Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 253

Thread: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

  1. #231
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    it's not. The founder's certainly didn't need government's permission to get married. But government usurped the power with the Marriage License.
    I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #232
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business.
    I would say it's the proper solution, but good luck on that front. Government rarely gives back power it's stolen.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #233
    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: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    So what? Neither does Heredity, a Professional Relationship, or a Platonic Friendship.
    What the hell does heredity have to do with marriage? People in either a professional relationship or platonic friendship can legally get married, as long as they are of the opposite sex at the moment so you didn't make any argument here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Again, your reasoning makes no sense. Policy need not perfectly align with a state interest, and almost never does. I have said this many times.

    More examples of such reasoning:
    • There is no obligation to demonstrate that you have achieved sufficient maturity to vote at 18, therefore maturity cannot truly be a consideration in who should be allowed to vote. Open it up to all.
    • There is no obligation to demonstrate that you are unable to afford a higher tax rate simply because your level of income is low for a given year, therefore income cannot truly be a consideration as to what your tax rate should be. Do away with progressive taxes.
    Yes, it does when it comes to denying a right based solely on a condition that is not going to change and is can be shown to have no demonstrable affect on the person's ability to fulfill the conditions of the contract, in and of itself.

    You keep trying to relate two entirely different things. Age is something that changes and the rights associated with age limitations are not being completely denied, but rather postponed. The only thing keeping the people involved in this conversation from being able to legally enter into the contract with a person they want to enter into it with is their relative sexes, which could never prevent them from being able to fulfill the obligations/responsibilities of the contract in and of itself.
    "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.

  4. #234
    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: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    What insistence?? I believe you were the one that started the discussion on procreation. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've made a single "procreation is a valid state interest" claim - I certainly haven't "insisted" it. For the most part, I've tried to stay neutral w/r to a particular state interest.
    Then why are you arguing with me then based on a state's interest not needing to be all-inclusive? What do you believe the state's interest in legal marriage is? How is it furthered by not allowing same sex couples the legal right to marriage?

    These are questions the SCOTUS will ask because this is what will determine the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. The state interest must be important enough to justify a ban based on sex and the state must be able to show why the ban actually does further that interest, this would include why the state would not include others who would also be in similar situations but who are not banned from the activity.

    And procreation is the reason that many states try to use as a defense for same sex marriage bans. The tradition defense has long ago been deemed not enough by the courts. Religion can't possibly stand up since it would be a violation of our laws to make law taking away a person's right due to another's religious beliefs. Majority vote cannot be a reason either because that is the very reason we have the Constitution, to protect individual's from having their rights denied by majority votes.

    If the states with same sex marriage bans actually did deny marriage to everyone who could not procreate or didn't want to procreate with their chosen partner, with no regard to the sex of those involved, the bans would actually most likely hold up constitutionally. Many would not like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it would specifically show that the state felt that they had a legitimate interest in encouraging marriage only for procreation and were doing what they felt would actually achieve that interest.
    "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. #235
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, I'm betting that the child wouldn't care one way or another as long as he/she has loving, good parents.
    That sort of sentiment is fairly rare, according to the data. The vast majority of adoptees express interest in learning about their genetic heritage and/or birth parents. The number who express a desire to be found by their birth parents is as high as 95%+. The proportion of birth mothers who want to be reunited with their son/daughter may also be in that range.
    Powerful stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Plus, some parents could use their own genetic material but would prefer not to because of the large possibility that their genetic material could pass some unwanted condition that could cause major concerns or even be fatal.
    Well, again - it's a "next best thing." Ideally they'd wish they could use their own genetic material without the chance of passing some unwanted condition.

  6. #236
    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: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    That sort of sentiment is fairly rare, according to the data. The vast majority of adoptees express interest in learning about their genetic heritage and/or birth parents. The number who express a desire to be found by their birth parents is as high as 95%+. The proportion of birth mothers who want to be reunited with their son/daughter may also be in that range.
    Powerful stuff.
    And if their birth parents are dead?

    People want to know things, but that doesn't mean that they would trade the parents that raised them for their bio parents just because they share genetics. How many of those who want to know their parents actually feel their bio parents are more important to them than those parents who raised them? Genetics only go so far. Many people who have deadbeat dads as sperm donors only. And many people who were raised by horrible parents probably have wished for better parents that would give them a better life, without any regard to genetics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Well, again - it's a "next best thing." Ideally they'd wish they could use their own genetic material without the chance of passing some unwanted condition.
    Okay, how does this have anything to do with same sex couples or their raising children? They would be no different than other couples who cannot pass on the genetics of both parents to their children. And the children would likely not have any information on who their bio parent/parents are.

    What is your problem with people trying to raise children together?

    Biology doesn't make a good parent, love and willingness and attention and teaching and many other things are much more important.
    "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.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I would say it's the proper solution, but good luck on that front. Government rarely gives back power it's stolen.
    What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.

    Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?

  8. #238
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.

    Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?
    No, it's nto as convienent. And that's largely the issue. Fix that, and no one needs a state sanctioned marriage.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #239
    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: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.

    Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?
    This is a false argument. The same basic legal protections cannot be gained with a non-marital relationship contract.

    And even if they could, no one should have to go through more work or spend more money to obtain the same exact legal protections based solely on their sex.
    "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.

  10. #240
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    What the hell does heredity have to do with marriage?
    Nothing, really. That was the point. When it comes to marriage your view seems to be that heredity, sex, whether the pair are just friends, whether they barely know each other at all... none of that really matters in your view, correct? Because none of these factors affect a person's ability to fulfill their obligations:

    Sex in no way affects a person's ability to fulfill any of the obligations/responsibilities of the legal marriage contract. I have said this many times.
    I'm just trying to understand your position better. Limiting the scope to pairs of individuals, is there any relationship (other than kids or others who lack the intellectual maturity to enter into such a relationship) where you draw the line and say "we shouldn't allow those two to get married"?

    If so, why? What's the state interest?

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 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
  •