Page 83 of 89 FirstFirst ... 33738182838485 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 884

Thread: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #821
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I would probably say I wouldn't have an issue in pricniple with a state voting on that thing. I also wouldn't have an issue, and would probably support, people bringing legal suit against it challenging it on the basis that even though age and "weight" are a lower teir category the government would still need to meet a certain burden of proof to justify the discrimination and I don't think it could show it.

    That said it'd matter a bit in regards to what the states constitutions state.
    Fair enough. The problem with putting everything to a "popular vote" really pre-empts why we have a legislative and judicial system however. Why not just do away with legislatures and put everything on a ballot then?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #822
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    No it wasn't. You responded that voters should be allowed to pass these ridiculous laws because otherwise we run the risk of a system that they don't agree with being foisted on them. I replied that this isn't true at all. What protects the electorate is the fact that we elect our representatives. Disagree with them? Vote them out, and the courts are there to ensure that the whim of the majority is not allowed to trample on the rights of the minority. You might call that "nonsensical" but it is what this country was based upon.
    My apologies, when you asked if voters should be able to pass this law, I was under the impression we were all adults that understand we operate under a representative republic.

    So my answer was that yes such laws should be allowed to pass.

    What you replied with is childish sophomorics dealing with us not being a direct democracy, which is learned in elementary school.

  3. #823
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The problem that gay marriage opponents have and will continue to have in these battles before the Court is they cannot come up with a legitimate governmental interest to justify the discrimination.
    Disney, there are a number of things that are absolutely arguable as legitimate state interests that can be argued with regards to marriage. Creating stable families, encouraging procreation, advocating monogramy in the population, better regulating ownership rights in joint couplings, and even for lack of a more eloquent explanation streamlining the aiblity to set a singular individual as your prime designee in most scenario's.

    While various people may disagree with how much of a legitimate state interest those things are, its just not accurate to suggest that there is an issue in coming up with any legitimate government interest the government has in regards to marriage. Indeed, it has been decided...through upholding the governments role in marriage to date...that the government DOES have legitimate interest in regulating marriage.

    Where the EPC comes into affect in terms of "gay marriage", and through use of the term you're clearly talking about the class "homosexuals" rather than gender, is not singularly whether or not there's a legitimate state interest at play in the particular instance but also whether or not discriminating against the class in question is "rationally related" to that interest.

    It is that rationally related portion of things where potential problem for those against it come to a headway. However, there's still a large question if even something as nebulous as maintaining a traditional culture is enough to qualify as "legitimate" but not "compelling" (Which would be what was needed in Loving).

    Considering that homosexuality, at this point, is a classification that falls under minimum scrutiny and the very broad leeway that it bestows upon judges in determining what "legitimate" and "raitonal" means, I don't believe the issue is nearly the slam dunk...when viewed from the mindset of "gay marriage"...as your opinion presents it.

  4. #824
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    No it wasn't. You responded that voters should be allowed to pass these ridiculous laws because otherwise we run the risk of a system that they don't agree with being foisted on them. I replied that this isn't true at all. What protects the electorate is the fact that we elect our representatives. Disagree with them? Vote them out, and the courts are there to ensure that the whim of the majority is not allowed to trample on the rights of the minority. You might call that "nonsensical" but it is what this country was based upon.
    Right, the courts are there to ensure that such doesn't happen. However, to do such...in part...the ocurts act after hte fact. Your question was not whether or not those laws would be upheld and remain in place. Your question was whether or not they should be allowed to be voted on.

  5. #825
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    He is playing to the base, and it could potentially be his downfall just like it has been for GWB, McCain, and Romney.

  6. #826
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    My apologies, when you asked if voters should be able to pass this law, I was under the impression we were all adults that understand we operate under a representative republic.

    So my answer was that yes such laws should be allowed to pass.

    What you replied with is childish sophomorics dealing with us not being a direct democracy, which is learned in elementary school.
    It seems to me that you are arguing around the point. The point being...yes...we are a representative republic. Why then should we put everything to a popular vote in a ballot initiative?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  7. #827
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    It seems to me that you are arguing around the point. The point being...yes...we are a representative republic. Why then should we put everything to a popular vote in a ballot initiative?
    Wow you are dense.

    You asked the question of if these laws should be allowed.

    My answer is yes, we should allow these kinds of laws.

    Right now we elect people to represent us, and those people should be able to make such laws. If we ever moved to a direct democracy, then they should be allowed to make such laws as well.

    If the people that ultimately are responsible for defending the government don’t like the government, then we have bigger problems.

  8. #828
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Due to the fact that the government does legally discriminate regarding gender in some cases (like selective service and drafting), I don't think it's right to say that defining marriage between a man and woman by the state (who legally issues the marriage license) is unconstitutional.
    What the ERA would've done would have made Gender on par with race/religion/etc. A Strict Scrutiny type of classification.

    The fact it didn't pass however doesn't mean that Gender discrimination can be done willy nilly by the government, nor even that it is a minimum scrutiny status. Constitutional Case law has shown that gender falls inbetween, in what is known as Middle-Teir Scrutiny, which has a higher level of requirements on the part of the state than the minimum tier but not as much as Strict.

    Much like I think Disney's own personal views on the matter is causing him to see the situation through rose colored glasses in regards to the potential for an argument on behalf of the state against homosexual marriage, I believe you're doing similar in regards to the chances it'd have in regards to gender. I think there's a fair shot, though not a slam dunk by any chance, that it could be found to be violating based on gender.

    I think it's a big stretch to say that homosexuality is protected under the EPC
    Again, you're trying to say something is a stretch that has already been established in case law. Various cases have essentially recognized Homosexuality as a minimum tier scrutiny classification at the very least. Inded, really, any classification falls under this minimum tier.

    It would be a massive overhaul and in my opinion a trampling upon state's rights (essentially forcing them and dictating what marriage is) for the SCOTUS to say that homosexuality is protected under the Constitution
    I disagree, I'd consider it very similar to when it was done in regards to Race.

  9. #829
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Disney, there are a number of things that are absolutely arguable as legitimate state interests that can be argued with regards to marriage. Creating stable families, encouraging procreation, advocating monogramy in the population, better regulating ownership rights in joint couplings, and even for lack of a more eloquent explanation streamlining the aiblity to set a singular individual as your prime designee in most scenario's.

    While various people may disagree with how much of a legitimate state interest those things are, its just not accurate to suggest that there is an issue in coming up with any legitimate government interest the government has in regards to marriage. Indeed, it has been decided...through upholding the governments role in marriage to date...that the government DOES have legitimate interest in regulating marriage.


    Same thing for
    Where the EPC comes into affect in terms of "gay marriage", and through use of the term you're clearly talking about the class "homosexuals" rather than gender, is not singularly whether or not there's a legitimate state interest at play in the particular instance but also whether or not discriminating against the class in question is "rationally related" to that interest.

    It is that rationally related portion of things where potential problem for those against it come to a headway. However, there's still a large question if even something as nebulous as maintaining a traditional culture is enough to qualify as "legitimate" but not "compelling" (Which would be what was needed in Loving).

    Considering that homosexuality, at this point, is a classification that falls under minimum scrutiny and the very broad leeway that it bestows upon judges in determining what "legitimate" and "raitonal" means, I don't believe the issue is nearly the slam dunk...when viewed from the mindset of "gay marriage"...as your opinion presents it.
    Whoa....wait there. How does discriminating against gay marriage create more stable families? I agree...THAT is a legitimate public interest, but gay marriage opponenents can't just spout off the interest, they have to be able to argue how a ban promotes that. Gay families are every bit as stable as straight ones. Eliminating gay marriage won't decrease the divorce rate in straight marriages.

    Same thing for "encouraging procreation" First off, I'm not sure that this is a legitimate governmental interest, but even accepting that it is, you would have to limit marriage to people who CAN and WILL procreate for that argument to advance.



    Advocating monogamy - gay marriage would HELP that I would argue. But even so. How does banning gay marriage promote monogamy?


    Therein lies the problems for opponents of gay marriage which is why many conservative scholars see this as a losing issue in the courts.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #830
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    Wow you are dense.

    You asked the question of if these laws should be allowed.

    My answer is yes, we should allow these kinds of laws.

    Right now we elect people to represent us, and those people should be able to make such laws. If we ever moved to a direct democracy, then they should be allowed to make such laws as well.

    If the people that ultimately are responsible for defending the government don’t like the government, then we have bigger problems.
    I think you need to go back and follow along in the discussion before you call ME dense. I think you missed the posts where we were talking specifically about these being VOTER laws not Legislative laws.

    Its ok though.....feel free to catch up and join in the conversation. I only ask that you do so appropriately.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 83 of 89 FirstFirst ... 33738182838485 ... 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
  •