Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

tecwrg2
Posts: 237 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 2 3 94
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I could probably argue that you don't have any rights until the government says you have them. 

I have the "right" to vote.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drive.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drink.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to get married.   If I meet certain guidelines.

Weird ****, huh?
Exactly.  But those rights apply equally to everyone.

If the majority passes a law to take away the right to vote from just black people or just gays or just women, that wouldn't be OK.  Even if the law passed by majority vote.
Prop 8 took away the right for EVERYBODY in California to participate in same-sex marriage.  Not just gay folk.

So before Prop 8, Joe Straightguy from Fresno, a heterosexual male, had the right to marry his BFF from high school, Chuck Chicknailer, if he wanted to.  Prop 8 took that away from him, just as much as it did from all the gay couples in CA.
5/15/2012 11:22 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:19:00 AM (view original):

SS couples fail to meet specific guidelines.    What part of this is confusing you?

But they had the right to marry.  To take that right away, there needs to be a reason.
5/15/2012 11:23 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:19:00 AM (view original):

SS couples fail to meet specific guidelines.    What part of this is confusing you?

But they had the right to marry.  To take that right away, there needs to be a reason.
I'd argue that, in order to have a right, the government has to say you have said right.

They said "Nope, you don't have that right."   There's your reason.
5/15/2012 11:25 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg2 on 5/15/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I could probably argue that you don't have any rights until the government says you have them. 

I have the "right" to vote.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drive.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drink.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to get married.   If I meet certain guidelines.

Weird ****, huh?
Exactly.  But those rights apply equally to everyone.

If the majority passes a law to take away the right to vote from just black people or just gays or just women, that wouldn't be OK.  Even if the law passed by majority vote.
Prop 8 took away the right for EVERYBODY in California to participate in same-sex marriage.  Not just gay folk.

So before Prop 8, Joe Straightguy from Fresno, a heterosexual male, had the right to marry his BFF from high school, Chuck Chicknailer, if he wanted to.  Prop 8 took that away from him, just as much as it did from all the gay couples in CA.
Exactly.

Prop 8 said, for everyone, marriage is a specific contract that everyone can enter into. You just have to meet the standrd.

This isnt abput gay rights, this is about the rights of the people to detrmine their own destiny.

This isnt a broad civil rights issue, this is a very narrow issue that applies to a group of people that have social and economic parity with most other people.
5/15/2012 11:27 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg2 on 5/15/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I could probably argue that you don't have any rights until the government says you have them. 

I have the "right" to vote.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drive.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drink.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to get married.   If I meet certain guidelines.

Weird ****, huh?
Exactly.  But those rights apply equally to everyone.

If the majority passes a law to take away the right to vote from just black people or just gays or just women, that wouldn't be OK.  Even if the law passed by majority vote.
Prop 8 took away the right for EVERYBODY in California to participate in same-sex marriage.  Not just gay folk.

So before Prop 8, Joe Straightguy from Fresno, a heterosexual male, had the right to marry his BFF from high school, Chuck Chicknailer, if he wanted to.  Prop 8 took that away from him, just as much as it did from all the gay couples in CA.
The law specifically takes the right away from same sex couples.

Look at the text of the law:

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.


5/15/2012 11:30 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Anyone else see JRDX as the guy yelling "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!" while being shoved into the back of a police cruiser?
5/15/2012 11:30 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:19:00 AM (view original):

SS couples fail to meet specific guidelines.    What part of this is confusing you?

But they had the right to marry.  To take that right away, there needs to be a reason.
I'd argue that, in order to have a right, the government has to say you have said right.

They said "Nope, you don't have that right."   There's your reason.
But the government did give same sex couples the right to marry in California.

To take that away, there has to be a compelling legal reason.  There isn't one.
5/15/2012 11:31 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:31:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:19:00 AM (view original):

SS couples fail to meet specific guidelines.    What part of this is confusing you?

But they had the right to marry.  To take that right away, there needs to be a reason.
I'd argue that, in order to have a right, the government has to say you have said right.

They said "Nope, you don't have that right."   There's your reason.
But the government did give same sex couples the right to marry in California.

To take that away, there has to be a compelling legal reason.  There isn't one.
And then they said they didn't.

You and your CLR can take a leap.
5/15/2012 11:32 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.
5/15/2012 11:35 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.
Tell that to NC(and any other number of states).
5/15/2012 11:36 AM
tecwrg2
Posts: 237 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 2 3 94
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 5/15/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I could probably argue that you don't have any rights until the government says you have them. 

I have the "right" to vote.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drive.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drink.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to get married.   If I meet certain guidelines.

Weird ****, huh?
Exactly.  But those rights apply equally to everyone.

If the majority passes a law to take away the right to vote from just black people or just gays or just women, that wouldn't be OK.  Even if the law passed by majority vote.
Prop 8 took away the right for EVERYBODY in California to participate in same-sex marriage.  Not just gay folk.

So before Prop 8, Joe Straightguy from Fresno, a heterosexual male, had the right to marry his BFF from high school, Chuck Chicknailer, if he wanted to.  Prop 8 took that away from him, just as much as it did from all the gay couples in CA.
The law specifically takes the right away from same sex couples.

Look at the text of the law:

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.


Actually, that's not what it says at all.  Perhaps you should check your facts before posting:

SECTION I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
 
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
 
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
5/15/2012 11:37 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.
So in the courts opinion the views of the people need to be explained?

The court gets to make a decision, and if the people decide to make a law that voids it, the courts get to say.."We are right unless you can explain your reasoning?

Shouldnt the court have to point to a specific reason that the law was wrong?
5/15/2012 11:39 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
The court gets to make a decision, and if the people decide to make a law that voids it, the courts get to say.."We are right unless you can explain your reasoning? 

Yeah.  That's exactly right in this case.  Not all cases, but when the state passes a law that takes a right away from a group, it has to show a compelling reason to do so.
5/15/2012 11:59 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg2 on 5/15/2012 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 5/15/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I could probably argue that you don't have any rights until the government says you have them. 

I have the "right" to vote.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drive.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to drink.   If I meet certain guidelines.
I have the "right" to get married.   If I meet certain guidelines.

Weird ****, huh?
Exactly.  But those rights apply equally to everyone.

If the majority passes a law to take away the right to vote from just black people or just gays or just women, that wouldn't be OK.  Even if the law passed by majority vote.
Prop 8 took away the right for EVERYBODY in California to participate in same-sex marriage.  Not just gay folk.

So before Prop 8, Joe Straightguy from Fresno, a heterosexual male, had the right to marry his BFF from high school, Chuck Chicknailer, if he wanted to.  Prop 8 took that away from him, just as much as it did from all the gay couples in CA.
The law specifically takes the right away from same sex couples.

Look at the text of the law:

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.


Actually, that's not what it says at all.  Perhaps you should check your facts before posting:

SECTION I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
 
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
 
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
You're right.  I was looking at the official title and summary.
5/15/2012 12:01 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.
Tell that to NC(and any other number of states).
I don't know what will happen in NC.  But in California the proposition was overturned for the exact reason I've laid out.  Without a compelling legal interest, the state wasn't able to take that right away.
5/15/2012 12:07 PM
◂ Prev 1...31|32|33|34|35...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.