Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

Seymour Flops said:
If Obergefell is overturned I hope every state or most states allows same sex marriage. I also hope that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton and supported by Obama, is struck down so that people who marry in one state have their marriage recognized in all states as the founders intended.
Click to expand...
As a texturalist, you sure take liberties in deciding what the founder intended with respect to marriage
 
Seymour Flops said:
Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided because when the equal protection clause was added, the legislatures clearly meant to protect racial equality, and Loving v. Virginia was decided after Brown v Topeka Board which established the principle that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal.

For the same reasoning to have applied in Obergefell, the lawmakers who passed the fourteenth amendment must have intended to require states to recognize same-sex marriage. I often ask Democrats if they believe that was the intent, and I have never gotten a reasonable answer.
Click to expand...
The 14th amenment was inspired by the need to correct racial injustice but it does not mention race and for many decades, has been interpreted by the courts to have a broader application. For someone who had seemed to be clinging to the written word of the constitution, you now seem willing to read into it the interpretation that suits you.

The fact is that both cases were rightly decided on the equal protection and dues process clause of the 14th. You cant support one while making exuses for not supporting the other.
 
TheProgressivePatriot said:
Perhapps it does violate their rights. I have not argued against any of that. However, they all represent different issues with different social and legal ramifications. Anyone who wishes to engage in any of those practices is free to tey to drum up public support and pursue it through the courts or the legislative process life same sex couples did. It would be incumbent upon those seeking stop them to provethat ther is a compelling government interest, or at minimum a rational basis for doing so. The states were unable to in the case of one on one gay marriage. They may or may not be able to in any or all of those cases
Click to expand...
What would be an example of a compelli g government interest in preventing an omnisexual from marrying several people of all different genders?

I suspect you oppose the idea but don't want to say so.
 
ReinyDays said:
Didn't Ted Cruz pee his pants hiding like a scare little chicken during the Jan 6th episode? ... what a coward ...
Click to expand...
AOC was traumatized even though she wasn't there.
 
TheProgressivePatriot said:
Based on my experience with people who take that position
Click to expand...
The debate becomes pointless if I accept your challenge, answer your questions and the you explain my own feelings to me in response.

Based on my experience with people who compare same sex marriage to interracial marriage but oppose plural marriage, I know that you have deepseated anxiety stemming from being bullied as a child by your sisters.
 
Seymour Flops said:
What would be an example of a compelli g government interest in preventing an omnisexual from marrying several people of all different genders?

I suspect you oppose the idea but don't want to say so.
Click to expand...
I don't know I am not here to make that argument. I am just describing how things work. So now you are going to tell me what I think afet getting all pissy when I speculated about what you thought? Listen, I don't have a dog in that fight. If I opposed it I would say so. I am only saying that the ramifications need to be considered. Forinstance, our family law system is set up for marriage between two people only. Gay marriage did not upset that .

If we introduce plural marriage into the mix, that system would need to be overhauled to address a whole host of issues. Forinstance, if one of three people wanted a divorce from just one other, exactly how would that work? Would all three be the legal parent of a child born to one of them? What about taxes? The IRS would also have a headache on their hands. No opposed. Just saying that it could be a mine field
 
TheProgressivePatriot said:
The 14th amenment was inspired by the need to correct racial injustice but it does not mention race and for many decades, has been interpreted by the courts to have a broader application. For someone who had seemed to be clinging to the written word of the constitution, you now seem willing to read into it the interpretation that suits you.

The fact is that both cases were rightly decided on the equal protection and dues process clause of the 14th. You cant support one while making exuses for not supporting the other.
Click to expand...
Starting a sentence with the fact is and then giving your opinion is a little lame. Let me give you a couple of facts. Both Obama and Clinton oppose gay marriage. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama supported it. Those are facts now here's my opinion those two facts mean that Obama and Clinton were hateful homophobes. Do you agree, yes or no?

Obviously, I would expect you to give them some kind of pass. But first please say yes or no.
 
Seymour Flops said:
The debate becomes pointless if I accept your challenge, answer your questions and the you explain my own feelings to me in response.

Based on my experience with people who compare same sex marriage to interracial marriage but oppose plural marriage, I know that you have deepseated anxiety stemming from being bullied as a child by your sisters.
Click to expand...
Holy shit Seymour ! You are clearly losing you shit with that one.! I was bullied by my sisters?? And, didn't I just say that I was not opposed to plural marriage? I have had enough of you for now
 
Seymour Flops said:
Starting a sentence with the fact is and then giving your opinion is a little lame. Let me give you a couple of facts. Both Obama and Clinton oppose gay marriage. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama supported it. Those are facts now here's my opinion those two facts mean that Obama and Clinton were hateful homophobes. Do you agree, yes or no?

Obviously, I would expect you to give them some kind of pass. But first please say yes or no.
Click to expand...

Of course the both PUBLICLY opposed gay marriage . To do otherwise back then would have been political suicide!


Nothing that I said there is opinion. It is all fact

Regarding the 14th, if those who drafted it ment for it to apply only to racial issues they would have said so. It seems that you are a texturalist only when it works in your favor
 
TheProgressivePatriot said:
I don't know I am not here to make that argument. I am just describing how things work. So now you are going to tell me what I think afet getting all pissy when I speculated about what you thought? Listen, I don't have a dog in that fight. If I opposed it I would say so. I am only saying that the ramifications need to be considered. Forinstance, our family law system is set up for marriage between two people only. Gay marriage did not upset that .

If we introduce plural marriage into the mix, that system would need to be overhauled to address a whole host of issues. Forinstance, if one of three people wanted a divorce from just one other, exactly how would that work? Would all three be the legal parent of a child born to one of them? What about taxes? The IRS would also have a headache on their hands. No opposed. Just saying that it could be a mine field
Click to expand...
My experience with people who take that position is that they hate mormons, do not believe that there are more than two genders, and believe that they can Define the word woman.
 
TheProgressivePatriot said:
Holy shit Seymour ! You are clearly losing you shit with that one.! I was bullied by my sisters?? And, didn't I just say that I was not opposed to plural marriage? I have had enough of you for now
Click to expand...
Yes Sir!

Come back anytime for either an honest debate OR an amateur psychoanalysis contest. Im happy with either, but not with me doing the first and you doing the second.
 
TheProgressivePatriot said:
The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment . However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights. I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.
Click to expand...
NEVER EVER?

Maybe no one likes you…
 
15th post
You must log in or register to reply here.

DC motorcade cop confirms Hutchinson's testimony testimony about trump grabbing at steering wheel

< Previous Thread

https://www.oldest.org/politics/members-of-us-senate/

Next Thread >

Similar threads

DennisPTate
Zone1 Christadelphians?
Replies
10
Views
333
DennisPTate
DennisPTate
EMH
The answer to every "why is this redacted" question is because Israel was behind it
Replies
9
Views
118
Soupnazi630
S
LibertyWeeps
Nostalgic Depression
2
Replies
23
Views
139
d0gbreath
d0gbreath
EMH
W's third term started 6-8 months ago
Replies
5
Views
154
Soupnazi630
S
T
Gay Marriage, Donald Trump, and a "Normal America"
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
729
TruthSeeker112125
T

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom