Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

Damocles said:
If you have evidence that MD put its resources behind the Torasco case.
Click to expand...

I bet if I went back and found payroll records for the state of MD for 1960 & 1961 and showed thousands of manhours, and had documentation of the unlimited efforts by the state, it would not change one single thing in this debate. It would certainly not change what SM says.
 
Damocles said:
Again, this is like a 5 year old pretending that it is "santa magic" that allows him to go up and down a 6 inch pipe. It's just a waste of time working to "prove" that santa magic isn't real, just like your dream of a North Carolina Christian Hegemony is.
Click to expand...
Judea-Christian traditions are the dominant force behind the Constitution. It's the basis for our civil and tolerant society.

So how long before the Texas Judge's ruling is overthrown?
 
WinterBorn said:
I bet if I went back and found payroll records for the state of MD for 1960 & 1961 and showed thousands of manhours, and had documentation of the unlimited efforts by the state, it would not change one single thing in this debate. It would certainly not change what SM says.
Click to expand...
Just a approximate dollar amount would do, in comparison to what the atheist lobby spent.
 
Southern Man said:
Judea-Christian traditions are the dominant force behind the Constitution. It's the basis for our civil and tolerant society.
Click to expand...

Civil & Tolerant??? Like NC's "if you don't believe like WE believe, you can't be elected to office!"???

There are many religious and cultural aspects that helped form our nation.

Next you will be saying that the 10 Commandments are the basis for all our laws. lol



Yep, the "santa magic" analogy fit.
 
Southern Man said:
Crickets chirping.
Click to expand...

After showing you valid examples of the federal gov't stepping in and knocking down inequalities based on religious views in two different states (there are more), your answer is to want me to detail how much was spent by each side of the argument in 1961??

lmao


Stick with that "Santa" theory if you want. You can maintain your stance all you want. But you are the only one who buys it.
 
Southern Man said:
Crickets chirping.
Click to expand...

The only crickets chirping are the ones in the silent range of your arguments.

The evidence is overwhelming against NC being able to enforce its rule saying only judeo-christians can hold office.
 
Southern Man said:
Do you have evidence that MD put its resources behind the Torcaso case?
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence to show they didn't?

It would be far more likely that they did. And with a unanimous decision against the state, it didn't seem as though there was much of a case on the state's part. The justices ruled that the US Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment, spoke to this issue directly.

Unless you have some evidence that the state didn't not pursue the case in the manner states typically do, there is no point in arguing that North Carolina's constitution would fare any better.
 
You claimed that "the resources of the state were behind Watkins." Therefore it is your responsibility to prove it when asked to, or simply retract your statement. It doesn't make sense that they were, since Maryland is a liberal state and had every incentive to not defend Watkins, or worse, to defend him poorly.
 
Southern Man said:
You claimed that "the resources of the state were behind Watkins." Therefore it is your responsibility to prove it when asked to, or simply retract your statement. It doesn't make sense that they were, since Maryland is a liberal state and had every incentive to not defend Watkins, or worse, to defend him poorly.
Click to expand...

Watkins was representing the state of Maryland, and the Maryland courts. Your supposition that they would throw the case is ridiculous.

If this is the best defense you have to say the law in NC that excludes all but judeo-christians from holding public office, you may as give it up. The US Constitution can (and has) been applied to state laws when the 1st Amendment is violated. And in the case of NC's constitution, it clearly has.

I cannot believe you would even defend a document that demands that all who hold public office have to be jewish or christian. That is so clearly prejudiced as to be unamerican.
 
WinterBorn said:
Watkins was representing the state of Maryland, and the Maryland courts. Your supposition that they would throw the case is ridiculous.

If this is the best defense you have to say the law in NC that excludes all but judeo-christians from holding public office, you may as give it up. The US Constitution can (and has) been applied to state laws when the 1st Amendment is violated. And in the case of NC's constitution, it clearly has.

I cannot believe you would even defend a document that demands that all who hold public office have to be jewish or christian. That is so clearly prejudiced as to be unamerican.
Click to expand...
I don't see how Watkins could have been representing the courts at the same time he was representing the State; methinks that you are confused.

The NC Constitution doesn't require office holders to be adherent to any particular religion, just that they acknowledge the existence of God. Since the rights of man are granted by God I don't see that as being an unreasonable requirement.

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to retract your earlier statement?
 
To expound on my surprise that you would defend such a document.

There are 1.5 million buddhists in the US. There are over 1 million hindus in the US. You are defending a document that says they cannot hold any public office in North Carolina. Not because they are not qualified. Not because someone questions their loyalties. Not because they are not US citizens. But because they are not judeo-christians.

In the land of the free, you wish to claim that the 1.5 million buddhists are not qualified to hold the office of dog catcher, because of their faith.

And you think that position can be enforced in a court of law?
 
Southern Man said:
I don't see how Watkins could have been representing the courts at the same time he was representing the State; methinks that you are confused.

The NC Constitution doesn't require office holders to be adherent to any particular religion, just that they acknowledge the existence of God. Since the rights of man are granted by God I don't see that as being an unreasonable requirement.

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to retract your earlier statement?
Click to expand...

The NC Constitution calls it grounds for impeachment if "First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God".

"Almighty God is arguably a judeo-christian phrase that would not be found in any faith except Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.



And no, I have no reason to retract my statement. There was a fair court hearing presented to the US Supreme Court. I have found no evidence that either side overspent or underspent. And now, almost 50 years later, there is no evidence it was anything but a well presented case on both sides. You simply cling to that as a way of dancing around an obvious conclusion.

Keep arguing about Santa, my child.
 
Southern Man said:
Hindus believe in God, and Buddhists can; many do.

You seem to be avoiding my question.


http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/hinduism.html
Click to expand...

I am not avoiding your question at all. It is simply not relevant to this discussion.

The case was heard almost 50 years ago. As I said before, there is no mention of any shortcomings in funding or backing in any articles I have read concerning the case.

Nor was there any in the case against Roy Moore. Or in the other cases in which the US Supreme Court ruled that states had violated the 1st Amendment.

The discussion has been whether or not the state of North Carolina could enforce the law in its constitution. It is obvious that it couldn't. Too many legal precedents (whether you like them or not) have been set and the rulings by SCOTUS has been consistent.
 
You screwed up by thinking that Hindus and Buddhists can't believe in God, and you won't back up your statement: "the resources of the state were behind Watkins." Not reading something that disputes your assertion doesn't prove your assertion: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Two more debate points for The Southern Man. :)
 
Southern Man said:
You screwed up by thinking that Hindus and Buddhists can't believe in God, and you won't back up your statement: "the resources of the state were behind Watkins." Not reading something that disputes your assertion doesn't prove your assertion: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Two more debate points for The Southern Man. :)
Click to expand...

Your attempts to twist the statement in the NC constitution is laughable. First you proclaim that NC is a christian state, and then claim that hindus and buddhists can believe in God. Ignoring the fact that the christian God would not be the same, and therefore would not apply.

There is nothing to back up. The US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly and consistently on matters of states having a specific religion. You choose to ignore that and try to rely on trivial matters and try to focus on vague references to how much of a states resources were used in a case heard almost 50 years ago.

It does not matter how much of the states resources were used. It is an attempt, by you, to sidetrack the discussion. The case was heard and ruled upon. Future cases will use it as a precedent, and without some profound difference, the future cases will end with the same result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top