Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 143

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

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    205

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. That is to say, that the constitution does not specifically list a right does not mean that we do not have it. The argument that we do not have the right to marry merely because the constitution does not say that we do, or that we lack any right because the constitution does not specifically guarantee it to us, is ALWAYS wrong.

    I don't want to bother with quotes but we'll address the other points brought up.

    1. Religion has no special hold on marriage, least of all a single religion in this country. For thousands of years, societies have been making rules about marriage, both for spiritual and secular reasons. And even so, most Americans don't want their marriages to suddenly have no legal authority. The vast majority of the people in this country, married or not, want marriage to be a legal status. These laws trace at least back to 13th century England, which is about the earliest legal body that our law is based on. In that society, while religion (and pretty much just Catholicism) had a part in marriage, it was still a legal status. That said, the favor given to a singular religious body and the entanglement it held with the law would be grossly unconstitutional in this country.

    2. The "get government out of marriage" argument would always end up with a couple having fewer rights. The argument usually ends up demanding that all of the designations like medical and legal proxy and inheritance be determined in a living (or not) will, but there is absolutely no private contract that will confer on one partner immunity to being compelled to testify against the other. A loss of rights is guaranteed and there is no benefit obtained in exchange.

    3. The supreme court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right that is protected by the constitution. Even if a state wanted to refuse to recognize marriages (which would be against the wishes of the people in that state), it would still have to recognize the status conferred by marriages in other states, or federally recognized ones.

    There is no serious movement to destroy the legal institution of marriage. Since that is the case, there is no constitutional grounds for denying gay couples access to it. Marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right according to numerous supreme court cases, and thus is law, since we use a common law system. In order to infringe on that fundamental right, the government (state or federal) must provide reasoning to pass at least a rational basis test, likely a higher one. Every court case thus far that has addressed the overall constitutionality of SSM bans has found them unconstitutional. The Prop 8 case in California, which is the current highest level case, will be persuasive in any future deliberation, and it holds that SSM bans fail to meet even the rational basis test, and I am inclined to agree.

    Please, what government interest is banning SSM rationally related to?
    But here's the rub ... If it goes to the Sup. Ct., will Scalia and the other conservative Catholics base their decision on the constitution or their old Catechism books?

  2. #82
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,552

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeafone View Post
    quota? When it was only men, that was a quota ...
    It was never only men.
    “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

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    205

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    It was never only men.
    for most of our history, the most prestigious, most lucrative, most powerful jobs have been held almost exclusively by white males, and yet rarely a concern about quotas uttered that entire time ... that was my only point ...

  4. #84
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    13,367

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. That is to say, that the constitution does not specifically list a right does not mean that we do not have it. The argument that we do not have the right to marry merely because the constitution does not say that we do, or that we lack any right because the constitution does not specifically guarantee it to us, is ALWAYS wrong.

    I don't want to bother with quotes but we'll address the other points brought up.

    1. Religion has no special hold on marriage, least of all a single religion in this country. For thousands of years, societies have been making rules about marriage, both for spiritual and secular reasons. And even so, most Americans don't want their marriages to suddenly have no legal authority. The vast majority of the people in this country, married or not, want marriage to be a legal status. These laws trace at least back to 13th century England, which is about the earliest legal body that our law is based on. In that society, while religion (and pretty much just Catholicism) had a part in marriage, it was still a legal status. That said, the favor given to a singular religious body and the entanglement it held with the law would be grossly unconstitutional in this country.

    2. The "get government out of marriage" argument would always end up with a couple having fewer rights. The argument usually ends up demanding that all of the designations like medical and legal proxy and inheritance be determined in a living (or not) will, but there is absolutely no private contract that will confer on one partner immunity to being compelled to testify against the other. A loss of rights is guaranteed and there is no benefit obtained in exchange.

    3. The supreme court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right that is protected by the constitution. Even if a state wanted to refuse to recognize marriages (which would be against the wishes of the people in that state), it would still have to recognize the status conferred by marriages in other states, or federally recognized ones.

    There is no serious movement to destroy the legal institution of marriage. Since that is the case, there is no constitutional grounds for denying gay couples access to it. Marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right according to numerous supreme court cases, and thus is law, since we use a common law system. In order to infringe on that fundamental right, the government (state or federal) must provide reasoning to pass at least a rational basis test, likely a higher one. Every court case thus far that has addressed the overall constitutionality of SSM bans has found them unconstitutional. The Prop 8 case in California, which is the current highest level case, will be persuasive in any future deliberation, and it holds that SSM bans fail to meet even the rational basis test, and I am inclined to agree.

    Please, what government interest is banning SSM rationally related to?
    to adress your last sentence first,i never advocated banning ssm,or govt banning ssm,im more concerned about constitutionality,which throws both sides worlds upside down.

    1,as stated,it is a religious construct,yes it has been upheld and enforced by governments for ages,but the world has either been run by religion,or religion run by govt for ages.however if the govt abided by keeping out of marriage and leaving it to religions,then it would be impossible for the govt to ban any kind of marriage.

    2-yes the get the govt out of all marriage would lead to fewer rights or privelages,but as the constitution is set up now,a state would either legally have to accept all marriages,or none,as equality under law applies to all states,as written into amendment.meaning any state that bans ssm is technically violating the constitution,unless they ban all marriage as legally binding.any state that recognizes marriage as religious who bans ssm,would also be violating the first amendment,since if it was to be recognized solely as a religious construct,then the states would have no legal control over it,including banning or restricting.


    again i really dont care for the supreme court ruling,as the supreme court was never granted the power to grant rights or add to the law,our constitution makes it where to add something,it must be written into law,or amended to the constitution,and the latter overwrites all law under conflicting interests between the two.

    on your last paragraph first sentence,basically what i was trying to say all along,there is no grounds to deny ssm in any state or at the federal level,since no state has removed marriage from being state recognized.again in a constitutional argument,the court had no real authority to grant such a right or make it law,however they do have the right to challenge the states different laws,as they were granted power under the constitution,not over it,and all state level constitutions and laws must still follow the us constitution.


    basically all this comes down to is that ssm cannot be denied without denying marriage to all,or to have it written into the us constitution as an amendment,which likely will never happen.i was a little too drunk to be coherant last night but that was the point i was trying to make
    “[The metric system is the tool of the Devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I likes it!” – Abe “Grampa” Simpson”

  5. #85
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,552

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Sorry...

    #1 Title IX - does not require a "tit-for-tat" quota system and that for every male athlete there needs to be a female athlete. The function of Title IX is that publicly funded school must present equal chances of participation, not quotas. For example I work in the HR Department of a school and part of my job is handling the Athletic Coaching Contracts. We offer football as a boys sport (although there are no restrictions on a girl going out for the team none have chosen to do so) and we offer girls Softball. We also offer boys and girls Volleyball at each high school. Because we offer girls softball that offsets the boys football team. In terms of Volleyball, two of our high schools did not utilize their Volleyball coaching position for girls this past year because they could not field enough participants for a team roster. We are required to make opportunities available, we are not required to fill quotas.


    #2 RE: the last sentence, this is pretty silly from a logical basis. Males/Females are pretty much evenly split at 50/50 and therefore comprise 100% of the population. Homosexual comprise 3-10% (depending on which source you choose to believe). Requiring "an equal number" of participants in a sport for 3-10% of a given population makes no logical sense.



    >>>>
    How is not having a team, or coach, offering an opportunity? Obviously if there are 5 to 7 folks interested in a softball program then there is no opportunity to make a team. Football is still football, title 9 did not require football to change to allow access to women, it offered a new thing, that is not the same thing as football. Opportunity to play softball is in support of 4 female pro fast-pitch softball teams, while opportunity to play football is in support of 32 male pro football teams. If participation matched demand, which it did before title 9 then no action was needed.
    “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. #86
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    How is not having a team, or coach, offering an opportunity? Obviously if there are 5 to 7 folks interested in a softball program then there is no opportunity to make a team. Football is still football, title 9 did not require football to change to allow access to women, it offered a new thing, that is not the same thing as football. Opportunity to play softball is in support of 4 female pro fast-pitch softball teams, while opportunity to play football is in support of 32 male pro football teams. If participation matched demand, which it did before title 9 then no action was needed.

    We had teams, not enough students participated. Not offering Volleyball means we would not have created a team, on the other hand selecting a coach, offering the sport, and the students not signing up in sufficient quantities to field a team are to different scenarios.


    >>>>

  7. #87
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Why is the constitutional amendment process now ignored in favor of simply "reinterpreting" it to get the desired result? When we take bizarre steps to create constitutional "pseudo-amendments" that devalues the very document that was intended to protect those rights. We have two constitutional amendments relating to the recreational drug alcohol, one to ban it and one to undo that ban, yet none were deemed necessary to establish/remove total federal control over the various other recreational drugs. Not a single mention of marriage, "strong personal desire" or "sexual preference/orientation" exists in the constitution.
    I think in part you have the answer. Sadly, people are using non-issues like "homosexual rights" to devalue the very document that ensures their, and everyone else's rights.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  8. #88
    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 beerftw View Post
    1,as stated,it is a religious construct,yes it has been upheld and enforced by governments for ages,but the world has either been run by religion,or religion run by govt for ages.however if the govt abided by keeping out of marriage and leaving it to religions,then it would be impossible for the govt to ban any kind of marriage.
    And yet non religious people want to marry, too. So there is most definitely marriage outside of religion. And, like everyone else, want their marriages to be marriages, not something else that might be kind of close. Religious traditions have no special privilege to the term or to the traditions around marriage. It is a part of our human history.

    again i really dont care for the supreme court ruling,as the supreme court was never granted the power to grant rights or add to the law,our constitution makes it where to add something,it must be written into law,or amended to the constitution,and the latter overwrites all law under conflicting interests between the two.
    The supreme court doesn't grant rights or add to the law. No court does that. It simply has the authority, directly from article 3, to rule on all cases arising under the constitution. A case that asks "does the constitution, which admittedly protects more rights than are enumerated, protect this right?" It is the court's job to answer that question. Sometimes the answer is yes.

    basically all this comes down to is that ssm cannot be denied without denying marriage to all,or to have it written into the us constitution as an amendment,which likely will never happen.i was a little too drunk to be coherant last night but that was the point i was trying to make
    The people of this country do not want to destroy the legal status of marriage, so all of this "get government out of marriage" stuff is never going to happen, nor would it be a good idea if it did. Same sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry under the constitution. That will be the national standard pretty soon.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #89
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,880

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    Who cares about the constitution. This is our country now, we decide it means whatever we want to say it means. It is no good reason to use it as an excuse to hurt people you don't like.
    I care about the Constitution, which is what it is rather than what you want it to be.

  10. #90
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,267

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    And yet non religious people want to marry, too. So there is most definitely marriage outside of religion. And, like everyone else, want their marriages to be marriages, not something else that might be kind of close. Religious traditions have no special privilege to the term or to the traditions around marriage. It is a part of our human history.



    The supreme court doesn't grant rights or add to the law. No court does that. It simply has the authority, directly from article 3, to rule on all cases arising under the constitution. A case that asks "does the constitution, which admittedly protects more rights than are enumerated, protect this right?" It is the court's job to answer that question. Sometimes the answer is yes.



    The people of this country do not want to destroy the legal status of marriage, so all of this "get government out of marriage" stuff is never going to happen, nor would it be a good idea if it did. Same sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry under the constitution. That will be the national standard pretty soon.
    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.

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •