Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 143

Thread: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban [W:72]

  1. #101
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Gender preference is not.
    So? SSM bans are a gender classification. Not sexuality. Marriage isn't sex. Ask any married person. Whether or not the married couple has sex with each other, wants to have sex with each other, has sex with other people, has group sex, has no sex, whatever, all irrelevant to the legal contract.

    I can't marry you. Because we are male, not because either of us is gay.

    edit: and sexuality actually sometimes has been considered a protected classification. Just n federally.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-01-13 at 02:12 PM.
    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.

  2. #102
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Nothing like a liberal who rushes to the Constitution when it suits his fancy but ignores it when it doesn't. The fact is, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage and if you want to argue the point about 'unmentioned' rights, those fall under the 10th Amendment and are left to the people and/or the states. HOW marriage is defined is not a Constitutional issue, that is something that should rightly be left to the people to decide. The state should only then be employed to make sure that there is no rights violations under that definition. The definition of marriage even under the definition put forth by leftists is discriminatory in regard to multiple partners or close relatives. But only a liberal could ignore that sort of glaring contradiction in their own argument.
    I like how you don't mind a state government or a simple majority vote of citizens stripping someone of their rights, and it's only a problem if the federal government does it.

    Let's talk about the numerous ways you don't understand constitutional law.

    First, the ninth amendment is very clear. There are unenumerated rights. The court tends to look to enumerated ones to find the sorts of rights that are protected, and interprets whether or not they suggest the unenumerated ones.

    Second, the tenth amendment has nothing to say about individual rights. It tells you what to do with anything not dealt with by the constitution. Marriage is not one of those things that is not dealt with by the constitution. For more than fifty years, the supreme court has held that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments. It is not simply left to the states, since they are not allowed to violate the constitution.

    Third, there is no such legal thing as a "definition" of marriage. There are rights, privileges, and obligations that come with the legal status. Failing to meet some of those obligations can disqualify a person from marriage. Lack of consent would be the most obvious example. Each of those obligations technically infringes on the fundamental right to marry. But that's still legal and constitutional. Read on to find out why.

    Fourth, infringements on constitutional rights are not always impermissible. There are various tests to determine if an infringement is acceptable. There are three such tests, based on how strongly the constitution protects the right in question. A right like free speech (sometimes) or freedom of religion is given the strictest test, which is the most difficult for an infringement to satisfy. Racial discrimination is likewise subject to this strict scrutiny test. The right to marry, as a fundamental right (fundamental is a specific type of right), is also subject to strict scrutiny.

    So, to sum up. Yes, we have a fundamental right to marry. No, that the constitution does not list this right doesn't mean that it doesn't protect it. No, the federal government is not prohibited from lawmaking on the subject of marriage. No, states may not discriminate against gays by denying them access to marriage. No, the tenth amendment doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Yes, some infringements of constitutional rights are still permissible under the constitution. (The prohibition against yelling fire in a crowded theatre violates the first amendment, but is permissible) Yes, there is a method to determine whether or not an infringement is permissible. Yes, if polygamists or people who want to marry their relatives feel that the laws prohibiting their marriages are in violation of the constitution and don't meet these constitutional tests, they are welcome to file suit and the court will rule on it. No, ruling on one has nothing to do with the rule for another.

    I think we're done here.

    Wait no, I feel like tossing in a partisan swipe. There's nothing like a libertarian who proclaims that we must follow the constitution but doesn't actually know how the constitution works.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,964

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Perhaps. The thing is, that would seem to then allow any "strong personal desire", including the wish to drink alcohol, to have "standing". May I then sue to get a judge to force the state to prove a compelling state interest in not selling beer on Sunday, closing bars at midnight or any other "reasonable restriction" on my complete freedom of choice. Not to say that is bad at all, but the list of "strong personal desires" is nearly endless, as are "reasonable restrictions" on our freedom in our various laws.
    If that is what is attributed to gays as their reason for marriage...in your example...then why do straight people get to marry as recognized by the state under a legal contract? Dont straight people have that same reason?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,964

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So? SSM bans are a gender classification. Not sexuality. Marriage isn't sex. Ask any married person. Whether or not the married couple has sex with each other, wants to have sex with each other, has sex with other people, has group sex, has no sex, whatever, all irrelevant to the legal contract.

    I can't marry you. Because we are male, not because either of us is gay.

    edit: and sexuality actually sometimes has been considered a protected classification. Just n federally.
    Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states, like WA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #105
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    If that is what is attributed to gays as their reason for marriage...in your example...then why do straight people get to marry as recognized by the state under a legal contract? Dont straight people have that same reason?
    That may well be part of it, but mainly it was to stabilize the relationship of parents to help raise children. The pro-SSM crew will say (correctly) that children are not always produced by marriage and, indeed, a small percentage of marriages never produce or even involve raising children.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #106
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states, like WA.
    Well, isn't that nice. Open carry of a handgun is protected in some states, like AZ. The point is that states have different laws, but federal courts deal with the US constitution, not state constitutions/laws unless they violate the US constitution. This case is not really about Texas, it is an attempt to get the federal gov't, via the SCOTUS, to force all states to change their marriage laws.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    again let us know when you have anything on topic otherwise move on lol
    Really Agent, this makes about an even dozen for you on this subject. I just don't see how there is anything left to say, not anything new anyway. You may be the one that needs to move on.

  8. #108
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,964

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That may well be part of it, but mainly it was to stabilize the relationship of parents to help raise children. The pro-SSM crew will say (correctly) that children are not always produced by marriage and, indeed, a small percentage of marriages never produce or even involve raising children.
    I think they'd also have a good foundation for support since a two parent home has been shown to provide more financial and emotional stability for kids and no great difference if they were gay or not.

    Meaning that gay marriages can fulfill that 'reason' as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,964

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Well, isn't that nice. Open carry of a handgun is protected in some states, like AZ. The point is that states have different laws, but federal courts deal with the US constitution, not state constitutions/laws unless they violate the US constitution. This case is not really about Texas, it is an attempt to get the federal gov't, via the SCOTUS, to force all states to change their marriage laws.
    Correct. Just like it isnt legal to discriminate against blacks or Catholics in ANY state.

    *If* the federal govt decides that sexual orientation is a protected class, then that would apply to them as well. And I think that's the way it would go (but that's just me personally) but I also believe that the states see the handwriting on the wall as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #110
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Correct. Just like it isnt legal to discriminate against blacks or Catholics in ANY state.

    *If* the federal govt decides that sexual orientation is a protected class, then that would apply to them as well. And I think that's the way it would go (but that's just me personally) but I also believe that the states see the handwriting on the wall as well.
    I'm not sure that I follow you here. It is good to have federal control over state marriage laws, but bad to have consistent 2A laws among the states? Marriage is a state contract law issue, individual gun rights are actually in the US constitution. If my gun "rights" can change when I cross state/county/city lines then why not my marriage "rights"?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •