I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a right

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by Troianii, May 20, 2014.

  1. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    OK point well taken. There is a difference in the degree of brutality perpetrated by Muslims vs. Christians. But what does that have to do with the establishment of gay rights? You didn't answer the question that I posed. Should the far of the ire of Muslims be allowed to derail marriage equality? Oh and, your assuming that I'm gay?
     
  2. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,462
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    K. Well I just explained legal personhood and if you'd prefer not to ignore that, that's your decision.
     
  3. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    116,290
    Likes Received:
    44,277
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if you would prefer to pretend a corp has person-hood and ignore the fact that the are really a Corp then that's your decision

    we will have to agree to disagree on this one...


    .
     
  4. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,462
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    *sigh* I suppose that your refusing to understand/acknowledge the actual meaning can be "agreeing to disagree"
     
  5. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,852
    Likes Received:
    24,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Funny coming from someone who beats that same dead horse on every gay thread on this forum.

    Statistics don't lie... but I understand it's less painful to pretend gays will give up sex with multiple partners just because they get married.

    Not gonna happen...
     
  6. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Either way, they will get married.......BTW I got marries, to a woman, and neither of us gave up sex with multiple partners
     
  7. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,852
    Likes Received:
    24,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Why am I not surprised.

    (except about the woman part) ;)
     
  8. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Not all of the freedom riders were black
     
  9. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,852
    Likes Received:
    24,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Tell your wife that... not me.
     
  10. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What are you trying to say?
     
  11. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,852
    Likes Received:
    24,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Not my business. I was fine thinking you were probably gay.
     
  12. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Why would you make that assumption? The polls would no be showing upwards of 55% supporting same sex marriage if only gays supported it. I usually do not make a point of discussing my orientation because when I do it just feeds into the homophobia, as though I had to deny it. I like to let people stew in their own juice.
     
  13. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,852
    Likes Received:
    24,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Looks like you felt it necessary to explain again... I certainly didn't ask.

    But since we're confessing... I'm not gay either. ;)
     
  14. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Your point combined with the fact that THE PEOPLE overwhelmingly support a ban on gay marriage/unions is exactly why Thomas Jefferson is so often quoted regarding the Despotism of the Judiciary.

    You are so interested in winning your argument that you are missing the most important aspect of this issue.

    The Constitution defines the duties of the Federal Government and in the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people (emphasis mine)."

    The definition of marriage (gay, straight, polygamist, animals, computers or whatever) is not identified in the Constitution as a duty of the federal government therefore the Tenth Amendment is invoked and it is a State issue determined by the people in each State.

    Something like 31 out of the 32 states that tried, passed ballot initiatives to amend their State Constitutions to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The State Constitutional Amendment even passed in left coast California where conservatives never get elected (remember proposition 8?) but the courts there overturned the will of the people and basically said TO HELL WITH THE PEOPLE AND TO HELL WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

    Marriage (gay, straight, polygamist, animals, computers or whatever) is not a constitutionally protected right so the will of the people in this case cannot be unconstitutional and again, should be determined by the people in each State.

    Don't tell me that judges are always right because if that were true, we wouldn't need appeals nor would there be any reversed decisions on appeal.

    Three to nine old people in black robes, who are accountable to nobody, can change the will of four hundred million citizens. Thomas Jefferson was absolutely correct in his views of the Judiciary.
     
  15. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,045
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is no longer true. Sorry.
     
  16. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I was simply responding to your statement that you were more worried about the right wing politicians in this country.

    Of course not no different than the ire of the courts not be allowed to derail the will of the people, who overwhelmingly support the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. See my other recent post on this thread for explanation.

    Yep.

    If you want to know why, ask me.
     
  17. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So you are telling me that States such as Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Tennessee, all of which passed state constitutional amendments (to define marriage between a man and a woman) by between 3 to 1 and 4 to 1 ratios (i.e., 75% -80% support) wouldn't pass pass them today?

    Huh?
     
  18. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    In a constitutional republic ( that's us) the will of the people takes a back seat to the rule of law
     
    Woolley likes this.
  19. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,045
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, I'm sure within the boundaries of some of our backwards redneck states, you might still find a majority opposed, but when looked at nationwide, the majority is in support.
     
  20. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Democracy is mob rule. A tyranny of the majority. SCOTUS will drag those states kicking and screaming into the 21 st Century :flagus:
     
  21. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That sounds like something out of the Communist manifesto.
     
  22. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If true, then the people in each State would decide for their State in accordance with the tenth amendment. That is the process defined in the Constitution.
     
  23. SavageNation

    SavageNation Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Democracy is what DentalFloss is talking about - he keeps referring to what most people want. I am talking about what the Constitution says.

    If it gets to them, it will come down to what Justice Kennedy decides. One old person in a black robe unconstitutionally deciding for the masses.

    And if SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage, the people can have the final word by holding a Constitutional Convention and amending it. Remember, 32 or so States passed state constitutional amendments to define marriage between a man and a woman with only one State (Minnesota) voting it down.

    If the people have the will, they can reverse any decision that is made by SCOTUS with a constitutional amendment. This is why your statement that "the will of the people takes a back seat to the rule of law" is ludicrous. The States and the people have the ability to have the last say on the subject.
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,592
    Likes Received:
    7,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 14th amendment supersedes. States can't vote in laws in violation of the US constitution.
     
  25. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That's right. Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the broader framework of the constitution. They are not absolute.
     

Share This Page