Page 37 of 159 FirstFirst ... 2735363738394787137 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #361
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Unless it is written into the contract or the laws governing the contract, it is not a legal requirement of the contract. So your assertion that one of the agreements the couple makes with the state in getting married is "a productive home and more little taxpayers" is legally not supported. In fact, given laws that say that certain couples can only marry if they cannot make "more little taxpayers", it goes to prove that you are trying to insert only your opinion into the marriage laws instead of what marriage laws are really about. The laws are about mainly protecting each spouse from each other and from others outside the relation that have some legal claim to kinship to either spouse, in exchange the couple agrees to take on certain legal/financial responsibility for the other as long as they are in the relationship.
    So instead of disagreeing on the nature of the license being private or with the state, you want to change gears and disagree over the terms of said license.

    On another thread we are discussing a Pro Marriage Amendment. One of the key functions of this amendment is to bring the expectations of marriage out of case and common law and clearly enumberate them.

    In the case law marriage is stated by SCOTUS to be for healthy procreation and stable relationships. This is a scope of behavior the state is willing to support with a license, while most behaviors within that scope are optional.

    That some people choose to marry and not have children does not change the total scope of activities the state endorces for all. If you choose not to have children, the state chooses not to offer you certin benifits, such as a Child Tax Credit.

    The scope of the license is a buffet of options. Only a couple things are required.
    Last edited by Jerry; 06-17-13 at 05:47 PM.

  2. #362
    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: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by wbcoleman View Post
    I have no idea what the data from that period is. There is a significant difference, however, between Loving and the current cases, and that is that racial discrimination was the specific target and raison d'etre of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    And first, the Fourteenth has been expanded to include many types of discrimination in our laws because unjustifiable discrimination is wrong. Second, homosexuals are being specifically targeted by this law, even though it affects straights as well. There is no legitimate state interest being furthered by restricting marriage based on gender/sex, and that is what makes it a violation of equal protection.
    "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.

  3. #363
    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: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So instead of disagreeing on the nature of the license being private or with the state, you want to change gears and disagree over the terms of said license.

    On another thread we are discussing a Pro Marriage Amendment. One of the key functions of this amendment is to bring the expectations of marriage out of case and common law and clearly enumberate them.

    In the case law marriage is stated by SCOTUS to be for healthy procreation and stable relationships. This is a scope of behavior the state is willing to support with a license, while most behaviors within that scope are optional.
    And in case law, the SCOTUS has also declared that marriage is for more than just procreation. They stated as much in Turner since there was an exception made in Turner for those who had children/children on the way.
    "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. #364
    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: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    I think you mean 70% against interracial marriage. Well, it's very different from abortion, which you'd still have the nuts attacking clinics if it were a state by state deal. The rhetoric hasn't changed at all since even before Roe v Wade. SSM has near 80% approval by the under 30 crowd. That's not going to lower much if any just because SCOTUS issues a sweeping verdict, much as interracial marriage support has only gone up. Either way, this is going to be a complete non issue very soon, which is why I think there is some chance the court ends this disgrace.
    Yes, thank you.
    "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. #365
    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: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Gays have the same right to marry the opposit sex as heteros do. Heteros do not have any right to marry the same sex. Equil protection is already achieved.
    "Blacks have the same right to marry whites do. Whites do not have any right to marry a different race. Equal protection is already achieved." Same argument was made during Loving.
    "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.

  6. #366
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    "Blacks have the same right to marry whites do. Whites do not have any right to marry a different race. Equal protection is already achieved." Same argument was made during Loving.
    That's right. It was true then, it's true now, it will remain true after SSM becomes legal. Each sex has the same rights as the other sex.

    Pro-SSM is about adding to the rights both sexes have.
    Last edited by Jerry; 06-17-13 at 05:52 PM.

  7. #367
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And first, the Fourteenth has been expanded to include many types of discrimination in our laws because unjustifiable discrimination is wrong. Second, homosexuals are being specifically targeted by this law, even though it affects straights as well. There is no legitimate state interest being furthered by restricting marriage based on gender/sex, and that is what makes it a violation of equal protection.
    The laws are not based on gender/sex. They are based upon sexual orientation in their effect and often on their face as well.

  8. #368
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    The laws are not based on gender/sex. They are based upon sexual orientation in their effect and often on their face as well.
    The law is not based on sexual orientation. The law is based on sex.

  9. #369
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The law is not based on sexual orientation. The law is based on sex.
    No they are based on sexual orientation. They apply equally to men and women, virgins and sluts--whichever version of "sex" you are going with.

  10. #370
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And in case law, the SCOTUS has also declared that marriage is for more than just procreation. They stated as much in Turner since there was an exception made in Turner for those who had children/children on the way.
    I believe that's what I just said. There is a scope of behavior being supported with the state marriage license, most of which is optional.

    You don't have to buy a home, but if you do and your married then the government may have a few benifits to toss at you.

    About the only thing the state requires spouses to do is live together the majority of the time, file taxes as "married", and not commit crime against eachother. It's also worth noting that spouces have a right to sexual relations with eachother. If a spouce decides to hold out, that spouce is committing a civil offence and can be sued by the other spouce for damages.

    You don't have to use any license you ask for from the state. If you want to get a Class-A CDL and not ever operate a comercial vehicle, you can. That doesn't make much business sense but the government will still take your money.

    You have a right to marry...you also have a right to own and carry a personal firearm. If you get your state's carry permit you are not then required to carry a gun. You can if you want to, but you could get the permit and never even own a gun.
    Last edited by Jerry; 06-17-13 at 06:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •