Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 143

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

  1. #121
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,662

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    oooooooh i know what YOU want now but whos we because thats not what was asked for by anybody.

    If you would like a link to SCOTUS referring to marriage as a right 14 times i can do that, its easy, me and many people have provided that info many times.
    Give me a second and ill simply Google it, i dont have it saved.
    That is what I would be interested in, and in seeing how they referred to it. I believe that Beer was as well but I wont attempt to speak for him further.

    Yes, thank you.
    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.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    Good for them. Nothing will come of it, but good for them.

  3. #123
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    That is what I would be interested in, and in seeing how they referred to it. I believe that Beer was as well but I wont attempt to speak for him further.

    Yes, thank you.
    here you go

    just googled "14 times scotus mentioned marriage as a right"

    and this is the very first link:
    Video: 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage | American Foundation for Equal Rights
    Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

    Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[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.”

    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

    Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
    is this what you wanted?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #124
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,662

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

    Yes, thanks Agent J. There are a few in there, like Moore vs CIty of East Cleveland that dont really apply but most do.

    Marriage is not a right enumerated in the Constitution but the courts have categorized it under other rights and protections.

    I dont agree with many of the court's interpretations on marriage and cant even tell what they were ruling on for those cases but I can look them up. The precedence is there.

    I agree with much of that personally, dont really agree that the govt has a place in it BUT it does support my position on SSM. OTOH, I still think that a) the state & fed govt should stay out of marriage completely and b) the issue can stand on equal rights and discrimination alone. Which for the sake of (IMO) truly being Constitutional, that is the way it should go.

    Thanks.
    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. #125
    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
    No one is stripped of their rights by declaring the definition of marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman. The right you possess in this context is the right of association. Interfering or declaring illegal a particular living arrangement among consenting adults would be a rights violation. No individual or no nation is obligated to accept any random association as a legal marriage.
    You may truly believe this, but it's not actually how US law works. Nor is a same sex marriage a "random association", no matter how much you don't like it. You're welcome to discuss what you want the law to be, but we're dealing in what the law is, and you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #126
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    1.)Yes, thanks Agent J.
    2.)There are a few in there, like Moore vs CIty of East Cleveland that dont really apply but most do.
    3.) Marriage is not a right enumerated in the Constitution but the courts have categorized it under other rights and protections.

    4.) I dont agree with many of the court's interpretations on marriage and cant even tell what they were ruling on for those cases but I can look them up. The precedence is there.

    5.) I agree with much of that personally, dont really agree that the govt has a place in it BUT it does support my position on SSM.

    6A.) OTOH, I still think that a) the state & fed govt should stay out of marriage completely and
    b) the issue can stand on equal rights and discrimination alone.

    7.) Which for the sake of (IMO) truly being Constitutional, that is the way it should go.

    8.) Thanks.
    1.) no problem

    2.) yes i would agree that some case precedence wouldnt be perfectly parallel

    3.) correct just like the right not to be raped is not enumerated by the constitution

    4.) that is your right, im sure theres things we could find that i would agree with the court either

    5.) well I think they definitely have a place in it because theres no other way to protect it, I want the government protecting me and my family. But where i do agree with you is that what they should never have done is had some of the restrictions they had/have.

    6a.) this is impossible IMO and i would never want this, I want them protecting me and my family.
    How would the about 1200 fed rights/benefits be protected and the additional state ones be protected

    6b.) this i agree, the history, laws, rights and court cases are already there for the support

    7.) agree

    8.) you're welcome.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #127
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    No one is stripped of their rights by declaring the definition of marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman. The right you possess in this context is the right of association. Interfering or declaring illegal a particular living arrangement among consenting adults would be a rights violation. No individual or no nation is obligated to accept any random association as a legal marriage.

    So in States that banned recognition of interracial marriage, no one was stripped of their rights by declaring the definition of marriage to be coloreds marrying coloreds and whites marrying whites. The right they possesd in this context was the right of association. Interfering or declaring illegal a particular living arrangement among consenting adults would be a rights violation. No individual or no nation is obligated to accept any random association as a legal marriage like random association where a colored and a white made a living arrangement.


    >>>>

  8. #128
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Well let me straighten you out then - granting equal rights to any group that already has equal rights under the Constitution devalues the very Constitution that already guarantees those rights.

    So, coloreds had the right to marry coloreds and whites had the right to marry whites, therefore they were not denied the right of Civil Marriage - therefore the Constitution was devalued when coloreds were allowed to marry whites even though they already had the right to marry?


    People don't buy that logic. Virginia presented the same type of argument structure in the Loving case, the court didn't buy it then either.



    >>>>

  9. #129
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,266

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    You may truly believe this, but it's not actually how US law works. Nor is a same sex marriage a "random association", no matter how much you don't like it. You're welcome to discuss what you want the law to be, but we're dealing in what the law is, and you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
    Actually, I know exactly what I am talking about. You just aren't following it. For future reference, I rarely discuss how US law works, but rather, how I believe US law SHOULD work. Nor have I ever said I opposed same sex marriage. Now if you are incapable of dealing with the abstract then you will find it difficult to comprehend what I am talking about. Just so you know, the supposed 'right to marriage' is not a primary no matter how buried your mind is in legalisms. The primary here is freedom of association. You may associate with whomever you like. By right. Yet being a good leftist, you reject that primary and skip right along to adhere to any random collection of thoughts you view as valid at any given moment. That some grouping of political appointees has fallen into the same mindless trap is not evidence that you have reached the proper conclusion. You are just using bad reasoning to support your argument.

  10. #130
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,266

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    So in States that banned recognition of interracial marriage, no one was stripped of their rights by declaring the definition of marriage to be coloreds marrying coloreds and whites marrying whites. The right they possesd in this context was the right of association. Interfering or declaring illegal a particular living arrangement among consenting adults would be a rights violation. No individual or no nation is obligated to accept any random association as a legal marriage like random association where a colored and a white made a living arrangement.
    Correct.

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 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
  •