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

[Seymour Flops]

Possibly. If the deadbeat claimed discrinination and if the state could not articulate a compelling government interest in denying the permit, then it could be a case of discrination. There was a SCOTUS case a while back where a state law prohibited men from remarrying if they owed child support. It was shot down. The state can't do that.

No it does not apply. No non citizens can vote. It is not discrimination

There are no men on womens teams. Transwomen are women. To ban then is discrimination

Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a child

So, just as I predicted. You pick and choos who the XIV covers and does not cover according to your own feelings about who should be covered. If you can say that it isn't discrimination because no non-citizen can vote, then I can say banning same-sex marriage is not discrimination because no one, regardless of orientation, can marry a person of the same sex. What if you called the team, "the cis-women's team? Then it isn't discrimination, right? Your party cannot even define "woman," but you can insist that transwomen are women? How does that work? All persons are clumps of cells, so that silliness doesn't work.

The problem with your line of reasoning is exactly what I said:

Remember the relevant part says "any person," not "whoever TheProgressivePatriot decides deserves equal protection on certain issues."

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are sure twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to make me into some sort of hypocrite while trying to justify your opposition to Obergefell. Not working . All that you have done is, out of deparation, employed a logical fallacy....my favorite actually A Tu quoque.

Appeal to Hypocrisy This is also known as Tu quoque. This is the fallacy where what one person says something that appears out of character according to another person's view of him, therefore it is rejected by that other person.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to Hypocrisy - firmitas.org​

firmitas.org/logic-tuquoque.php

That was nonsensical, even for you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Transwomen are women.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a child

You are a clump of cells, moron.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, just as I predicted. You pick and choos who the XIV covers and does not cover according to your own feelings about who should be covered.

Bullshit! It has nothing to do with my feeling. It is common sense and the appropriate appliation of the 14th

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you can say that it isn't discrimination because no non-citizen can vote, then I can say banning same-sex marriage is not discrimination because no one, regardless of orientation, can marry a person of the same sex.

More bullshit. Another false equivalancy logical fallacy. Bans on same sex marriage were indeed discriminatory because, while straight people could arry the person who they are romantcly and sexually attracted to, gays could not

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That was nonsensical, even for you.

Too close to home Seymour?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed. Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.

Good grief!! Once the court did not "make a law saying that gay marriage is legal" That is just complete nonsense! They struck down state laws that banned it. That is all that they did

And yes "If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations," and that is exactly what happened. And in most cases that state courts sided with the state. So then what should they have done if not go to federal court?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, federal law wouldn't be required, federal enforcement of the 14th ammendment would. Again, this is what the 14th ammendment is for. It was put into cotus for things like this.

Here you are contradicting yourself again. You seem terribly confused. You are saying here that the application of the 14th was correct, but elsewhere you say that the federal court should not have interviened.

 

[Seymour Flops]

More bullshit. Another false equivalancy logical fallacy. Bans on same sex marriage were indeed discriminatory because, while straight people could arry the person who they are romantcly and sexually attracted to, gays could not

Let me ask you this: Is it possible for there to be a right that you think people should have, that is not covered by the XIV?

If so, what are some of them?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

They struck down state laws that banned it. That is all that they did

Which is terrible and tyrannical, an abuse of the court, federal authority, and the Constitution.

That decision was pure nonsense on stilts, almost as bad as Roe and it should be likewise overturned.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let me ask you this: Is it possible for there to be a right that you think people should have, that is not covered by the XIV?

If so, what are some of them?

I don't know what the point of that question is but I'll play. Any of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights can statnd on their own. Forinstance, if the right to peacfully assemble is violated one need only invoke the 1st amendment. However, if it is a matter of one group being treated differently than another and the claim involves discrimination, the due process andequal protection clause of the 14th may be invoked. Same goes for any of those enumerated rights as well as unenumerated rights such as marriage rights.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which is terrible and tyrannical, an abuse of the court, federal authority, and the Constitution.

