EPTObama backs gay marriage - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 05 2013 11:23 Mindcrime wrote: it sure is, but the supreme court has ruled on the side of the federal constitution since the early 1800s big surprise that the federal government rules in favor of the federal government. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 05 2013 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote: if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues. What is this going to set a precedent for? That states aren't allowed to oppress their minorities? Pretty sure we already covered that. Obviously the discussion of states' rights can come into play here, but it's not like this is setting some brand new, never-before-seen precedent about the states' rights discussion. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 05 2013 16:00 Stratos_speAr wrote: What is this going to set a precedent for? That states aren't allowed to oppress their minorities? Pretty sure we already covered that. Obviously the discussion of states' rights can come into play here, but it's not like this is setting some brand new, never-before-seen precedent about the states' rights discussion. i am actually unfamiliar with any precedent where the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a state's constitutional amendment. can you point me to one? | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
Look here is one dealing with lgbtq rights, an amendment to Colorados constitution overturned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans I was trying to find the exact number of state laws that have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court and I found something like 935 state statutes overturned, 200 something city ordinances, and 200 something state laws that federal laws take precedence over, so they werent overturnd but thr federal law comes first, always. All of these were until the year 2002, the source isn't trustworthy per say. (wiki answers) but their source is good,(government records) I would double check but I'm on my tablet, cant figure it out on here. Im not a historian on the supreme court, but with a basic knowledge I would say they have the power and precedence  Technically this is not an enumerated power,(that is the power of judicial review) and technically the supreme court does not have the power to enforce its rulings. Say the supreme court rules on prop 8, california could ignore them. Some states ignored brown v board for instance, Remember what happened at little rock high school, the executive branch had to step in and Eisenhower enforced the scotus decision, Obama would likely do the same considering the circumstances. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote: you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. I just got off the phone with the Count. Apparently, there's 1 federal government and 50 state governments. Many rulings the SCOTUS make are over whether or not a state or local government is allowed to do something. Pointing out that fact now for this specific case is merely a red herring to avoid the actual argument because it's one that's going to be lost. | ||
|
nomyx
United States2205 Posts
On March 01 2013 14:35 Nick_54 wrote: Obama was supossed to have adressed this 5 years ago, what was the delay? He wasn't in his second term. | ||
|
Darkong
United Kingdom418 Posts
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote: you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. I think you have this whole situation backwards here. Prop 8 was already struck down as unconstitutional by a lower court in California and by the 9th district court of appeals (I think that's its name anyway). The ruling stated: "Although the constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently," The courts couldn't find any legitimate reason why Prop 8 should become law because it's only function was to prevent gay marriage and take away marriage rights from gay couples already married. It's possibly going to the Supreme court because it's defendants want the court to overrule the California courts and appeals court to reinstate Prop 8. | ||
|
karpotoss
135 Posts
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote: so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done. Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me. | ||
|
josemb40
Peru611 Posts
| ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On March 06 2013 00:29 karpotoss wrote: Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me. So instead of that child being adopted let them grow up with no parents at all. That's better how? | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On March 06 2013 00:29 karpotoss wrote: Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me. The 1800s called, they want their bigotry back. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On March 06 2013 00:29 karpotoss wrote: Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me. Nope, there is no factual basis for this , and no good studies back you.If this is your argument there is then no reason a single parent could not have their child taken away. I've met awful same sex parents and awful Heterosexual parents, .... Also we are discussing Marriage, not adoption rights, even in states where you can marry as a same sex couple, it's still very very hard to adopt most of the time, there is no reason to deny marriage if your issue is adoption, just deny adoption. Your not even helping the kids with this either, your just hurting the kids that are in the system that nobody wants. EDIT: Love your reinforcement of gender stereotypes. | ||
| ||
