Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

• gut

  Tiernan;1559382 wrote:Now there's video from 2009 of Phil telling 20 yr old men to marry 15 & 16 yr old girls. Phil is Phucked.

  Ummm, based on Isadore's quote he did not say that.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1559429 wrote:The 50 States.
  
  I am familiar with the Loving case's intervention into States administering of marriage, As we stand today States continue to define what a marriage is resulting in some States providing sanctioning of gay marriage while others do not.

  Beside the state initiatives, legislation and court decisions,
  The US Supreme Court decisions are beginning to chip away at it.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1559432 wrote:Beside the state initiatives, legislation and court decisions,
  The US Supreme Court decisions are beginning to chip away at it.

  
  Yeah, I think we've acknowledged that...and yet States are still able to define marriage. Chipping away doesn't mean States are forced to recognize or administer gay marriages.
• isadore

  gut;1559430 wrote:Ummm, based on Isadore's quote he did not say that.

  no Phil does not seem to be saying anything about the ages for the men. Just that by the time women are 20 they are golddiggers, He suggests 15 or 16 years old even if it is against state law.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1559436 wrote:Yeah, I think we've acknowledged that...and yet States are still able to define marriage. Chipping away doesn't mean States are forced to recognize or administer gay marriages.

  Its headed that way. See how the courts are interpreting law. Ohio and Utah decisions.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1559439 wrote:Its headed that way. See how the courts are interpreting law. Ohio and Utah decisions.

  Again, we've acknowledged that several times. We aren't there today, however. There are States deciding what they want marriage to be.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1559440 wrote:Again, we've acknowledged that several times. We aren't there today, however. There are States deciding what they want marriage to be.

  Is there some reason why you refer to yourself in the first person plural? Is it affectation or are you a group, partnership, union, possibly a marriage.
• gut

  isadore;1559438 wrote:no Phil does not seem to be saying anything about the ages for the men. Just that by the time women are 20 they are golddiggers, He suggests 15 or 16 years old even if it is against state law.

  Phil is just an old ignorant hick. He got married when his wife was 16 (interestingly enough, Phil was in fact 20 when they married, and would have been 18 and 14 when they started dating).
  
  He's just a believer in what worked for him, and apparently still trapped in the 60's that he thinks people should still get married by the time they are 20. And to say a a woman would be gold digging a 20-yr old is simply ridiculous (unless the guy is a trust fund baby).
• OSH

  

  Found this:
  

  According to Forbes magazine the show has generated $400 million in merchandise sales and $80 million in ad sales for the first nine months of this year.

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1559443 wrote:Is there some reason why you refer to yourself in the first person plural? Is it affectation or are you a group, partnership, union, possibly a marriage.

  
  ...for accuracy purposes. The people on this board have acknowledged that several times. We aren't there today. There are states deciding what they want marriage to be.
  
  How I am including myself in such an acknowledgement doesn't change the fact that the Loving case hasn't kept States from defining marriage how they want it.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1559547 wrote:...for accuracy purposes. The people on this board have acknowledged that several times. We aren't there today. There are states deciding what they want marriage to be.
  
  How I am including myself in such an acknowledgement doesn't change the fact that the Loving case hasn't kept States from defining marriage how they want it.

  But of course because of Loving Case we have that exception. They can not define it as only being between members of the same race. And many states would have continued to define it that way for long after the year of the decision, 1967. Some might still have been defining it that way today. So we have an example of the Federal Government changing how states define who can marry. In the Loving decision we also have the statement that the right to marry is a basic right. That of course has ramifications for the present situation.
• isadore

  gut;1559494 wrote:Phil is just an old ignorant hick. He got married when his wife was 16 (interestingly enough, Phil was in fact 20 when they married, and would have been 18 and 14 when they started dating).
  
  He's just a believer in what worked for him, and apparently still trapped in the 60's that he thinks people should still get married by the time they are 20. And to say a a woman would be gold digging a 20-yr old is simply ridiculous (unless the guy is a trust fund baby).

  and looked upon as a role model by so many.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1559603 wrote:But of course because of Loving Case we have that exception. They can not define it as only being between members of the same race. And many states would have continued to define it that way for long after the year of the decision, 1967. Some might still have been defining it that way today. So we have an example of the Federal Government changing how states define who can marry. In the Loving decision we also have the statement that the right to marry is a basic right. That of course has ramifications for the present situation.

  ...and yet the Loving case hasn't kept States form defining marriages as they see fit to exclude homosexuals.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1559704 wrote:...and yet the Loving case hasn't kept States form defining marriages as they see fit to exclude homosexuals.

  precedent set by Loving
  17 states down
  and the Federal Courts chipping away.
• Con_Alma

  ...and yet we aren't there yet. The vast majority of States continue to define marriage how they want and exclude homosexuals.
  
