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:28:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Your view is logically and constitutionally illegitimate...just as a sidenote. The case has the 2 esteemed lawyers from Bush v. Gore working together in defense of gay marriage. Be prepared for another Roe v. Wage, in my liberal America.

Hey Ike, would you be forcing churches to wed same sex couples, or would you leave it to local religious institutions to act how they wish without government intervention?

I wasn't aware that churches for forced to wed any sort of couple... If that's the case, then I would not support it. Any private sovereign institution should have the right to dictate its own rules within the capacity of fairness and decency.

Wow I agree with Ike...

But I kind of feel like you're forcing some diametric opposition to this issue just so your views fall in step with the rightwing paragon... I feel like you're looking for a way to controvert the case in favor of SSM for partisan reasons. And that's a pretty poor reason for arguing.

He's pro gay marriage dude. It says so on his profile.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Tes95
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:39:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Give Civil Unions with every benefit of standard marriage, calling it marriage is illegal under the Establishment clause of Separation of Church and State due to entanglement. Gays argue it is a legal service, but it is a separate entity from marriage, a privileged service administered to and created by straights by religious authority. The government MUST call it something else, to call it marriage infringes, no, overturns the Church's authority on the service they created. Plus, they don't need the title. We do, it's the last thing we haven't been forced to give up. This whole Eminent Domain-like tactic the LGBT pulls annoys the Hell out of me.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:37:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:31:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some people still haven't got over that black people can marry white people.

Its immoral........

If we let them marry it will lead to bestiality......

It's against Gods will.......

Well the bible says.........

It's unnatural........

I think we have seen this movie before.

Yeah. The difference here is that in the past, those people were misusing Biblical passages to reinforce their prejudices and racism. Interracial marriage is not forbidden in the Bible. Moses married an Ethiopian women with no fanfare from God.

And Jesus was likely dark skinned.

And, I think this article is interesting:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Tes95
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:41:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:40:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:37:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:31:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some people still haven't got over that black people can marry white people.

Its immoral........

If we let them marry it will lead to bestiality......

It's against Gods will.......

Well the bible says.........

It's unnatural........

I think we have seen this movie before.

Yeah. The difference here is that in the past, those people were misusing Biblical passages to reinforce their prejudices and racism. Interracial marriage is not forbidden in the Bible. Moses married an Ethiopian women with no fanfare from God.

And Jesus was likely dark skinned.

And, I think this article is interesting:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

The Torah speaks nothing about forbidding interracial as well.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:45:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Your view is logically and constitutionally illegitimate...just as a sidenote. The case has the 2 esteemed lawyers from Bush v. Gore working together in defense of gay marriage. Be prepared for another Roe v. Wage, in my liberal America.

It's going to be 6-3 for SSM or 5-4 against.

So it's not just a wipe off position.

Also, my view should not be ignored. Some legal theories easily endorse my view.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Regardless of my view, this should be interesting.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:49:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:40:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:37:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:31:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Some people still haven't got over that black people can marry white people.

Its immoral........

If we let them marry it will lead to bestiality......

It's against Gods will.......

Well the bible says.........

It's unnatural........

I think we have seen this movie before.

Yeah. The difference here is that in the past, those people were misusing Biblical passages to reinforce their prejudices and racism. Interracial marriage is not forbidden in the Bible. Moses married an Ethiopian women with no fanfare from God.

And Jesus was likely dark skinned.

And, I think this article is interesting:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

Yeah yeah, one mans this is what God says is another mans you are misusing scripture.

What will people be saying about those who use the bible against gay marriage in a hundred, or five hundred or a thousand years from now ? ...well you see back then people were misusing the bible to stop two consenting adults of the same sex to marry.........

Like I said, Im pretty sure we have seen this movie before, and I didn't like it the first time, then again now its in HD, so maybe that will make it better.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:51:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:39:06 PM, Tes95 wrote:
Give Civil Unions with every benefit of standard marriage,

Nope again

calling it marriage is illegal under the Establishment clause of Separation of Church and State due to entanglement. Gays argue it is a legal service, but it is a separate entity from marriage, a privileged service administered to and created by straights by religious authority. The government MUST call it something else, to call it marriage infringes, no, overturns the Church's authority on the service they created. Plus, they don't need the title. We do, it's the last thing we haven't been forced to give up. This whole Eminent Domain-like tactic the LGBT pulls annoys the Hell out of me.

Yawn. Already debated this. You lost. Get over it. There is religious marriage and legal marriage. They are separate entities and expanding one doesn't affect the other.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:08:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:39:06 PM, Tes95 wrote:
Give Civil Unions with every benefit of standard marriage, calling it marriage is illegal under the Establishment clause of Separation of Church and State due to entanglement. Gays argue it is a legal service, but it is a separate entity from marriage, a privileged service administered to and created by straights by religious authority. The government MUST call it something else, to call it marriage infringes, no, overturns the Church's authority on the service they created. Plus, they don't need the title. We do, it's the last thing we haven't been forced to give up. This whole Eminent Domain-like tactic the LGBT pulls annoys the Hell out of me.

When I read this, one of the things occurred to me was the voice of Hitchens, where he tells the audience something like, people ask me don't you get tired of debating with the religious ? and his answer is no, cause you never know what they are going to say next.

So let me get this straight, you have no problems with gays getting married to each other, just as long as we don't call it marriage. I got some idea's what we should call it......

1) Love commitment
2) I can't believe its not marriage
3) What ever this is, it is NOT, I repeat NOT a marriage
4) Marriage 2.0 Bigger, faster, stronger
5) It looks like a marriage, sounds like a marriage, but it ain't a marriage......i
6) Marriage Vista version
7) Marriage 7, we promise its not sh*t like the vista version
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:36:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:38:59 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:28:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:07:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We all know my view on this, but they're taking up the marriage cases (like DOMA).
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blog.heritage.org...

Your view is logically and constitutionally illegitimate...just as a sidenote. The case has the 2 esteemed lawyers from Bush v. Gore working together in defense of gay marriage. Be prepared for another Roe v. Wage, in my liberal America.

Hey Ike, would you be forcing churches to wed same sex couples, or would you leave it to local religious institutions to act how they wish without government intervention?

I wasn't aware that churches for forced to wed any sort of couple... If that's the case, then I would not support it. Any private sovereign institution should have the right to dictate its own rules within the capacity of fairness and decency.

I fully agree, so I would expect you would support maybe getting government out of marriage, and have a true separation of church and state?

Wow I agree with Ike...

But I kind of feel like you're forcing some diametric opposition to this issue just so your views fall in step with the rightwing paragon... I feel like you're looking for a way to controvert the case in favor of SSM for partisan reasons. And that's a pretty poor reason for arguing.

He's pro gay marriage dude. It says so on his profile.

I am pro gay marriage. And I don't blindy follow the right wing's positions for the sake of it. For example, I support the 5 day workweek, private sector unions, and cutting the tax on capital gains to 9-10% (not eliminating it). My views are mostly consistent with free markets and personal liberty, but I've made these opinions after looking at the theory and facts from both sides.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 4:52:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I always thought DOMA was a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough (and I wonder if that is what makes in unconstitutional).

If it is struck down, I think a new DOMA should be enacted, but this one shouldn't address SSM specifically, but merely state that any state is not required to offer the same benefits of marriage to those who were married in another state. It should also stipulate that federal rules will follow specific state's rules regarding marriage. So, two married men can file a joint tax return to the IRS in New York but not in Texas.

So, if state A allows gay marriage and state B does not, then if people went to state A to get married (or moved from there), it is not recognized in state B.

The same goes for ages of consent (15 vs. 17), bloodlines (some states you can marry your first cousin), polygamy, and even retardation (assuming it is based on IQ). Since marriage is a state issue, and the rules for marriage are governed by the state, I don't see why other states' actions should dictate benefits of another state.
My work here is, finally, done.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 6:39:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 4:52:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I always thought DOMA was a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough (and I wonder if that is what makes in unconstitutional).

If it is struck down, I think a new DOMA should be enacted, but this one shouldn't address SSM specifically, but merely state that any state is not required to offer the same benefits of marriage to those who were married in another state. It should also stipulate that federal rules will follow specific state's rules regarding marriage. So, two married men can file a joint tax return to the IRS in New York but not in Texas.

So, if state A allows gay marriage and state B does not, then if people went to state A to get married (or moved from there), it is not recognized in state B.

The same goes for ages of consent (15 vs. 17), bloodlines (some states you can marry your first cousin), polygamy, and even retardation (assuming it is based on IQ). Since marriage is a state issue, and the rules for marriage are governed by the state, I don't see why other states' actions should dictate benefits of another state.

Marriage is not a state's issue. It is a personal issue. The 10th Amendment gives the people the power over private issue that concern them.