Page 11 of 45 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 444

Thread: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

  1. #101
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No important state interest is served by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, therefore the laws that do so are unconstitutional.
    Since you specifically say "important"...

    Are you suggesting your reading of it is based on gender discrimination?

    Or are you asserting that sexual orientation falls within middle teir scrutiny despite no case law supporting that at at the highest level?

    Or were you just using a word that sounded good and were not quoting the actual notions of levels of state interesting as they related to the EPC?

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    1) Love is a stupid reasoning to determine the law

    2) Equal Rights per the rule of law. Pedophiles, or children (take your pick which angle you want to come at this one), do not fall under middle or strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. As such, they're subject to rational basis scrutiny. I believe the discrimination against either group can be shown to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest (the least of which, children not being able to enter into binding contracts)

    The same can not be said, imho, for gender discrimination where a man can do something a woman can't do and vise versa. I can't see where that discrimination is substantially related to serving an important state interest. As such, I believe our current marriage laws unconstitutional when it comes to SSM.

    We have equal rights under the law, but allow for discrimination, in multiple ways. Keeping on the children theme, curfew laws are an example of this. Age to buy alcohol or cigerettes. Age to be drafted into the military. Etc



    Won't speak for others, but my objection to it when discussing these matters has nothing to do with my personal beliefs that pedophilia is wrong and everything to do with the Law and the constitution.

    Your sarcasm would be of more use if it was actually making a point
    yet these people will be making the same case. i forget the name of the organization. i agree it is disgusting, and i find no basis but that is not going to stop them from arguing it.

    actually love is stupid to base a law on yet that is one of the number 1 arguments i hear. how can you tell two people that love each other they can't marry. they are wanting to define marriage as anyone that loves another person.

  3. #103
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    actually it is and there are already lawsuits being generated out there that are waiting to see how this thing blows up.

    polygamists are lining up along with other non-traditional marriage arrangements to press the same argument and there is nothing you can do to argue against it.
    so it isn't a slippery slope as much as it is waiting in the wing sort of speak.
    You're in favor of heterosexual marriage, therefore you must allow heterosexual child marriage!

    See, it is a fallacy. The arguments for same-sex marriage do not apply to pedophilia or bestiality. Animals and children cannot sign legal contracts, and a rational state interest is served by keeping it that way.

    once you redefine marriage into a generic definition of just people that love each other then everything else doesn't matter.
    Love isn't relevant to this discussion.

    we are not talking race, we are not talking gender.
    we are talking about peoples lifestyle choices. lifestyle choices are not a protected class like race and gender.
    Marriage is a right, as recognized by the courts. Marriage is not a "lifestyle choice." And defining marriage as between a man and a women is a gender-based classification.

    you can't say that gay people and heterosexuals can marry but polygamist or any other alternate lifestyle can't. if you do then you are being a bigot and whatever other name you call people. your own view then fails to it's own hypocrisy.
    You can't say heterosexuals can marry but polygamists can't, or you're a bigot. Right? You can't say interracial marriage is fine but bestiality isn't. Right?

    if you don't think that this won't be pressed in court for the same reasons think again. then we will see where you really stand on the matter.
    the fact that you are speaking out against it pretty much sums it up.
    Just because it's pressed in court doesn't mean it will be successful. "You allowed interracial marriage, therefore you must allow me to marry a chair!" Go ahead and try that argument if you think it will work.
    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.

  4. #104
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    polygamists are lining up along with other non-traditional marriage arrangements to press the same argument and there is nothing you can do to argue against it.
    You shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do...especially when you're so amazingly wrong about it.

    First, there's no argument that can be made regarding polygamy that qualifies as an already established middle or higher tier of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. So already, the level of difficulty on the part of the state to justify it's discrimination is lower than it would possibly be for Same Sex Marriage on the basis of gender.

    Second, even when it comes to the issue of sexual orientation, there is FAR more case law pushing sexual orientation closer to a middle tier level of scrutiny then there is for pushing polygamists that direction.

    Third, there are additional factors regarding polygamy that legitimately can impact the discussion that aren't present under the notion of Same Sex Marriage, instantly making it more difficult to compare the two as exact analogs. By having multiple people signing into a marriage contract you open up entirely new pitfalls into the law. Changing most marriage laws from a man and a woman to two people requires little but verbage change. That is SIGNIFICANTLY different when you start allowing people to get married to multiple people.

    Tax law, inheretance, power of attorny, property rights, divorce law, child custody, etc all would not simply need a verbage change but a complete rewrite to account for this. This is an additional burdern onto the government that absolutely can be taken into account and is absolutely not present in the same sex marriage debate.

    So one would need to argue for a less crucial state interest, and need show a lesser degree of importance to that interest in regards to the dsicrimination, when it comes to polygamy over same sex marriage. It wouldn't be hard at all to argue for one and not the other unless someone was arguing from a non-sensical and laughable emotionally laden point like "Everyone should marry who they love!".

    For those that actually speak about things from the notion of constitutionality and the law...not from a stance of morality or emotions or religion...it's not difficult in the least to argue for one of those and against another.

    once you redefine marriage into a generic definition of just people that love each other then everything else doesn't matter.
    True, but most SSM people don't use "people that love each other" as the foundation of their argument.

    we are talking about peoples lifestyle choices. lifestyle choices are not a protected class like race and gender.
    One, we absolutely COULD be talking about Gender

    Two, there's far more research and evidence towards sexual orientation not being a "lifestyle choice" then there is towards polygamy regardless of your PERSONAL opinion on the matter.

  5. #105
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Since you specifically say "important"...

    Are you suggesting your reading of it is based on gender discrimination?

    Or are you asserting that sexual orientation falls within middle teir scrutiny despite no case law supporting that at at the highest level?

    Or were you just using a word that sounded good and were not quoting the actual notions of levels of state interesting as they related to the EPC?
    I think same-sex marriage bans fall under at least intermediate scrutiny because they are defining marriage as between a man and a woman - a gender-based distinction. While the intent is clearly to discriminate against homosexuals, the method chosen for that discrimination is through the use of gender-based distinctions. Some recent cases seem to hint at heightened scrutiny, but don't really state it outright.

    edit: Some argue for strict scrutiny on the grounds that marriage has been called a "fundamental" right by SCOTUS, but I'm not sure I really buy that.

    I'm aware that SCOTUS has not written anything that says it's a gender discrimination issue. But then again, lots of things are constitutional until they aren't. While this type has traditionally been applied to treating women differently than men, I don't see any reason it shouldn't apply to any gender-based distinction.

    Quite frankly I don't think same-sex marriage bans even meet a rational basis.
    Last edited by Deuce; 02-14-14 at 12:58 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.

  6. #106
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    yet these people will be making the same case.
    Let them. If they make the "Same" case they'll fail miserably, because there are aspects of the Same Sex Marriage case that isn't inherent WHAT SO EVER in the under-age marriage camp...and vise versa...that make each thing relatively unique. If they stupidly want to use the "same" case to make their argument then they'll fail.

    i forget the name of the organization.
    Probably NAMBLA

    i find no basis but that is not going to stop them from arguing it.
    And they're free to argue for it. Hell, if they feel strongly they should argue for it. That's our system. But I don't think they'll succeed, because the case law is weighed against them far more than it is for same sex marriage. We have case after case of judicial rulings that speak to the constitutionality of discriminating on the basis of age.

    actually love is stupid to base a law on yet that is one of the number 1 arguments i hear.
    Then you have massively selective hearing. Just looking at this thread alone I'm seeing a multitude of arguments more than I'm seeing "Two people who love each other should be able to get married" as the primary justification. If that's the number 1 you hear, it's because you tune out any others.

  7. #107
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I think same-sex marriage bans fall under at least intermediate scrutiny because they are defining marriage as between a man and a woman - a gender-based distinction. While the intent is clearly to discriminate against homosexuals, the method chosen for that discrimination is through the use of gender-based distinctions. Some recent cases seem to hint at heightened scrutiny, but don't really state it outright.
    Gotcha. That's my take on it as well

    I'm aware that SCOTUS has not written anything that says it's a gender discrimination issue.
    Oh, I know that as well...but SCOTUS has written that gender discrimination is of a middle teir.

    My comments regarding SCOTUS not ruling yet was on whether or not sexual orientation would be "middle teir".

    I think it's reasoanble to go "SCOTUS has ruled in the past that gender discrimination is middle teir....I can make an argument this is gender discrimination....thus it falls under middle teir".

    I think it's a lot more questionable to go "SCOTUS has never ruled that sexual orientation is middle teir...but I think it is...and I think this is sexual orientation discrimination...thus it falls under middle teir."

    I was trying to figure out which of those two thought processes you were going with. It appears its the first one. Which I particularly agree with, and explains why you used "important".

    So thanks for clarifying

  8. #108
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    One, the pedophile argument is just weak. The government can, and should, discriminate against people. There's a reason there's levels of the Equal Protectoin Clause with regards to the court of law, and the level of impact to the states interest that the discrimination provides. There's a state interest to view minors as unable to enter into contracts, therefore there's a state interest in disallowing them to become married.

    Two, the Virginia Constitution is kind of irrelevant to this whole thing if my understanding is correct. The law in question was an amendment TO THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION. In terms of the "constitutionality" in regards to Virginia's Constitution, the marriage law was just as inherently "constitutional" as the notion that "all men are by nature equally free". The issue was that the judge believed it did not function within the Constitution of the United States.

    If, through the proper constitutionally designated method, passed an amendment that proclaimed that "People may no longer use the word "Boob", then that would be constitutional. Would it theoritically be at odds with the first amendments freedom of speech? Yes. However, there is no superiority over one amendment or the other and both are "constitutional"...thus basically suggesting you have the freedom of speech except you can't say boob. In a similar way, referencing other things Virginia's Constitution says as a counter to an amendment to Virginia's constitution is hollow.

    Third, the reason I say that the lower court cases are somewhat useless is because one, ultimately SCOTUS is going to have a say and it's the only one that matters, and two, many are basing it off a principle that has not been established at the SCOTUS level yet...that sexual orientation is greater than rational basis scrutiny, more akin with middle teir (like gender) or strict (like race).

    I've been saying for multiple years now, the thing I'm going to find most interesting when this finally reaches SCOTUS is to see if they rule based on discrimination based on sexual orientation and provide definite precedent bumping sexual orientation into a higher tier of the EPC OR if they rule based on gender discrimination.

    Oh, and since apparently some posters ignorantly and ridiculous believe that they can read minds and enjoy making retarded and foolish statements of what "ALL" people think (of course, they then backtrack a few sentences later from the ridiclous assertion...but don't bother to erase it in the first place), I've also long been one saying since this issue started actually being discussed that our marriage laws are unconstitutional on the basis of gender discrimination.
    Actual most, if not all, of these cases rely on rational basis, not any heightened scrutiny.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Read the virginia constitution. Literally the first thing.
    She is a Federal judge ruling on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Exactly where does the Virginia Constitution have anything to do with her statement?

    I'm just surprised she didn't also say that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is also in the Constitution!
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  10. #110
    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: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Is this yet another one of those threads that uber-cons confuse "natural" and "normal"? If so, I really don't wanna read.

Page 11 of 45 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •