Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2013 5:52:00 PM (view original):
If I'm not mistaken, the 14th amendment **** on Native Americans in that they were not offered "equal rights".      If I'm correct, how ******* valid should that amendment be?

The whole purpose of it was to ensure "equal rights" yet it was discriminatory.

Which goes back to my previous statement of "This country was built on discriminatory laws."

Lol

Smd

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2013 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/15/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
And that's your justification for continuing to promote disciminatory laws?

My "justification" has been that the definition of "marriage" has never been altered from it's original, accepted meaning in the history of the United States of America.

I'm fine with "civil union" having the same benefits/pitfalls of "marriage".

IMO, that resolves the entire issue.  Traditionalists/religious folk keep their "sanctity of marriage" and the homosexuals get equal billing, so to speak.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Look guy, the definition of who can get married has been changed by the Supreme Court before. So quit acting like it would be unprecedented for them to change it again.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/15/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2013 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/15/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
And that's your justification for continuing to promote disciminatory laws?

My "justification" has been that the definition of "marriage" has never been altered from it's original, accepted meaning in the history of the United States of America.

I'm fine with "civil union" having the same benefits/pitfalls of "marriage".

IMO, that resolves the entire issue.  Traditionalists/religious folk keep their "sanctity of marriage" and the homosexuals get equal billing, so to speak.

I doubt the homosexual community would be thrilled by this, but it's better than nothing...

FWIW, what is your opinion of states legalizing SSM?  This argument has, for at least 20 or 30 pages now, centered entirely around whether or not the Federal government should or can legally allow SSM throughout the country or outlaw it's outlawing.  Do you think states should be allowed to legalize it if they so choose?

Honestly, I have no issue with the Feds making a ruling.   Therefore, I'd have no issue if their ruling was "Let the states decide, we're staying out of it."

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Look guy, the definition of who can get married has been changed by the Supreme Court before. So quit acting like it would be unprecedented for them to change it again.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/15/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution?

It's not, which is why it's left to the states and not the Feds.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/15/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution?

It's not, which is why it's left to the states and not the Feds.

Fine.

The State of California has decided, via Prop 8, that SSM is not valid in California.

So again, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth . . . when some states decide that SSM will be allowed, you're saying that the Feds should not get involved because it's up to the states to decide.  Yet when a state like California decides against SSM, you want the Feds to overrule that.

Pick a consistent message and stick with it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Look guy, the definition of who can get married has been changed by the Supreme Court before. So quit acting like it would be unprecedented for them to change it again.

Look guy, the accepted definition of marriage, "one man, one woman" has never been altered.    It was not "two adults" or "one male, one female" or any other bullshit you're selling.   It has always been "one man, one woman".    The SC has not changed that in the history of the US.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/15/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution?

It's not, which is why it's left to the states and not the Feds.

Fine.

The State of California has decided, via Prop 8, that SSM is not valid in California.

So again, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth . . . when some states decide that SSM will be allowed, you're saying that the Feds should not get involved because it's up to the states to decide.  Yet when a state like California decides against SSM, you want the Feds to overrule that.

Pick a consistent message and stick with it.

I'm saying that the Feds can't write the law. For or against.

But it is well within the supreme courts power to overturn a state law that isn't legal. Despite the 40 year old Baker ruling, I think that is going to happen regarding prop 8.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Look guy, the definition of who can get married has been changed by the Supreme Court before. So quit acting like it would be unprecedented for them to change it again.

Look guy, the accepted definition of marriage, "one man, one woman" has never been altered.    It was not "two adults" or "one male, one female" or any other bullshit you're selling.   It has always been "one man, one woman".    The SC has not changed that in the history of the US.

You act like that's some sort of special thing. For 200 years, the definition of marriage was two adults/different genders/same race. And then the supreme court changed it to just two adults/different genders.

Now, it looks like it will be changed again to just two adults.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/15/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution?

It's not, which is why it's left to the states and not the Feds.

Fine.

The State of California has decided, via Prop 8, that SSM is not valid in California.

So again, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth . . . when some states decide that SSM will be allowed, you're saying that the Feds should not get involved because it's up to the states to decide.  Yet when a state like California decides against SSM, you want the Feds to overrule that.

Pick a consistent message and stick with it.

I'm saying that the Feds can't write the law. For or against.

But it is well within the supreme courts power to overturn a state law that isn't legal. Despite the 40 year old Baker ruling, I think that is going to happen regarding prop 8.

Wait just a ******* minute.

Now you're trying to say that the Federal Government can't make laws?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Look guy, the definition of who can get married has been changed by the Supreme Court before. So quit acting like it would be unprecedented for them to change it again.

Look guy, the accepted definition of marriage, "one man, one woman" has never been altered.    It was not "two adults" or "one male, one female" or any other bullshit you're selling.   It has always been "one man, one woman".    The SC has not changed that in the history of the US.

You act like that's some sort of special thing. For 200 years, the definition of marriage was two adults/different genders/same race. And then the supreme court changed it to just two adults/different genders.

Now, it looks like it will be changed again to just two adults.

You're twisting words to fit your pathetic argument.

200+ years ago, if you asked Joe Colonial what marriage was, he would have told you that it was between a man and a woman.  Joe Colonial would NOT have told you that it was between two adults of different genders.

In fact, Joe Colonial probably would have chased you off his property with his musket if you had started talking about two men or two women.