Page 30 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 1157

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

  1. #291
    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
    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?

    Don't understand the question. Where the legislature had the power to repeal Statutory Law and enact Civil Marriages irregardless of gender, yes it was done in a legitimate manner. Where an Amendment was passed (Maine) by a vote of the people (2009), that was repealed by a new vote by the people (2012).

    You are aware that not all ban on SSCM were "Amendments" to State Constitutions, some existed only as Statutory Law.

    >>>

  2. #292
    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
    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.
    Unless you consider your contention silly, I did not.

    Your contention was quite clear...I understand your treatment of my question as silly, because I brought a direct challenge to your contention. One you do not have an answer to.

    It was a simple question. Where did your interpretation of the meaning of the 14th amendment come from?

    "...the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable."

    These are your words, your contention, your interpretation.


    Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate

    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.


  3. #293
    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
    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).


    >>>>
    Well, lets see you apply it to the scenario I presented. Lets say I wanted to marry 73 other people, two of which are my siblings, a male and a female sibling [certainly wouldn't want the sibling thing to be unequal for gosh sakes ]. Seeing as the one man one woman, the definition of "traditional marriage", would not hold any longer if we do away with the concept ... what is to stop me from marrying my 73 love mates which include my two siblings [assuming they are all consenting, my siblings have been rendered infertile and all of us are of age...but of course we could change all those annoying/unnecessary prerequisites later,right? ].

    Give me my equal protection, I demand it. You gave it to them, you are going to discriminate against me and all these others simply based on some arbitrary number and that some of us are related... what is the state's compelling interest in not allowing us 74 to be married together?

    Who will our marriage specifically hurt? You? You see, that is how the game is being currently, and will be in the future, played.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  4. #294
    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
    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.



    >>>>
    Well, as you are aware, this was a reply to another poster. Yes, I am fully cognizant of Civil Marriage/Unions and their existence.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  5. #295
    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
    Well, lets see you apply it to the scenario I presented. Lets say I wanted to marry 73 other people, two of which are my siblings, a male and a female sibling [certainly wouldn't want the sibling thing to be unequal for gosh sakes ]. Seeing as the one man one woman, the definition of "traditional marriage", would not hold any longer if we do away with the concept ... what is to stop me from marrying my 73 love mates which include my two siblings [assuming they are all consenting, my siblings have been rendered infertile and all of us are of age...but of course we could change all those annoying/unnecessary prerequisites later,right? ].

    Give me my equal protection, I demand it. You gave it to them, you are going to discriminate against me and all these others simply based on some arbitrary number and that some of us are related... what is the state's compelling interest in not allowing us 74 to be married together?

    Who will our marriage specifically hurt? You? You see, that is how the game is being currently, and will be in the future, played.

    It will be up to them to make the challenge and present their legal arguments in court. Such arguments will prevail or fail on their own merits. Some seem to thing that becaues A happens, then that means the B can't have other issues involved which preclude their ability to prevail.

    There are a number of arguments against Bigamy. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.

    There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.
    1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
    2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
    3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.


    Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


    However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

    Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

    In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
    A married to B,
    A married to C, and
    B married to C.

    Add a fourth spouse and you get:
    A married to B
    A married to C
    A married to D
    B married to C
    B married to D
    C married to D

    Add a fifth spouse and you get:
    A married to B
    A married to C
    A married to D
    A married to E
    B married to C
    B married to D
    B married to E
    C married to D
    C married to E
    E married to D

    Add another, etc...

    Then take it to 74 spouses.

    So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

    You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

    When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


    So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


    >>>>

  6. #296
    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]

    Sounds as though you are right, you did not understand the question.

    If there is an amendment to a Constitution one cannot simply change it by passing a law or by the State Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional if the amendment was passed and ratified legally. The amendment would change that state's Constititution and the Supreme Court would be obliged to maintain the integrity of the law/amendment under the new framework created by the amendment. State Supreme Courts are not the Federal Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has yet to decide if such laws are Constitutional.

    One usually must, depending on that state's constitution, repeal an amendment through the means agreed upon under that Constitution. A state Supreme Court is not allowed to just change things as they may want them to be, they are guided by the law and the state constitution.

    For instance, under the US Constitution we had an amendment, #18, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol...which was repealed by passing the 21st amendment allowing the resumption of those activities. That was a legit manner of repeal of an amendment.

    So, were the over-turnings of SSM/CU bans and definitions of marriage amendments accomplished through the proper means?

    And yes, I was/am aware that some may have been only statutory and some were amendments.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  7. #297
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    If that was the goal then people would be arguing that all private contracts pertaining to marriage between consenting parties must be respected by all fifty states. What is actually happening is people are arguing for extending government authority in marriage by expanding its domain to another form of relationship between two individuals. People are not arguing for freedom, but simply for government authority.
    A very interesting and very warped view of what is happening. Government authority is being ROLLED back, not extended. The extension has already occurred when STATE governments banned gay marriage or 'defended' the definition of marriage to exclude same sex.

    People are wanting this Government over reach rolled back and the Government to return to the more bureaucratic side of marriage- the issuance of licenses and acknowledgement of the same rights as any other married couple.

  8. #298
    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
    Sounds as though you are right, you did not understand the question.
    Actually I did. The failure may have been mine to not explain myself in detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    If there is an amendment to a Constitution one cannot simply change it by passing a law or by the State Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional if the amendment was passed and ratified legally. The amendment would change that state's Constititution and the Supreme Court would be obliged to maintain the integrity of the law/amendment under the new framework created by the amendment. State Supreme Courts are not the Federal Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has yet to decide if such laws are Constitutional.

    One usually must, depending on that state's constitution, repeal an amendment through the means agreed upon under that Constitution. A state Supreme Court is not allowed to just change things as they may want them to be, they are guided by the law and the state constitution.
    This is true. State Constitutional bans cannot be overturned by State Supreme Courts which are bound by that State's Constitution. The question that I was asked was that of those 17 States where SSCM exist did it in a legal manner. The answer is "Yes".

    In some states there was no amendment to the State Constituion and the State Supreme Court overturned State Statutory Law. In no case has a State Supreme Court overturned a State Constitutional ban.

    In some states there was no amendment and State legislatures passed SSCM into law just like any other law.

    In ONE State (California) a State Constitutional ban that was passed AFTER SSCM had already become legal to remove that right from the people was overturned by Federal Court. That case went all the way to the SCOTUS and they "punted" on the core question but did not invalidate the District Court ruling. The result was they dodged the core question and let the Federal ruling remain in place stricking the unconstitutional (per the ruling) ban.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    For instance, under the US Constitution we had an amendment, #18, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol...which was repealed by passing the 21st amendment allowing the resumption of those activities. That was a legit manner of repeal of an amendment.
    Correct.

    As another example. The State of Alabama passed a State Constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. Since it was in the State Constitution the Alabama Supreme Court could not strike such a ban. However that constitutional amendment was rendered invalid based on the United States Supreme Court (Federal) ruling that such provisions were unconstitutional.

    That is a legit manner of overturning unconstitutional laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    So, were the over-turnings of SSM/CU bans and definitions of marriage amendments accomplished through the proper means?
    So, to repeat the previous answer "Yes" they were accomplished through proper means which included:

    State Statutory Laws were overturned by State Supreme Courts in accordance with that State Constitution (which didn't ban SSCM but provided for Equal Treatment and nondiscrimination under the law.

    State Legislators rewrote Statutory Law (when no State Constructional ban existed) and wrote it into State law.

    In one State a State Constitutional ban was over-ruled by a Federal court based on United States Constitutional grounds.

    In one State after a ban had been passed by initiative, that same ban was repeal 3-years later by a vote of the people.


    In no case has a State Supreme Court struck down a State Constitutional amendment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    And yes, I was/am aware that some may have been only statutory and some were amendments.

    That's good. Some don't.



    >>>>

  9. #299
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Sounds as though you are right, you did not understand the question. If there is an amendment to a Constitution one cannot simply change it by passing a law or by the State Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional if the amendment was passed and ratified legally. The amendment would change that state's Constititution and the Supreme Court would be obliged to maintain the integrity of the law/amendment under the new framework created by the amendment. State Supreme Courts are not the Federal Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has yet to decide if such laws are Constitutional. One usually must, depending on that state's constitution, repeal an amendment through the means agreed upon under that Constitution. A state Supreme Court is not allowed to just change things as they may want them to be, they are guided by the law and the state constitution. For instance, under the US Constitution we had an amendment, #18, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol...which was repealed by passing the 21st amendment allowing the resumption of those activities. That was a legit manner of repeal of an amendment. So, were the over-turnings of SSM/CU bans and definitions of marriage amendments accomplished through the proper means? And yes, I was/am aware that some may have been only statutory and some were amendments.
    That does of course leave the Ultimate Courts of the land, the Federal system, to rule on any state constitutional amendment or provision.

    it is of some note that when the CONs, such as they are, controlled both Houses and the Oval Office there was no serious attempt to put a 'defense of marriage' amendment or outright ban on same sex marriage in the Federal Constitution. best effort was a federal law.

  10. #300
    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
    Unless you consider your contention silly, I did not.

    Your contention was quite clear...I understand your treatment of my question as silly, because I brought a direct challenge to your contention. One you do not have an answer to.

    It was a simple question. Where did your interpretation of the meaning of the 14th amendment come from?

    "...the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable."

    These are your words, your contention, your interpretation.
    And well, I stick by my "words", my "contention", my "interpretation". I submit all those come from being a sentient being understanding the English language and grammar. A study of our history, government, the Constitution itself doesn't hurt, either.

    The law of the land is our fine Constitution.

    Now I will ask the requisite opposing question, where does the 14th say that it is an expansion of rights beyond those under the current law? If there are no laws in limitation of a right... the right is already expanded. Capiche?

    So, just where is your concrete example that I requested that you have somehow completely forgotten to provide? You obviously contend that they exist, so please elucidate... or we will have to assume this to be one tilting at windmills.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

Page 30 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... 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
  •