  It's only been some 46 years now.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1559775 wrote:...and yet we aren't there yet. The vast majority of States continue to define marriage how they want and exclude homosexuals.
  
  It's only been some 46 years now.

  I'd argue the more telling date is 2004, when the first of the 18 states made gay marriage legal. Ten years. Ten years from now you'll be able to count the stragglers on one hand, if they exist at all.
• thavoice

  Con_Alma;1559775 wrote:...and yet we aren't there yet. The vast majority of States continue to define marriage how they want and exclude homosexuals.
  
  It's only been some 46 years now.

  Uh. No. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A homo can still marry someone of the opposite sex.
• queencitybuckeye

  thavoice;1559783 wrote:Uh. No. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

  Says who?
• rmolin73

  

  thavoice;1559783 wrote:Uh. No. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A homo can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

  Your bigotry is beaming.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1559780 wrote:I'd argue the more telling date is 2004, when the first of the 18 states made gay marriage legal. Ten years. Ten years from now you'll be able to count the stragglers on one hand, if they exist at all.

  
  ...and I'd accept your arguement but when Isadore claims the impact of the Loving case is significant as it relates to Gay marriage I tend to disagree.
  
  I don't think you'll find an argument by me that there will be any State with legalized gay marriage in the short term future. I'd suggest the travesty is that there's a requirement by the State of Ohio that heterosexuals are required to obtain their permission.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1559787 wrote:Says who?

  
  ...right now....the State of Ohio .
• Con_Alma

  thavoice;1559783 wrote:Uh. No. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A homo can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

  
  Tell me how that is in opposition to what I posted and you responded "no" to.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1559793 wrote:...and I'd accept your arguement but when Isadore claims the impact of the Loving case is significant as it relates to Gay marriage I tend to disagree.
  
  I don't think you'll find an argument by me that there will be any State with legalized gay marriage in the short term future. I'd suggest the travesty is that there's a requirement by the State of Ohio that heterosexuals are required to obtain their permission.

  The only significance to the Loving case is the parallel that a case as yet unknown may well be the death knell of this bastion of bigotry for the couple of remaining holdouts.
• Con_Alma

  It's the only one for sure. The focus is in the wrong direction. The pressure shouldn't be to force the State to grant permission for homosexuals to marry but rather the not require permission for heterosexuals to enter into such a contract.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1559793 wrote:...and I'd accept your arguement but when Isadore claims the impact of the Loving case is significant as it relates to Gay marriage I tend to disagree.
  
  I don't think you'll find an argument by me that there will be any State with legalized gay marriage in the short term future. I'd suggest the travesty is that there's a requirement by the State of Ohio that heterosexuals are required to obtain their permission.

  Loving is helping chip away
  
  A key tell in the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision
  By Greg Sargent
  Gay rights attorneys are closely scrutinizing
  today’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act for clues on how the court might rule on future challenges to state laws barring gay marriage. And they think they’ve found a key tell that’s grounds for real optimism.
  Buried in the decision is a reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court struck down a state law against interracial marriage as unconstitutional. To gay advocates, the reference looks as if it could signal a readiness on the Court’s part to do the same to state laws banning gay marriage.
  The reference to interracial marriage comes in a section where the majority opinion is discussing the validity of federal intervention in the traditional authority states have had over marriage. It says:
  In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has log been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 416 U.S. 393, 404 (1975).
  Gay rights lawyers see this seemingly subtle reference as potentially having far reaching significance. That’s because they have long cited Loving v. Virginia, a landmark civil rights case, as a key precedent for striking down Prop 8, the California law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
  Today the Court declined to take a position on Prop 8, invoking standing issues. And it didn’t directly address the question of whether states could or couldn’t continue to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples. It didn’t declare a constitutional right to marriage.
  But today’s DOMA decision made an expansive case against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and more specifically, the citation of Loving v. Virginia could be an encouraging signal. The court explicitly cited the decision in Loving v. Virginia as the standard by which we should judge whether state laws defining marriage respect the constitutional rights of the individual. That, advocates believe, is a hint that the Court may be prepared to hold other state laws to the same standard.
  The fact that the Court specifically noted that federal constitutional provisions trump state law if they violate the rights of citizens — and cited Loving v. Virginia in the process — is significant,” Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, tells me. ”We have contended all along that Loving requires restrictions on same sex marriage to be struck down for the same reasons. This plants a seed for the future.”
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/26/a-key-tell-in-the-supreme-courts-doma-decision/