Page 31 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 1157

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

  1. #301
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 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 notquiteright View Post
    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.

    Actually there have been many "serious" attempts to ban SSCM in the COTUS -->>Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Just because it didn't pass doesn't mean that those that submitted them weren't serious.


    >>>>

  2. #302
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    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.
    In this case, the ban was against the governments interest as allowing more parties to take part in government marriage rewards them more control over the relationships of people, and because of this, overturning the ban in fact expanded the governments authority far more than it decreased it. However, it is true that the ban itself was an unacceptable level of government power, but when measured against what they gained I can not argue that they didn't come out of it with more power.

  3. #303
    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 notquiteright View Post
    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.
    Yes it does allow them to rule. And to overrule a former SC in case they get it wrong, as they did in Plessy v Ferguson. So stay tuned.

    Your point regarding "CONs"? BTW, they were not all Conservatives, most of them, they were Republicans. The two terms are not synonymous, Republican can be interpreted to be on a spectrum from rather conservative, socially, fiscally or both, all the way to being pretty damned liberal, depending on the issue.

    My view of your point? You just wanted to use CONs in an implied derogatory manner and say something that most of us all already know... but that has little, if any, significance.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  4. #304
    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
    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.
    If you understand the Constitution as you say you do...you would have never asked where in the constitution does it allow for an expansion of rights. The 14th amendment and the constitutional as a whole is used as judicial reasoning for such decisions. Precedent.

    Any future law can be ajudicated using the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning to allow or strike down that law. Precedent.

    Any right afforded in the future, will use the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment- as well as others- as the court's judicial reasoning to afford those rights. Precedent.

    230+ years of American jurisprudence...precedent.


  5. #305
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Who cares anymore? I mean honestly, the moment this issue comes up now, people tune out....
    And yet you post in every freaking one of these threads!
    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. #306
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,635

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Actually there have been many "serious" attempts to ban SSCM in the COTUS -->>Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just because it didn't pass doesn't mean that those that submitted them weren't serious.
    Wasteful yes, serious no... the Senate never considered the amendment, the House never approved it, falling 54 votes short. Serious would have at the very least had both Houses voting for the Bill with the House passing it.

    2002, no action taken
    2003, different wording in a few places no action taken
    2004, same bill failed in the House, never was heard in the Senate
    2005/6 same bill again failed in house, never heard in the Senate

    I guess you see this as serious... I see it as wasteful effort pandering to a CON base.

  7. #307
    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
    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.


    >>>>
    Agreed, now we are on similar pages regarding same structure arguments. They have to be proven on their own merits, cannot just be utilized solely because the same, or related, arguments were successful in some other case.

    And...


    Oh come on, where is the humanity to those objections...

    Besides, I inherited oil and gas interests from my grandfather, he along with many others had a divided interest in this. I now own, I think it is, a 372nd interest, or some such, as do all my siblings...as do the apparently 371 others who have similarly inherited these almost worthless assets. The company to which these were leased must keep up with this ongoing mess. So this complexity and the necessity to keep up with it is already out there multiplying. That said, why would we deny all these fine folks the right to be married together based on some perceived notion that it will just be too dang complex? Love conquers all, right?

    Besides, you did let those others have their way, so come on, we have super computers to figure all that complexity out. You just don't want to allow it. Are you a polygamaphobe, oops sorry, excuse me, bigamaphobe or something?

    Let me also say that I do, however, appreciate the effort to which you have proven willing to make and compliment you on this wholeheartedly. Too few here actually want to debate. We may not ever agree on the topic, but I do hold the effort you have shown in high regard.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #308
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,635

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    In this case, the ban was against the governments interest as allowing more parties to take part in government marriage rewards them more control over the relationships of people, and because of this, overturning the ban in fact expanded the governments authority far more than it decreased it. However, it is true that the ban itself was an unacceptable level of government power, but when measured against what they gained I can not argue that they didn't come out of it with more power.
    No it was the government at one level removing the ability of a government at another level to ban marriage for individuals. You act as if the government isn't we the people, I understand the Libertarian slant on it but for the rest of us, and we are many, it is simple removing government over reach and an unconstitutional prohibition on a group of taxpayers.

    People gain more power, out from under the State boot

  9. #309
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,635

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Yes it does allow them to rule. And to overrule a former SC in case they get it wrong, as they did in Plessy v Ferguson. So stay tuned. Your point regarding "CONs"? BTW, they were not all Conservatives, most of them, they were Republicans. The two terms are not synonymous, Republican can be interpreted to be on a spectrum from rather conservative, socially, fiscally or both, all the way to being pretty damned liberal, depending on the issue. My view of your point? You just wanted to use CONs in an implied derogatory manner and say something that most of us all already know... but that has little, if any, significance.
    Your POV on my use of the term CON is noted, do you have the same view and have made the same comments on CONs using libtard and the like?

    My point is the CONs as the GOP loves to paint themselves when pandering for votes, have been unable to push a Federal Amendment on Marriage. The door has been left open for the Federal court to hear and declare STATE amendments as unconstitutional and therefore get the CONs at the state level out of restricting people they don't like rights.

  10. #310
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    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.
    You are mistaken. State Supreme Courts are still bound by the Federal Constitution, and state constitutions are similarly bound. If it violates the 14th amendment, it's unconstitutional and a judge at the state level is still bound to overturn it. They have no obligation to wait for a Federal judge to do it. A state constitutional amendment absolutely can be overturned by a state judge if it violates the US constitution. Imagine if Ohio passed an amendment to reinstate slavery. You're telling me you believe a state court would have to just throw up their hands and say "Welp, can't do anything about it!"

    Yes, these are the proper means. These guys do this for a living, they're not just making things up as they go. And their legal arguments are sound, based on existing precedent and law.
    Last edited by Deuce; 03-23-14 at 01:15 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.

Page 31 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181 ... 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
  •