Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

  1. #11
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Using this case to promote anything is pretty low class. This case is about a couple who are dealing with cancer and possible death. Dancing in the isles is extremely tasteless.
    Being happy that a family in dire times is getting the respect they deserve under the law is "tasteless?" Interesting.
    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.

  2. #12
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
    -SCOTUS, 1967.
    I believe I said the constitution and not a bunch of life-time political appointees in robes.

    Do you think it was also a betrayal of democracy to overturn interracial marriage bans? Overturn segregation?

    The integrity of the constitution is intact. The people do not have the right to implement a law if that law is unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.
    Of course, you lot think it is the same as the civil rights movement, which really pisses me the **** off. I doubt you even know the ****ing details of the **** you so sanctimoniously invoke. Segregation was being explicitly mandated by law and Loving v. Virginia was an appeal of a criminal verdict where a couple who married in a state where it was legal were arrested and sentenced to two decades of exile from a state where it was illegal for living together as a married couple in that state. Any comparison to the mere lack of recognition for same-sex marriage is not only absurd, but insulting. These cases bear no resemblance to that case as that was an actual injustice for several reasons and it was not some blatant organized campaign like these cases.

    You are attempting to handwave the entirety of the jurisprudence on the subject without actually responding to any of it. Equal protection is not a new invention, it has specific mechanics as to how it applies and it is being applied to this question. And your side is losing. If you really think the constitutional arguments that these judges are making are wrong, why don't you post some excerpts and actually present a rebuttal?
    They aren't really making any constitutional arguments. Rarely do courts citing the constitution nowadays actually cite anything in the constitution. What they do is build and expand upon the power of the Supreme Court to basically treat the constitution like their own personal dry erase board. How about you cite me an excerpt from the constitution that says gay marriage is a right?
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  3. #13
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I believe I said the constitution and not a bunch of life-time political appointees in robes.
    And I believe you said this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage.
    Care to retract?
    Of course, you lot think it is the same as the civil rights movement, which really pisses me the **** off. I doubt you even know the ****ing details of the **** you so sanctimoniously invoke. Segregation was being explicitly mandated by law and Loving v. Virginia was an appeal of a criminal verdict where a couple who married in a state where it was legal were arrested and sentenced to two decades of exile from a state where it was illegal for living together as a married couple in that state. Any comparison to the mere lack of recognition for same-sex marriage is not only absurd, but insulting. These cases bear no resemblance to that case as that was an actual injustice for several reasons and it was not some blatant organized campaign like these cases.
    Oh spare me the phony indignation. The question was about the constitution, and you're using this false anger to try and hide the fact that you can't answer. Was Loving v. Virginia throwing out the constitution?
    They aren't really making any constitutional arguments. Rarely do courts citing the constitution nowadays actually cite anything in the constitution. What they do is build and expand upon the power of the Supreme Court to basically treat the constitution like their own personal dry erase board. How about you cite me an excerpt from the constitution that says gay marriage is a right?
    Equal protection under the law. Going with your logic, the equal protection clause means absolutely nothing because it doesn't specify every single area in which equal protection must apply.
    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. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,855

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Of course, you lot think it is the same as the civil rights movement, which really pisses me the **** off. I doubt you even know the ****ing details of the **** you so sanctimoniously invoke. Segregation was being explicitly mandated by law and Loving v. Virginia was an appeal of a criminal verdict where a couple who married in a state where it was legal were arrested and sentenced to two decades of exile from a state where it was illegal for living together as a married couple in that state. Any comparison to the mere lack of recognition for same-sex marriage is not only absurd, but insulting. These cases bear no resemblance to that case as that was an actual injustice for several reasons and it was not some blatant organized campaign like these cases.
    Nothing is the 'same as' the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But before you get on your high horse about there being no parallels, you should remember before 2003, when the SC struck them down, it was a felony in many states for gay adults to have consensual sex in their own homes. In 2012, the AG of Virginia and candidate for Governor took efforts to maintain Virginia's never repealed sodomy laws to the SC.

    What are the marriage battles about if not civil rights for homosexuals. Marriage is a big deal as far as the state goes. Laws that deny those substantial government and legal benefits to gays must be to further some significant state interest. The problem for opponents of the bans on SSM, when they testify in court, is they can't identify the state interest beyond the ability of society to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. So the judges aren't having to dig very deep or erase really anything on that dry erase board to strike down those laws. What they've decided is simple moral disapproval of SSM is NOT a sufficient basis for denying homosexuals the same right to marriage that they have consistently and repeatedly declared exists for straight couples.

    They aren't really making any constitutional arguments. Rarely do courts citing the constitution nowadays actually cite anything in the constitution. What they do is build and expand upon the power of the Supreme Court to basically treat the constitution like their own personal dry erase board. How about you cite me an excerpt from the constitution that says gay marriage is a right?
    Where does it say interracial marriage is a right? When you find it, you'll know the answer to your question.

    BTW Deuce - wasn't cribbing off your post, we were just thinking along similar lines.

  5. #15
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Looks like Ohio just followed suit.
    Judge to Ohio: Recognize out-of-state gay marriage - The Washington Post

    “The record before this court ... is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the state’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Black wrote.
    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. #16
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    1.)No one has a right to legal recognition of a marriage.
    2.) It is not and was not part of the Constitution explicitly or implicitly.
    3.) Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage.
    4.) Some judges may have been fooled by that phony reasoning, but I suspect a large number of them simply saw a plausible legal argument that would allow them to implement an agenda they supported before the case even came to them.
    5.)Since the court system has no meaningful democratic accountability, this is essentially manipulating the courts to circumvent the democratic process.
    6.) Legislatures and even referendums are proving successful at getting same-sex marriage legalized and cultural acceptance will be easier over time as a result.
    7.) Not only does this judicial approach betray democracy and attack the integrity of the constitution
    8.) it also will generate a lot more hostility.
    1.) false, SCOTUS disagrees with you and has so many times in many rulings
    2.) good thing i never claimed it was nor does it have to be
    3.) also false
    4.) Well before recent events 14 times SCOTUS managed marriage as a right and over 30 judges have currently ruled in favor of gay marriage so its more than a few
    5.) again what democratic process are you referring too?
    6.) this is true but it should not take this path since we are dealing with individual rights (legal,civil and equal) which is the whole issue
    7.) again with this referral to democracy but never explaining what you are talking about.
    8.) hostility is meanignless when it comes to equal rights, nobody cares about people crying over others getting the same rights.

    so i will ask my questions again since they werent answered:

    A.) Are you suggesting the court system and the government protecting rights is unauthentic?
    B.)What path should be taken then?
    C.) Are you also suggesting that 30 judges have been fooled by a tactic and their (some very articulate) rulings focusing on rights and freedom are all a farce?
    D.) Also could you tell us what "completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution" you are referring too?
    E.) What "political agenda outside of democratic process" you are referring too?

    thanks, please try to answer these question this time instead of repeating your OP in a different way without actually saying anything.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #17
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    And I believe you said this.

    Care to retract?
    It said nothing about legal recognition of a marriage being a right. The problem is the suggestion that marriage is strictly a legal institution. Again, the context of the interracial marriage case was that a couple legally married in one state was arrested and were banned from the state for two decades as a penalty in lieu of a prison sentence.

    Oh spare me the phony indignation. The question was about the constitution, and you're using this false anger to try and hide the fact that you can't answer. Was Loving v. Virginia throwing out the constitution?
    You don't know how real my anger and indignation are buster. Loving v. Virginia went after laws that were used to deprive citizens of other liberties on the basis of them getting a legal marriage in another state. I do think they were gravely mistaken to effectively argue that legal recognition of marriage was a constitutional right, but in the context they were at least partly acting in response to the rather odious nature of the law itself. No such forgivable circumstances exist here. This is pure politics plain and simple.

    Equal protection under the law. Going with your logic, the equal protection clause means absolutely nothing because it doesn't specify every single area in which equal protection must apply.
    Certainly, I recognize that something does not need to be mentioned, but it should generally be understood to have been part of the unstated rights, privileges, and immunities being protected. Legal recognition of marriage has always been considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the state legislatures, not the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Nothing is the 'same as' the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But before you get on your high horse about there being no parallels, you should remember before 2003, when the SC struck them down, it was a felony in many states for gay adults to have consensual sex in their own homes.
    Laws that hadn't been seriously enforced for many years and most did not single out any specific group of people. The case that got it brought before the court was a rare exception and mostly the product of various actions that should have gotten them arrested anyway.

    Laws that deny those substantial government and legal benefits
    No one has a right to those benefits.

    The problem for opponents of the bans on SSM, when they testify in court, is they can't identify the state interest beyond the ability of society to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.
    That is their problem. It would be rather easy to make a substantive arguments about a compelling state interest, but they are too blinded by their personal bigotry to make the constitutional argument against cramming this **** down the threat of citizens who have plainly expressed their desire not to have it on numerous occasions.

    So the judges aren't having to dig very deep or erase really anything on that dry erase board to strike down those laws. What they've decided is simple moral disapproval of SSM is NOT a sufficient basis for denying homosexuals the same right to marriage that they have consistently and repeatedly declared exists for straight couples.
    Except that same legal argument opens the door for polygamy and that isn't some bull**** argument. There is a very easy way to make the argument that banning polygamy is unconstitutional using the arguments currently being upheld by the Supreme Court.

    Where does it say interracial marriage is a right? When you find it, you'll know the answer to your question.
    Right next to where it says any legal recognition of a marriage is a right presumably. In other words, nowhere.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #18
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Being happy that a family in dire times is getting the respect they deserve under the law is "tasteless?" Interesting.
    What's "tasteless" is that it's a sick woman who is fighting for the hospital to recognize her marriage.

    What we really need is for a perfectly healthy hospital patient to fight for hospitals to recognize their marriage
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #19
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    In the end, that's why SSM is a losing battle for the GOP. Individual freedom is a better argument than moral disapproval. If I had one piece of advice for the GOP, it would be to pivot the issue over to exactly that. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman but I also believe it is not the place of the government to dictate that to others for me." Bam, the left's big rallying cry du jour loses a lot of its punch. Push through nationwide marriage rights as fast as possible and take a winning issue away from Democrats.
    Thank you.

    I do believe that captures my exact sentiments in better fashion than I could have expressed it.

    Who among us wants the state in our bedrooms?
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  10. #20
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    1.)It said nothing about legal recognition of a marriage being a right.
    2.) The problem is the suggestion that marriage is strictly a legal institution.
    3.) Again, the context of the interracial marriage case was that a couple legally married in one state was arrested and were banned from the state for two decades as a penalty in lieu of a prison sentence.
    4.)You don't know how real my anger and indignation are buster. Loving v. Virginia went after laws that were used to deprive citizens of other liberties on the basis of them getting a legal marriage in another state. I do think they were gravely mistaken to effectively argue that legal recognition of marriage was a constitutional right, but in the context they were at least partly acting in response to the rather odious nature of the law itself. No such forgivable circumstances exist here. This is pure politics plain and simple.
    5.)Certainly, I recognize that something does not need to be mentioned, but it should generally be understood to have been part of the unstated rights, privileges, and immunities being protected. Legal recognition of marriage has always been considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the state legislatures, not the constitution.
    6.)That is their problem. It would be rather easy to make a substantive arguments about a compelling state interest, but they are too blinded by their personal bigotry to make the constitutional argument against cramming this **** down the threat of citizens who have plainly expressed their desire not to have it on numerous occasions.
    7.)Except that same legal argument opens the door for polygamy and that isn't some bull**** argument. There is a very easy way to make the argument that banning polygamy is unconstitutional using the arguments currently being upheld by the Supreme Court.
    8.)Right next to where it says any legal recognition of a marriage is a right presumably. In other words, nowhere.
    1.) marriage is a right so we can just move on from that fact
    2.) thats no problem at all because for this discussion thats ALL marriage is. THis is about legal marriage and rights and nothing else has any merit.
    3.) the content was that it violated individual rights and was denying equal and civil rights hence it was thrown out. Same issue with the banning against gay marriage. And many rulings have now referred to this also.
    4.) again what fallacy do you base this on?Id say denying people equal and civil rights and allowing this type of illegal discrimination is definitely worthy. How you ever convince yourself they are different is beyond me. THis is probably why you never been try to explain it. Because your position is an indefensible one.The reality and fact is its about rights, plain and simple.
    5.) UNLESS they violated individual rights, THis is a very basic concept. State rights are fully intact until they violate individual rights now the fed is stepping in and fixing it just like with minority rights and women rights and interracial marriage etc. etc. THis is no new concept.
    wow thats dishonest, so nobody has the right to have government protect their contract or property rights etc etc. Because there are many things marriage is about, Its a contract and government is needed to protect it and it helps protect other right
    6.) actually its not they all fail because none of them are worthy of violating peoples rights. ANd now que the conspiracy theories and catch phrase "ram it down the throats" lol what a joke. Nobody honest and educated buys that comedy. It was used for minority rights and womens rights and interracial marriage in the past. It failed and got laughed at just like now because it has ZERO logical or honest merit. Bigots and those who favor discrimination can cry all they want thier voice dont matter to rights of others.
    7.) False, while im find if polygamist want to fight for a new right, I support them but there no sole legal precedence set by homosexual marriage that allows itself to polygamy. But again, legally i have zero problem with polygamy as long as it follows the same rules as marriage. Legal consenting adults
    8.) hence why your strawman fails.

    let me know when you are ready to answer those questions you keep dodging.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •