Page 40 of 49 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #391
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    It would be nowhere near the confusion and embarrassment a child who was raised by you would feel.

    And that sir, is a FACT.
    Is that all you got? I raised 4 kids, My daughters son who is half Asian is 28 years old and is graduating at Arizona St in May with a PHD in Bio Chemistry. Oh and he has a 4.0 GPA.......That is my genes there.


    I don't know how you get away with the personal attacks but I am use to them
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  2. #392
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I totally disagree, at least the kid will know he had a mother and if its a divorce then maybe the mother might even be able to raise him and give him the thing a child needs to grow up. You can give examples of straight and gay couples raising children where things went bad but when its a straight family its a million to one against a kid going bad...........that is just and undenialable fact...........even you as a mother in your heart of hearts knows that there are intangibles that you give to your children that no man could ever give them. You are unique as a mother........I am sorry your liberal views won't allow you to admit that........Maybe someday when your older and wiser.
    Your "undeniable fact" is irrelevant NP. As I've posted a score of times over the past 5 years, all research shows that 2 same sex parents rear children just as well as two opposite sex parents. THIS is an undeniable fact. Now, I know you don't post evidence, but every time you say what you do, it comes from a position of personal opinion and bias, not one of fact.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #393
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Sorry I totally disagree, some kids never recover from being raised by 2 parents of the same sex. They are embarressed by it. teased abut it. I believe a lot of kids commit suicide because they can never adjust to the idea of same sex parents.......The kids have no clue of their own identity. I think a lesbian woman who has a child should be allowed to keep the child. I believe gay adoption should be a last resort and it only should be allowed to older children in their teens who understand the importance of having parents of the opposite sex.
    This is all completely absurd and AGAIN, nothing but your own biased opinion. It is inaccurate, irrelevant, and has all been disproved by research and facts. I like you, NP, but when you post such complete misinformation, I'm going to call you on it every time.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #394
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    How many states have voted for SSM? How many have it on the ballot in Nov.
    How does something become a Consttitutional Amendment? How much support does a Constitutional Amendment actually have compared to what it needs?

    And last I checked, the states are mainly republics. And at least two, if not three now, have made same sex marriage legal via the legislative process, not the courts.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #395
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I can document it by saying most of it is common sense. R U a mother? Are there things you bring to the table in raising your child that a man can not bring? Would they make a better mother then you? I seriously doubt it........I will be waiting for your answer.
    Your "common sense" fails NP. Research shows otherwise.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #396
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Here are two links, one on legitimate state interest -- State Interest -- and its rational basis test -- Rational Basis Test.

    The federal appeals court, when deciding constitutionality of a state statute, judges to determine if the state has a legitimate state interest in the matter, employing the rational basis test to aid in determination.

    CA's Prop 8 was passed by the voters to amend the state Constitution. Such amending, affecting state statutes, can indeed be brought about by legislative action or ballot initiative in CA.

    Reading these two links, it would seem on the surface that overturn on appeal all the way through the SCOTUS would be a slamdunk. There doesn't seem to be any rational reason why the state has a legitimate reason to deny the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to committed gay couples that would accrue to them from marriage.

    However, legitimate state interest is not the first criteria to be applied in such matters; it is the second.

    The first criteria is reasonable and customary subject applicablity. The reasonable and customary subject applicability test is used in law, science, etc., many disciplines, to determine if the matter at hand makes sense to examine further. This test keeps the court from wasting time on subsequent complex analysis that can occur deciding legitimate state interest when doing so would be substantively absurd.

    In Brown v. Board the question first posed is whether it is reasonable and customary that the subject of both White and Black children were applicable to school attendance.

    In Brown v. Board, it was thus first judged reasonable and customary from a subject applicability perspective that both White and Black kids attend school, in a classroom, with teachers, etc. Thus the matter qualified for the subsequent legitimate state interest test .. and it was found that the state did not have a legitimate state interest in witholding equal financial schooling support for Black kids that segregation caused. Thus, segregation was ended in the name of equal protection under the 14th Amendment, so that Black kids could have equal access to adequately funded and thereby quality schools.

    But in the Prop 8 matter, the court in dealing with the reasonable and customary subject applicability matter must test if "a man and a woman as husband and wife" applies to the word marriage (like "do White kids attend school" in the Brown v. Board case), and thus, conversely, if any other relationship applies to the word marriage (like "do Black kids attend school" in the Brown v. Board case).

    In the Brown v. Board case, the answer to both questions was yes, both White and Black kids attend school. Thus the case qualified to be further examined to see if the associated statutes needed to be overturned.

    But in the Prop 8 case, the word marriage, by definition, simply does not apply to anyone other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Thus because it fails the reasonable and customary subject applicability test, the case is to be rightly dropped at this point, and no further review for unconstitutionality is warranted.

    Indeed, the Prop 8 matter is analagous to saying "a dog is {accurate description of a dog}". Then when challenged that the correct description of dog will unconstitutionally exclude cats for the purpose of letting cats participate in dog shows, the first test is whether the definition of dog is accurate and if anything other than that description is a dog. If the first test succeeds and the second test fails, then the challenge is aborted, as further analysis is irrelevant.

    The legitimate state interest test is only applied if the issue at hand rationally warrants it as first determined by the reasonable and customary subject applicability test. In the Brown v. Board case it did; in the Prop 8 and dog-cat matters, it obviously doesn't.

    Indeed, it would be absurd to argue legitimate state interest in letting cat owners enter their cats in dog shows, as cats aren't dogs. Such analysis would be an absurd waste of time.

    And, likewise, it would be absurd to argue legitimate state interest in letting "a man and a man" or "a woman and a woman"get married, as neither are "a man and a woman", the only qualifiers for marriage.

    That is why, sometime in the late 1960s/early 1970s, gay leaders began bombarding the media with oxymoronic (and thus intrinsically false) phrases like "SSM", "same sex marriage", "gay marriage", and the like. The purpose of doing so was to effect a form of mind-control such that after a couple of generations a greater segment of the population would not only be more comfortable hearing these oxymoronic statements, but that a sufficient number of people would actually erroneously think that "marriage" means other than in addition to "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Though marriage never has and still doesn't, by definition, mean other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife", what's relevant now is whether the judges deciding Prop 8 and similar cases have been sufficiently, in effect, brainwashed into falsely thinking otherwise.

    If so, they will erroneously state that Prop 8 passes the reasonable and customary subject applicability test, and then an essentially absurd legitimate state interest test will most likely irrationally overturn Prop 8.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  7. #397
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This is all completely absurd and AGAIN, nothing but your own biased opinion. It is inaccurate, irrelevant, and has all been disproved by research and facts. I like you, NP, but when you post such complete misinformation, I'm going to call you on it every time.
    I ask you CC did your mother bring anything to the table that a gay man could not bring and I am not talking about a gay man pretending to be a mother.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  8. #398
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Your "common sense" fails NP. Research shows otherwise.
    Yeah bias research. Your dodging the question Redress. Do you as a mother bring anything to the table raising a child that a gay man can not bring?
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  9. #399
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Here are two links, one on legitimate state interest -- State Interest -- and its rational basis test -- Rational Basis Test.

    The federal appeals court, when deciding constitutionality of a state statute, judges to determine if the state has a legitimate state interest in the matter, employing the rational basis test to aid in determination.

    CA's Prop 8 was passed by the voters to amend the state Constitution. Such amending, affecting state statutes, can indeed be brought about by legislative action or ballot initiative in CA.

    Reading these two links, it would seem on the surface that overturn on appeal all the way through the SCOTUS would be a slamdunk. There doesn't seem to be any rational reason why the state has a legitimate reason to deny the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to committed gay couples that would accrue to them from marriage.

    However, legitimate state interest is not the first criteria to be applied in such matters; it is the second.

    The first criteria is reasonable and customary subject applicablity. The reasonable and customary subject applicability test is used in law, science, etc., many disciplines, to determine if the matter at hand makes sense to examine further. This test keeps the court from wasting time on subsequent complex analysis that can occur deciding legitimate state interest when doing so would be substantively absurd.

    In Brown v. Board the question first posed is whether it is reasonable and customary that the subject of both White and Black children were applicable to school attendance.

    In Brown v. Board, it was thus first judged reasonable and customary from a subject applicability perspective that both White and Black kids attend school, in a classroom, with teachers, etc. Thus the matter qualified for the subsequent legitimate state interest test .. and it was found that the state did not have a legitimate state interest in witholding equal financial schooling support for Black kids that segregation caused. Thus, segregation was ended in the name of equal protection under the 14th Amendment, so that Black kids could have equal access to adequately funded and thereby quality schools.

    But in the Prop 8 matter, the court in dealing with the reasonable and customary subject applicability matter must test if "a man and a woman as husband and wife" applies to the word marriage (like "do White kids attend school" in the Brown v. Board case), and thus, conversely, if any other relationship applies to the word marriage (like "do Black kids attend school" in the Brown v. Board case).

    In the Brown v. Board case, the answer to both questions was yes, both White and Black kids attend school. Thus the case qualified to be further examined to see if the associated statutes needed to be overturned.

    But in the Prop 8 case, the word marriage, by definition, simply does not apply to anyone other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Thus because it fails the reasonable and customary subject applicability test, the case is to be rightly dropped at this point, and no further review for unconstitutionality is warranted.

    Indeed, the Prop 8 matter is analagous to saying "a dog is {accurate description of a dog}". Then when challenged that the correct description of dog will unconstitutionally exclude cats for the purpose of letting cats participate in dog shows, the first test is whether the definition of dog is accurate and if anything other than that description is a dog. If the first test succeeds and the second test fails, then the challenge is aborted, as further analysis is irrelevant.

    The legitimate state interest test is only applied if the issue at hand rationally warrants it as first determined by the reasonable and customary subject applicability test. In the Brown v. Board case it did; in the Prop 8 and dog-cat matters, it obviously doesn't.

    Indeed, it would be absurd to argue legitimate state interest in letting cat owners enter their cats in dog shows, as cats aren't dogs. Such analysis would be an absurd waste of time.

    And, likewise, it would be absurd to argue legitimate state interest in letting "a man and a man" or "a woman and a woman"get married, as neither are "a man and a woman", the only qualifiers for marriage.

    That is why, sometime in the late 1960s/early 1970s, gay leaders began bombarding the media with oxymoronic (and thus intrinsically false) phrases like "SSM", "same sex marriage", "gay marriage", and the like. The purpose of doing so was to effect a form of mind-control such that after a couple of generations a greater segment of the population would not only be more comfortable hearing these oxymoronic statements, but that a sufficient number of people would actually erroneously think that "marriage" means other than in addition to "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Though marriage never has and still doesn't, by definition, mean other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife", what's relevant now is whether the judges deciding Prop 8 and similar cases have been sufficiently, in effect, brainwashed into falsely thinking otherwise.

    If so, they will erroneously state that Prop 8 passes the reasonable and customary subject applicability test, and then an essentially absurd legitimate state interest test will most likely irrationally overturn Prop 8.
    simple question, who's definition of marriage are YOU using? and whos definition will the courts use?

    I think you erroneously think your OPINION of that definition is the only/right one.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #400
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I ask you CC did your mother bring anything to the table that a gay man could not bring and I am not talking about a gay man pretending to be a mother.

    ask me, the answer is no she didnt. My mom is an awesome caring kind loving person and Id be less without her but none of those qualities are dependent on her being a women. They depend on her heart, mind and love for me

    Sorry time and time again it has been proven that a child does equally well with any two caring loving guardians. This fact doesn't need your acceptance because it will still be a fact with or without it.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 40 of 49 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •