Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

Southern Man said:
You just argued my case for me. Thanks.
Click to expand...

When I said that the case was about the states not having state religion, and that the 1st amendment was quoted by the federal judge when he ordered Moore to remove the monument, you claim that I must have the facts of the case confused.

Then when I show I was absolutely correct about the facts, you say it makes your case for you?

You are getting more delusional every day.
 
Southern Man said:
Wrong-o.
Click to expand...

"Wrong-o"??

What a profound argument.

But try and follow me. You claimed "I keep talking about what the States can do, which is to define secular marriage.".

Then I counter with Loving v. Virginia, which made interacial marriages legal.

Prior to that, Virginia had defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. Viola, the US Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, and it was made illegal in VA and another 13 or 15 states.

So, the federal government did, in fact, helped to define secular marriages. And did so in spite of arguments from the individual states.
 
Southern Man said:
Most of the States had their own official Christian Sects when the Constitution was written, and held that status for many years afterward. Welcome to American History 101.
Click to expand...

You never answered my question. Why don't they still hold that status?
 
WinterBorn said:
"Wrong-o"??

What a profound argument.

But try and follow me. You claimed "I keep talking about what the States can do, which is to define secular marriage.".

Then I counter with Loving v. Virginia, which made interacial marriages legal.

Prior to that, Virginia had defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. Viola, the US Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, and it was made illegal in VA and another 13 or 15 states.

So, the federal government did, in fact, helped to define secular marriages. And did so in spite of arguments from the individual states.
Click to expand...

Again, race ain't sex. Discrimination based on race is illegal under the US Constitution. The feds have no such mandate for gays.
 
WinterBorn said:
When I said that the case was about the states not having state religion, and that the 1st amendment was quoted by the federal judge when he ordered Moore to remove the monument, you claim that I must have the facts of the case confused.

Then when I show I was absolutely correct about the facts, you say it makes your case for you?

You are getting more delusional every day.
Click to expand...
I won't argue with grade schoolers, sorry.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, race ain't sex. Discrimination based on race is illegal under the US Constitution. The feds have no such mandate for gays.
Click to expand...

Again, you have misunderstood the point. (on purpose no doubt)

The federal government did, in fact, help to define marriage. This is in direct contrast to your statement.

For the record, I have never said that race is the same as sexual orientation.
 
Southern Man said:
I won't argue with grade schoolers, sorry.
Click to expand...

So when I claim that the case was about a state not having a state religion, and that the 1st amendment was used as a basis, you claim I did not understand the case.

And when I show you that the case was about a state not having a state religion, and that the 1st amendment was used as a basis, you claim I made your case.


:rofl: I can see why you wanted to dodge the topic.
 
Damocles said:
Marriage is primarily a religious function, and what religion you choose and who they marry is a right protected by the constitution. Rights like this that are not defined as a specific power of the federal government and are restricted by the constitution guarantee what we have long allowed to be usurped, individual freedom.

"Patriots" that cheer on government grabs of such power make me realize that Franklin was right. People are ever willing to give up essential freedom for "security" even in such clear cases as this.
Click to expand...

quite true, however, you will never change the minds of the religious zelots
 
Southern Man said:
I keep talking about what the States can do, which is to define secular marriage.
Click to expand...
And I keep pointing out that "secular marriage" was simply a power grab taking away individual and religious rights. Marriage is not a secular institution, the attempt to make it into one was simply another power grab, a way to tax and control what is a religious institution.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, race ain't sex. Discrimination based on race is illegal under the US Constitution. The feds have no such mandate for gays.
Click to expand...

Where does the 14th address race? Other than Indians, which it excluded from protection, it makes no mention of race or ethnicity.
 
Damocles said:
And I keep pointing out that "secular marriage" was simply a power grab taking away individual and religious rights. Marriage is not a secular institution, the attempt to make it into one was simply another power grab, a way to tax and control what is a religious institution.
Click to expand...
You sound like Asshat with the conspiracy theories.
 
RStringfield said:
Where does the 14th address race? Other than Indians, which it excluded from protection, it makes no mention of race or ethnicity.
Click to expand...
It mentions equal protection, so all men should be granted the privilege of being married to a woman who agrees to do so.
 
WinterBorn said:
Again, you have misunderstood the point. (on purpose no doubt)

The federal government did, in fact, help to define marriage. This is in direct contrast to your statement.

For the record, I have never said that race is the same as sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
Again, the feds step in many times where they are not mandated by the people. That doesn't make their actions correct.
 
Southern Man said:
It mentions equal protection, so all men should be granted the privilege of being married to a woman who agrees to do so.
Click to expand...

Except there is absolutely no need to discriminate against those who have partners of the same gender. This would be gender bias.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, the feds step in many times where they are not mandated by the people. That doesn't make their actions correct.
Click to expand...

In this case, the feds stepping in was correct. Unless you want to argue that interacial marriage should remain illegal, your claim that the states define marriage is incorrect.
 
WinterBorn said:
In this case, the feds stepping in was correct. Unless you want to argue that interacial marriage should remain illegal, your claim that the states define marriage is incorrect.
Click to expand...
The Feds didn't define marriage; they enforced equal protection. Again, any man can marry any woman who will take him.
 
Southern Man said:
The Feds didn't define marriage; they enforced equal protection. Again, any man can marry any woman who will take him.
Click to expand...

Prior to this ruling, the states had defined marriage and had included making iterracial marriages illegal.

The ruling changed the definition of marriage in many states.

That would be helping to define marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top