That decision was pure nonsense on stilts, almost as bad as Roe and it should be likewise overturned.

So denying people the ability to marry the person who they love, and enjoy all of the legal rights, financial advantages and social status for themselves and their children-that others take for granted-is not terrible and tyrannical?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I don't know what the point of that question is but I'll play. Any of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights can statnd on their own. Forinstance, if the right to peacfully assemble is violated one need only invoke the 1st amendment. However, if it is a matter of one group being treated differently than another and the claim involves discrimination, the due process andequal protection clause of the 14th may be invoked. Same goes for any of those enumerated rights as well as unenumerated rights such as marriage rights.

You did not know the point of the question, becuase you did not understand it.

I'll give an example:

I believe that there is a natural right to plural marriage. The fact that a major religion that was founded in the United States includedd plural marriage means that it is a legitimate part of the free exercise of religion and it is an important right for Americans. Aside frrom that, I believe that there is a natural right to claim whomever one chooses to be next of kin, second next of kin, etc,, and that we are not bound by genetic relations as plants and lower animals are.

If the courts decide not to protect that as an un-enumerated right, I will disagree. Plural marriage was in the bible, the Koran, and the history books that our founders were well-versed in. It was not a new idea. But, having denied plular marriage as an enumerated right and allowed states to ban it, I cannot logically argue the XIV amendment because it is not a question of equal protection. No person is allowed to have multiple spouses, so no one is being denied equal protection. The dedicated religious polygamist will prosecuted the same as a person who practices bigamy as a form of fraud.

So I can argue that there is a right to something, even if I can't argue that the XIV is what protects it.

Do you have any examples like that for yourself? Or do you believe - as most people do, I suppose - that the XIV protects what you want it to protect?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I believe that there is a natural right to plural marriage. The fact that a major religion that was founded in the United States includedd plural marriage means that it is a legitimate part of the free exercise of religion and it is an important right for Americans. Aside frrom that, I believe that there is a natural right to claim whomever one chooses to be next of kin, second next of kin, etc,, and that we are not bound by genetic relations as plants and lower animals are.

OK, no argument there

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If the courts decide not to protect that as an un-enumerated right, I will disagree. Plural marriage was in the bible, the Koran, and the history books that our founders were well-versed in. It was not a new idea. But, having denied plular marriage as an enumerated right and allowed states to ban it, I cannot logically argue the XIV amendment because it is not a question of equal protection. No person is allowed to have multiple spouses, so no one is being denied equal protection. The dedicated religious polygamist will prosecuted the same as a person who practices bigamy as a form of fraud.

Pretty much agree. But I have to wonder what legal theory would be employed for the courts to rule that it is a right.As you said it is not an equal protection issue. Perhapps religious freedome, but then what about non religious people who want to enter into a plural marriage. If it is only allowed for religious reasons, then you might be setting up grounds for a discrimination case involving the 14th. And around and around

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So I can argue that there is a right to something, even if I can't argue that the XIV is what protects it.

Point well taken

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you have any examples like that for yourself? Or do you believe - as most people do, I suppose - that the XIV protects what you want it to protect?

I have already made it clear that is not what I believe. And we were doing so well.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Good grief!! Once the court did not "make a law saying that gay marriage is legal" That is just complete nonsense! They struck down state laws that banned it. That is all that they did

And yes "If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations," and that is exactly what happened. And in most cases that state courts sided with the state. So then what should they have done if not go to federal court?

Then the federal courts can take up the case, but a law is not required to do this. Laws codifying marriage are not a role of the federal government. The 14th ammendment already protects gay marriages. That's all I'm saying.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Here you are contradicting yourself again. You seem terribly confused. You are saying here that the application of the 14th was correct, but elsewhere you say that the federal court should not have interviened.

No, I didn't say that. I said the federal courts can hear, and rule on a case of 14th ammendment violation, but the federal government (congress, senate) shouldn't be making laws governing marriages.