Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 253

Thread: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

  1. #131
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,356

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Some do, but it is not a clean sweep. The questions is going to be, at least in part, what level of scrutiny this discimination should be subject to. It is not race based so that comparison is out.
    I would assume gender, since it applies.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  2. #132
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,119

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    See? What we always suspected, you're trying to make girls out of us.
    She'd be completely turned on by that...


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #133
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,496

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Some do, but it is not a clean sweep. The questions is going to be, at least in part, what level of scrutiny this discimination should be subject to. It is not race based so that comparison is out.
    Correct, which is why I've said throughout this thread that arguing on the basis of discriminating against homosexuality is the weaker way to go, because unlike race or sex, homosexuality is NOT a suspect class, and strict scrutiny does not apply.

    It also shoots the applicability of Loving in the foot. This is the ruling from Loving:

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival . . .To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
    The "supportability" test as outlined here is on far more solid ground if it's about sex-based discrimination; not so much about discrimination against homosexuality, because you have to, as I said earlier, make the argument that sexuality and romantic love are part and parcel of marriage. Among other things.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #134
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    A black person could not marry a white person, just as a white person could not marry a black. No difference, yet the ruling was based on the 14th amenement. Do you even read about what you comment on?
    LOL Dude, really? What you said was exactly the same thing. A person that cannot marry another person based on the color of their skin is the same thing. If a black person marries a white person, it is the same thing as a white person marrying a black person. In other words, one of the two would be white and the other black.

    Women and men of any color can still marry anyone of the opposite sex and of any color, however neither party can marry anyone of the same gender, regardless of their color. See the distinction, Redress? Again I ask you to point out the distinguishing characteristics that lead you to believe that there is gender discrimination going on here? However, you're not allowed to reference sexuality as sexuality is NOT a suspect class.

    Begin..


    Tim-0
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #135
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,356

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    LOL Dude, really? What you said was exactly the same thing. A person that cannot marry another person based on the color of their skin is the same thing. If a black person marries a white person, it is the same thing as a white person marrying a black person. In other words, one of the two would be white and the other black.

    Women and men of any color can still marry anyone of the opposite sex and of any color, however neither party can marry anyone of the same gender, regardless of their color. See the distinction, Redress? Again I ask you to point out the distinguishing characteristics that lead you to believe that there is gender discrimination going on here? However, you're not allowed to reference sexuality as sexuality is NOT a suspect class.

    Begin..


    Tim-0
    Reading comprehension is your friend, I suggest becoming better acquainted.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  6. #136
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,264
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Correct, which is why I've said throughout this thread that arguing on the basis of discriminating against homosexuality is the weaker way to go, because unlike race or sex, homosexuality is NOT a suspect class, and strict scrutiny does not apply.
    Once again this has nothing to do with the DOMA ruling. Whether strict scrutiny applies is open to debate, but the rulings so far agree that it fails even under rational basis review.

    It also shoots the applicability of Loving in the foot. This is the ruling from Loving:



    The "supportability" test as outlined here is on far more solid ground if it's about sex-based discrimination; not so much about discrimination against homosexuality, because you have to, as I said earlier, make the argument that sexuality and romantic love are part and parcel of marriage. Among other things.
    That is not the part of Loving that will be referenced.
    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.

  7. #137
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,496

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Once again this has nothing to do with the DOMA ruling.
    YourStar was talking about SSM rulings, not just DOMA, and you replied to her. I was also talking about SSM rulings and not just DOMA.


    That is not the part of Loving that will be referenced.
    Which part will be "referenced"? That's the ruling.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #138
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Um, no it works exactly that way. If two people, one black, and the other white, were not allowed to jaywalk, that is constitutional, however, if the black guy was and the white guy not, then that would be unconstitutional based on the 14th and due process. If two people, one a woman, and one a man, were allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex that would be constitutional, however, if only a man could marry a man, and a woman, and the woman only allowed to marry a man, then that would have distinguishable characteristics and manifestly unfair, and would violate the 14th Amendment.Tim-
    The language in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case addressed restrictions on one's marriage partner. Judge Walker pointed out that in the past one could not choose a marriage partner of another race in many states. He suggested that one's being denied the chance to choose a marriage partner of the wrong [in this case same] gender is equally incompatible with the principle of due process. Whether one is dealing with race restrictions on one's marriage partner or gender restrictions, the restrictions are a violation of the due process clause. I believe that was his point and I suspect that it is Redress's point, too, when referencing gender discrimination. Of course, if I misunderstand her point, Redress can correct me.

  9. #139
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,264
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Which part will be "referenced"? That's the ruling.
    That marriage is a fundamental right.

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State
    Further, the references to the 14th amendment mean that it is applicable. No one is claiming that the cases are identical, but every case so far has referenced Loving v Virginia for a reason.
    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.

  10. #140
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,264
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The language in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case addressed restrictions on one's marriage partner. Judge Walker pointed out that in the past one could not choose a marriage partner of another race in many states. He suggested that one's being denied the chance to choose a marriage partner of the wrong [in this case same] gender is equally incompatible with the principle of due process. Whether one is dealing with race restrictions on one's marriage partner or gender restrictions, the restrictions are a violation of the due process clause. I believe that was his point and I suspect that it is Redress's point, too, when referencing gender discrimination. Of course, if I misunderstand her point, Redress can correct me.
    Yeah. Walker stated that California had eliminated all gender roles from marriage. Both partners are obligated exactly the same under California law. Therefore restricting the gender one can marry serves no purpose.
    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.

Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •