Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

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

  1. #21
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Left Coast
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    40

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    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.
    Interesting that you, personally, get offended over the Loving decision being compared. I'll continue to hold onto what Mildred Loving herself said concerning the issue:

    "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to
    have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no
    matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over
    others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

    I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so
    many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about. "

    So you can take your sanctimonious claiming of HER court case and what it really means and go whine all you like.

    Marriage is not anywhere in the Constitution, but equal protection is. As long as the government recognizes any marriage, equal protection means it should recognize all. And frankly, it should be dealt with as a religious freedom issue as well. Why should the pastor of one church have the ceremony he performs be recognized and a different pastor performing the same ceremony not have the same standing?
    Truth is like a diamond. No one owns the whole thing, though it's the same light that shines through all facets. The more we can step back and see other people's facets, the more beauty and truth we can appreciate.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,727

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

    wow talk about tramping all over state soverenty. who the hell does this judge think he is.

    i guess this judge needs a lesson on the 10th amendment. technically he just violated the 10th amendment.
    he should be dismissed from the bench and removed for failure to uphold the constitution which is a failure of office.

    I think these judges need to go back to law school so they understand the constitution and their job to uphold the constitution.
    they seem to have forgotten that.

    these cases should be dismissed as these people do not have standing to sue.
    Last edited by ludin; 04-14-14 at 11:55 PM.

  3. #23
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    wow talk about tramping all over state soverenty. who the hell does this judge think he is.

    i guess this judge needs a lesson on the 10th amendment. technically he just violated the 10th amendment.
    he should be dismissed from the bench and removed for failure to uphold the constitution which is a failure of office.

    I think these judges need to go back to law school so they understand the constitution and their job to uphold the constitution.
    they seem to have forgotten that.

    these cases should be dismissed as these people do not have standing to sue.
    can you provide any facts on your claim that the 10th was violated?
    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

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,727

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    can you provide any facts on your claim that the 10th was violated?
    The 10th amendment is also known as the state sovereignty act. It basically says one state cannot pass a law that tells another state what to do and that other states do not have
    to acknowledge laws in other states.

    it means that if i am your neighbor state i can't pass a law that says we are going to dump all our trash in your state.

    It means that MA law on gay marriage has no standing in IN as IN doesn't recognized gay marriage. the only law that can supersede state law is federal law. since there is no federal law on the right for gay marriage then by default the judge has to resort back to state law.

    By saying the IN who has a constitutional act no less that a law passed in MA can supercede it he basically says that MA can pass any law they want and any state has to recognize that law.

  5. #25
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    The 10th amendment is also known as the state sovereignty act. It basically says one state cannot pass a law that tells another state what to do and that other states do not have
    to acknowledge laws in other states.

    it means that if i am your neighbor state i can't pass a law that says we are going to dump all our trash in your state.

    It means that MA law on gay marriage has no standing in IN as IN doesn't recognized gay marriage. the only law that can supersede state law is federal law. since there is no federal law on the right for gay marriage then by default the judge has to resort back to state law.

    By saying the IN who has a constitutional act no less that a law passed in MA can supercede it he basically says that MA can pass any law they want and any state has to recognize that law.
    hmm interesting
    can you show me the part of this ruling that says IN must listen to MA?
    or any other state must listen to MA?


    so just making an example up so you can further help me understand, so now because of this ruling if MA allows rape, IN has to allow it?
    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

  6. #26
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Left Coast
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    40

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    The 10th amendment is also known as the state sovereignty act. It basically says one state cannot pass a law that tells another state what to do and that other states do not have
    to acknowledge laws in other states.

    it means that if i am your neighbor state i can't pass a law that says we are going to dump all our trash in your state.

    It means that MA law on gay marriage has no standing in IN as IN doesn't recognized gay marriage. the only law that can supersede state law is federal law. since there is no federal law on the right for gay marriage then by default the judge has to resort back to state law.

    By saying the IN who has a constitutional act no less that a law passed in MA can supercede it he basically says that MA can pass any law they want and any state has to recognize that law.
    I'd like to know how not recognizing a marriage license across state lines is NOT a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

    Article IV, Section 1:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

    Is a state issued marriage license not a public record?
    Truth is like a diamond. No one owns the whole thing, though it's the same light that shines through all facets. The more we can step back and see other people's facets, the more beauty and truth we can appreciate.

