Page 28 of 116 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 1157

Thread: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

  1. #271
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by darkrecess View Post
    The Federalist #10



    In other words, the very nature of our government and how it is structured is best suited to a large Republic, and in that large Republic the institutions of government will act as a check protecting the rights of the few against the demands of the many. So even if "we, the people" opposed same-sex marriage (which we dont), the institutions of government would protect the rights of the few against the needs of the many.
    Thanks for Fed #10, have read it many times now. The same sentiment goes for preventing a tyranny of the minority... tyranny in any form, I am supposing you would agree, is not what is a desired outcome.

    The 14th only gives equal protection... and with that an equality of rights, it is not an expansion of those rights... the equality has occurred with one man one woman matrimony. Its the same for each and every individual and gender...equal for all. So the hard sought perfect equality already exists. There is no way around, over or underneath the logic.

    In any event, the power grab into a State's authority to determine for itself what its state desires in this regard is a travesty and, one would hope, the Supreme Court affirms the State's supremacy in matters of marriage. If the Federal Government does not stop this inexorable push for more and more power then, inevitably, we will have to have another fight about the proper way for a government to govern.

    A society, its people themselves, can make its rules for how it wants its society to be. And then that can change, back and forth... this is not the USSR.

    Polls are just a snapshot in time and are subject to speculation due to many factors, such as which questions are asked, how they are asked, which questions are not asked, who they are asking, blah blah blah... and here is an article that shows that opposition to SSM is understated in the polls Study: Opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls | Pew Research Center
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  2. #272
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    The state has the right to regulate domestic relations as they wish, but that power is not unlimited. Laws defining and regulating marriage must respect the constitutional rights of persons within the state. In this case the marriage ban is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment as it deprives same sex couples of the family stabilizing benefits of marriage and advances no legitimate state interest.
    The 14th protects each equally... as stated in another post, the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable. I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.

    Putting something there that isn't there, what you may want, does not have anything to do with an equal application of the law.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #273
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    I speak of the Constitution in explicit terms, you just wave your hand at it and say you know it. The minimal you have expressed thus far shows a basic ignorance of the document and its history.

    Game over, please place your quarter in the slot and try again [ if you simply must do so, please also do some reading on our history, how governments and our Constitution work, first...thanks ].
    LOL...if you truly had any understanding of the Constitution and our history you would understand that the foundation of the Constitution is to ensure that there are certain rights that are so intrinsic that they are not subject to the whim of the majority. Take a course in Con Law and then get back to me. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you because you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #274
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    LOL...if you truly had any understanding of the Constitution and our history you would understand that the foundation of the Constitution is to ensure that there are certain rights that are so intrinsic that they are not subject to the whim of the majority. Take a course in Con Law and then get back to me. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you because you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
    Asserting something so obvious that elementary students are generally aware, then an underlying implication that SSM is one of those rights...then telling me to take a Con Law class...hilarious.

    Usually I pick and choose more appropriately, do not comment on certain posts precisely due to these types of frivolous and meaningless responses. My bad, sorry.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  5. #275
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,298
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.
    "a black cannot marry a white and a white cannot marry a black, no preference given to the individual, all is equal, the rules all apply to everyone equally".

  6. #276
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Polls are just a snapshot in time and are subject to speculation due to many factors, such as which questions are asked, how they are asked, which questions are not asked, who they are asking, blah blah blah... and here is an article that shows that opposition to SSM is understated in the polls Study: Opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls | Pew Research Center

    No disagreement that desirability bias exists to some extend, that's why knowledgeable proponents of SSCM (You left out the "Civil" initial, that having to do with secular law) will target 55-60% positive polling prior to attempting a ballot initiative. But let's talk about polling that does count, the ballots cast regarding the issue...

    In the first half of the 2000's decade 30+ states put ban on SSCM (and many on even the possibility of Civil Unions) on the general ballot and won with margins of victory (IIRC) that 23-76%.

    In 2008/2009 California and Maine placed Proposition 8 and Question 1 on the general election ballot (respectively) and both measures passed, but barely squeaked by. A shift of only 2.5% would have changed the outcome of the results. A shift from the bottom end of the earlier results of 25% (-23 - 2.5 = |25.5| ) and from the high end 78% (-76 - 2.5 = |78.5| )

    In 2012 four states (Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine) had SSCM related initiatives on the ballot and in all 4 states proponents of equality won by (IIRC) about 2-3% documenting a further shift over the 2008/2009 results (from narrowly losing to narrowly winning). Disclaimer: of those 4 states 3 initiatives were to approve of SSCM and won, one was to ban SSCM and lost (hence SSCM proponents winning).

    As a matter of fact there was quite a divide on the community supporting SSCM in regards to the passage of Prop 8. One faction wanted to wait and implement a grass roots campaign and then place a new initiative on the ballot in either 2010 or 2012. Polling has shown, even with factoring in the "desirability bias" that California's SSCM ban would have been repealed at the ballot box in 2012. However the other faction didn't want to wait, they took the court challenge route to Prop 8 resulting in a court victory where Prop 8 was overturned and after reaching the SCOTUS that decision was allowed to stand. Personally I think the decision to go the court route, while a tactical victory (Prop 8 was overturned), I think it was a strategic mistake. The political capital of having one of the most populace states overturn their own ban (like Maine did) would have been a HUGH advantage as SSCM is addressed across the nation.


    The writing is on the wall, even if one chooses to dismiss "Public Opinion Polls" on the matter, at the ballot box (the one poll that really counts) the fact that public opinion has shifted towards Marriage Equality is undeniable.

    >>>>

  7. #277
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    "a black cannot marry a white and a white cannot marry a black, no preference given to the individual, all is equal, the rules all apply to everyone equally".
    Your point, please?
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #278
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.

    Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....

    That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.

    Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."

    Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.

    To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....

    I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.
    The reasoning used by legislators enacting "Jim Crow" laws is irrelevant. The supreme court did not take into count the historical perspective of "property rights" in thier judical reasoning...constitutional reasoning is striking down "Jim Crow" laws.

    The State of Virginia never argued "property rights" before the court in Loving v. Vriginia.


  9. #279
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,298
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Your point, please?
    My point is your logic is akin to the people on the wrong side of the civil rights era... I that it will fall flat on its face.

  10. #280
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Your point, please?

    The point was, the measurement applied by the SCOTUS was not "the individual", it was how the couple was treated. Richard Loving and Mildred Loving (according to the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument presented to the SCOTUS) were treated (as individuals) equally. Each was allowed to Civilly Marry - but only within the race confines determined by the State. (i.e. to quote JB ""a black cannot marry a white and a white cannot marry a black, no preference given to the individual, all is equal, the rules all apply to everyone equally".)

    The SCOTUS didn't buy that argument, they rejected it.

    Your argument of "I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally." Has the same structure simply replacing race with gender and trying to limit examination to the individual when in fact it is the couples that are treated differently (the same logic Virginia tried to use and failed).


    NOTE: The exact wording from the Loving decision was "Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race." Pretty much the same structural argument.


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 03-23-14 at 09:52 AM.

Page 28 of 116 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878 ... 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
  •