Page 28 of 36 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 357

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

  1. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Depends on what definition of marriage you are using. It has changed over time.
    No it has never changed over time. It has always meant man + woman. It has never been a societal norm for marriage to mean man + ? or woman + ?

    Because there are benefits to allowing SSM, and not allowing SSM is harmful. The state has no rational basis to not allow same sex couples to marry.
    Like what? Give examples

    Gay sex can't procreate. They don't spawn new taxpayers.

    Not even remotely the same thing.
    Yes it is. Not everyone gets what they want. There are traditions and clubs that exclude people because of specific criteria. If marriage is a "civil right" why do only gays get the right to change it's definition and marry who they love?

  2. #272
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Are you saying that gender differences are on the same playing field as race differences? I think that is a terrible correlation to make.
    They're on a slightly lower, but still high, playing field in terms of the law regardless of what he's trying to say.

    Since you said playing field....if Race is the Major Leagues, Gender is AAA Ball.

    Under the Equal Protection Clause there are essentially three teirs, with the lowest teir being split in two as well. Race is one of the classifications that falls in that upper teir and has very strict requirements in terms of governmental need and the laws impact. Gender is a second teir classification, that still has rather strict requirements but not quite on the level of race.

  3. #273
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    They are defined by their behavior
    Not at all. An abstinent man who never engages in physical activites with anyone, but who is attracted to other men and not to women, would be gay despite any "behavior" not being exhibited.

  4. #274
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Gay marriage has never been "banned"
    Yes it was. In California. Gay people could marry, and Prop 8 took that away.

    There never has been any such thing as gay marriage. It's never been a societal norm. Not even in Sparta where there was rampant homosexuality.
    Eleven countries and nine US states disagree.

    Gays don't have the right to change the definition of marriage at the exclusion of other sexual interest groups
    Oh now you are against exclusion, are you?
    Dude, you're the one taking the most exclusionary stance. You don't get to use this argument.

    Gay marriage has no social or economic value. It serves no purpose.
    Straight-up false. Marriage promotes stable family unions that benefit society, particularly regarding the raising of children. Children of same-sex couples do much better than single-parent households or foster care. And since when the hell does anybody have to justify the value of individual liberty to you?
    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.

  5. #275
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    No it has never changed over time. It has always meant man + woman. It has never been a societal norm for marriage to mean man + ? or woman + ?
    Wrong. Even in this country, polygamy for example was legal until the mid 19th century and the practice was not uncommon.


    Like what? Give examples

    Gay sex can't procreate. They don't spawn new taxpayers.
    About 1/3 of all lesbians and 1/4 of gay men have children, and that number is rising. 2 parent households are better for raising children than 1 parent households. Marriage tends to result in more stability and responsibility.


    Yes it is. Not everyone gets what they want. There are traditions and clubs that exclude people because of specific criteria. If marriage is a "civil right" why do only gays get the right to change it's definition and marry who they love?
    Traditions and clubs are not the US or state governments.
    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.

  6. #276
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    So what?

    Who are you to deny their right to marry who they want?
    Ahh, so the crux of your issue is that you foolishly believe the government doesn't have the ability to discriminate against people.

    It absolutely does, it just meet a certain amount of legal muster under the Equal Protection Clause. Essentially, depending on the basis of the discrimination....race, gender, age, religion, sexuality, etc...the government must meet certain requirements in terms of showing what it's interest is in the discrimination and why the discrimination is necessary to persue that interest.

    Gender is a middle tier category, and a strong argument can be made marriage laws currently discriminate based on gender. Arguments that can't be made for polygamy.

    Even going to sexuality, which is a lower teir, it would still be different to a point than polygamy as sexuality is considered classification qualifying for the more strict lower teir option of a "second order rational basis test". So EVEN if you presented the exact same arguments for polyamy as you do gay marriage, it could still legally result in a different ruling because the burden of responsability on the government is higher in one case than the other.

    Finally, that doesn't touch on the fact that htere are numerous issues with polygamy on top of the ones that it shares with same sex marriage, the least of which is the multitude of issues it causes with contract law.

  7. #277
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Thats true, in so much that heterosexuals have no right to refuse changing the definition at the exclusion of other sexual interest groups as well.

    No one really has a "right" to change or refuse to change a definition....though they do have a right to make their case one way or another, which is what's happening.
    So what gives gays the right to refuse a bisexual individual's right to change the definition of marriage is to fit what they want then?

    10 years ago the concept of gay marrying was inconceivable. Precedence matters. If people want to define what the definition of marriage is at a state level and vote on it, fine put it up for a vote. The Founders never would have conceived of gay marriage. It was alien to them. Throughout history, gay marriage has never been a societal norm. Sure you can find a snippet here or there, (someone actually used Nero with a straight face earlier) but the concept of 2 men marrying has never been thought of on the same relevant plane of existence as "marriage" as it's been known throughout the history of mankind. You know, where a man and a woman come together to procreate and raise a family. Their sexual organs serve a purpose when joined. Propagation of the species. Marriage is an institution that brings the opposite sexes together. It has economic and social value.

    Gay marriage is really about the destruction of the traditional family unit. It's one of the main objectives of cultural marxists.

  8. #278
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Ahh, so the crux of your issue is that you foolishly believe the government doesn't have the ability to discriminate against people.

    It absolutely does, it just meet a certain amount of legal muster under the Equal Protection Clause. Essentially, depending on the basis of the discrimination....race, gender, age, religion, sexuality, etc...the government must meet certain requirements in terms of showing what it's interest is in the discrimination and why the discrimination is necessary to persue that interest.

    Gender is a middle tier category, and a strong argument can be made marriage laws currently discriminate based on gender. Arguments that can't be made for polygamy.

    Even going to sexuality, which is a lower teir, it would still be different to a point than polygamy as sexuality is considered classification qualifying for the more strict lower teir option of a "second order rational basis test". So EVEN if you presented the exact same arguments for polyamy as you do gay marriage, it could still legally result in a different ruling because the burden of responsability on the government is higher in one case than the other.

    Finally, that doesn't touch on the fact that htere are numerous issues with polygamy on top of the ones that it shares with same sex marriage, the least of which is the multitude of issues it causes with contract law.
    The 14th amendment never applied to sexual behavior

    Trying to equate the two is racist

    What gives gays the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other special sexual interest group. Bisexuals want to marry who they love too. Groups of people want to marry. Sisters marrying brothers. Where does it stop? Why are only gays allowed to marry the same sex? That's not fair.

    Why can't the states vote and decide what they want the definition of marriage to be?

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by longknife View Post
    IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
    And that is what the real topic is, not ssm. Ssm is just the object, not the subject.

  10. #280
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Ahh, so the crux of your issue is that you foolishly believe the government doesn't have the ability to discriminate against people.

    It absolutely does, it just meet a certain amount of legal muster under the Equal Protection Clause. Essentially, depending on the basis of the discrimination....race, gender, age, religion, sexuality, etc...the government must meet certain requirements in terms of showing what it's interest is in the discrimination and why the discrimination is necessary to persue that interest.

    Gender is a middle tier category, and a strong argument can be made marriage laws currently discriminate based on gender. Arguments that can't be made for polygamy.

    Even going to sexuality, which is a lower teir, it would still be different to a point than polygamy as sexuality is considered classification qualifying for the more strict lower teir option of a "second order rational basis test". So EVEN if you presented the exact same arguments for polyamy as you do gay marriage, it could still legally result in a different ruling because the burden of responsability on the government is higher in one case than the other.

    Finally, that doesn't touch on the fact that htere are numerous issues with polygamy on top of the ones that it shares with same sex marriage, the least of which is the multitude of issues it causes with contract law.
    I have been really busy the last few days, and have not had a chance to read the whole of the arguments made yesterday and today, only summaries. However, it was my understanding that the justices did not seem sold on the gender discrimination argument. The two most likely outcomes of yesterdays arguments would be no standing/no decision, which would result in prop 8 being overturned but no real answer on any of the big issues. The most likely result of today's arguments would be ruling DOMA unconstitutional based on a states right to define marriage. However, I base that on reading summaries, mostly at SCOTUSBlog, so consider the source.
    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 28 of 36 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... 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
  •