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

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

Harshaw said:

They do when they reject sex-based discrimination as a basis for their rulings.

You're right. That was rivrrat. My mistake.

And that argument applies just as much to discrimination against homosexuality, which is the overall crux of what the courts have said.

Click to expand...

Most haven't outright rejected it, except those who reject any argument and rule in favor of the laws. The majority just either a) don't address it or b) simply find it at the lower level because it doesn't even pass the lowest level. In fact, the arguments from the pro-ssm side in a courtroom generally don't touch on that fact to begin with, which is another reason it is not addressed. The discrimination is still based on sex/gender, not sexuality, even if the effect is to discriminate mainly against gays.

The argument I made does not apply to discrimination against homosexuality because in all cases where there are laws restricting two people of the same sex from marrying, no one, no matter their sexuality can marry a person of the same sex, while when it comes to sexuality, any combination of sexualities can get married, two homosexuals, two bisexuals, two heterosexuals, two asexuals even, or any combination of these sexualities so long as they are opposite sex paired.

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

roguenuke said:

You are not making any sense. I didn't ask anything about "breeding" or making more children. We could be talking about a well-to-do family that simply wants their child to get a headstart in making it up through the ranks. No government "breeding money" involved.

As I said, plenty of bad parents out there, many of which have plenty of their own money. Who decides for those children who either have bad parents or no parents? Afterall, some children have no parents due not to the fault of the parents. Can orphans get jobs? What about joining the Army, Navy, or Marines?

Click to expand...

No, Scatt isn't making any sense. Not that I expected him/her to make any sense, based on their posts in this thread.

But based on Scatt saying "no discrimination" that means she/he is ok with child labor, child drinking, child driving, children in the army, children voting, etc etc etc. And no matter how often she/he says "bad parenting", that doesn't deny what they think.

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

roguenuke said:

Most haven't outright rejected it, except those who reject any argument and rule in favor of the laws. The majority just either a) don't address it or b) simply find it at the lower level because it doesn't even pass the lowest level. The discrimination is still based on sex/gender, not sexuality, even if the effect is to discriminate mainly against gays.

Click to expand...

If they don't even mention it, then it's not the basis of their ruling. It's not enough that they "don't disagree" with you. If your theory is the underlying, prevailing one, then they have to go with it. That is, if you want to prove me wrong.

The argument I made does not apply to discrimination against homosexuality because in all cases where there are laws restricting two people of the same sex from marrying, no one, no matter their sexuality can marry, while when it comes to sexuality, any combination of sexualities can get married, two homosexuals, two bisexuals, two heterosexuals, two asexuals even, or any combination of these sexualities so long as they are opposite sex paired.

Click to expand...

They can't marry the person of their choice, which is what your argument boils down to. Whether it's about race, gender, or sexuality, everyone is treated the same under the law on its face, but some people are denied the choice they want to make. It's exactly the same argument in all three cases.

Honestly, I don't even know why you're arguing with me, or why you want to deny the argument that homosexuals are discriminated against. You have a legal theory you want to push, that much is clear, but it's simply not the one the courts have used. But the result is the same either way, so I don't even know what you think you gain by arguing.

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

Harshaw said:

If they don't even mention it, then it's not the basis of their ruling. It's not enough that they "don't disagree" with you. If your theory is the underlying, prevailing one, then they have to go with it. That is, if you want to prove me wrong.

They can't marry the person of their choice, which is what your argument boils down to. Whether it's about race, gender, or sexuality, everyone is treated the same under the law on its face, but some people are denied the choice they want to make. It's exactly the same argument in all three cases.

Honestly, I don't even know why you're arguing with me, or why you want to deny the argument that homosexuals are discriminated against. You have a legal theory you want to push, that much is clear, but it's simply not the one the courts have used. But the result is the same either way, so I don't even know what you think you gain by arguing.

Click to expand...

First, just because the court doesn't address it, doesn't mean it isn't true. If the ruling is available at a lower level, as it is, then it is better if the court rules at that lower level because it keeps their rulings more conservative and shows how truly stupid the arguments for the same sex marriage restrictions are.

Second, the marrying someone of their choice argument falls short anyway since people are restricted in other ways from marrying someone of their choice. You cannot marry someone who is too young (too young in some cases being as old as 18 even, since at least one state sets marriage at 19). You cannot marry someone who is too closely related to you in most states. You cannot marry more than one person. These are all restrictions on marriage based on certain characteristics, age, legal kinship, or amount, just as same sex marriage bans are restrictions based on sex/gender (it is in fact right there in the "same sex" part).

Plus, it really isn't just homosexuals that are denied the choice of taking a same sex spouse. There are almost certainly some heterosexuals who would prefer to take a same sex spouse, such as their best friend or a friend/roommate, for the same reasons that they would take an opposite sex spouse that they are not having sex with. There is no requirement in any marriage in the US to be "in love" or even in an intimate relationship (with the possible exception of marriages that gain a person a green card or citizenship). So, in effect, my mother could not marry her best friend if she wanted to, not because of their sexualities (they are both straight) or their relationship with each other really (because two friends of the opposite sex could get married), but only because she is a woman wanting to marry a woman.

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

roguenuke said:

First, just because the court doesn't address it, doesn't mean it isn't true. If the ruling is available at a lower level, as it is, then it is better if the court rules at that lower level because it keeps their rulings more conservative and shows how truly stupid the arguments for the same sex marriage restrictions are.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter; you told me I was wrong about what the courts said. If I am, they have to agree with you, not just NOT disagree.

Second, the marrying someone of their choice argument falls short anyway since people are restricted in other ways from marrying someone of their choice. You cannot marry someone who is too young (too young in some cases being as old as 18 even, since at least one state sets marriage at 19). You cannot marry someone who is too closely related to you in most states. You cannot marry more than one person. These are all restrictions on marriage based on certain characteristics, age, legal kinship, or amount, just as same sex marriage bans are restrictions based on sex/gender (it is in fact right there in the "same sex" part).

Plus, it really isn't just homosexuals that are denied the choice of taking a same sex spouse. There are almost certainly some heterosexuals who would prefer to take a same sex spouse, such as their best friend or a friend/roommate, for the same reasons that they would take an opposite sex spouse that they are not having sex with. There is no requirement in any marriage in the US to be "in love" or even in an intimate relationship (with the possible exception of marriages that gain a person a green card or citizenship). So, in effect, my mother could not marry her best friend if she wanted to, not because of their sexualities (they are both straight) or their relationship with each other really (because two friends of the opposite sex could get married), but only because she is a woman wanting to marry a woman.

Click to expand...

This is just repeating what you said, and I still don't know why you're even arguing with me. Do YOU?

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

Harshaw said:

Doesn't matter; you told me I was wrong about what the courts said. If I am, they have to agree with you, not just NOT disagree.

This is just repeating what you said, and I still don't know why you're even arguing with me. Do YOU?

Click to expand...

You are wrong that the courts (at least the ones that ruled to strike down same sex marriage bans) contradict the reasoning that the laws are gender-based discrimination. The courts simply have not ruled on that, because in general, it is never argued that way. Their rulings do not however conflict with the reasoning that it is gender-based discrimination, because it is. The courts focus on the groups being discriminated by the discrimination. In this case though, the group discriminated against the most by the laws are homosexuals, but the discrimination itself is based on gender, not sexuality. Just because a court has not made such a ruling, does not make the statement false or wrong.

And I continue to argue with you because you continue to either make claims that are incorrect or appear to not understand parts of my arguments, so I am going to correct you or clarify for you.

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

roguenuke said:

You are wrong that the courts (at least the ones that ruled to strike down same sex marriage bans) contradict the reasoning that the laws are gender-based discrimination.

Click to expand...

Those who have addressed it have.

The courts simply have not ruled on that, because in general, it is never argued that way,

Their rulings do not however conflict with the reasoning that it is gender-based discrimination, because it is. The courts focus on the groups being discriminated by the discrimination. In this case though, the group discriminated against the most by the laws are homosexuals, but the discrimination itself is based on gender, not sexuality. Just because a court has not made such a ruling, does not make the statement false or wrong.

And I continue to argue with you because you continue to either make claims that are incorrect or appear to not understand parts of my arguments, so I am going to correct you or clarify for you.

Click to expand...

I have not misunderstood anything you said. Everything I've said has been correct (except that I misremembered the person involved in an earlier exchange). And again I have to ask -- why are you trying so hard to push an argument that the courts haven't used to come to their decisions, when the result is the same? Why is demanding the discrimination isn't based on sexuality, but on sex, so important to you?

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

roguenuke said:

Because that worked so well in the past. Business owners would never take advantage of children. It isn't like the government had to make child labor laws or anything because in the past both businesses and parents put their young children to work, in pretty horrible conditions, doing pretty dangerous jobs, right?

And the Army is part of the government.

Click to expand...

The parents got them the jobs, not the other way around.

Child labor laws were enacted to help eliminate the massive state of socialism.

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

scatt said:

The parents got them the jobs, not the other way around.

Child labor laws were enacted to help eliminate the massive state of socialism.

Click to expand...

Where do you come up with these things?

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

scatt said:

The parents got them the jobs, not the other way around.

Child labor laws were enacted to help eliminate the massive state of socialism.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Sometimes it was the parents, sometimes it was the business owners taking in orphans to work for them. Either way, it was still wrong. And either way, it was still more than just "poor parenting", much more.

And you still have not addressed the restriction on age for joining the military or holding any other government job.

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

Harshaw said:

Those who have addressed it have.

I have not misunderstood anything you said. Everything I've said has been correct (except that I misremembered the person involved in an earlier exchange). And again I have to ask -- why are you trying so hard to push an argument that the courts haven't used to come to their decisions, when the result is the same? Why is demanding the discrimination isn't based on sexuality, but on sex, so important to you?

Click to expand...

It is important because it is the most accurate truth of the situation. Should someone wish to marry a person of the same sex but not actually be gay, they should be allowed to do so without having to hide the fact that they aren't gay. It should be recognized that the discrimination is not based on sexuality, but rather sex/gender.

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

roguenuke said:

Wrong. Sometimes it was the parents, sometimes it was the business owners taking in orphans to work for them. Either way, it was still wrong. And either way, it was still more than just "poor parenting", much more.

And you still have not addressed the restriction on age for joining the military or holding any other government job.

Click to expand...

Is the owner not the parent?

I do not support state intervention into other countries.

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

scatt said:

Is the owner not the parent?

I do not support state intervention into other countries.

Click to expand...

No. In many cases, the owner is simply a business owner. You do realize that "Newsies" was based on a real event right?

And who said anything about "intervention into other countries"? We are simply talking about the Army. Or do you disapprove of having an Army setup for our defense as well?

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

roguenuke said:

No. In many cases, the owner is simply a business owner.

And who said anything about "intervention into other countries"? We are simply talking about the Army. Or do you disapprove of having an Army setup for our defense as well?

Click to expand...

Taking in an orphan sounds like parenting.

That is what the army does.

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

roguenuke said:

It is important because it is the most accurate truth of the situation.

Click to expand...

Well, as almost no court has followed it, no, it's not.

And besides that, arguing with me, here, about it does not change the prevailing legal treatment of it, so what's the point? If you convinced me, then what? The legal reality of it is still the same.

Should someone wish to marry a person of the same sex but not actually be gay, they should be allowed to do so without having to hide the fact that they aren't gay. It should be recognized that the discrimination is not based on sexuality, but rather sex/gender.

Click to expand...

This, too, is in itself an argument about discrimination against sexuality.

And even at its heart, it isn't a sex-based discrimination issue. It's a definitional and free association issue.

But I suppose it will all be revisited once those throngs of heterosexuals clamoring to marry people of the same sex bring it to court.

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

AGENT J said:

false the state doesn't have the right to violate individual rights and the fed is fixing it

Click to expand...

Sorry, can't agree with that. Our Constitution is there to protect our rights, especially from the federal government. If you are out there pushing for more federal power just because it's an issue you agree with, you might end up in a place you don't want to be in when they use that power against you.

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

Anthony60 said:

1.)Sorry, can't agree with that.
2.) Our Constitution is there to protect our rights, especially from the federal government.
3.) If you are out there pushing for more federal power just because it's an issue you agree with, you might end up in a place you don't want to be in when they use that power against you.

Click to expand...

1.) you dont have to agree thats the way it is, i wasnt discussing opinions
2.) correct and the body the protects our rights is also the fed cant have one without the other and the state cant violate individual rights and thats why the fed is fixing it
3.) one again this has nothgin to do with me this is the way it is and this is not giving the fed more power its what they already do and are supposed to do.

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

Deuce said:

That exact logic was explicitly rejected in the Loving case. "Everyone can marry someone of the same race. No discrimination at all!"

So what makes you think this logic is valid now when it wasn't then? You must think there's some distinctive difference here that makes such logic acceptable now.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the same logic. In fact, that's the opposite of what I said. But, I guess you need to bend the logic to fit your argument.

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

paddymcdougall said:

That's pretty tortured. Your attempt to make them dissimilar is making your argument scream in pain.

Click to expand...

That is such a warped, strange answer that has nothing to do with anything.

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

Anthony60 said:

No, that's not the same logic. In fact, that's the opposite of what I said. But, I guess you need to bend the logic to fit your argument.

Click to expand...

That sure looks like what you said to me. If it isn't feel free to clarify.

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

scatt said:

Taking in an orphan sounds like parenting.

That is what the army does.

Click to expand...

Who said they were taken in by anyone? Many orphans live in group homes or on the street, and this was especially true of those who were being forced to work prior to child labor laws.

Still haven't answered my question.

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

roguenuke said:

Who said they were taken in by anyone? Many orphans live in group homes or on the street, and this was especially true of those who were being forced to work prior to child labor laws.

Still haven't answered my question.

Click to expand...

Forced to work?

What question do you think I will answer with yes the state should discriminate after I said numerous times I do not support state discrimination?

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

AGENT J said:

1.) you dont have to agree thats the way it is, i wasnt discussing opinions

Click to expand...

That's a non answer.

2.) correct and the body the protects our rights is also the fed cant have one without the other and the state cant violate individual rights and thats why the fed is fixing it

Click to expand...

That's wrong, the Constitution protects our rights, not the federal government. Without the Constitution, the federal government would have taken most of your rights long ago.

3.) one again this has nothgin to do with me this is the way it is and this is not giving the fed more power its what they already do and are supposed to do.

Click to expand...

And that's the way the fed gets more power. It's like slowly boiling a frog. All of a sudden, it's too late, and you're screwed. As in all of us, not just the right or left.

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

Anthony60 said:

1.)That's a non answer.
2.) That's wrong, the Constitution protects our rights, not the federal government. Without the Constitution, the federal government would have taken most of your rights long ago.
3.)And that's the way the fed gets more power. It's like slowly boiling a frog. All of a sudden, it's too late, and you're screwed. As in all of us, not just the right or left.

Click to expand...

1.) wrong again its an answer and it was correcting your false assumption.
2.) nope wrong again its a check and balance they both do this with out the fed the constitution would be meaningless

fact remains the state cant violate individual rights so its being fixed
3.) theres nothing in my post that gives the fed more power this strawman of yours is a complete failure.

NOTHING is changing the fed and for that matter in theses cases the SSCs are doing their jobs

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

scatt said:

Forced to work?

What question do you think I will answer with yes the state should discriminate after I said numerous times I do not support state discrimination?

Click to expand...

The state does discriminate and deep down you do support at least a very basic form of it because you support children being forced to be under the control of their parents and I'm sure, despite your constant deflection (or due to it really), that you support at least some age discrimination and even discrimination based on mental health. Unless you are going to tell me that you don't think a child whose parents die should be taken into someone's custody, state or at least some adult, should their parents die.