Page 49 of 54 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 539

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

  1. #481
    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 Napoleon View Post
    What it was originally created for is of less importance than how it is applied today.



    What Congress has said is:

    "Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."

    and why is this being left out...And the Congress may by general Laws (DOMA)prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    again this states the congress has full power to make general laws, concerning those Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

  2. #482
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Why not? Same sex parents have kids through surrogates and in vitro. Whereas the technology did not exist back when Loving was decided, it certainly does now. If there had never been the invention of contraceptives to limit births or fertility treatments to allow those who normally could not have kids to have them, then you would have a point, but technology has made your talking point moot.
    Nonsense. If homosexuality was a race, it would have gone extinct. You can argue technological capabilities that can make homosexual child bearing possible but homosexual mating produces no offspring. The point is that in that statement by the supreme court justice, he clearly was not talking about homosexual unions when he was talking about marriage as a fundamental right necessary to human survival.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  3. #483
    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]

    Privileges or Immunities , what do they mean?

    well in the most simple terms they means this: when a state extends privileges to its citizens, any citizen of another state entering into that state must be given the same and equal privileges the states citizen are receiving. however it in no way means a citizen of a state with a privilege of that state can travel to another state and demand that same privilege.

    what are immunities, is simple terms, it means, no citizen traveling to one state from another state, can be held for something, say a crime, that a citizen of the state would not be held for, meaning a double standard.

  4. #484
    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
    the 14th states... equal treatment under the law by governments, this means rights and privileges, rights cannot be denied unless a crime is committed, privileges are given by the state, and in giving those privileges it must give them equity unless it can show that proving a privilege to someone or group would not be in the states interest.

    privileges can be freely given or licensed by the state depending on what the privilege is, if you are denied a license by the state, say a hair dresser.... then the state would have prove why you dont qualify for the license if taken to court.

    again..if marriage was a right....there would be no licensing of it.......rights and licenses are opposites and dont go together......privileges and licenses, go together...and it marriage was a right, all the person, would have to do in present the USSC court case showing the ruling, to a state court, and they could marry...however no such rights has been declared under the 9th amendment.
    Equal Protection means that if the government offers something, then people, all people, must be treated equally in access to it unless the state can show how a legitimate state interest is furthered by the restriction.

    For example, driver's licenses are offered by the state in order for people to drive on the road. They come with restrictions on entry and even on use. You must be 16 (in pretty much every state) to get a driver's license. This is based on many factors that the state can show further a legitimate state interest in keeping the roads safe while allowing the highest percent of those citizens who may need to be able to drive that ability. The state could not make a random age restriction, such as no one between the ages of 42 and 47 can have a license without being able to show some legitimate state interest is being furthered (once the law is challenged) in that restriction. They cannot make a restriction on driver's licenses that said people with red hair cannot drive at night without showing how this restriction furthers a state interest. They can make restrictions on people who have issues with their eyesight because they can show that being able to see is vital to operating a car properly (at least for now) and restricting those who can't see to certain limitations furthers a legitimate state interest in public safety on the roads.

    The same applies to marriage licenses. The state must show that a legitimate state interest (at least) is being furthered by any restriction (once challenged) that they place on marriage licenses. They could not show any such interest being furthered by race restrictions, restrictions based on a person being behind on their child support, or restrictions based on a person being an inmate with possibility of release. There have not been any legitimate state interests shown to be furthered by restrictions based on sex, but ultimately it will come down to SCOTUS decisions which are likely to eventually rule to strike these restrictions down even in those states that have them. The state has been able to show legitimate state interests in not allowing people to have legally recognized multiple spouses and to not be able to marry close relations. (Whether these continue to hold up in the future, who knows, but it is likely since the arguments revolve around legitimate interests in offspring and minimizing undue influence and the fact that the marriage laws functions around two people only being considered as spouses to each other.) Age restrictions are likely to stand up, if challenged, at least to 18, if not higher as state interests based on when the state views a person is legally competent enough to enter into a contract and take on those legal responsibilities. Plus, lower ages present an issue with competency within consenting to sex, which is recognized as a component of most marriages.
    "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. #485
    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
    Nonsense. If homosexuality was a race, it would have gone extinct. You can argue technological capabilities that can make homosexual child bearing possible but homosexual mating produces no offspring. The point is that in that statement by the supreme court justice, he clearly was not talking about homosexual unions when he was talking about marriage as a fundamental right necessary to human survival.
    Except for the fact that a) genes don't work that way and b) for much of human history, there have been many cultures where people were forced into marriages with people that had nothing to do with attraction and everything to do with the families wanting the arrangement for political or power/money reasons.
    "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. #486
    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
    Equal Protection means that if the government offers something, then people, all people, must be treated equally in access to it unless the state can show how a legitimate state interest is furthered by the restriction.

    For example, driver's licenses are offered by the state in order for people to drive on the road. They come with restrictions on entry and even on use. You must be 16 (in pretty much every state) to get a driver's license. This is based on many factors that the state can show further a legitimate state interest in keeping the roads safe while allowing the highest percent of those citizens who may need to be able to drive that ability. The state could not make a random age restriction, such as no one between the ages of 42 and 47 can have a license without being able to show some legitimate state interest is being furthered (once the law is challenged) in that restriction. They cannot make a restriction on driver's licenses that said people with red hair cannot drive at night without showing how this restriction furthers a state interest. They can make restrictions on people who have issues with their eyesight because they can show that being able to see is vital to operating a car properly (at least for now) and restricting those who can't see to certain limitations furthers a legitimate state interest in public safety on the roads.

    The same applies to marriage licenses. The state must show that a legitimate state interest (at least) is being furthered by any restriction (once challenged) that they place on marriage licenses. They could not show any such interest being furthered by race restrictions, restrictions based on a person being behind on their child support, or restrictions based on a person being an inmate with possibility of release. There have not been any legitimate state interests shown to be furthered by restrictions based on sex, but ultimately it will come down to SCOTUS decisions which are likely to eventually rule to strike these restrictions down even in those states that have them. The state has been able to show legitimate state interests in not allowing people to have legally recognized multiple spouses and to not be able to marry close relations. (Whether these continue to hold up in the future, who knows, but it is likely since the arguments revolve around legitimate interests in offspring and minimizing undue influence and the fact that the marriage laws functions around two people only being considered as spouses to each other.) Age restrictions are likely to stand up, if challenged, at least to 18, if not higher as state interests based on when the state views a person is legally competent enough to enter into a contract and take on those legal responsibilities. Plus, lower ages present an issue with competency within consenting to sex, which is recognized as a component of most marriages.

    please.... again can you show me where you get your information, and point to it instead of........ just a link...what legal document are you looking at?

  7. #487
    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
    please.... again can you show me where you get your information, and point to it instead of........ just a link...what legal document are you looking at?
    I gave it to you. SCOTUS decisions that deal with equal protection and marriage. Much of our constitutional law is based on precedent in cases, not what is written down.

    Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

    "When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the 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

    This is directly from a SCOTUS decision that says that the Court must determine if the state can show an important state interest is advanced (synonym for advanced is furthered) and to what extent by a challenged regulation (aka law, restriction). This shows that the SCOTUS has used the principle that a state interest must be able to be shown to be furthered by a law.

    And this isn't the only time either that the SCOTUS has said this. This is the standard, whether you want to recognize it or not. And the reason for this is because the Constitution was never meant to limit the rights or freedoms of the people, but rather to limit the power of the government. In the beginning, that was only really considered the federal government, but with the addition of the 14th Amendment, which applies specifically to state governments, it also limits the state governments as well.
    "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.

  8. #488
    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]

    Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

    It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling.

    i myself can only find......compelling governmental interest

  9. #489
    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
    Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

    It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling.

    i myself can only find......compelling governmental interest
    Then you need to look more because there are three levels of scrutiny (at least) used by the SCOTUS and they range from compelling to important to legitimate.
    "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. #490
    Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 03:23 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    967

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Then you need to look more because there are three levels of scrutiny (at least) used by the SCOTUS and they range from compelling to important to legitimate.
    That would be narrowly tailored and least restrictive.

Page 49 of 54 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... 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
  •