  7. #27
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix_M View Post
    I'd like to know how not recognizing a marriage license across state lines is NOT a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

    Article IV, Section 1:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

    Is a state issued marriage license not a public record?
    They seem to get away with it with concealed carry permits.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,727

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix_M View Post
    I'd like to know how not recognizing a marriage license across state lines is NOT a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

    Article IV, Section 1:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

    Is a state issued marriage license not a public record?
    For that state. That doesn't mean it is valid in a state that doesn't recognize it as a marriage license.

    And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.

    If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy.

    There is clearly a confliction which means if these judges followed precident the cases should be tossed out.

  9. #29
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    For that state. That doesn't mean it is valid in a state that doesn't recognize it as a marriage license.

    And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.

    If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy.

    There is clearly a confliction which means if these judges followed precident the cases should be tossed out.
    ANd they would if thats what these case were actually about but since they are not they get heard.
    Have you read any of the 30+ rulings on this? Some of which the 10 was mistakenly brought up as a defense and it failed?
    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

  10. #30
    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 AGENT J View Post
    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..
    You are clearly ignorant of what you speak, which does not surprise me. I hardly expect people who show so little respect for the constitution and rule of law to actually pay too much mind to what it actually says. Much more convenient to just proclaim it says whatever suits your political agenda. Such legal fictions as "right to abortion" and "separation of church and state" have already been used to commit mass slaughter and destroy religious communities in the past few decades. What is the harm of crafting a few more convenient legal fictions to push your personal views at the detriment of democracy and checks and balances? A runaway court of lifetime appointees with absolute power over our very democracy is apparently something you are fine with, presumably so long as its decisions are in accord with your own. I know many of the same people who cheer these court decisions cry out in agony over stuff like Citizens United. I actually support gay marriage in spite of my position on the constitutional aspect, so that all points to a key contrast. I can support a policy without supporting "any means necessary" to achieve it and I don't end up being hypocritical by supporting certain means in one case and not in another based on whether the result agrees with my politics or not.

    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.
    There is no valid comparison here. Not being able to file a joint tax return is not the same thing as being arrested for getting married in a state where it is legal.

    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
    Any rights or privileges that result from legal marriage are a product of legal recognition. The key here is that government is under no obligation to recognize marriages in the first place. If that were the case then marriage fraud would not be on the books.

    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.
    Most landmark decisions in women's rights and minority rights actually required amendments to the constitution to achieve. No one has made such an effort regarding LGBT issues. This is all legal conjuring building off past legal conjuring. Activists such as yourself aren't gonna pursue that, of course, because you know that you will face the same impediments you face today in using the democratic means. People like you talk on and on about "rights" and "democracy", but the simple truth is you only have respect for that which gets you what you want.

    The thing is, you are not pushing for anything of true value. LGBT people can vote, run for office, speak freely, engage in as many or as few sexual relationships as their conscience allows with whomever they desire, and join any religion or denomination willing to accept them. What we see activists fighting for today is the "right" to get a wedding cake from a specific bakery against the owner's will no matter how many other bakeries will make the cake for them, for the "right" to make a specific someone take pictures at their wedding against the photographer's will no matter how many people are willing and able to do the same, and the "right" to use social media to intimidate and drive out of business anyone who opposes their agenda in any way. All of that is about them demanding the "right" to file joint tax returns. These people, behaving in such thuggish and manipulative behaviors for what is ultimately a trifle try to associate themselves with the likes of Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Junior. It sickens me.

    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
    A legal precedent is indeed there. You, being someone who is more concerned about getting your way with the law than understanding it, probably have a hard time picking up on it, but it is really quite simple. To some extent one could even argue that the case is even stronger. Unlike same-sex marriage, which has basically no historical prominence, polygamy has been around for millennia and remains legal in some parts of the world. Banning polygamy was one of the demands made of Utah in order for it to be accepted as a state, due to their moral and religious opposition to the Mormon creed on the matter. I can certainly see a Mormon or a Muslim coming before a court to argue that laws banning multiple marriages failed to give their religion equal protection of the law and arguing that moral or religious opposition was the predominant factor in such laws. Certain peoples, such as Aboriginal Australians, include polygamy as part of their culture and if anyone from there were to move to the U.S. then I am sure they could make a similar argument for them needing "equal protection" of the law. Of course, they can't go halfway and say only Mormons and Muslims and Aboriginal Australians can have polygamy. In order for it to be "equal protection" they would need to legalize all polygamy for everyone.

    8.) hence why your strawman fails.
    One of many things you apparently do not understand is the meaning of "strawman" as no one who actually understands the term could honestly view the statement I made as a strawman.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •