Page 47 of 54 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 539

Thread: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

  1. #461
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The law of the land, the Constitution is on the side of same sex marriage. The Equal Protection Clause says that once a law is challenged, the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.

    For example, if someone says their religious beliefs require them to kill a person who has lied to them. The state can deny them their practice of that belief by showing that it is in the state's interest to not allow religious beliefs to be used to kill people over something as petty as lying. The state can show an important state interest (not allowing citizens to take justice into their own hands by killing other citizens for something such as lying) is being furthered by this restriction on a person's right to practice their religion.

    can you show me this please in a legal sense, where it says this---> the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.

  2. #462
    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: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Webbed feet, wide bill, goes quack... those aren't restrictions. They're the definition of duck. If you don't have that, it's not because you got restricted from being a duck. It's that you're NOT a duck by your very nature.
    Those are descriptors of a physical thing. You are continuing to try to compare a concrete to an abstract. You cannot legitimately do that. It doesn't work. You cannot claim an abstract is something that never changes. Abstract concepts change not only over time but also when dealing with different societies or even with different individuals. Concrete things are just that, concrete.
    "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. #463
    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: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    can you show me this please in a legal sense, where it says this---> the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.
    Here you go, from SCOTUS cases.

    14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

    "[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.” - Moore v City of East Cleveland

    Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

    http://brisbin.polisci.wvu.edu/r/download/109312

    Now, I always use the lowest level and usually put on that it has to at least show this "reasonable state interest" is furthered. In reality, it probably should be held at a higher level of scrutiny depending on how it is looked at. If looked at as it should and how restrictions on marriage have been in the past, it should fall under the highest level of scrutiny because marriage has been deemed a civil right by the SCOTUS on several occasions. However, this isn't how most have deemed this issue. So we look to the restriction itself and it actually is based on sex/gender, not sexuality. So it could also fall into the intermediate level of scrutiny due to the restriction actually treating men different than women in who they can marry and vice versa. But even at the lowest level of scrutiny, the state is unable to show that a legitimate state interest reasonably related is being furthered by restricting marriage based on sex/gender. No one is harmed by those relationships, hence why they are legal to begin with. Marriage operates gender-neutral, meaning that no responsibility of marriage requires a person of each gender to fulfill the terms of the contract. And procreation, the only thing that separates all same sex couples from many opposite sex couples, is not a requirement of marriage nor can it be shown to legitimately even be connected to how marriage operates or the state's interest in marriage, because the state allows opposite sex couples who cannot procreate to marry, in some cases making laws saying that only certain opposite sex couples who cannot procreate can marry.
    "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. #464
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."
    Nothing wrong with that argument. It is the "because of my religion I think this way" argument not the dumb "you are redefining marriage" argument. I can respect that people have their religious convictions. It is when they try to pretend that their argument is irreligious that I tend to find it funny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  5. #465
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cable View Post
    I can understand why Progressives would want to distance themselves. But the fact is, he was on the bleeding edge of Progressive-ism.
    In his own words he declared a desire for revolution. There is no edge. He was a radical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #466
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    I'm glad someone brought up the topic of gay marriage.... it's never really been discussed on this board before. Kudos.

  7. #467
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Here you go, from SCOTUS cases.

    14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

    "[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation. - Moore v City of East Cleveland

    Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

    http://brisbin.polisci.wvu.edu/r/download/109312

    Now, I always use the lowest level and usually put on that it has to at least show this "reasonable state interest" is furthered. In reality, it probably should be held at a higher level of scrutiny depending on how it is looked at. If looked at as it should and how restrictions on marriage have been in the past, it should fall under the highest level of scrutiny because marriage has been deemed a civil right by the SCOTUS on several occasions. However, this isn't how most have deemed this issue. So we look to the restriction itself and it actually is based on sex/gender, not sexuality. So it could also fall into the intermediate level of scrutiny due to the restriction actually treating men different than women in who they can marry and vice versa. But even at the lowest level of scrutiny, the state is unable to show that a legitimate state interest reasonably related is being furthered by restricting marriage based on sex/gender. No one is harmed by those relationships, hence why they are legal to begin with. Marriage operates gender-neutral, meaning that no responsibility of marriage requires a person of each gender to fulfill the terms of the contract. And procreation, the only thing that separates all same sex couples from many opposite sex couples, is not a requirement of marriage nor can it be shown to legitimately even be connected to how marriage operates or the state's interest in marriage, because the state allows opposite sex couples who cannot procreate to marry, in some cases making laws saying that only certain opposite sex couples who cannot procreate can marry.
    i asked for a" further statement" from a something you know of, and you gave me links, i want the actual statement form a case or... something the USSC has said.

    sorry........ marriage cannot be a right currently, that's impossible.......because rights are never licensed at all. only privileges are licensed........if the USSC ever declares marriage a right USING THE 9TH AMENDMENT TO DO IT .....then all licenses by state would have to end.

    marriage is currently a privilege dispensed by states, and the states are placing a ban on SSM, the USSC would want to know why the state feels it need to ban SSM,...asking the question by banning SSM, what detrimental action to the state are you preventing by placing such a ban, since it is a privilege, which must be applied equality.

  8. #468
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    can you show me this please in a legal sense, where it says this---> the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.
    Levels of scrutiny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  9. #469
    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: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i asked for a" further statement" from a something you know of, and you gave me links, i want the actual statement form a case or... something the USSC has said.

    sorry........ marriage cannot be a right currently, that's impossible.......because rights are never licensed at all. only privileges are licensed........if the USSC ever declares marriage a right USING THE 9TH AMENDMENT TO DO IT .....then all licenses by state woulds have to end.

    marriage is currently a privilege dispensed by states, and the states are placing a ban on SSM, the USSC would want to know why the state feels it need to ban SSM,...asking the question by banning SSM, what detrimental action to the state are you preventing by placing such a ban, since it is a privilege, which must be applied equality.
    The SCOTUS disagrees with you completely.

    States are and have been restricted in what laws they can make by the Constitution, since the 14th Amendment. Like it or not, the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause limited the power of the states, even in such things as marriage.
    "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. #470
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    marriage is currently a privilege dispensed by states, and the states are placing a ban on SSM, the USSC would want to know why the state feels it need to ban SSM,...asking the question by banning SSM, what detrimental action to the state are you preventing by placing such a ban, since it is a privilege, which must be applied equality.
    The Supreme Court wouldn't even have to do that. DOMA is the lynchpin in the legal argument for State bans on same-sex marriage. The purpose of Section 2 of DOMA was to create an exception to the Full Faith And Credit Clause of the Constitution so that other States could choose not to legally recognize same-sex marriage following the ruling of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike. Without DOMA, the States would be required to legally recognize same-sex marriages across State lines. The Supreme Court only needs to ask 1 question: Are same-sex marriages legally recognized in any of the 50 States? If so, Section 2 of DOMA and State same-sex marriage bans violate the Full Faith And Credit Clause and are therefore Unconstitutional.

Page 47 of 54 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... 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
  •