Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
Here's that Utah decision if anyone's interested, it's pretty readable as far as court decision go:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/192781988
-
★fnord★ wrote:
You and Addi brought C&S into this. Back on page 4. You own it not me.That recent Utah decision is very interesting. The Federal judge really did a good job of addressing the state attorney's objections point by point on clear Constitutional grounds (Separation of C&S played no role, Undertow). I found it especially interesting that he cited legal precedents from the overturning of inter-racial marriage bans. Honestly I think it blew the doors off of it and the rest of the states are going to fall like dominoes. That's how these types of things have gone historically at least. I'm so pleased for my gay friends that you are finally getting the rights you've long been denied.
-
Oarsman wrote:
I do not have to refer to the 14th A. I would refer to the 10th. Since marriage is not in the constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Then you have to refer to the 14th amendment. Particularly, the equal protection clause.Oarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
I find it funny that you think you deserve the right to vote on others rights. No, funny is the wrong word for this. I'd say "pathetic" is more fitting. I find you pathetic to think you deserve the right to vote on others rights. Go back to the 16th century. You'd fit in a lot better there.Oarsman wrote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Oarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
-
Oh and if banning gays to marry is "unconstitutional" and that is winning. Obviously it's in the constitution to allow gays to marry. So your 10th amendment doesn't stand in the equality argument. Just saying......
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
It's up to the States. Many states are gay marriage and as you and Ojibwe point out more and more states are going in that direction.............. So what's the problem?Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
I find it funny that you think you deserve the right to vote on others rights. No, funny is the wrong word for this. I'd say "pathetic" is more fitting.Oarsman wrote:
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Oarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
-
Undertow
Well then you are barking up the wrong tree. Because the issue is a 14th amendment issue. As Fnord covered earlier, the states cannot enforce laws that violate the constitution. That goes for state legislatures and laws that pass on a ballot. So even if a state enacts a law barring same sex marriage, the law would be unconstitutional because of the 14th.
-
Oarsman wrote:
There is no "Right" to marriage. Nothing in the constitution or it's amendments specifically addresses, references or suggests theirs a "Right" to marriage. So the 10th A clearly applies. There may be other cases and things that are weighed as well but you can't just dismiss the 10th A because you like the 14th better.Undertow
Well then you are barking up the wrong tree. Because the issue is a 14th amendment issue. As Fnord covered earlier, the states cannot enforce laws that violate the constitution. That goes for state legislatures and laws that pass on a ballot. So even if a state enacts a law barring same sex marriage, the law would be unconstitutional because of the 14th.
-
You missed your calling undertow. You should be a constitutional lawyer instead of an Internet troll.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Be honest. The real reason you refuse to accept that marriage is a states righs issue is because you don't want a state and the people who live in that state to decide what they want or whats best for them. So you think what happens in one state should apply to all the states. Texas knows what's best for Ohio, New York knows what's best for Georgia, Montana knows what's best for California? California know what's best for all the other states?? And so onOh and if banning gays to marry is "unconstitutional" and that is winning. Obviously it's in the constitution to allow gays to marry. So your 10th amendment doesn't stand in the equality argument. Just saying......
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Umm no. It says that all shall be treated equal under the law. Giving one group right to marriage and saying no to another is not being treated equal. There by infringing the 14th A.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Be honest. The real reason you refuse to accept that marriage is a states righs issue is because you don't want a state and the people who live in that state to decide what they want or whats best for them. So you think what happens in one state should apply to all the states. Texas knows what's best for Ohio, New York knows what's best for Georgia, Montana knows what's best for California? California know what's best for all the other states?? And so onOh and if banning gays to marry is "unconstitutional" and that is winning. Obviously it's in the constitution to allow gays to marry. So your 10th amendment doesn't stand in the equality argument. Just saying......
-
It's not that I prefer any amendment over the other. It is simply that equal protection under the law is a 14th amendment issue. And, no I don't want California, New York, Texas, Alabama, or any other state for that matter telling North Dakota how it should run. So don't try that smoke screen here.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Seeker, hey man, dude. Buddy hey seeker listen to what we are saying. Hey seek, why dont you like to hear what the people who disagree with you what they are saying? Hey seek? Can one get the attention from you without you clapping your ears shut? Gay people can be gay- they have no compacity to change the definition of the meaning of marriage. This case is closed since creation.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Umm no. It says that all shall be treated equal under the law. Giving one group right to marriage and saying no to another is not being treated equal. There by infringing the 14th A.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Be onOh and if banning gays to marry is "unconstitutional" and that is winning. Obviously it's in the constitution to allow gays to marry. So your 10th amendment doesn't stand in the equality argument. Just saying......
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
There may not be a "right" to marriage. However, there are laws regarding marriage. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. If straights can marry then gays can marry. That is what equal protection looks like.Oarsman wrote:
There is no "Right" to marriage. Nothing in the constitution or it's amendments specifically addresses, references or suggests theirs a "Right" to marriage. So the 10th A clearly applies. There may be other cases and things that are weighed as well but you can't just dismiss the 10th A because you like the 14th better.Undertow
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Be honest. The real reason you refuse to accept that marriage is a states righs issue is because you don't want a state and the people who live in that state to decide what they want or whats best for them. So you think what happens in one state should apply ✂️
You seem to be forgetting about DOMA, a federal act allowing states to refuse to recognize each other's marriage laws. Someone made this into a federal issue 20 some years ago and it wasn't the gay rights movement. Now people like you are screaming state's rights when it's suits them. Again we return to equal protection. Are all marriages valid across state lines, or just the religiously correct ones? Can't have one without the other, the 14th amendment is clear on this. And the 10th doesn't apply in national matters of ensuring equal protection, a power reserved by the federal government. It is a federal issue whether you like it or not. -
This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" rights? Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
-
Hey Aug, christians already changed the meaning of marriage by allowing divorced people to remarry.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Hey oji, why havent you come up with a well meaningful comment that people can reflect on? I thought the issue was equality? Not Christianity? bait and switch again? Oj take a break, your dunkHey Aug, christians already changed the meaning of marriage by allowing divorced people to remarry.
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Lol dude, you suk at this debate. You say we were tought what to think? We give straw man arguments? HAHAHA you are the definition of both. I don't care about incest as long as both parties are of legal age and both consent. Who am I to say no to that? Animals cannot consent so obviously I'm against that. You REALLY need some new arguments man. These ones are getting old.This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" rights? Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
-
I resent that. I've never been dunk in my life.
-
Oh wait a minute, you said, "your dunk." Sorry I don't own a dunk.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Just slap yourself lol. Bait and switch again- is the issue of equality or consensuality? And if assume you were a evolutionist, where do you even begin to explain natural selection developing such a behavior?☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Lol dude, you suk at this debate. You say we were tought what to think? We give incest as long as both parties are of legal age and both consent. Who am I to say no to that? Animals cannot consent so obviously I'm against that. You REALLY need some new arguments man. These ones are getting old.This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" sure
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
I enjoy hearing what you guys say. It makes me laugh everytime. You use fairy tail stories as your "facts" and "proof" and say them over an over and over and over. Same with "if we allow gays to marry....what's next? Man and dogs, mothers and sons?" Lol really? Or the whole " god created marriage and he said man and women. You can't residing marriage" haha cause changing it to "two consenting adults" would end the world eh? Lol move along Augy....you clearly have nothing to actually add to this discussion.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Pedophilia is an adult forcing themselves on a child. It is a very serious crime and always will be. Arguing that this somehow on earth could qualify as an equal right is beyond moronic. Should we also be arguing that we have the equal right to murder? That's how absurd you sound. Gays seeking to marry each other are two consenting adults. There is no relation between the two. It speaks to your depravity and lack of moral compass that you believe there is.This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" rights? Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
-
Redefine*
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Are you in support of Muslims building mosques all over America? Voting them into office to use their religion to rule your life? If not you're bigoted and hateful to them.This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" rights? Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
That is a fallacy, just because you dont support something doesnt mean you hate them in a ignorant fashion. That assumption to this grade in of itself bigoted.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Are you in support of Muslims building mosques all over America? Voting them into office to use their religion to rule your life? If not you're bigoted and hateful to them.This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" rights? Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch. These dudes and gals have been taught what to think, not how to think. Thats for sure
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Is a adult forcing oneself upon another? Where on earth did you read that? You are not allowing thought here fnord and closing your mind by just saying "its moronic" that simply doesnt deal with the issue that if two children want to marry they have that "equal right" to do so. You dont want equal rights buddy. You really have the appearance of a person with a agenda no question about it.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Pedophilia is an adult forcing themselves on a child. It is a very serious crime and always will be. Arguing that this somehow on earth could qualify as an equal right is beyond moronic. Should we also be arguing that we have the equal right to murder? That's how absurd you sound. believe there is.This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon "hateful" bigoted" for those who want sure
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
You obviously don't understand evolution and natural selection enough to be discussing it. It's really not that hard to understand. Why would other sexualities be in other species if it's not right? How come those species didn't die off? Do the gay ones teach the young ones to be gay to? Like in humans? Lol oh Augy....you make me laugh. You're funny :)〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" sure
For your question. How about.....overpopulation? Sorta like population control?
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Then why would we be bigoted to pedophiles and beastiality like you said? Are you forgetting what you say again? Trouble keeping track of your responses? Hahaha hey Augy.....stop talking in circles.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
That is a fallacy, just because you dont support something doesnt mean you hate them in a ignorant fashion. That assumption to this grade in of itself bigoted.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
This is basic logic. It seems the issue here is "equality", but these goon heads dont want "equality", trust me they dont. I dont see these folks running out in support for equal rights for pedophilia or incest. If they dont then are they also being "hateful" bigoted" for those who want those "equal" rights? Naaa they want to push the strawman and bait and switch.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC