Page 15 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 253

Thread: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

  1. #141
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    So do title 9 (separte but equal?), different age limits for taxation, voting, drinking & 2nd amemdment rights and affirmative action (race based preference?) laws. A lot of unequal treatment exists in law yet has been held constituional.
    Jeezus @#@#$@# christ...for the upteenth time, folks: affirmative action is not "race" preference. It encompasses voluntary, systematic efforts to recruit, retain, and promote QUALIFIED candidates who are women, people of color, or both...and under no circumstance does AA mandate specifically hiring X # of women or people of color to a given position or with a particular employer. The only time such a requirement is imposed by law is AFTER a plaintiff or plaintiffs successfully carry an anti discrimination lawsuit against an employer (meaning the employer in question has been shown, in a court of law, to have engaged in racist or sexist discrimination in hiring and promotion of employees).

    Affirmative action policies (here in the U.S.) are aimed disproportionately at alleviating discrimination against women and people of color because (on their respective axes of treatment), they are the ones actually subjected to sexist and racist discrimination. In a dramatically different political context, the already-existent affirmative action policies in place would apply just as well to "white" people and to men, if (by some profound shift) people in either group found themselves the routine targets of discrimination.

    Facts matter.

    As usual, practically all opposition to AA boils down to one or more of the following:

    • willful ignorance: holding on to a grossly incorrect (mis)understanding of AA despite ready access to corrective information (this is, by far, the most common basis of opposition);
    • opposition to substantive equality: what the antiracist scholar Eduardo Bonilla-Silva identifies as "abstract liberalism," in which rhetorical support for equal rights and equal treatment under the law is voiced, but any attempts to actually implement policies based upon achieving equal rights and treatment is opposed;
    • plain opposition to political and legal equality: a relative handful of people both accurately understand AA and yet still oppose it, because they oppose political and legal equality generally.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  2. #142
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    How is it not obvious?

    There are some who insist the rulings have not been based on discrimination against homosexuality, but on sex-based discrimination against those who wish to marry the same gender.

    I'm pointing out that they're wrong.

    Do you disagree?
    Why cant it be discrimination on both sex and homosexuality?

  3. #143
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,884

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    That marriage is a fundamental right.
    No one argues it isn't. It pretty much doesn't even matter; it's that race-based discrimination was found to be a "unsupportable" restriction of that right.

    Which, of course, implies that there are or could be supportable restrictions. And of course, there ARE. Number and consanguinity to name two.

    In other words, it's not enough just to say "marriage is a fundamental right." If that's all you need, then indeed, bans based on number and incest are just as invalid.

    And when it comes to marriage, it's perfectly possible to look at gender as being a supportable restriction. It is not the same thing as a ban based on race, considering the subject matter.

    These are all factors in the argument.


    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.
    It doesn't mean they will ultimately prevail on their reasoning -- and they are, as I have said several times now, taking the weaker track.
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

  4. #144
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    06-16-18 @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,964

    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.
    I understood her point, however race notwithstanding, there are no distinguishing characteristics between men and women both being barred from marriage between either's same sex. In other words, both black men and white men, and black women, and white women are equally barred from marrying anyone of the same sex. In short, Walker took a perceived gender disrimination as tantamount to race discrimination. It is not the same because all races are barred from entering into same sex marriages. Black men, and white women can still procreate naturally, sharing both's biological identities with their offspring, and we can argue ad infinitum about the advantages of that course for society, however, the point I was essentially trying to make is that, people as a designation of their role in society have a right to direct said society if the state (the people) has no vested interest in denying the designation, UNLESS, there is a manifest inequity present.

    I suppose the SCOTUS will ultimately decide, but the Supremes have already decided this point in 2006 as denying to hear the appeal based on "These claims simply did not present hard questions"..Recognizing that there is no inequity in law.


    Tim-
    “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. #145
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,884

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Omgitsme View Post
    Why cant it be discrimination on both sex and homosexuality?
    "Why" doesn't matter; it's simply not what the rulings have been based on. They've been based on discrimination against homosexuality, not sex.

    You can argue what they should be based on. You can argue what they could have been based on. But it doesn't change what they actually were based on.
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

  6. #146
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    94,869
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No one argues it isn't. It pretty much doesn't even matter; it's that race-based discrimination was found to be a "unsupportable" restriction of that right.

    Which, of course, implies that there are or could be supportable restrictions. And of course, there ARE. Number and consanguinity to name two.

    In other words, it's not enough just to say "marriage is a fundamental right." If that's all you need, then indeed, bans based on number and incest are just as invalid.

    And when it comes to marriage, it's perfectly possible to look at gender as being a supportable restriction. It is not the same thing as a ban based on race, considering the subject matter.

    These are all factors in the argument.
    That is wrong in almost every way. Loving is about race based restrictions, so of course that is what is referenced. However, the 14th, which the ruled to be aplicable, covers more ground.

    We have already covererd level of scrutiny. No one is claiming that just because it is a fundamental right it must be protected in every case.

    The courts disagree with you that gender is a supportable restriction.

    It doesn't mean they will ultimately prevail on their reasoning -- and they are, as I have said several times now, taking the weaker track.
    It is one track, and not neccessarily weaker. Those who have actual knowledge of the legal cases disgree with you. However, it is one of several areas that are part of the overal rulings.
    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
    I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

  7. #147
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,884

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    That is wrong in almost every way. Loving is about race based restrictions, so of course that is what is referenced. However, the 14th, which the ruled to be aplicable, covers more ground.

    We have already covererd level of scrutiny. No one is claiming that just because it is a fundamental right it must be protected in every case.
    It is wrong in no way. You certainly don't show how it's wrong here, and in fact, in the bolded part, you agree with me.


    The courts disagree with you that gender is a supportable restriction.
    For most things, yes, but considering the very unique nature of marriage, which is unlike any other fundamental right, it very well could be. And I'll point out again -- no "ban" on SSM has been struck down on the basis of gender discrimination, and in fact, Perry v. Schwarz specifically declines to.


    It is one track, and not neccessarily weaker.
    It is absolutely weaker, and I've already explained why.


    Those who have actual knowledge of the legal cases disgree with you.
    Nice disguised insult, but I do have actual knowledge of the cases, and certainly, as I showed, better than yours.


    However, it is one of several areas that are part of the overal rulings.
    It's not just "one area," it is the primary basis for the rulings.
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

  8. #148
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    For those interested in reading Perry v. Schwarzenneger (the ruling against California's Proposition 8), that ruling can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/201...r-Decision.pdf

  9. #149
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    39,530

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Your post is not clearly thought out. On one hand, you bring race into the mix, but the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, clearly state that we ALL are born with INALIENABLE rights. The Government has no right whatsoever to pick and choose who gets them and who does not.
    We are born with SOME rights others depend on attaining a certain age, income level, deciding to marry (or not), being of a specific race or gender. Is taxing a citizen under the voting age equal protection if they may not yet vote (or is it taxation wthout representation)? Is taxing my income at 25%, but another's at 10% equal? Is gving one free food benefits yet not another equal? Is taxing the married at a different rate than the single equal? Is giving gov't contract preference to a business based on the owner's race equal? Is having different physical standards based on gender/age equal? Is requiring equal sports positions made available based on gender legal, when no such racial quotas exist? Is allowing IN to require state issued photot IDs to vote, yet denying that in TX equal? Is setting different minimum pay scales for gov't contract work in each county equal?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #150
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    39,530

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    Jeezus @#@#$@# christ...for the upteenth time, folks: affirmative action is not "race" preference. It encompasses voluntary, systematic efforts to recruit, retain, and promote QUALIFIED candidates who are women, people of color, or both...and under no circumstance does AA mandate specifically hiring X # of women or people of color to a given position or with a particular employer. The only time such a requirement is imposed by law is AFTER a plaintiff or plaintiffs successfully carry an anti discrimination lawsuit against an employer (meaning the employer in question has been shown, in a court of law, to have engaged in racist or sexist discrimination in hiring and promotion of employees).

    Affirmative action policies (here in the U.S.) are aimed disproportionately at alleviating discrimination against women and people of color because (on their respective axes of treatment), they are the ones actually subjected to sexist and racist discrimination. In a dramatically different political context, the already-existent affirmative action policies in place would apply just as well to "white" people and to men, if (by some profound shift) people in either group found themselves the routine targets of discrimination.

    Facts matter.

    As usual, practically all opposition to AA boils down to one or more of the following:

    • willful ignorance: holding on to a grossly incorrect (mis)understanding of AA despite ready access to corrective information (this is, by far, the most common basis of opposition);
    • opposition to substantive equality: what the antiracist scholar Eduardo Bonilla-Silva identifies as "abstract liberalism," in which rhetorical support for equal rights and equal treatment under the law is voiced, but any attempts to actually implement policies based upon achieving equal rights and treatment is opposed;
    • plain opposition to political and legal equality: a relative handful of people both accurately understand AA and yet still oppose it, because they oppose political and legal equality generally.
    Quite a load there. Whether noble or voluntary, if a state college allocates admission based not only on merit but uses a racial/ethnic preference then it CREARLY results in greater or equally qualified studends NOT getting accepted based on only being of the majority racial or ethnic group, that is NOT EQUAL PROTECTION. Just beacuse something is voluntary or seems right does not make it so UNLESS, as you said, there is a court order to do so. To assert that voluntary reverse discrimination is a price that morally (not by court order) "must be paid" ignores reality by attempting to fix 150 years of difference in 15, and using your argument to show 'qualified' has also caused the 'qualifications' to be drastically altered (usually simply reduced, but called "fair") to assure that a predetermined outcome (proportional representaion by race) will, in fact, occur.

    You obviously don't care about the rest of the 'unequal' examples I gave, as they are also seen as "fair", just as having "separate but unequal" (fair?) physical standards for the EXACT same military position and pay for males and females. Sometimes we are now told the we must accept "fair" as being (morally equivalent to) "equal", even when truely not the case.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 05-31-12 at 07:10 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 15 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •