Vydor posted:

---

What does the constitution say about marriage?

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

What does the constitution say about marriage?

---

Nothing. But is says a lot about freedom and discrimination.

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

What does the constitution say about marriage?

---

Nothing. But is says a lot about freedom and discrimination.

---

I guess I need some context on this discussion, cuz if he asking about her feelings on marriage, that's one thing. If it's in reference to something else, it might be different.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Consistency would call for the government to not be in the marriage business or the medical business...

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

????

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they were discussing the legality of Gay Marriage.

Why are you pretending to be stupid?

---

Vydor posted:

---

I have no idea what they are discussing.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Let me guess. You're against gay marriage.

I repeat, why are you pretending to be stupid?

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

ORLY?

So tell me. Do you support gay marriage?

---

Kordirn posted:

---

Not really. Your viewpoint is what makes the point seem "meh".

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Just answer the question dude.

Sif we didn't already know.

I'll give you this.....is it really so hard to understand the context of a Senator (Lawmaker. It is lawmaker.) making such a comment?

No. It's not. So why are you pretending that it is?

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

The context is painfully clear.

As is your need to pretend to be dense.

I'll be happy to provide the link. Or you could google it if you really feel the need to play this charade out.

In the meantime stop being a great big pussy and answer the question.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

At least we are getting to the point where people are starting to be embarrassed by their stance against gay marriage.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Grow a set ffs. You're not fooling anyone.
What does the constitution say about marriage?
Nothing. Which says a lot about the legality of the Senator's opinion.
Do you know what a Senator is? Go ahead and pretend the context isn't painfully obvious and I'll stop thinking that you are pretending to be stupid.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Question two; Why does gay marriage scare you and why are you so ashamed of your position with regards to it?

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Grow a set ffs. You're not fooling anyone.
What does the constitution say about marriage?
Nothing. Which says a lot about the legality of the Senator's opinion.
Do you know what a Senator is? Go ahead and pretend the context isn't painfully obvious and I'll stop thinking that you are pretending to be stupid.

---

Seriously. I don't know what the context is. I could assume. But what you posted here doesn't tell me anything other than it's a dude saying something to a senator. His remark is relevant in one instance, and not in another. I really don't see why you're getting your panties all bunched about this.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Grow a set ffs. You're not fooling anyone.
What does the constitution say about marriage?
Nothing. Which says a lot about the legality of the Senator's opinion.
Do you know what a Senator is? Go ahead and pretend the context isn't painfully obvious and I'll stop thinking that you are pretending to be stupid.

---

Seriously. I don't know what the context is. I could assume. But what you posted here doesn't tell me anything other than it's a dude saying something to a senator. His remark is relevant in one instance, and not in another. I really don't see why you're getting your panties all bunched about this.

---

I'm not. I'm simply calling you a coward.

A rather ironic one at that.

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Question two; Why does gay marriage scare you and why are you so ashamed of your position with regards to it?

---

I'm not ashamed of my position at all, it would just be an irrelevant tangent to bring it up, this topic isn't about me.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Question two; Why does gay marriage scare you and why are you so ashamed of your position with regards to it?

---

I'm not ashamed of my position at all, it would just be an irrelevant tangent to bring it up, this topic isn't about me.

---

No, it's about the legality of gay marriage. A topic which you are avoiding like it was going to hurt you.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Wow.

I had no idea that you were this much of a weasel.

I told you to google. You don't really want to know the truth anymore than you want to admit your reaction is because you know damn well what the context is.

Let me know when you get a spine dude.

---

Vydor posted:

---

What does the constitution say about marriage?

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

What does the constitution say about marriage?

---

The Supreme Court says it's a basic right.

---

Vydor posted:

---

As defined by what standards?

---

Vydor posted:

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

What does the constitution say about marriage?

---

The Supreme Court says it's a basic right.

---

As defined by what standards?

HTH, probably won't get a chance to continue this conversation. So, I don't think the constitution defines who should be getting married (man/woman man/man). That was my point.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Cuz it doesn't to me.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

It doesn't. Which leads to the notion that the Senator, who sets laws and has sworn to uphold the constitution, should not be using the bible to justify her position on the legality of gay marriage. It really isn't all that tough to figure out....

Unless you are pretending to be stupid for some reason.

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

As defined by what standards?

---

The 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

The constitution says equal protection under the law is important. It doesn't say what marriage is but it does tend to suggest you have to have a good reason for discriminating against some people who want to get married, and "teh bible says so!" is clearly not a good reason, legally speaking.

You are wrong about pretty much everything you have said in this thread.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

I'm against Canadian marriages.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

I'm against Canadian marriages.

---

---

Thugoneous posted:

---

Government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

---

Vydor posted:

---

---

Scarne posted:

---

Thugoneous posted:

---

Government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

---

Given that marriage impacts ownership of property, taxes, inheritance, power of attorney, etc, the government does need to be involved.

And if government isn't involved, how do atheists get married? I suppose many Christians hate atheists more than gays so this may not be the best question.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It isn't so much about taxes. It's more about shared property. Are you suggesting we do away with the idea that the law recognizes married couples' income and assets are held jointly?

I mean you could do that all by contract but in point of fact it won't happen and you'll have tons of (mostly female) people who end up totally screwed when their higher-earning "spouse" dumps them when they get old and not so hot and they get nothing at all.

---

illmyrin posted:

---

If gay people want to get married they are free to find partners of the opposite sex and marry them. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay people should come up with their own term for it.

---

tenkly posted:

---

Tych2 posted:

---

At least we are getting to the point where people are starting to be embarrassed by their stance against gay marriage.

---

True that

---

Vydor posted:

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

As defined by what standards?

---

The 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

---

Yeah, we're talking two different things.

---

EvilWookin posted:

---

You act as if homosexuals can't have children.

---

EvilWookin posted:

---

You act as if homosexuals can't have children.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Now you go from dense and stupid to a constitutional lawyer.

What a crock. The constitution forbids discrimination. The only place that people like her (and you) can point to that makes this supposedly not applicable is the idea that the bible says same sex preference is evil and therefore it's ok to discriminate against someone because of who they want to sleep with.

You pretend that this is not addressed in the Constitution. False.
You pretend the bible's teachings allow discrimination because the constitution doesn't address that particular issue. False.

The Senator is free to her opinion. The Constitution supersedes her opinion. And yours.

I repeat.

The Church and State are separate for a reason.

Thank you for proving my point.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

EvilWookin posted:

---

You act as if homosexuals can't have children.

---

No, they cannot have children. They can purchase children, steal children, they can even go to any street corner in southern Cali and rent Mexican children, but they cannot have children.

---

Allstarslacker posted:

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

EvilWookin posted:

---

You act as if homosexuals can't have children.

---

No, they cannot have children. They can purchase children, steal children, they can even go to any street corner in southern Cali and rent Mexican children, but they cannot have children.

---

They can care for and raise children.

There are a lot of kids out there who are going to spend the majority, if not all, of their childhood in foster care.

They would be far better off in a permanent home with two same sex parents who loved them.

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

The point that it is not "defined" in the Constitution is the only point that is important.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It isn't so much about taxes. It's more about shared property. Are you suggesting we do away with the idea that the law recognizes married couples' income and assets are held jointly?

I mean you could do that all by contract but in point of fact it won't happen and you'll have tons of (mostly female) people who end up totally screwed when their higher-earning "spouse" dumps them when they get old and not so hot and they get nothing at all.

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

The point that it is not "defined" in the Constitution is the only point that is important.

Using anything, especially the bible, undermines the Constitution.

---

Thugoneous posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It isn't so much about taxes. It's more about shared property. Are you suggesting we do away with the idea that the law recognizes married couples' income and assets are held jointly?

I mean you could do that all by contract but in point of fact it won't happen and you'll have tons of (mostly female) people who end up totally screwed when their higher-earning "spouse" dumps them when they get old and not so hot and they get nothing at all.

---

Equality is a bitch.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Nope, I wasn't breaking it down at all, just looking at it simply. She is telling the guy, she uses the bible to define marriage. The guys tells her to use the constitution , in which there is no definition. States define marriage differently, based on various views. It's not the constitution that defines it. His as a statement that was off the mark.

---

Bonzoboy1 posted:

---

marriage is a states rights issue

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

This seriously puzzles me. It's hard for me to think of anything LESS suited to being a states rights issue than marriage.

You really want a system where people are considered married in some states but in not in others? How would that even work? I'm married in Cali but if I move to Nevada and I can ditch my spouse with no consequences because I'm not considered married there because they don't recognize my marriage for whatever reason?

Marriage seems like one of the best candidates for uniform treatment.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Nope, I wasn't breaking it down at all, just looking at it simply. She is telling the guy, she uses the bible to define marriage. The guys tells her to use the constitution , in which there is no definition. States define marriage differently, based on various views. It's not the constitution that defines it. His as a statement that was off the mark.

---

First you pretend you don't know the context...now you pretend you do.

Which of course you obviously don't. Or...you simply invent enough to make your point.

He didn't tell her to use the constitution to define marriage. He told her to do her job. The Constitution is about the rights we enjoy as citizens. You cannot take these rights away without amending the Constitution. The Constitution does not address the issue so it is not her place to define marriage. It was her job to uphold the constitution.

And since you were so hot to know the context it was a Senate hearing regarding the constitutionality of a law against same sex marriage. His comment was clearly not "off the mark." I could not have been more on the mark. It's the Senator who is off base. Her religious views hold no place in lawmaking, particularly if it is in conflict with the Constitution.

Hence his comment that her job was to uphold the law of the land, not the "law" of her church.

The Church and State are separate for a reason.

You're one of them.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Sorry, but from what you posted, that was my take on it. He was telling her to use the constitution to define marriage. And like I've stated, unless I am wrong, each state can clearly define what marriage is and it be acceptable within the constitution. I do think there are states that forbid same sex marriage, and I am willing to be that some of the law makers in those states were persuaded by the bible to make their decision.

From my take on the conservation, the dude's response was clearly off the mark.

---

Scarne posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Sorry, but from what you posted, that was my take on it. He was telling her to use the constitution to define marriage. And like I've stated, unless I am wrong, each state can clearly define what marriage is and it be acceptable within the constitution. I do think there are states that forbid same sex marriage, and I am willing to be that some of the law makers in those states were persuaded by the bible to make their decision.

From my take on the conservation, the dude's response was clearly off the mark.

---

This was about DOMA where the federal government says it wasn't going to recognize gay marriages.

---

Scarne posted:

---

Well, it can still be states rights like driver's licenses are. Different states have different requirements for driver's licenses, but if you go into a different state, your license is still valid even if the state you got it from has less strict requirements.

So it can be states rights, but even if gay people can't get married in one state, that state still needs to accept the validity of gay marriages from other states.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Sorry, but from what you posted, that was my take on it. He was telling her to use the constitution to define marriage. And like I've stated, unless I am wrong, each state can clearly define what marriage is and it be acceptable within the constitution. I do think there are states that forbid same sex marriage, and I am willing to be that some of the law makers in those states were persuaded by the bible to make their decision.

From my take on the conservation, the dude's response was clearly off the mark.

---

This was about DOMA where the federal government says it wasn't going to recognize gay marriages.

---

I guess I am confused, can states forbid same sex marriages?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

Well, it can still be states rights like driver's licenses are. Different states have different requirements for driver's licenses, but if you go into a different state, your license is still valid even if the state you got it from has less strict requirements.

So it can be states rights, but even if gay people can't get married in one state, that state still needs to accept the validity of gay marriages from other states.

---

Which makes it not really states rights. If a state doesn't have a right to refuse to recognize the marriage it doesn't really have any meaningful rights.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

It wasn't a conversation. It was testimony in an official setting. Your take on it is wrong and blatantly self serving. And I note you still have not answered the question, despite my answering yours.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

This was about DOMA where the federal government says it wasn't going to recognize gay marriages.

---

I guess I am confused, can states forbid same sex marriages?

---

Scarne posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

This was about DOMA where the federal government says it wasn't going to recognize gay marriages.

---

I guess I am confused, can states forbid same sex marriages?

---

SCOTUS hasn't ruled either way yet.

And the quote was still about the feds forbidding same sex marriages which it clearly doesn't have the powers to do so per the Constitution.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

I will also point out that the man who's comments are "off the mark" is a Constitutional Lawyer with a degree from Harvard Law School and in fact is a Senator as well.

Isn't context grand!

"Jamie Raskin (born Jamin B. Raskin,[1] on December 13, 1962, in Washington, D.C.) is an American law professor and politician. He teaches at American University, Washington College of Law, in Washington, D.C. He serves as the Director of the college's LL.M. program on Law and Government. In November 2006, he was elected as a Maryland State Senator for District 20,[2] representing parts of Silver Spring and Takoma Park.

On March 1, 2006, during a Maryland State Senate hearing regarding same-sex marriage, Raskin, speaking as a constitutional law expert, told a lawmaker, "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

No context? Stop prancing around the issue. Grow a set and answer the question Dude.

We already know the answer but you really ought to just man up and say it out loud.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

No context? Stop prancing around the issue. Grow a set and answer the question Dude.

We already know the answer but you really ought to just man up and say it out loud.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice.

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice.

---

-shrugs-

You don't know my stance. I am willing to admit I am wrong, and I gave you the criteria for it.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice. I've answered your questions, provided the context and even the credentials of the man you are second guessing. You haven't answered my simple question, which you said you would answer, and now pull in other questions still attempting to avoid the main issue.

Take a walk son. I've spent more time than a clown like you is worth.

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

No context? Stop prancing around the issue. Grow a set and answer the question Dude.

We already know the answer but you really ought to just man up and say it out loud.

---

It's pretty simple the way I see it.

1. If states cannot forbid same sex marriage according the the constitution, then I was wrong.
2. If states can forbid same sex marriage and still be legal inside side the constitution, then I am right.

I am under the impression that the constitution isn't the means of defining marriage in this country. I could easily be wrong.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Can states forbid same sex marriage, yes or no?

Simple as that really.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice.

---

-shrugs-

You don't know my stance. I am willing to admit I am wrong, and I gave you the criteria for it.

---

He has asked you for your stance several times. I am unsure why you don't want to express it unless you are embarrassed by it. I can't think of another reason, but I am sure there must be one if its not embarrassment. Why be covert in it?

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

No context? Stop prancing around the issue. Grow a set and answer the question Dude.

We already know the answer but you really ought to just man up and say it out loud.

---

It's pretty simple the way I see it.

1. If states cannot forbid same sex marriage according the the constitution, then I was wrong.
2. If states can forbid same sex marriage and still be legal inside side the constitution, then I am right.

I am under the impression that the constitution isn't the means of defining marriage in this country. I could easily be wrong.

---

Actually, I believe my post was misinterpreted earlier in that what I meant was BECAUSE the Constitution doesn't define marriage, then no one can use any other document TO define it.

Basically, as far as I'm concerned, states cannot define marriage and using the bible to try and undermine what the Constitution "allows" is a no no.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Because it has no relevance to the topic. All we are talking about is two phrases between two people and if the one comment was correct. My view was the guy responding, while it was a cutting remark, was off target. My stance or position on same sex marriage is so far out of place here that it doesn't matter.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Because it has no relevance to the topic. All we are talking about is two phrases between two people and if the one comment was correct. My view was the guy responding, while it was a cutting remark, was off target. My stance or position on same sex marriage is so far out of place here that it doesn't matter.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Then who defines it according to what the states recognizes as legal marriage?

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Because it has no relevance to the topic. All we are talking about is two phrases between two people and if the one comment was correct. My view was the guy responding, while it was a cutting remark, was off target. My stance or position on same sex marriage is so far out of place here that it doesn't matter.

---

Chalk it up to curiosity. I am curious what your stance is on it. What is your stance on gay marriage?

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Because it has no relevance to the topic. All we are talking about is two phrases between two people and if the one comment was correct. My view was the guy responding, while it was a cutting remark, was off target. My stance or position on same sex marriage is so far out of place here that it doesn't matter.

---

Ok, fair enough that you believe your position has no relevance to the current discussion.

So, outside of this particular discussion, let's just cut to the chase. Do you support allowing same sex marriage?

---

Vydor posted:

---

PM sent.

---

Nnanji's_Thread posted:

---

---

IMHO posted:

---

Separation of Church and State.

The government should get out of the marriage business.

Let the government do civil unions

Let the Religions have their own marriages.

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

IMHO posted:

---

Separation of Church and State.

The government should get out of the marriage business.

Let the government do civil unions

Let the Religions have their own marriages.

---

Which would then mean that only civil unions could be considered for any legal matter. Which I'm good with.

---

IMHO posted:

---

Separation of Church and State.

The government should get out of the marriage business.

Let the government do civil unions

Let the Religions have their own marriages.

---

Scarne posted:

---

No that is dumb. Religions do not have ownership of the the word "marriage" and related terminology.

---

Vydor posted:

---

PM sent.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Consistency would call for the government to not be in the marriage business or the medical business...

---

Not to mention you being a pompous pile of ill wind. You're like a beer fart. Ever looming, never welcome.

---