Page 13 of 36 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 357

Thread: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Yes there is.
    No there is not...

    Individuals are NOT equal.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    No there is not...

    Individuals are NOT equal.
    I didn't say that, and neither did you for that matter. You said "there is no equality under the law" and now you're changing your argument because you got your foot in your mouth. But its quite clear that the 14th amendment gives people equal protection under the law.

    Tell me again about how the stars define our time zones here on Earth.

  3. #123
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    I believe that the argument for marriage benefit to the state as being one man, one woman, has been made many times over. It was recognized many times in arguments today before SCOTUS, that being that the state has a vested interest in regulating, and promoting, procreation.
    Banning same-sex marriage does not promote procreation. This fails the test of intermediate scrutiny.

    Also today, if you listened, the litigants admitted that CA already had laws such that same-sex civil unions had every benefit as a married couple. Except calling it a "marriage", and that the basis of their argument was that this "stigmatized" the civil union folks.
    It does stigmatize the civil union folks, and the benefits are never truly equal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._from_marriage
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    I believe that the argument for marriage benefit to the state as being one man, one woman, has been made many times over. It was recognized many times in arguments today before SCOTUS, that being that the state has a vested interest in regulating, and promoting, procreation.

    Also today, if you listened, the litigants admitted that CA already had laws such that same-sex civil unions had every benefit as a married couple. Except calling it a "marriage", and that the basis of their argument was that this "stigmatized" the civil union folks.
    And as was also said before the court, what about the elderly, infertile, or those in childless marriages? Why are these allowed if the argument against gay marriages is that they do not produce children, when these types of marriages do not either?

  5. #125
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Sorry there is no "equality" under law...
    Yeah, those niggers better get their asses back on the plantation!
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The right to marry someone of their choosing obviously,
    All due respect, that is not a "right". No one is denying them the opportunity to be with whomever they choose for as long as they choose, doing whatever they choose, within other constraints that apply to all (such as age of consent, etc.)

    the right to have the person they've identified as the love of their life receive the same benefits that anyone else would. You may not think of it as a right but when say for example a gay Soldier is killed or wounded in combat, the spousal benefits that would normally go to the spouse of a straight Soldier are not given to a gay one, likewise if they have children they are not given the same benefits either. Even if that Soldier is not killed in combat his spouse is still denied medical care from the military, on post housing, and all the other benefits hetro couples would enjoy.
    Yes, but this first assumes that marriage is a "right". That has not been determined. Further, as this was a CA case, CA Civil Unions already grant all those privileges to a same-sex union. As noted earlier, and established in Law, the government has a vested interest in promoting opposite sex marriage, in that it better regulates and promotes procreation.


    This is because the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and being Federal Law it applies to the US military, so even if this Soldier was legally married in his state to someone of the same sex the military does not recognize it.
    Which may make tomorrow's hearing all the more interesting.

    Some people, I don't know if this includes you, however view this as acceptable because if God forbid a male Soldier sees his husband in hospital or even on his deathbed then some how that will undermine the meaning of my marriage or the already trashed institution of it.
    I think there a broad difference between those who oppose SSM, and those who would also oppose just the creation of a civil union, or such as a power-of-attorney, that would allow a same-sex couple to have full visitation rights in case of hospitalization. There are plenty of ways for same-sex couples to obtain that privilege.

    Is that equal protection under the law? Is it equal protection that a man who in every aspect of his life treats another man as his spouse be denied the same rights and privileges as a man who treats a woman as his spouse?
    You are assuming that the institution of "Marriage" is a right, and are muddling it with "privileges". I do not yet see where anyone linked to a valid "equal protection" argument either. As we have a DOMA that has not been deemed Unconstitutional, and do not otherwise have a right for any two folks to get married, much less 3, there is no foundation for an "equal protection" case. Heck, 41 states currently do not allow SSM.

    What possible reason is there to not allow this, what do we as a society or as individuals gain from denying it? What benefit is there? Is it just because it makes some people uncomfortable because its against their personal values? Is that reason enough to deny someone all these privileges enjoyed by hetero couples? And what if the shoe was on the other foot, and someone was trying to take away something important to you because it was against their values? Would you still feel the same since they were in the majority?
    I reject your argument. First off, I see a law as needing an affirmative value, or in this case, as protecting a clear "Right". That has not been at all established with SSM. Your argument could otherwise be applied to polygamy.

    I also reject the "what if ... taking away something important to me" argument. That is to assume that I had something to begin with, and that it was now being legislated against.

  7. #127
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,541
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Other way around actually. They might rule that SSM opponents had no standing to file the SCOTUS case. This would leave the existing ruling in place - overturn of prop 8.

    And yes. They seem reluctant to set a nationwide precedent either way.
    I've seen it explained both ways, so I'm not sure what to think.

    And that's not even bothering with your slippery slope bestiality bull****. Animals can't sign legal contracts.
    I'm pretty sure that 10 years ago or so people would have held out same sex marriage as an example of a ridiculous, impossible slippery slope outcome.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    And as was also said before the court, what about the elderly, infertile, or those in childless marriages? Why are these allowed if the argument against gay marriages is that they do not produce children, when these types of marriages do not either?
    That was answered by Scalia, I believe. Again, the original basis for Marriage was to promote procreation and families. Old folks getting married still promotes that model. We call it "Grandparents", who still can naturally nurture their older kids and grandkids. "Fertility" is relative with advances in science. And perhaps most importantly, other case law indicates that it would be Unconstitutional to inquire, much less test for "fertility" as a prerequisite for issuing a marriage certificate.

    The fact remains that the State has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage.

    Further, the argument made is not "against gay marriage". The argument is as to why the State has a proper interest in establishing the Institution of Marriage as it has. That is a completely different argument than how you attempted to frame it.
    Last edited by Eighty Deuce; 03-26-13 at 08:07 PM.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Banning same-sex marriage does not promote procreation. This fails the test of intermediate scrutiny.
    If you note, and in words that I used earlier, it is in the states' interests to "promote and regulate". That is established legal basis.

  10. #130
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've seen it explained both ways, so I'm not sure what to think.
    If SCOTUS refuses to hear the case based on no standing to bring suit, it automatically means that the circuit appeals court ruling is the ruling, but it doesn't bind the other appeals courts to the same ruling, i.e. no precedent.

Page 13 of 36 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •