Mac and Jerry, when did the 10th amendment suddenly not apply to amendments 11 onward?
Because apparently based on what you're saying here, in whatever imaginary world you all are talking about states can freely break the EPC clause unless its discriminating in a way that is specifically word for word listed in the constitution, AND apparently a constitution exists that didn't establish a Supreme Court whose job is to interpret constitutional law.
But in this case, gay couples are not law evaders. You're playing semantics here, if you want to have a serious debate fine, if you're going to dissolve into ridiculous comparisons I'm not going to bother.
Exactly. What you said was irrelevant. I still don't see what that has to do with SSM.
Also, it only has that right so long as it doesn't step on other peoples' rights.
The laws? Violating the 14th amendment.That was a little silly, I admit, but it was true. However, if the laws of the state define marriage as between a man and a woman..and two men get married....then they are what?
No it wasn't...the state have the right to govern their societies. That includes everything from noise ordinances to construction code to marriage. That's just the way it is.
Not completely true. Mainly since not everyone has the rights you think they do or should.
The laws? Violating the 14th amendment.
Yes, but that doesn't have much to do with "Are the states allowed to pass laws designed to make the state a safe and pleasant place to live?". They do NOT have the right to make it more safe and pleasant (again, neither of which have to do with SSM) if it violates others' rights.
Just because a state violates someone's rights doesn't mean it is justified.
Let's look at what I said.
"It (states) only has that right so long as it doesn't step on other peoples' rights."
You say its not true because "not everyone has the rights you think they do or should."
They don't have the rights BECAUSE the state violates them. This is not justification, this is explanation. Without the state barring them, they WOULD have that right.
A SSM ban doesn't violate anyone's rights.
You never had the right to marry the same sex to begin with. It can't be taken from you because you didn't have it to begin with.
A SSM ban doesn't violate my rights because I never had that right in the first place.
Did you have the right to OSM?
Me personally? No.
Though separated for 3 years, I'm still legally married, which means I can't marry anyone at all. I am now one of the black-listed groups, just like same-sex couples.
When you were single, before you were married, did you have the right to OSM?
What kind of stupid question is that? No, I didn't have that, that's why the state married us, 'cuz it was illegal. Duh.
Gays have more rights today then I do.
please elaborate.
Ok, so you did have the right.
"A SSM ban doesn't violate my rights because I never had that right in the first place."
So why didn't you have the right to a SSM?
You only have the right to marry if you are not already married.
If you are not married, and you are a US citizen, of legal age or have your parent's written consent, are not deemed mentally deficient, are sober, and do not have a blood born disease; then you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, who is not closely related to you, of legal age or has their parent's written consent, is not deemed mentally deficient, is sober, and does not have a blood born disease.
I mean forget about taking anything off the list, I want to expand it. Without comprehensive pre-marital personal and financial counseling, mixed religion, mixed race, and any person raising small children should be out-of-bounds.
Honestly, I'm really getting tired of this argument. The fact is that all the old farts are going to die and my generation is going to legalize it. Every five years the old farts claim that support for same sex marriage has peaked and this year was the first year that national support for same sex marriage has gone over 50%. The only reason that it is still an issue is because the old farts really don't want same sex marriage and the people who support it are not as galvanized for it as the opposition is against it.
DOMA will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I have no doubt at all about it because it is a flagrant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Once that occurs, this will truly be a state issue and it will only be a matter of repealing each state amendment one at a time as the old farts die off. When same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for twenty years and people see that the world has not ended for our northern neighbors, all the idiocy surrounding the arguments that old farts are still trying to use will become completely apparent.
how old are you?
For the same reason I never had a right to marry a 1st cousin, a minor child, the mentally deficient, someone who was already married, etc.
You're equating SSM to these?
None of your business.
My point stands. Remember the "will of the people" argument your side always uses to argue that the majority should decide on the definition of marriage?
Well guess what, 2011 is the year that the national balance finally tipped and now more people support marriage equality than oppose it. By 2031 I'll be surprised if there is a single state left with a Cosntitutional amendment against same sex marriage. And it will al be because of the "will of the people" so you guys won't get to bitch about it.
You're equating SSM to these?
The worst part is that you are allowed to marry your 1st cousin in some states and Jerry seems ignorant of that fact. :roll:
Me personally? No.
Though separated for 3 years, I'm still legally married, which means I can't marry anyone at all. I am now one of the black-listed groups, just like same-sex couples.
At least gays can show public affection, go on dates, live together and all that good stuff. If I tried that right now I'd face court martial.
Gays have more rights today then I do, and they want to bitch? ****'em. They should just shut the **** up. They don't know how good they have it.
Jerry, there is a large, unsubtle difference between responsibility for actions and not having a right.
Further, you do have more rights since you have the option to get a divorce and get married again.
You where not denied a right for who you are, and had, and still have, more rights than gay people.
Rights is not my primary argument for gay marriage, but it is a part of the whole, and your argument on the rights issue was so wrong as to be laughable.
Moderator's Warning: |
SIMPLE SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY RULE CHANGES: * Thread Bans will be issued with a 0 point “Thread Ban Infraction” warning the poster that they are now thread banned and they should not post any further in the thread. * Staying banned from a thread is not hard coded * Any additional posts in a thread after a thread banning will result in a 5 point DBAJ infraction. All subsequent posts after will continue to have a similar infraction levied * Thread Bans will always be announced in thread to help with enforcement and notification * All are temporary measures until a hard coded “Thread Ban” system is able to be added to the forum. |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?