Page 7 of 152 FirstFirst ... 567891757107 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 1516

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

  1. #61
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,559

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No one is telling you to do anything with your religious beliefs. I see no need for them to change at all, why do you?

    And marriage's definition has changed many times...as appropriate to SOCIETY, not politics. It's about discrimination, just like Loving vs. Virginia.

    There's no BS....we are talking about marriage in America. If you wish to continue to base it on your religious views & cannot accept others, then I suggest you find a place that creates laws based on religion, not equality.
    All well and good, but I don't like being called a bigot because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    And on a different level, it is an atrocious abuse of states rights when a federal judge's single opinion overturns the decision made by the people of that state. It's not slavery, no one is being forced to hand their life over to someone else.
    "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

  2. #62
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,544

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Yes, by barring same-sex couples the right to marry.

    No state defines marriage as between two heterosexuals. Some states define marriage as between one man and one woman. A gender-based distinction, not sexuality. Your error is conflating marriage with sexual desire. (clearly not being married yourself, then! )
    Well, Deuce, you can continue to claim that marriage laws don't discriminate against homosexuals, but court after court does, and more will continue to, disagree with you.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #63
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,559

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Specifically:
    Love the avatar.
    "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

  4. #64
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,782

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Well, Deuce, you can continue to claim that marriage laws don't discriminate against homosexuals, but court after court does, and more will continue to, disagree with you.
    That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

    The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract. It must therefore pass gender-based discrimination hurdles under equal protection.

    Resolve your confusion?
    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.

  5. #65
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,544

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

    The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract.

    Resolve your confusion?
    Hmmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality. There are no laws regarding sexuality in marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
    Aha:

    Quote Originally Posted by Judge in the UT Case
    The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry
    Plus the many other court decisions I've already cited to you.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #66
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

    The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract. It must therefore pass gender-based discrimination hurdles under equal protection.

    Resolve your confusion?
    The effect is discrimination against equally or greater qualified majority group persons. The method is affirmative action to give preference to selected minority group members. It must therefore pass racial and ethnic based discrimination hurdles under equal protection. Does that resolve your confusion?
    “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. #67
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,175
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

    The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract. It must therefore pass gender-based discrimination hurdles under equal protection.

    Resolve your confusion?
    Huh. Clever way of framing it. There must have been similar loopholes used to discriminate against blacks and women. Off the top of my head, I can think of Jim Crow voter literacy tests being defended by racists as a method to "only" test education, but defensible because it has nothing to do with skin color. Even though the racist and everyone else knew exactly what the consequences of literacy tests were.
    Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to scientific research.
    A self-serving billionaire engaging in historically massive personal corruption #NotMyPresident

  8. #68
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,782

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Hmmm.





    Aha:



    Plus the many other court decisions I've already cited to you.
    ...and the clarification I just gave you still hasn't helped you out with this?

    I know what the courts have said overturning the laws, but the fact remains that the actual distinction the state is making is one of gender, not sexuality. There is no law that says "gay people can't get married." The laws say "two men cannot get married." I am not wrong in this, and this doesn't conflict with the court arguments. The gender-based distinction is made with the intent of and effect of discriminating against homosexuals, which is what the courts are referring to.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-21-13 at 01:04 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.

  9. #69
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,544

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    ...and the clarification I just gave you still hasn't helped you out with this?
    At best, it's a backpedal.

    Look, you said multiple times that marriage laws don't prevent homosexuals from marrying. Many, many courts have, and will continue, to disagree with you. Not only that, several have specifically rejected the argument that it's a gender-based discrimination; it's a discrimination against homosexuality. I've already told you all this. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #70
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,782

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Look, you said multiple times that marriage laws don't prevent homosexuals from marrying.
    What I've actually said is that it's a gender-based classification. Because the distinction the states are making is one of gender, not sexuality. This is not the same thing as saying "this doesn't discriminate against homosexuals."

    See, homosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. The same way heterosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Feel free to disprove this.


    Many, many courts have, and will continue, to disagree with you. Not only that, several have specifically rejected the argument that it's a gender-based discrimination; it's a discrimination against homosexuality. I've already told you all this. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
    They don't disagree with me. They disagree with your incorrect interpretation of what I've said.

    Again: The intent is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based distinction regarding a legal contract. I've clarified this for you, there's no reason to continue lying about what I'm arguing. Given your perceptions and beliefs, the mistake is understandable. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-21-13 at 01:14 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.

Page 7 of 152 FirstFirst ... 567891757107 ... 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
  •