The Democrat Thread

[whitesoxfan101]

Twelves times more likely to molest? At least they were creative with the number they made up. I also enjoy seeing "the internet" in quotes like that.

[Balta1701]

NSFW LOL.

[lostfan]

A couple of money quotes from this article re: Newt Gingrich popping off again: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/ar...r-fearless.aspx

 

• Newt you cheated on your first wife then dumped her when she was in the hospital with cancer. Later you cheated on your second wife with a 27 year old congressional aide. Maybe you should pipe down about defending marriage.

 

• Which one of your multiple marriages was the most sacred to you?

[kapkomet]

I'll never understand how somebody can be against same sex marriage being legal. If you're not gay or morally against it, don't do it! But to want to withhold rights to a group of people because you think it's different or you think it's weird or even due to it being against your beliefs is kind of silly. As a straight person who goes to church, I just don't see how allowing gay people to get married impacts me negatively (or at all, really).

 

My only issue with it is that it is a state issue, not a federal issue. So, let's get this straight, pardon the pun. Straight people are discriminatory no matter what now. 14th amendment isn't the point here, but now it has become one when it should have never been in the first place.

[bmags]

STATES RIGHTS

[kapkomet]

STATES RIGHTS

 

Go ahead and piss all over it. You're all fine with it until a decision goes against you, and then you'll scream facism. The more control over "local" law a place has, the closer to a constitutional republic you have, which you're obviously against.

[bmags]

sure kap, you know me.

[lostfan]

I actually agree with kap but we are getting too far into semantics. Yes marriage in and of itself is a state issue and not a federal issue, but in federal court the issue is about whether the state has the right to decide whether one group of people can do something and another can't.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Go ahead and piss all over it. You're all fine with it until a decision goes against you, and then you'll scream facism. The more control over "local" law a place has, the closer to a constitutional republic you have, which you're obviously against.

 

They'd scream fascism? Over a decision that increases freedoms? I don't recall any of the most ardent gun control advocates saying the recent ruling which removed handgun restrictions was 'fascism'.

[kapkomet]

They'd scream fascism? Over a decision that increases freedoms? I don't recall any of the most ardent gun control advocates saying the recent ruling which removed handgun restrictions was 'fascism'.

 

I don't disagree with your specific point, but pick the word that fits.

 

The larger point here is that federalism has gone WAY too far. It started by what cases the supreme court even chooses to take up. They took up the cases to set the tone for the federal level to define what marriage is, and that's just plain wrong and totally should not be the point in this case. You're not married by the "power vested in xxxxx by the United States of Socialism, er I mean, Amerikkka,", it's the state. And they should be able to define what that is. Explain to me again how that's discriminatory in nature? You discriminate me by trivializing the definition of marriage. Now what? And for the record, I'm not against "gay marriage" even though I totally disagree with it morally, but that is not for me to judge the person/people.

[bmags]

I don't disagree with your specific point, but pick the word that fits.

 

The larger point here is that federalism has gone WAY too far. It started by what cases the supreme court even chooses to take up. They took up the cases to set the tone for the federal level to define what marriage is, and that's just plain wrong and totally should not be the point in this case. You're not married by the "power vested in xxxxx by the United States of Socialism, er I mean, Amerikkka,", it's the state. And they should be able to define what that is. Explain to me again how that's discriminatory in nature? You discriminate me by trivializing the definition of marriage. Now what? And for the record, I'm not against "gay marriage" even though I totally disagree with it morally, but that is not for me to judge the person/people.

you can still marry. It'd be discriminating you if only gays could marry and heterosexuals couldn't.

 

 

 

[KipWellsFan]

I don't disagree with your specific point, but pick the word that fits.

 

The larger point here is that federalism has gone WAY too far. It started by what cases the supreme court even chooses to take up. They took up the cases to set the tone for the federal level to define what marriage is, and that's just plain wrong and totally should not be the point in this case. You're not married by the "power vested in xxxxx by the United States of Socialism, er I mean, Amerikkka,", it's the state. And they should be able to define what that is. Explain to me again how that's discriminatory in nature? You discriminate me by trivializing the definition of marriage. Now what? And for the record, I'm not against "gay marriage" even though I totally disagree with it morally, but that is not for me to judge the person/people.

 

If I'm a gay person in one of these backward states, states rights can bite me. I've got constitutional rights wherever I live.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't disagree with your specific point, but pick the word that fits.

 

The larger point here is that federalism has gone WAY too far. It started by what cases the supreme court even chooses to take up. They took up the cases to set the tone for the federal level to define what marriage is, and that's just plain wrong and totally should not be the point in this case. You're not married by the "power vested in xxxxx by the United States of Socialism, er I mean, Amerikkka,", it's the state. And they should be able to define what that is. Explain to me again how that's discriminatory in nature? You discriminate me by trivializing the definition of marriage. Now what? And for the record, I'm not against "gay marriage" even though I totally disagree with it morally, but that is not for me to judge the person/people.

 

You act as though the idea of providing people equal rights is the same thing as discriminating against couples who currently enjoy special rights (straight people). Again, the constitution provides that we are all allowed equal protection under the law. Please tell me what is so inherently dangerous and heinous to same sex couples being granted the same rights and responsibilities as multiple sex couples? If the answer is "nothing," then there's no reason to discriminate against same sex couples. To do so would violate equal protection as our constitution currently allows.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't disagree with your specific point, but pick the word that fits.

 

The larger point here is that federalism has gone WAY too far. It started by what cases the supreme court even chooses to take up. They took up the cases to set the tone for the federal level to define what marriage is, and that's just plain wrong and totally should not be the point in this case. You're not married by the "power vested in xxxxx by the United States of Socialism, er I mean, Amerikkka,", it's the state. And they should be able to define what that is. Explain to me again how that's discriminatory in nature? You discriminate me by trivializing the definition of marriage. Now what? And for the record, I'm not against "gay marriage" even though I totally disagree with it morally, but that is not for me to judge the person/people.

 

There are plenty of examples you can make where courts have blocked processes which are the responsibility of the state for political reasons. Bush v. Gore is a great example of that.

 

However, state constitutions still need to abide by the federal constitution. If states get to pick and choose what parts of the constitution they are going to honor, we'll stop being the Republic that we've been since 1789 and go back to the Confederation of states that worked so well for us in the 18th century.

[StrangeSox]

Go ahead and piss all over it. You're all fine with it until a decision goes against you, and then you'll scream facism. The more control over "local" law a place has, the closer to a constitutional republic you have, which you're obviously against.

 

The more control over "local" law a place has, the higher the occurrence of grievous civil rights breaches.

[Balta1701]

The more control over "local" law a place has, the higher the occurrence of grievous civil rights breaches.

Let's put a concrete example on that. Brown V. Board of education is a 14th amendment/equal protection under the law decision.

 

If a bunch of racists got together and migrated to South Carolina (I pick that state because they actually tried to do that like 5 years ago) and decided to reinstitute Jim Crow laws...Kap, the Federal government doesn't often take to enforcing things like local property disputes, small time thefts, etc.

 

Either I'm going to force you into a position here where you're going to defend Jim Crow laws on state's rights grounds, or you need to tell me how the Federal government desegregating a private/state school or private business is ok, but the federal government stepping in on marriage is not.

 

Hell, go for the exact parallel...if a state banned inter-racial marriage...could the Federal Government step in on an equal protection case, or is that fully within a state's rights to do?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, so the argument in favor of overturning Pro 8 was that it violates the constitution. Can anyone explain to me where in the constitution the concept of marriage is addressed, not just homo-sexual marriage, but marriage at all. Is "marriage" constitutional?

 

This is not an attempt to invalidate the ruling, just trying to understand the legal context.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[StrangeSox]

Equal protection, 14th amendment.

 

eta and due process was in the ruling I think.

Edited August 6, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Ok, so the argument in favor of overturning Pro 8 was that it violates the constitution. Can anyone explain to me where in the constitution the concept of marriage is addressed, not just homo-sexual marriage, but marriage at all. Is "marriage" constitutional?

 

This is not an attempt to invalidate the ruling, just trying to understand the legal context.

It's not. The issue is one of "Equal protection under the law" (14th amendment). In other words, if your state does grant such rights, the ruling says that you can't grant those rights to one group of people and deny them to another group.

 

Your state could certainly choose to not recognize marriage whatsoever and allow it to be an entirely religious or private institution, but then the state would also not be able to collect information on marriages, use a tax code that recognizes marriage in any way, regulate divorce proceedings/property rights (which would be a gigantic mess), etc. In that case, it wouldn't matter if the marriage was homosexual or heterosexual, because there would still be equal protection under the law since no one would have their marriage enshrined and given benefits by the government.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It's not. The issue is one of "Equal protection under the law" (14th amendment). In other words, if your state does grant such rights, the ruling says that you can't grant those rights to one group of people and deny them to another group.

 

Your state could certainly choose to not recognize marriage whatsoever and allow it to be an entirely religious or private institution, but then the state would also not be able to collect information on marriages, use a tax code that recognizes marriage in any way, regulate divorce proceedings/property rights (which would be a gigantic mess), etc. In that case, it wouldn't matter if the marriage was homosexual or heterosexual, because there would still be equal protection under the law since no one would have their marriage enshrined and given benefits by the government.

ahh ok. That really makes it much more clear for me now. Than I am in agreement, Prop 8 is, indeed, unconstitutional.

 

So, wouldn't EVERY state have to allow gay marriage then? Not just pass a law allowing it. it would, by default, be allowed.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[Jenksismyhero]

Let's put a concrete example on that. Brown V. Board of education is a 14th amendment/equal protection under the law decision.

 

If a bunch of racists got together and migrated to South Carolina (I pick that state because they actually tried to do that like 5 years ago) and decided to reinstitute Jim Crow laws...Kap, the Federal government doesn't often take to enforcing things like local property disputes, small time thefts, etc.

 

Either I'm going to force you into a position here where you're going to defend Jim Crow laws on state's rights grounds, or you need to tell me how the Federal government desegregating a private/state school or private business is ok, but the federal government stepping in on marriage is not.

 

Hell, go for the exact parallel...if a state banned inter-racial marriage...could the Federal Government step in on an equal protection case, or is that fully within a state's rights to do?

 

Wasn't there a rational argument for this, not based on the "all white people from the South are horrible racists" liberal view? I seem to recall (and this might not be the case here) that when a state recently tried to do this it was because a lot of cities were paying an arm and a leg to ship students to different districts to meet the diversity requirements. It made economic sense, in some cases, to allow that to happen.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Wasn't there a rational argument for this, not based on the "all white people from the South are horrible racists" liberal view? I seem to recall (and this might not be the case here) that when a state recently tried to do this it was because a lot of cities were paying an arm and a leg to ship students to different districts to meet the diversity requirements. It made economic sense, in some cases, to allow that to happen.

Took me forever to remember what that damn movement was called. No. It had nothing to do with the economics. It was all about restoring our country to its "original Christian values".

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Took me forever to remember what that damn movement was called. No. It had nothing to do with the economics. It was all about restoring our country to its "original Christian values".

 

1500 people is hardly a "movement."

[Jenksismyhero]

It's not. The issue is one of "Equal protection under the law" (14th amendment). In other words, if your state does grant such rights, the ruling says that you can't grant those rights to one group of people and deny them to another group.

 

Your state could certainly choose to not recognize marriage whatsoever and allow it to be an entirely religious or private institution, but then the state would also not be able to collect information on marriages, use a tax code that recognizes marriage in any way, regulate divorce proceedings/property rights (which would be a gigantic mess), etc. In that case, it wouldn't matter if the marriage was homosexual or heterosexual, because there would still be equal protection under the law since no one would have their marriage enshrined and given benefits by the government.

 

Except that this argument only gets played like this when it comes to these types of social issues. States grant all sorts of rights tailored towards a specific group while clearly discriminating against others. Think about things like minority contract requirements with cities. It's absolutely blatant discrimination, but no one cares because it benefits the little guy. The "benefits" of giving out the miniority owned business contracts aren't much better than the "benefit" of protecting children from all those gay raper guys out there. Or the other one that really gets me (though it will soon be moot) is the fact that women and children can get free health care in illinois, but a man can't. Apparently the justification is that protecting women and children's health is more important than a man's?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

ahh ok. That really makes it much more clear for me now. Than I am in agreement, Prop 8 is, indeed, unconstitutional.

 

So, wouldn't EVERY state have to allow gay marriage then? Not just pass a law allowing it. it would, by default, be allowed.

 

Yes. If Prop 8 is found unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, I would argue that it is very likely that you would see same sex marriage allowed for all American couples, regardless of the number of genders involved.