Page 29 of 116 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 1157

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

  1. #281
    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 Gaugingcatenate View Post
    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.
    Where did you get this definition of the 14th? "...it only equally protects all under current law". Where did that caveat come from?


  2. #282
    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 WorldWatcher View Post
    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...



    >>>>
    Thanks for the useful information.

    Another area in which polling counts is in relation to constitutional amendments where SSM [and yes, in some cases Civil Unions, as well ]are banned or where the state defines marriage as one man one woman. I think the current count is 34 states [ plus could well be added other states within the 16 that currently allow for SSM/CU had similar amendments wrongly overturned by the courts ] and that is a 2/3s + majority of the states.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #283
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 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
    Thanks for the useful information.

    Another area in which polling counts is in relation to constitutional amendments where SSM [and yes, in some cases Civil Unions, as well ]are banned or where the state defines marriage as one man one woman. I think the current count is 34 states [ plus could well be added other states within the 16 that currently allow for SSM/CU had similar amendments wrongly overturned by the courts ] and that is a 2/3s + majority of the states.

    At one time the majority of the States had bans on interracial marriage. The change started in the Court with a 1947 California Supreme Court overturning that States ban and by 1967 (the year of the Loving decision) there were still 18 States with such bans in place.

    In actuality, the majority of those 17 States that have SSCM have done so - not through the courts - but through legislative action and ballot initiative. I can pull the list if you need confirmation.



    >>>>

  4. #284
    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
    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.
    That is YOUR opinion, you are welcomed to it. What did happen in the CR era was that the majority was sincerely convinced that this form of discrimination was wrong, not the right way to go... if the majority had persisted in feeling that which you express was not right, and while I agree that not allowing people of different races to marry would be wrong, each society has the right to make such decisions...and they will, whether De Jure or De Facto.

    If the majority does not agree, or at minimum accede, yes...the law simply will not fly, will indeed fall flat on its face.

    This correlation of SSM with race is atrocious, by the way... using it as some sort of verbal battering ram to get ones way diminishes those who fought the good fight.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  5. #285
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 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
    That is YOUR opinion, you are welcomed to it. What did happen in the CR era was that the majority was sincerely convinced that this form of discrimination was wrong, not the right way to go... if the majority had persisted in feeling that which you express was not right, and while I agree that not allowing people of different races to marry would be wrong, each society has the right to make such decisions...and they will, whether De Jure or De Facto.

    If the majority does not agree, or at minimum accede, yes...the law simply will not fly, will indeed fall flat on its face.

    This correlation of SSM with race is atrocious, by the way... using it as some sort of verbal battering ram to get ones way diminishes those who fought the good fight.

    The majority in those states that still had interracial bans, still wanted those bans. Alabama voted to amend their State Constitution to place such a ban beyond the reach of State courts - that ban was one of the ones overturned by Loving (1967).

    IIRC in 2000 Alabama finally got around to repealing the language - which had remained part of their State Constitution even though it was unenforceable - and 40% still voted to retain the language.



    >>>>

  6. #286
    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 WorldWatcher View Post
    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.


    >>>>
    Yes, and maybe that will change, but not until the majority is convinced, or at least agrees to accept the change, no matter what the SC says. That is human nature. Governments can try to force its view of what is right through its powers of enforcement [ see the USSR and the PRC ] or it can allow its people to decide for themselves.

    If our government starts going the USSR/PRC route, forcing those things down our throats of which we, the majority, cannot and will not abide, well, the consequences of that remain to be seen... but if there are more of us and less of the other side, I can fairly accurately predict which side is most probably going to prevail.

    As regards the Loving case, yes... and while we may both disagree with what Virginia was attempting, this is not about race, same structured arguments do not apply in equal measure to all cases [ i.e., if a person wanted to marry 73 others, two of which are siblings ]... so while I understand your logic, it remains faulty in its potential, and actual, application.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  7. #287
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 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
    Yes, and maybe that will change, but not until the majority is convinced, or at least agrees to accept the change, no matter what the SC says. That is human nature. Governments can try to force its view of what is right through its powers of enforcement [ see the USSR and the PRC ] or it can allow its people to decide for themselves.

    If our government starts going the USSR/PRC route, forcing those things down our throats of which we, the majority, cannot and will not abide, well, the consequences of that remain to be seen... but if there are more of us and less of the other side, I can fairly accurately predict which side is most probably going to prevail.

    As regards the Loving case, yes... and while we may both disagree with what Virginia was attempting, this is not about race, same structured arguments do not apply in equal measure to all cases [ i.e., if a person wanted to marry 73 others, two of which are siblings ]... so while I understand your logic, it remains faulty in its potential, and actual, application.

    Well of course you can claim my logic is faulty, you are free to do that.

    That does not mean it is faulty though. Your arguments, up to this point, have repeated the same structure used at one time to ban interracial marriages. That logic failed and discrimination was overturned by the courts when challenged. We are seeing history repeating itself, the same types of arguments are being presented to justify discrimination based on race and the dominoes are falling because the logic is faulty.

    My logic matches that of the various District Courts and the SCOTUS. We'll have to see if it holds thorugh the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS when they finally take a case directly on the issue (Windsor was about Federal recognition of legal Civil Marriage, not whether States could ban Civil Marriage based on gender).


    >>>>

  8. #288
    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 1750Texan View Post
    Where did you get this definition of the 14th? "...it only equally protects all under current law". Where did that caveat come from?
    Well, since we are going for silliness... how would you then apply the 14th, or even decide whether it is applicable? Lets say to something that does not exist, or does not yet exist. Or perhaps you may apply to the empty space that exists between the planets... or maybe the space left unused between some folks' ears?

    Its definitely a quandary, eh? But go ahead, give us an example... I am not unreasonable, convince me.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  9. #289
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 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
    Well, since we are going for silliness... how would you then apply the 14th, or even decide whether it is applicable? Lets say to something that does not exist, or does not yet exist. Or perhaps you may apply to the empty space that exists between the planets... or maybe the space left unused between some folks' ears?

    Its definitely a quandary, eh? But go ahead, give us an example... I am not unreasonable, convince me.

    Applying the 14th to something that doesn't exist - well that's kind of silly.

    The fact is that Civil Marriage does exist, it's not a new provision under the law.



    >>>>

  10. #290
    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 WorldWatcher View Post
    At one time the majority of the States had bans on interracial marriage. The change started in the Court with a 1947 California Supreme Court overturning that States ban and by 1967 (the year of the Loving decision) there were still 18 States with such bans in place.

    In actuality, the majority of those 17 States that have SSCM have done so - not through the courts - but through legislative action and ballot initiative. I can pull the list if you need confirmation.



    >>>>
    Thanks for a civil and reasoned discussion.

    No need on the list pulling, I do not need a list of a majority of minority view states at this time... we have the 2/3s plus majority currently as well as that buffer of the minority of the states who so desire SSM/CU going through ballot or legislation. Thanks anyhow.

    One thing more, though. A question: Did they overturn the SSM/CU amendments through a legitimate amendment process?
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

Page 29 of 116 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... 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
  •