Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 5/31/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

You may want to read that decision a little closer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018325737.html
Yah, they're focusing on the BENEFITS, you brainless twit.

Think of it this way, if Federal Benefits were denied to married couples that were, say, Jewish, it wouldn't be permissible.  They're saying that IF THE STATE SAYS THEY'RE MARRIED, THE FEDS SHOULD GIVE THEM BENEFITS.  Period.

Nothing more.
But they aren't ruling that states have the right to deny same sex couples marriage.

Just that the Feds don't have a compelling argument for denying rights at the federal level of a legal marriage.
THIS RULING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.  IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FEDS RECOGNIZING THAT MARRIAGE IS DEFINED BY THE STATES.  PERIOD.
5/31/2012 2:54 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
We are arguing apples and oranges.  I've never argued that the Feds should define marriage.

My argument is that the SSM bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, which applies to state laws.
5/31/2012 2:56 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
And in California, same-sex marriage has LOST....  every.   single.   time.

Which, frankly, astounds me... especially when one of those elections was in 2008 (the Obama "mandate")
5/31/2012 2:56 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 5/31/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

You may want to read that decision a little closer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018325737.html
Yah, they're focusing on the BENEFITS, you brainless twit.

Think of it this way, if Federal Benefits were denied to married couples that were, say, Jewish, it wouldn't be permissible.  They're saying that IF THE STATE SAYS THEY'RE MARRIED, THE FEDS SHOULD GIVE THEM BENEFITS.  Period.

Nothing more.
But they aren't ruling that states have the right to deny same sex couples marriage.

Just that the Feds don't have a compelling argument for denying rights at the federal level of a legal marriage.
You are a dumbass.

Today's ruling in MA was not an affirmation of SSM.  It was an affirmation of the right of the states to define marriage themselves.
5/31/2012 2:57 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):
We are arguing apples and oranges.  I've never argued that the Feds should define marriage.

My argument is that the SSM bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, which applies to state laws.
Wrong, the feds have consistently given the states the right to define marriage any damn way they want.

And this decision affirms that right.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional. 
5/31/2012 2:58 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
What's wrong?

I'm not arguing for a federal definition.  The states set marriage laws.  They just can't violate the 14th amendment.
5/31/2012 3:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
You're failing to understand my point.

"long been recognized" is just another way of saying "tradition allows".      Tradition allows free men to marry, presumably, to continue the human race as tradition has long dictated that parents should be married.    It just doesn't apply to SSM.   Tradition or existence. 
Tradition allows free men to marry for the pursuit of happiness.  You need to read the entire sentence and you won't have to presume.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

And, traditionally, marriage is between one man, one woman. 

Don't use "tradition" as a ground for arguing SSM.

Get it now?

Yes, traditionally marriage has been between a man and woman.  And the court has held that marriage is a "vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness."

Which is more important, maintaining a tradition or upholding a vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness?
I'm not arguing "more important".

I'm telling you "tradition" is a poor argument for SSM.    And you're trying to make it.
5/31/2012 3:07 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):
What's wrong?

I'm not arguing for a federal definition.  The states set marriage laws.  They just can't violate the 14th amendment.
Oh, gosh.  Look what I found.  A U.S. Supreme Court precedent on SSM and the 14th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

5/31/2012 3:09 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
One thing that I want to thank you for....  I've been reading more about Supreme Court decisions since this discussion started.

That being said, you're a moron that seems to think the 14th amendment means that everyone has to adhere to YOUR beliefs about where states' rights begin and end, and that somehow, the entire LGBT community has been missing the boat regarding their legal challenges for the last thirty years.
5/31/2012 3:11 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):
What's wrong?

I'm not arguing for a federal definition.  The states set marriage laws.  They just can't violate the 14th amendment.
Oh, gosh.  Look what I found.  A U.S. Supreme Court precedent on SSM and the 14th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Wow...a slam dunk.
5/31/2012 3:42 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):
What's wrong?

I'm not arguing for a federal definition.  The states set marriage laws.  They just can't violate the 14th amendment.
Oh, gosh.  Look what I found.  A U.S. Supreme Court precedent on SSM and the 14th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Wow...a slam dunk.
"As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case."

Which means that state bans on SSM cannot be challenged on the grounds that they violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
5/31/2012 3:52 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):
What's wrong?

I'm not arguing for a federal definition.  The states set marriage laws.  They just can't violate the 14th amendment.
Oh, gosh.  Look what I found.  A U.S. Supreme Court precedent on SSM and the 14th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

That was 1972.  A lot has changed in 40 years, sodomy laws were just overturned in 2003.  I guess you can hope for a similar result if the court agrees to hear Perry, but I wouldn't bet on it.
5/31/2012 3:53 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
You're failing to understand my point.

"long been recognized" is just another way of saying "tradition allows".      Tradition allows free men to marry, presumably, to continue the human race as tradition has long dictated that parents should be married.    It just doesn't apply to SSM.   Tradition or existence. 
Tradition allows free men to marry for the pursuit of happiness.  You need to read the entire sentence and you won't have to presume.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

And, traditionally, marriage is between one man, one woman. 

Don't use "tradition" as a ground for arguing SSM.

Get it now?

Yes, traditionally marriage has been between a man and woman.  And the court has held that marriage is a "vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness."

Which is more important, maintaining a tradition or upholding a vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness?
I'm not arguing "more important".

I'm telling you "tradition" is a poor argument for SSM.    And you're trying to make it.
Tradition is not the argument for allowing same sex marriage.  I've never tried to make it.
5/31/2012 3:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
You're failing to understand my point.

"long been recognized" is just another way of saying "tradition allows".      Tradition allows free men to marry, presumably, to continue the human race as tradition has long dictated that parents should be married.    It just doesn't apply to SSM.   Tradition or existence. 
Tradition allows free men to marry for the pursuit of happiness.  You need to read the entire sentence and you won't have to presume.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

And, traditionally, marriage is between one man, one woman. 

Don't use "tradition" as a ground for arguing SSM.

Get it now?

Yes, traditionally marriage has been between a man and woman.  And the court has held that marriage is a "vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness."

Which is more important, maintaining a tradition or upholding a vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness?
I'm not arguing "more important".

I'm telling you "tradition" is a poor argument for SSM.    And you're trying to make it.
Tradition is not the argument for allowing same sex marriage.  I've never tried to make it.

Then don't quote court cases that state "The freedom to marry has long been recognized........" because what has long be recognized has nothing to do with two men marrying one another. 

Get it?

5/31/2012 4:40 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
You're right, in the Loving decision, what the court is referring to when it says "long been recognized" has nothing to do with two men marrying.  Or one man and one woman marrying.  What the court is referring to in this decision is the recognized RIGHT to marriage.


5/31/2012 4:49 PM
◂ Prev 1...80|81|82|83|84...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.