Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:43:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"  (Read 11363 times)
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2013, 10:05:20 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2013, 10:11:46 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the black community accept that some restaurants just will not allow them to eat there based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Retro'd your post.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2013, 10:15:21 PM »

These states rights' folks grind my gears...

Did Rubio's parents flee Cuba to come to this state or to this nation? Did I and every other veteran wear the uniform of our state or our nation?- excluding our friends in the National Guard...

If we let the states right's folks have their way- blacks would be second class citizens here in my neck of the woods and while that wasn't a radical idea then (like discriminating against gays isn't a radical idea now), we now know how much of hypocrites I and every other American at that time looked like... we preached the values of equality and liberty for all and I lived in a time when these values weren't acted upon

State's rights bothers me when dealing with fundamental issues and I consider freedom and equality to be a fundamental issue- but state's rights especially bugs me when it is used by conservatives like Rubio to hide from an issue they know history will judge them poorly for...

My party better wise up on things like this or it won't be my party (or much any one's) pretty soon...

You win the internet for this comment
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2013, 10:28:37 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.
I wouldve supported King and the Civil Rights folks. King would side with me today on this if he were still with us.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2013, 10:31:48 PM »

It seems that the only echo chamber more powerful than FOX/MSNBC is a church. You can't possibly believe that opposing gay marriage is a winning issue. Check your faith at the door when we're discussing reality.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2013, 10:34:13 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.

Not 'Eternity' (whatever that is), history, and all signs point to gay rights being here to stay. Provide any shred of evidence suggesting a reversal from the present course.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2013, 10:42:50 PM »

It seems that the only echo chamber more powerful than FOX/MSNBC is a church. You can't possibly believe that opposing gay marriage is a winning issue. Check your faith at the door when we're discussing reality.

I'm speaking reality. My views on this issue were cemented before I embraced my faith. The Book of Revelation is my evidence.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2013, 10:44:32 PM »

It seems that the only echo chamber more powerful than FOX/MSNBC is a church. You can't possibly believe that opposing gay marriage is a winning issue. Check your faith at the door when we're discussing reality.

I'm speaking reality. My views on this issue were cemented before I embraced my faith. The Book of Revelation is my evidence.

That's some awfully shaky evidence. Come back when you have something that's actually grounded in reality. Separation of Church and State applies to you too
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2013, 11:31:41 PM »

It seems that the only echo chamber more powerful than FOX/MSNBC is a church. You can't possibly believe that opposing gay marriage is a winning issue. Check your faith at the door when we're discussing reality.

I'm speaking reality. My views on this issue were cemented before I embraced my faith. The Book of Revelation is my evidence.

This little back-and-forth is fun and all, but really, opposing gay marriage is a losing issue by just about every shred of concrete evidence. I'll take mounds of statistical data over a 2,000-year-old document written by 2,000-year-old men.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,191
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2013, 06:15:21 AM »

The FMA would have had trouble passing in 1994 when DOMA was adopted; it has zero chance of passing now.

An amendment to enable state choice as to whether same-sex marriage would be permitted probably could have passed in 1994, but it too has zero chance of passing now.  (It probably could pass even now if only a simple majority of both houses were needed.)

Gonna be interesting to read Kennedy's opinion on that issue when DOMA's overturned (I'm guessing he'll be given the duty).

I'm not certain it will be overturned.  It could be, but I don't see Kennedy as being a sure vote for overturning.  It's also possible that it'll be a decision that narrowly strips the Federal government of the power of deciding what a marriage is and leaves the larger issue of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage for another day.

Personally I think such a narrow decision would be bad, since the Federal government should not be bound to the definitions of the State governments (or vice versa) and such an attempt at moderate heroism would have repercussions far beyond the field of matrimony.  A simple decision either affirming or rejecting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would be much preferable, and also what I expect the court to issue.

I have almost no doubt a modified marriage amendment would have passed in the 90's (i.e. leaving the definition of marriage to the states entirely). There's no chance of that happening today, or anything remotely like it.

Even if you don't think DOMA will be the vehicle through which SCOTUS settles the marriage issue, what are your thoughts on the Prop 8 case? Unless the Court settles that on standing issues, that seems to be the more likely route through which nationwide gay marriage takes hold. The very fact that the case has even been taken up leads me to believe that it's probably going to be decided on the merits. Olson and Boies are going all the way on this argument. They're going for the full 50-state ruling on marriage equality. If anyone can grasp the ideology of the right-wing on the Court, it's definitely Ted Olson. Ultimately, the gay marriage issue seems to hinge on what Justice Kennedy is willing to do.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,021
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2013, 09:15:56 AM »

I wouldve supported King and the Civil Rights folks. King would side with me today on this if he were still with us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coretta_Scott_King#LGBT_equality
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2013, 12:01:03 PM »

what are your thoughts on the Prop 8 case? Unless the Court settles that on standing issues, that seems to be the more likely route through which nationwide gay marriage takes hold. The very fact that the case has even been taken up leads me to believe that it's probably going to be decided on the merits. Olson and Boies are going all the way on this argument. They're going for the full 50-state ruling on marriage equality. If anyone can grasp the ideology of the right-wing on the Court, it's definitely Ted Olson. Ultimately, the gay marriage issue seems to hinge on what Justice Kennedy is willing to do.

If the court was hearing Walker's trial decision, then Hollingsworth v. Perry would have much more potential to be the game changer same-sex marriage advocates hope for.  However, the court is hearing Reinhardt's far narrower appellate decision. If upheld as is, it could well simply end the civil union / marriage distinction in those states that have what is essentially same-sex marriage in everything but name.  (Those states are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and possibly Nevada and Oregon. I'm uncertain if what the last two have is effectively same-sex marriage in everything but name or not.)  It would also effectively strike down the state constitutional provisions in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee that prohibit same-sex marriage but allow for the state to adopt same-sex marriage in all but name, but only in that it would free those state governments to adopt same-sex marriage, but it would not require them to.  Those states that have broader constitutional or statutory restrictions on same-sex relationships would still have them under a Supreme Court ruling that narrowly upholds Reinhardt's decision.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2013, 06:06:57 PM »

I wouldve supported King and the Civil Rights folks. King would side with me today on this if he were still with us.

Both of these statements are unequivocally false. You would have sided with the racists (which you and your lot already do), and Dr. King would have been on the side of equality.
Logged
Benj
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2013, 06:11:36 PM »


Gonna be interesting to read Kennedy's opinion on that issue when DOMA's overturned (I'm guessing he'll be given the duty).

I'm not certain it will be overturned.  It could be, but I don't see Kennedy as being a sure vote for overturning.  It's also possible that it'll be a decision that narrowly strips the Federal government of the power of deciding what a marriage is and leaves the larger issue of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage for another day.

What you describe is a wholesale overturning of DOMA (or at least sec. 3, which is all that's at issue), so I'm not sure what your point is.

Also, the court cannot decide Windsor by rejecting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as that would not answer the question of whether Congress has power to enact DOMA. (The case could be resolved by declaring that the constitution guarantees same-sex marriage, making DOMA clearly unconstitutional, but as that would go beyond the briefs in the case and the holdings of the Circuits, I doubt the court would go there.)

In the Obamacare case, Roberts pretty much shattered the need for his court to consider just arguments raised by the briefs and arguments.

That's not true at all. The tax issue was heavily briefed by both sides. It was seen as a secondary argument that the government was unlikely to win, but it was heavily briefed.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But they don't have to rule that the federal government must use state definitions for everything, either. (A truly bizarre argument that even the DOMA defenders aren't making.) That's not what the Circuits did; they didn't say the federal government must always defer to state definitions on anything other than marriage. And the reasoning on that is pretty sound, though of course it would be a case-by-case inquiry on when the government must defer (but the number of potentially disputed circumstances are quite small--just marriage right now).
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,152


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2013, 07:02:42 PM »


Gonna be interesting to read Kennedy's opinion on that issue when DOMA's overturned (I'm guessing he'll be given the duty).

I'm not certain it will be overturned.  It could be, but I don't see Kennedy as being a sure vote for overturning.  It's also possible that it'll be a decision that narrowly strips the Federal government of the power of deciding what a marriage is and leaves the larger issue of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage for another day.

What you describe is a wholesale overturning of DOMA (or at least sec. 3, which is all that's at issue), so I'm not sure what your point is.

Also, the court cannot decide Windsor by rejecting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as that would not answer the question of whether Congress has power to enact DOMA. (The case could be resolved by declaring that the constitution guarantees same-sex marriage, making DOMA clearly unconstitutional, but as that would go beyond the briefs in the case and the holdings of the Circuits, I doubt the court would go there.)

In the Obamacare case, Roberts pretty much shattered the need for his court to consider just arguments raised by the briefs and arguments.

That's not true at all. The tax issue was heavily briefed by both sides. It was seen as a secondary argument that the government was unlikely to win, but it was heavily briefed.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But they don't have to rule that the federal government must use state definitions for everything, either. (A truly bizarre argument that even the DOMA defenders aren't making.) That's not what the Circuits did; they didn't say the federal government must always defer to state definitions on anything other than marriage. And the reasoning on that is pretty sound, though of course it would be a case-by-case inquiry on when the government must defer (but the number of potentially disputed circumstances are quite small--just marriage right now).

^ This. It should actually be pretty easy for the court to strike down DOMA without necessarily finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The federal government doesn't actually marry anyone; it's the states that grant marriage licenses to couples. The federal government provides various benefits to married couples. In Massachusetts straight couples and gay couples receive the exact same marriage licenses.  The argument goes like this: The federal government can't provide federal benefits to one group of married couples in Massachusetts while denying them to another group of married couples whose marriages are equally valid under the law. That doesn't mean there's a constitutional right to, for instance, tax perks, but if the federal government chooses to provide those perks to some married couples, they have to provide them to all married couples.

Basic equal protection stuff. In states that already have gay marriage, those gay couples are just as married as straight couples, so the federal government doesn't have much of a case for discriminating against them.

That being said, the court is hearing the Prop 8 case on March 26 and then the DOMA case on March 27, so there's a good chance they'll try to untangle this thing all at once, in which case they probably will be addressing the question of a broad constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,191
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2013, 05:09:26 AM »

If the court was hearing Walker's trial decision, then Hollingsworth v. Perry would have much more potential to be the game changer same-sex marriage advocates hope for.  However, the court is hearing Reinhardt's far narrower appellate decision. If upheld as is, it could well simply end the civil union / marriage distinction in those states that have what is essentially same-sex marriage in everything but name.  (Those states are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and possibly Nevada and Oregon. I'm uncertain if what the last two have is effectively same-sex marriage in everything but name or not.)  It would also effectively strike down the state constitutional provisions in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee that prohibit same-sex marriage but allow for the state to adopt same-sex marriage in all but name, but only in that it would free those state governments to adopt same-sex marriage, but it would not require them to.  Those states that have broader constitutional or statutory restrictions on same-sex relationships would still have them under a Supreme Court ruling that narrowly upholds Reinhardt's decision.

That seems to me like a very odd and convoluted decision, although it would be an interesting decision to see them tackle the civil union/marriage issue. I don't necessarily accept the premise that the Court is only looking at the specific California situation. They could have easily let the Ninth Circuit's decision stand, which would have been completely justified in light of Romer. I can't see them taking the case up only to simply affirm the lower court. On the other hand, I also cannot see Justice Kennedy upholding Prop 8. Mostly, I'm puzzled as to why the Supreme Court is taking up this case at all, unless it wants to make a broader ruling in support marriage equality. The standing issue only turns Prop 8 from a substantive strike-down to a procedural one (which would mean Walker's ruling takes effect in California). The Ninth Circuit's decision is not likely to constrain the Supreme Court's options, especially when you consider that Olson and Boies are going to push for a 50-state ruling. That is a different strategy compared with their narrower argument at the circuit court. Why else would the opponents of Prop 8 try to make that case at SCOTUS?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2013, 12:25:14 PM »

Trying to win the Republican nomination while still staying electable for the general election has become a task that requires so many contortions that I'm surprised that a "Draft Nadia Comaneci" movement has yet to materialize.

She does live in Oklahoma (i.e. God's own country).
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2013, 07:45:31 PM »

If the court was hearing Walker's trial decision, then Hollingsworth v. Perry would have much more potential to be the game changer same-sex marriage advocates hope for.  However, the court is hearing Reinhardt's far narrower appellate decision. If upheld as is, it could well simply end the civil union / marriage distinction in those states that have what is essentially same-sex marriage in everything but name.  (Those states are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and possibly Nevada and Oregon. I'm uncertain if what the last two have is effectively same-sex marriage in everything but name or not.)  It would also effectively strike down the state constitutional provisions in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee that prohibit same-sex marriage but allow for the state to adopt same-sex marriage in all but name, but only in that it would free those state governments to adopt same-sex marriage, but it would not require them to.  Those states that have broader constitutional or statutory restrictions on same-sex relationships would still have them under a Supreme Court ruling that narrowly upholds Reinhardt's decision.

That seems to me like a very odd and convoluted decision, although it would be an interesting decision to see them tackle the civil union/marriage issue. I don't necessarily accept the premise that the Court is only looking at the specific California situation. They could have easily let the Ninth Circuit's decision stand, which would have been completely justified in light of Romer. I can't see them taking the case up only to simply affirm the lower court. On the other hand, I also cannot see Justice Kennedy upholding Prop 8. Mostly, I'm puzzled as to why the Supreme Court is taking up this case at all, unless it wants to make a broader ruling in support marriage equality. The standing issue only turns Prop 8 from a substantive strike-down to a procedural one (which would mean Walker's ruling takes effect in California). The Ninth Circuit's decision is not likely to constrain the Supreme Court's options, especially when you consider that Olson and Boies are going to push for a 50-state ruling. That is a different strategy compared with their narrower argument at the circuit court. Why else would the opponents of Prop 8 try to make that case at SCOTUS?

Since the court tends to go for narrow decisions when possible, then I can see them going for a narrow decision, especially since it might allow for the decision to be something other than 5-4.  I can see Roberts joining a 6-3 decision that only struck down the civil union / marriage distinction.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2013, 07:55:11 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

An adherent of the Whig theory of history, I see.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2013, 08:19:50 PM »

So he adopted John McCain's position from 2006. Big deal.
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 09, 2013, 09:34:49 PM »
« Edited: February 09, 2013, 09:36:45 PM by badgate »

It seems that the only echo chamber more powerful than FOX/MSNBC is a church. You can't possibly believe that opposing gay marriage is a winning issue. Check your faith at the door when we're discussing reality.

I'm speaking reality. My views on this issue were cemented before I embraced my faith. The Book of Revelation is my evidence.

The Book of Revelation is evidence that there were some pretty good fantasy writers, even back in the day in Rome. But it's a wild ride, I'll give you that.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 09, 2013, 09:47:46 PM »

So he adopted John McCain's position from 2006. Big deal.

And John Kerry's from 2004, IIRC.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,924
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2013, 12:08:38 AM »

I wouldve supported King and the Civil Rights folks. King would side with me today on this if he were still with us.

Both of these statements are unequivocally false. You would have sided with the racists (which you and your lot already do), and Dr. King would have been on the side of equality.

Coretta Scott King supported the gay community and equal rights before we lost her.
Logged
Tidus
Rookie
**
Posts: 47
Germany
Political Matrix
E: -2.00, S: -1.00

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2013, 03:15:12 PM »

Since I´m a citizen of Germany I just want to give a short international view on the whole issue:

The highest german court (so-callled 'federal constitution court') just made a decision that it is anti-constitution to not allow gay couples the successive adoption of children.

And after this decision the conservative CDU now signals that it´s going to support equal rights for gays (child adoption, taxation benefits equal to heterosexual marriages) in the future.

That now means all major german parties support gay rights along with equality.

Thats just to clarify the differnece between normal conservative parties in Europe and around the world and the Republicans in the US.

Main discussion:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=169607.0
Logged
auburntiger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,233
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.61, S: 0.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2013, 03:44:02 PM »

Agreed that the state's rights rhetoric is applicable for certain things, but not for a nationwide issue of equality. Rubio should have said something to the effect of, "my personal beliefs will in no way shape or form discriminate against having equal protection under the federal law for ALL American citizens." In fact, I think all conservatives can and should get behind that even if they oppose it on a personal level.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 13 queries.