Page 133 of 152 FirstFirst ... 3383123131132133134135143 ... LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,330 of 1516

Thread: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

  1. #1321
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    still got nothing i see, let us know when this fact changes

    1.) except the majority here have proved you wrong with the same facts, so who is we?
    2.) you can post this lie 100 TIMES but until you can make the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent disappear that all prove you wrong you got nothing
    3.) nope facts defeat your post again

    AGAIN if you disagree simply post one fact that supports you, why do you keep dodging this?
    Right on schedule. No, your posts contain only your opinions and no facts. You'll keep repeating the same old busted **** until you have the last word. Other posters recognise the tactic for what it is.

  2. #1322
    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: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    SSM is an equal rights issue this fact will never change and laws, rights court cases and court precedent all prove this fact

    if anybody disagrees with this fact simply provide anything factual that makes all that stuff disappear.
    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

  3. #1323
    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: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Right on schedule. No, your posts contain only your opinions and no facts. You'll keep repeating the same old busted **** until you have the last word. Other posters recognise the tactic for what it is.
    facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent> your proven wrong opinion

    FACT: SSM is an equal rights issues

    do you have any facts to prove otherwise? please present them
    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. #1324
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,521

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    So you couldnt. You then DO recognize that a family thru gay marriage is no different than a straight family that used IVF, has biological step children, adopted, etc?

    Good. See...facts are your friends!
    Just keep pumping out those lies...
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #1325
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,708

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I really don't care about your state interest B.S. It has nothing to do with the argument that I have made, over and over, so I need not state it again.
    But it does have to do with how our constitution works, and how equal protection works. There's a century's worth of constitutional law based on this. The burden is on the state to justify a gender-based classification, it doesn't matter whether it's a state's right to define marriage or not. Federal or state, either has to justify it under equal protection. They have failed. Therefore defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

    Before someone mentions polygamy again, gender is a protected classification, hence the requirement for a state interest. "Number of persons" is not a protected classification.

    But hey, this is pretty low on the scale of problems that our country is suffering under this administration. The fundamental destruction promised by Obama deserves more attention, though this issue is part of it.
    There are children literally starving to death in Africa, therefore you don't get to whine about communism.
    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.

  6. #1326
    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: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Just keep pumping out those lies...
    Please explain how they are lies. If you think they are lies, then obviously you know the truth...please enlighten me.

    Here you go, please feel free to be specific:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa
    So you couldnt. You then DO recognize that a family thru gay marriage is no different than a straight family that used IVF, has biological step children, adopted, etc?

    Good. See...facts are your friends!
    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.

  7. #1327
    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: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Court cases concerning SSM

    Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts)
    In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."


    Hollingsworth v. Perry (Cali)
    Judge Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010.[90]
    On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:


    Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (Conn)
    The Court issued its opinion on October 10, 2008.[8] The Court ruled 4-3 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, even granted them a parallel status under another name like civil unions, violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.[9]
    Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Joette Katz, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., and Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Lubbie Harper, Jr. (who replaced the recused Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers).[b] The Court found a substantial difference between marriages and civil unions:
    Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal.

    Varnum v. Brien (Iowa)

    The Court noted that Iowa has a long history of progressive thought on civil rights. Seventeen years before the Dred Scott decision, the Iowa Supreme Court "refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions."[10] Eighty-six years before "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled such practices unconstitutional in Iowa.[10] In 1869, Iowa was the first state in the union to admit women to the bar and allow them to practice law.[10] Three years later the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois' decision to deny women admission to the bar.[10]
    The Court stated that the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that laws treat alike all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law, and concluded that homosexual persons are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws.

    New Mexico Supreme Court
    On December 19, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution required the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.[90][91] Its decision said that the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution required that "All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples."[92] The decision made New Mexico the 17th state to recognize same-sex marriages.[93] The following day, the clerk and chief deputy clerk in Roosevelt County resigned. The clerk said she could not comply with the court's ruling with "a clear conscience" and added: "I felt like I'd be letting down the majority of people who voted for me."[94]
    In response to the Supreme Court decision, state Senator Bill Sharer proposed a joint resolution that, if passed by both houses of the legislature, would put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman to a popular vote. January 6, 2014, Governor Martinez said she would not support efforts to reverse the Supreme Court's decision by enacting a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. She said: "I think what I said before was that yes, the people should have decided on it, but the Supreme Court has decided.... And it's now the law of the land."[95]

    New Jersey Superior Court
    On September 27, 2013, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson, granting summary judgement to the plaintiffs, ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry. Unless a higher court rules otherwise, or grants a stay, the effective date of Judge Jacobson's order legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey is October 21, 2013.[34]
    In her ruling, Judge Jacobson states "Since Windsor, the clear trend has been for [Federal] agencies to limit the extension of benefits to only those same-sex couples in legally recognized marriages." She points out that many of these agencies, including the IRS, CMS, and DOL, that are extending benefits to same-sex couples in a marriage, do not recognize New Jersey civil unions for benefits purposes. She points out that the proper issue before the court is whether the New Jersey civil union scheme is unconstitutional because "of the manner it is applied and incorporated by the Federal government." She goes on to reason that this disparate treatment of civil unions versus marriage raises an equal protection claim under both state and Federal constitutions, but only if a state action led to this situation. Because New Jersey enacted a civil union statute that created a "parallel" structure to marriage (the state action) and the N.J. Supreme Court deferred to the Legislature on the actual label "as long as the classifications do not discriminate arbitrarily among persons similarly situated," the situation ended up changing post-Windsor. This change leads to Judge Jacobson's determination that "the parallel legal structures created by the New Jersey Legislature therefore no longer provide same sex couples with equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, violating the mandate of Lewis and the New Jersey Constitution's equal protection guarantee."[35]

    and Hawaii and New York call their legislation "Marriage Equality Act"

    i didnt look and i cant remember but id be willing to bet that other legislation has similar names or refers to equality in their verbiage also..


    so again, the fact is SSM is an equal rights issue. Facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedent make it so. Opinions are meaningless to this fact.

    the writing is on the wall equality is winning and discrimination and bigotry is losing, america is righting one of its wrongs and fixing the unjust act of discrimination.

    #Human/Civil/EqualRightsRWinnning
    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

  8. #1328
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,521

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    But it does have to do with how our constitution works, and how equal protection works. There's a century's worth of constitutional law based on this. The burden is on the state to justify a gender-based classification, it doesn't matter whether it's a state's right to define marriage or not. Federal or state, either has to justify it under equal protection. They have failed. Therefore defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.
    No, that is your opinion, that has not been established. That is the argument of the left. I guess it's just been overlooked for over two centuries by our courts, politicians, gays, etc...

    Before someone mentions polygamy again, gender is a protected classification, hence the requirement for a state interest. "Number of persons" is not a protected classification.
    That does not matter one bit, and you should know it. They will go to court for their new rights. And, I predict, the left will be supporting them, and for the exact same reason they support gays, votes.

    There are children literally starving to death in Africa, therefore you don't get to whine about communism.
    A joke, I hope. Do you even get the irony? Communisim - starvation... get it?
    Otherwise, no one could argue just about anything, including gay marriage.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  9. #1329
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,708

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    That does not matter one bit, and you should know it. They will go to court for their new rights. And, I predict, the left will be supporting them, and for the exact same reason they support gays, votes.
    I know you don't understand that someone could feel empathy for a minority group that is being discriminated against, but some of us actually do. Some of us actually care about individual freedom for people other than ourselves. Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others.
    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.

  10. #1330
    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: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    1.)No, that is your opinion, that has not been established.
    2.) That is the argument of the left.
    3.) I guess it's just been overlooked for over two centuries by our courts, politicians, gays, etc...
    4.) That does not matter one bit, and you should know it. They will go to court for their new rights.
    5.) And, I predict, the left will be supporting them, and for the exact same reason they support gays, votes.
    1.) no its a fact as already proven
    2.) also it has very little to do with the left, this straw man fails every time you mention it since plenty on the right/conservatives support equal rights.
    3.) overlooked? you mean like equal rights for women and minorities were and like interracial marriage?
    4.) 100% CORRECT . . . . "NEW" rights not equal and theres no case precedent from hetero/homo sexual marriage they can use, and they are free to do so but it will have nothing to do with hetero/homo sexual marriage
    5.) see #2 this strawman already failed
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •