Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Supreme Court to hear two gay marriage cases next year


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 527 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 10:21:17 PM PST
Dukeshire says:
And why we have to pay for XBL, and Vita Memory Cards!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 10:24:09 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 14, 2012 9:49:30 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 10:25:34 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 14, 2012 9:49:40 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 10:28:01 PM PST
Modern Bear says:
Looks can be deceiving but most of the time they aren't. Just answer this, what do you enjoy better, debating topics like this one or talking about video games?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 10:43:02 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 14, 2012 9:49:50 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 5:09:52 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
I'm not saying it would be easy from a legal standpoint, but the anti-gay crowd always tries to catch the pro-gay crowd in some kind of moral "Ah-HAH!" regarding Polygamy. It's not for me, but I have no moral objections to it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 5:44:33 AM PST
Ice King says:
I'll bite.
If two adult relatives want to get married, I don't see why it's any of my business if they're allowed to.

A guy marrying his sister (or brother) would in no way invalidate any existing or future marriages between non-relatives.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 5:47:03 AM PST
Ice King says:
Same here. They always use extreme examples to try to invalidate gay marriage. Incest and Polygamy are the big ones, but they also try bestiality and pedophilia when those are shot down.

It just shows that they have no real argument so they need to resort to hyperbole to strengthen their weak case.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 5:49:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 5:50:03 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
Incest I would only argue against due to the danger the relations pose to any of their potential offspring. At least from a relational standpoint as close as siblings.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 6:54:52 AM PST
Nightmare says:
The Federal Government's implied powers are extremely limited. The States have far more power under the Constitution. According to the Federalist Papers (#45)

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."

Gay marriage has to do with liberties, and as this clearly says, States have the authority over personal liberties.

Even more specifically in Federalist #41:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

As this clearly points out, the powers of the Federal Government to pass legislation are clearly enumerated and not general at all. In fact, James Madison makes it clear that you would have to be pretty clueless to believe that the general phrases in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution are not strictly bound by the specifics powers immediately following the general powers. There is no power given to Congress to end inequalities caused by the states, so they don't have the power to do so (unless an Amendment is passed to give the Federal Government such power).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 6:59:21 AM PST
Soulshine says:
So then the federal Defense of Marriage Act IS unconstitutional, right?

That's what the Supreme Court is going to consider.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:01:33 AM PST
Unless we change to constitution to ban gay marriage. But wait, the constitution can't change, can it? Or is it just the powers of the federal government part that has to stay exactly the same?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:02:43 AM PST
Soulshine says:
I'M SO CONFUSED!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:05:22 AM PST
Strict constitutionalists remind me of strict Biblical creationists that believe the world is 4,000 years old or whatever.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:11:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 7:14:16 AM PST
Anthony says:
the states pretty much gave up most of their power as soon as they became the whores of the federal government. they've become dependent on federal funding. and even before that the feds were taking more and more power away from the states. putting aside the moral issues involved, the civil war was a huge power grab on the part of the U.S. government.

my feelings towards states rights are somewhat mixed. on the one hand, it can sometimes infringe upon the freedoms of the citizens (the electoral college comes to mind), on the other, it helps at least somewhat in keeping the bloated federal government in line.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:14:29 AM PST
I don't disagree with this. What made me chuckle out loud when I was in Texas they were fixing every freaking road in Dallas. I asked my wife's uncle who is very much a "Texan" and he tells me it's because they got federal money to fix the roads and they either have to use it or it goes back to the feds. This is the state that "wants to secede" all the time. Yeah, I'd like to see that happen.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:15:36 AM PST
Nightmare says:
Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act IS unconstitutional. The states are the only ones that have the authority to make laws on this issue until an Amendment is passed saying otherwise.

"Unless we change to constitution to ban gay marriage. But wait, the constitution can't change, can it? Or is it just the powers of the federal government part that has to stay exactly the same?"

The Constitution, and thus the powers of the Federal Government, can change through the Amendment process. That's what it's there for.

"Strict constitutionalists remind me of strict Biblical creationists that believe the world is 4,000 years old or whatever."

If you don't hold the government accountable to what the Law of the Land says, then how can you defend yourself when the government breaks the law and violates your liberty? Either the Constitution is to be enforced or its not. If not, then the government can literally do anything it wants. The Founders clearly believed that the Federal Government should be held accountable to the Constitution's limits. In fact, doing so was intended to prevent tyranny. People never learn from history. Somehow everyone thinks that our government will be the one that doesn't become corrupt, because we live in America! That attitude is going to get us nowhere. However, adhering to the Constitution and its limits on central authority can help prevent the push towards bad government.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:16:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 7:17:25 AM PST
Nightmare says:
"the states pretty much gave up most of their power as soon as they became the whores of the federal government. they've become dependent on federal funding. and even before that the feds were taking more and more power away from the states. putting aside the moral issues involved, the civil war was a huge power grab on the part of the U.S. government."

I basically agree with this, although I still think the Constitution should be used to reign in the government as it was originally supposed to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:16:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 7:18:33 AM PST
Ice King says:
I think if you look into it you'll find that the people who claim to despise government handouts the most are the ones who also get the most from the government.

When they say "government waste" what they really mean is anything except for what they get.
They've all earned that money, and don't you dare try to take even a penny of it away.
Those other guys though? Screw those moochers, take it all.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:17:01 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
I saw a very interesting video about the threatened secession adn the amount of money these guys get, but I'll be damned if I rememebr any of it aside from "Alabama is so broke that they'll never secede."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:19:32 AM PST
I'm not disputing any of that, I'm specifically talking about gay marriage and about how the precedent of the federal government stepping in has been set, and it's okay. Nobody has had their rights violated, in fact it worked out great. There are certain issues which the masses just cannot be trusted to make the correct decision (such as civil rights). It's not something that can be done very often (I would say every 50 - 60 years or so) but for something so obviously wrong as segregation or the denial of rights to people due to sexual orientation, yeah, it's okay for the federal government to bust in.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:21:43 AM PST
I always wonder where people who want to "cut all the damn government spending" think that money goes? By definition one person's spending is another person's income. So cut the spending and put a bunch of people out of work? Great idea. Not to mention that government spending is way more efficient than tax cuts for stimulating the economy.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:25:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 7:26:28 AM PST
Ice King says:
That's the thing, they don't think. They want to eliminate all (or most) government jobs while cutting unemployment and welfare benefits.

So what they want to do is add a ton of people to the unemployment numbers but at the same time take away as many safety nets as they can. And they also want to keep homeless people out of their neighborhoods (to be fair, I think everyone wants that), but they think shelters are another waste of money.
I think part of that is they have this crazy notion that all people on welfare are living the high life, driving Cadillacs and eating lobster for every meal in their mansions.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:31:48 AM PST
Nightmare says:
My point is that if you allow the government to overstep their Constitutional bounds once, there is a precedent set that they can do it anytime they want. Regardless of whether or not you think it's for the best, it's still opening up the bag that the government can do what they want even if it's against the law.

But what makes your opinion about gay marriage the correct one? Why is it good the masses were trumped by the government?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:43:01 AM PST
Banner says:
I'm with you and ice king
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  527
Initial post:  Dec 7, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions