Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 138

Thread: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    What was the basis of the decision in this particular instance?
    I wonder what you will trigger when I answer?

    Anyway, they ruled it was a violation of the equal protection clause to not allow gay couples the "federal benefits" of marriage.

    Of course, the "federal benefits" are also unconstitutional.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray410 View Post
    All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.

    That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.
    Actually, it's an excellent victory when justice prevails over the tyranny of the masses.
    "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. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Actually, it's an excellent victory when justice prevails over the tyranny of the masses.
    Actually it doesn't even matter what the tyranny of the masses is doing. It matters what is and isn't constitutional. They got it right for the question they were asked. I would love to ask them another question though which would call for a different decision. I bet they would ignore that no such power exists and declare it falls under the welfare clause like they usually do for such questions.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I wonder what you will trigger when I answer?

    Anyway, they ruled it was a violation of the equal protection clause to not allow gay couples the "federal benefits" of marriage.

    Of course, the "federal benefits" are also unconstitutional.

    Wrong answer - try reading the decision and not just the news story

    we conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.
    Do you consider "equal protection" to be unconstitutional?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  5. #35
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Right, that still does not explain why you would NOT (left that out in version you quoted above) cheer this ruling.

    I think, you are PRETENDING to be libertarian to hold out for some nuclear option. It allows you to pretend to be in favor of marriage equality but not really support marriage equality. I have no idea what specific people you are claiming "liberals" deny the right to marry. But the state is not obligated to honor contracts it finds to impossible to enforce or that pervert justice. For instance, the state is not obligated to enforce a contract entered into under duress or where one party lacked the capacity to consent.

    A real libertarian supports equality before the law and extending that wherever possible. As long as the state is providing benefits it should provide them to all without regard to the contract participants gender, race, creed or other traits. The fact that they are providing benefits is not a valid reason to deny someone a FUNDAMENTAL right.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Wrong answer - try reading the decision and not just the news story



    Do you consider "equal protection" to be unconstitutional?
    How exactly was I wrong? I said it violated the equal protection clause. So I didn't say which part violated the equal protection clause. Big whoop. I still was not wrong.

    And yes I support equal protection, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my position.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by BayToBay View Post
    Right, that still does not explain why you would NOT (left that out in version you quoted above) cheer this ruling.
    Oh god dude, I went over that at least twice already.

    I think, you are PRETENDING to be libertarian to hold out for some nuclear option. It allows you to pretend to be in favor of marriage equality but not really support marriage equality. I have no idea what specific people you are claiming "liberals" deny the right to marry. But the state is not obligated to honor contracts it finds to impossible to enforce or that pervert justice. For instance, the state is not obligated to enforce a contract entered into under duress or where one party lacked the capacity to consent.
    I think you are trying your best to label me as a false libertarian and doing a piss poor job of doing it. I even made a point to say as long as they consent, but you clearly didn't even read that part or you are ignoring it so you can continue to say I'm not a real libertarian. Try reading, ok?

    A real libertarian supports equality before the law and extending that wherever possible. As long as the state is providing benefits it should provide them to all without regard to the contract participants gender, race, creed or other traits. The fact that they are providing benefits is not a valid reason to deny someone a FUNDAMENTAL right.
    The liberals find the "benefits" as rights. Do you? Btw, when I make it point to say I'm for the right to marry anyone you wish as long as they consent that is what I mean. Try to understand that.

  8. #38
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Oh god dude, I went over that at least twice already.
    You did not. If your position were sincere I would think you would cheer this decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I think you are trying your best to label me as a false libertarian and doing a piss poor job of doing it. I even made a point to say as long as they consent, but you clearly didn't even read that part or you are ignoring it so you can continue to say I'm not a real libertarian. Try reading, ok?

    The liberals find the "benefits" as rights. Do you? Btw, when I make it point to say I'm for the right to marry anyone you wish as long as they consent that is what I mean. Try to understand that.
    No, I was making a point about the fact that not all contracts have to be honored by the state. You have failed to give any specifics over to whom you believe "liberals" are denying the right of marriage.

    No, the benefits are not rights. That is not AT ALL what the courts have held. The right is "equal protection" or equality before the law. You have no right to any state provided benefits. You have a right to equal access to the benefit. The state can't give preference to one group and not the other unless the distinction serves a valid state interest. For instance, you cannot tax a black couple at one rate and mixed race couple at another.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by BayToBay View Post
    You did not. If your position were sincere I would think you would cheer this decision.
    I have already gave you my reasons for not cheering the decision and I promise you my position is sincere. Please though go about proving that it's not. Seriously, what complete bull**** to call me not a libertarian. You have zero proof that I'm not but you continue on like you do. Just stop it already.

    No, I was making a point about the fact that not all contracts have to be honored by the state.
    Yeah, by making it a point to bring up something I already said as if I didn't. Seriously, its a page or so back when I said "as long as all parties involved consent." Can you please read what I'm saying for a change?

    You have failed to give any specifics over to whom you believe "liberals" are denying the right of marriage.
    Polygamy for one. If all parties consent they should be allowed to marry. This is actually something they refuse to accept because they see it as wrong for someone to marry two or more partners. I personally don't care as long as all parties involved want to be involved. I know you won't like that example, but frankly I don't care. You asked for an example and there you go.

    No, the benefits are not rights. That is not AT ALL what the courts have held. The right is "equal protection" or equality before the law. You have no right to any state provided benefits. You have a right to equal access to the benefit. The state can't give preference to one group and not the other unless the distinction serves a valid state interest. For instance, you cannot tax a black couple at one rate and mixed race couple at another.
    What part of "liberals find the benefits as rights" did you not get? I didn't say they were rights or that the courts view them as such. You still are not reading.

  10. #40
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I have already gave you my reasons for not cheering the decision and I promise you my position is sincere. Please though go about proving that it's not. Seriously, what complete bull**** to call me not a libertarian. You have zero proof that I'm not but you continue on like you do. Just stop it already.
    Well, I still have not seen that reason or how you square it with a libertarian stance. This is a step in the right direction.

    I apologize for questioning your sincerity. I will try to refrain from doing that. I have become frustrated with libertarians who give lip service to civil liberties or who are really just embarassed Republicans. I should not assume that describes you.

    Yeah, by making it a point to bring up something I already said as if I didn't. Seriously, its a page or so back when I said "as long as all parties involved consent." Can you please read what I'm saying for a change?

    Polygamy for one. If all parties consent they should be allowed to marry. This is actually something they refuse to accept because they see it as wrong for someone to marry two or more partners. I personally don't care as long as all parties involved want to be involved. I know you won't like that example, but frankly I don't care. You asked for an example and there you go.
    Why wouldn't I like that one? I read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" too.

    I am not necessarily opposed to polygamy, but it is not equvialent to same sex marriage. The fact that there would be more than two parties to the marriage changes the nature of it and creates numerous complexities for the state in enforcing the contract. For instance, if one party out of five seeks a divorce does that end the marriage of the other four? How is inheritance determined? If one person becomes incapicated and the other parties disagree on care, how is that handled? In terms of access to Federal benefits, this is not just a matter of cultural bias but creates real issues in how the programs are administered and operated. These and other questions would likely require statutory remedy and therefore the courts cannot possibly intervene. I would support polygamy at the state level, but because of the issues I have noted, I might then support a DOMA law specifically dealing with polygamy.

    What part of "liberals find the benefits as rights" did you not get? I didn't say they were rights or that the courts view them as such. You still are not reading.
    So then you are questioning their sincerity? Okay, but that is certainly not a good reason to show disdain for the fact that innocent citizens are seeking and have received relief.

    It really does not matter whether they think they are rights or not. Congress can at anytime change or eliminate the benefits. It simply cannot give preference to certain classes of beneficiaries or deny them to others without a valid reason. I cannot imagine the courts would EVER interfere with Congressional authority in changing or eliminating benefits. There is no right to the benefits only a right of equal access to the benefits.

    Anyway, I welcome the decision. More freedom is better. The economic impact is insignificant and does no more damage to my liberty than does a heterosexual marriage if it does any damage at all.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •