Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

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

  1. #31
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    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.
    2.)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.



    3.)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.



    4.)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.

    5.)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.


    6.)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.



    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.
    1.) nice deflection but it completes fails since marriage is a right and that fact wont change no matter how much you stomp your feet. You let me know when this fact changes.

    Also PLEASE defend your other equally failed strawman and tell me what my "political agenda is" lol i cant wait to read that.

    Also thanks for the rest of that filler but it doesnt change the facts. Its just more made up strawmen.

    2.) so denying equal and civil rights is not a valid? LMAO great ill tell the the 30+ judges that disagree with you.
    WHo mentioned a tax return? i hope you arent claiming thats all legal marriage is because thats worse than the failed states rights argument

    3.) they are if it violates rights hence all the court cases that goes against what you just said

    4.) wow, you like to just say a lot without actually changing anything.
    SOME things in the past had amendments done but not all, sorry, this is more filler and strawmen.
    next is no one is pursuing an amendment because its not needed. The rights already exist. Another failed starwman.
    I respect rights, period hence why i respect the equal and civil rights winning right now.

    5.) BOOM!!!!! and there it is. LMAO
    nothing of true value?
    ill make a note of that individual equal and civil rights is nothgin of true vale

    this is all that is needed to understand where you are coming from, THANK YOU. I actually might add that to my sigs. (Equal rights for gays) nothing of any real value _ DemonOfLIght

    Thats disgracefully and the fact that equal rights sickens you make me even more proud that its winning, its very reassuring to read somebody say its has no real value, its lets me know the good guys are winning, those who actually care about their rights AND the rights of their fellow Americans.

    6.) LOL do you always deflect this much and make up that many strawman.
    the question was very simply, what precedence solely from gay marriage will lend itslef to polygamy. Maybe in your next post you will actually answer instead of dodging it.

    7.) another failed deflection
    list of strawmen
    the 10th
    marriage isnt in the constitution
    saying marriage inst just a legal thing
    activist judges
    pologamy
    tax return

    all strawmen and all crap that have not logical merit to the discussion. If one is being intellectually honest they all impact nothing in reality. They address nothgin about the facts and are all false decoys to try and shoot down to give the false premise that your failed arguments achieved something.

    they are are as meaningful to this discussion as saying water is wet.

    Let me know when you can answer those questions instead of talking around them
    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

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    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.
    I'm genuinely curious why this makes you angry and indignant. Marriage is obviously important to you, so why are you committed to denying that institution/legal arrangement to others, and what do you gain by doing so. I just don't understand how your liberty/freedom/well being is threatened or in any way diminished by gays enjoying the same privileges.

    There is a gay couple that lives a few houses down. They are good neighbors, we talk occasionally. I don't know if they're married or not, but I can't imagine why I'd care one way or the other. If marriage makes them happy, allows them to lead fuller, happier lives, I'm all for it. Same as with all my straight neighbors.

    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.
    Two guys were allegedly having consensual sex when the police barged into their house and caught them in the act. And the Texas statute absolutely singled out homosexuals - sodomy between straight couples had been made legal. It's awfully easy to trivialize laws that have no effect on you, but single out disfavored minorities. Pretty weak defense...

    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.
    What use are civil rights (or any right) if a majority can vote on them?

    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.
    If the only defense against polygamy is some of us don't like it, then good riddance to the bans on polygamy. It will have NO effect my 22 year marriage, so why should I care whether a Mormon in Utah and three women, all entering into the relationship of their own free will, want to be married and want the state to recognize that marriage? I don't care much at all. I suppose I could read a bit and maybe discover good reasons to ban them, but haven't found the interest to make that effort.

    Right next to where it says any legal recognition of a marriage is a right presumably. In other words, nowhere.
    OK, but unfortunately the law doesn't work like you wished it did.

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    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.
    That's not quite true. Blacks were relegated to second class status all across the South until the Civil Rights Acts. And LGBT have fought many legislative battles, and continue to do so. Legislatures in 8 states have legalized SSM, and in 3 states the voters have. They're also fighting in the courts when appropriate - there is nothing illegitimate about that. Gun owners use the courts when appropriate, as do anti-abortion crusaders, and companies looking to overturn EPA statutes they don't like, and individuals fighting arguably unconstitutional tax laws.

    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.
    You can't be taken seriously when you reduce the issue to nothing of 'true value,' a "trifle." Marriage isn't a "trifle" to me or my wife, or to millions of other married couples. In addition to the religious/personal aspect of it, at the state level there are thousands of laws that are linked to a legal marriage, among them inheritance, healthcare, and parental rights (yes, gays do adopt and gay women have babies), health and pension benefits, as well as tax benefits or harms, depending on the particulars. Many of those laws touch on the core of our personal and economic lives.

    Furthermore, the "right" to use social media to affect anyone is nothing more than free speech. Finally, where gays have sued businesses, those states had duly enacted laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. The relevant issue was whether religious convictions could overrule state laws.
    Last edited by JasperL; 04-15-14 at 02:11 AM.

  4. #34
    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 Phoenix_M View Post
    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?
    It has nothing to do with sanctimony. When one invokes an ugly part of history to defend one's current actions and the situations are not even comparable, that is demonization and propaganda. By invoking miscegenation laws one is suggesting opponents of legal recognition of same-sex marriage are similar or that the treatment of LGBT individuals is similar to that towards racial minorities. Her supporting or opposing gay marriage has no real bearing on whether her treatment is comparable to that of LGBT individuals.
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) nice deflection but it completes fails since marriage is a right and that fact wont change no matter how much you stomp your feet. You let me know when this fact changes. Also PLEASE defend your other equally failed strawman and tell me what my "political agenda is" lol i cant wait to read that. Also thanks for the rest of that filler but it doesnt change the facts. Its just more made up strawmen.
    You insist legal recognition of marriage is a right and I insist it is not. Obviously, you are not even interested in a reasonable discussion over the matter or you would respond with something more substantive. So, no reason to not just point out the problems with your philosophy.
    2.) so denying equal and civil rights is not a valid? LMAO great ill tell the the 30+ judges that disagree with you. WHo mentioned a tax return? i hope you arent claiming thats all legal marriage is because thats worse than the failed states rights argument
    Of course, I know there is more, but most things of consequence do not require legal marriage to obtain and the rest are perks to which no one is entitled under the constitution.
    4.) wow, you like to just say a lot without actually changing anything. SOME things in the past had amendments done but not all, sorry, this is more filler and strawmen. next is no one is pursuing an amendment because its not needed. The rights already exist. Another failed starwman. I respect rights, period hence why i respect the equal and civil rights winning right now.
    You say you respect rights and maybe you believe that yourself, but your attitude betrays your deeper feelings. The constitution says nothing of marriage and was never claimed to cover marriage until it became politically expedient to claim as much. In such cases, amendments or legislation are desirable over rule by court fiat.
    5.) BOOM!!!!! and there it is. LMAO nothing of true value? ill make a note of that individual equal and civil rights is nothgin of true vale
    Legal marriage is nothing of true value. The relationship itself is of value, while the legal trappings are a mere trifle. All the other stuff I mentioned is truly a trifle and outside the environment of political correctness would be seen as shameless whining by people who can't stand not getting their way. None of it can compare to the right to vote or the right to be free of government dictates on where you can eat or sit. You do not have widespread systemic abuse and discrimination towards homosexuals like you had towards women or racial minorities.
    Thats disgracefully and the fact that equal rights sickens you make me even more proud that its winning, its very reassuring to read somebody say its has no real value, its lets me know the good guys are winning, those who actually care about their rights AND the rights of their fellow Americans.
    Now, you see, that is what a strawman looks like. You keep throwing around that word "strawman" when you clearly have not the slightest idea what it actually means. Here in this statement you provide a perfect example of a strawman. I am saying that people demanding other citizens have to perform a service for them even if it goes against their conscience is what sickens me. I think a private citizen has a right to refuse service to any other private citizen for whatever reason. By no means am I of the belief that you can force someone to make a wedding cake for you. That sort of thing where people are driving small businesses to close for such material trifles and directly attacking all people of faith who act according to their conscience is what sickens me. Equal rights do not sicken me in the slightest. Forcing people to do something that goes against their deeply-held moral beliefs is what sickens me. I also think driving people out of their jobs due to privately-held beliefs is sickening.
    6.) LOL do you always deflect this much and make up that many strawman. the question was very simply, what precedence solely from gay marriage will lend itslef to polygamy. Maybe in your next post you will actually answer instead of dodging it.
    I thought I explained myself very well. All the reasoning about "equal protection", "protected classifications", and a need for state interests beyond morality, are all a big part of this court drive and all can be easily argued in the case of polygamy. One could make strong arguments for religion, a protected class, being discriminated against by monogamous marriage law simply because polygamy is considered immoral by political leaders. That kind of legal voodoo would be easy to pull off with the expansion of constitutional interpretations going on right now.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #35
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    You insist legal recognition of marriage is a right and I insist it is not.
    2.) Obviously, you are not even interested in a reasonable discussion over the matter or you would respond with something more substantive.
    3.) So, no reason to not just point out the problems with your philosophy.
    4.)Of course, I know there is more, but most things of consequence do not require legal marriage to obtain and the rest are perks to which no one is entitled under the constitution.
    5.) You say you respect rights
    6.) and maybe you believe that yourself, but your attitude betrays your deeper feelings.
    7.) The constitution says nothing of marriage and was never claimed to cover marriage until it became politically expedient to claim as much. In such cases, amendments or legislation are desirable over rule by court fiat.
    8.)Legal marriage is nothing of true value. The relationship itself is of value, while the legal trappings are a mere trifle. All the other stuff I mentioned is truly a trifle and outside the environment of political correctness would be seen as shameless whining by people who can't stand not getting their way. None of it can compare to the right to vote or the right to be free of government dictates on where you can eat or sit. You do not have widespread systemic abuse and discrimination towards homosexuals like you had towards women or racial minorities.
    9.)Now, you see, that is what a strawman looks like. You keep throwing around that word "strawman" when you clearly have not the slightest idea what it actually means. Here in this statement you provide a perfect example of a strawman. I am saying that people demanding other citizens have to perform a service for them even if it goes against their conscience is what sickens me. I think a private citizen has a right to refuse service to any other private citizen for whatever reason. By no means am I of the belief that you can force someone to make a wedding cake for you. That sort of thing where people are driving small businesses to close for such material trifles and directly attacking all people of faith who act according to their conscience is what sickens me. Equal rights do not sicken me in the slightest. Forcing people to do something that goes against their deeply-held moral beliefs is what sickens me. I also think driving people out of their jobs due to privately-held beliefs is sickening.
    10.)I thought I explained myself very well. All the reasoning about "equal protection", "protected classifications", and a need for state interests beyond morality, are all a big part of this court drive and all can be easily argued in the case of polygamy. One could make strong arguments for religion, a protected class, being discriminated against by monogamous marriage law simply because polygamy is considered immoral by political leaders. That kind of legal voodoo would be easy to pull off with the expansion of constitutional interpretations going on right now.
    1.) you can insist whatever you want.
    Im not insisting anything .. I simply stated the FACT that marriage is a right and your opinion wont change this fact. Keep trying though its funny. Until you admit this fact
    2.) cant have a reasonable discussion until you stop posting lies and make honest posts.
    3.) I havent presented any of my philosophy. another failed strawman. If you disagree simply point it out, you will fail.
    4.) sigh another deflection A.) there is nothing legally equal to a marriage contract and B.) denying of this right is just that, Denying rights, You have yet to get around that fact.
    5.) 100% correct
    6.) and yet you have no proof of this strawman again. DO you have a FACTUAL example of how i dont support rights regarding this matter. Cant wait to read it
    7.) seriously this failed strawman AGAIN? nobody honest and educated buys it. who said the constitution says marriage in it? nobody. WHat facts say it has too? NONE Rape isnt in the constitution either, maybe states start legalizing that. Please stop with this, it never works. EVER.lol
    8.) thanks for your OPINION but like the rest its meaningless.

    equal rights will always have value and thats what its about, equal and civil rights. Notice how other things are falling right in line with states gay marriage. Gays achieve equal rights typically getting added to discrimination laws that protects us all.

    Yeah your right nothgin of real value lol

    9.) wrong again. I knew what you are referring to and its hilarious that equal rights sickens you, you can try to reword it to make it more emotional but nobody falls for it.

    Yes how dare people not want laws broken and their rights violated, thats "sickening"

    thank you for doubling down on the fact that equal rights sickens you. oh thats right in this case you call it "force" lol
    but law, rights, facts and court cases etc call it equal rights

    10.) im sure you think that but you still havent answered the question why do you keep dodging it
    equal protection applies to us all, nothign to do with just gays
    state interest? same
    religion? (which has nothing to do with legal marriage)same



    I repeat my question AGAIN
    what precedence solely from gay marriage will lend itslef to polygamy.
    maybe you are just back pedaling cause you realized you were factually wrong. All the opinions/examples you gave could be done if gays never exist. ALL OF THEM. they have nothing to do with gay rights.

    is that your NEW claim now, that polygamy can just be augured on those opinions and NOT because of gay marriage?
    man you make this easy
    maybe this time youll answer
    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. #36
    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 JasperL View Post
    I'm genuinely curious why this makes you angry and indignant. Marriage is obviously important to you, so why are you committed to denying that institution/legal arrangement to others, and what do you gain by doing so. I just don't understand how your liberty/freedom/well being is threatened or in any way diminished by gays enjoying the same privileges.

    There is a gay couple that lives a few houses down. They are good neighbors, we talk occasionally. I don't know if they're married or not, but I can't imagine why I'd care one way or the other. If marriage makes them happy, allows them to lead fuller, happier lives, I'm all for it. Same as with all my straight neighbors.
    You should pay attention to what I am saying. I strongly support legalizing gay marriage. There is a difference between that and supporting efforts to declare it a constitutional right.

    Two guys were allegedly having consensual sex when the police barged into their house and caught them in the act. And the Texas statute absolutely singled out homosexuals - sodomy between straight couples had been made legal. It's awfully easy to trivialize laws that have no effect on you, but single out disfavored minorities. Pretty weak defense...
    The police were actually called in by the individual's jealous (apparently justifiably so) boyfriend, who was drunk and made a false claim to the police about there being an armed intruder inside. All the two caught having sex would have had to deal with was a few hours in lockup and less than two hundred dollars in fines between the two of them. The fines only increased by a small amount due to the efforts of their attorneys to make a Supreme Court case out of it. Hardly the kind of story you wish to hail as the crowning achievement of your civil rights movement.

    What use are civil rights (or any right) if a majority can vote on them?
    Only counts if they are actually rights. At any rate, when something is deeply and reasonable contentious, the least provocative route is usually the best, unless there is a dire need for quickly addressing the issue.

    If the only defense against polygamy is some of us don't like it, then good riddance to the bans on polygamy. It will have NO effect my 22 year marriage, so why should I care whether a Mormon in Utah and three women, all entering into the relationship of their own free will, want to be married and want the state to recognize that marriage? I don't care much at all. I suppose I could read a bit and maybe discover good reasons to ban them, but haven't found the interest to make that effort.
    The key point is that it has been constantly argued that gay marriage being legalized would not somehow lead to polygamy. People get all indignant when it is brought up, but these kinds of legal rulings make it only a matter of when a sufficiently-interested group finds cause to make the argument.

    OK, but unfortunately politics doesn't work like you wished it did.
    Fixed it for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    And LGBT have fought many legislative battles, and continue to do so. Legislatures in 8 states have legalized SSM, and in 3 states the voters have. They're also fighting in the courts when appropriate - there is nothing illegitimate about that.
    They're fighting in the courts in lieu of pursuing actual legal procedures. I am curious as to what the rush is about. All these couples spontaneously appearing all over the country to try and have gay marriage declared a constitutional right by the courts are not in any imminent danger. Not having marriage is not clearly causing them significant problems.

    You can't be taken seriously when you reduce the issue to nothing of 'true value,' a "trifle." Marriage isn't a "trifle" to me or my wife, or to millions of other married couples. In addition to the religious/personal aspect of it, at the state level there are thousands of laws that are linked to a legal marriage, among them inheritance, healthcare, and parental rights (yes, gays do adopt and gay women have babies), health and pension benefits, as well as tax benefits or harms, depending on the particulars. Many of those laws touch on the core of our personal and economic lives.
    The religious and personal aspects have nothing to do with the legal recognition. One can have those without the piece of paper. Inheritance, healthcare, and parental rights can all be addressed in one way or another by existing legal agreements (wills, power-of-attorney, guardianship/second-parent adoption). A strong argument for gay marriage would basically be that it single legal instrument that can encompass all such rights and privileges sought by a committed couple.

    Furthermore, the "right" to use social media to affect anyone is nothing more than free speech. Finally, where gays have sued businesses, those states had duly enacted laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. The relevant issue was whether religious convictions could overrule state laws.
    Mere excuses for horrendous treatment of other people and their freedom of conscience. Weddings are already extravagant bourgeois spectacles that are by no means a necessity, let alone a right. Suggesting you can drive someone out of business for refusing to indulge your pursuit of that spectacle when it goes against their conscience is quite obscene.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  7. #37
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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?
    It only failed because we have judges that refuse to uphold the constitution of the US. which means they should be removed from the bench for their failed up holdup their oath of office.

    maybe if we started firing judges that violate the constitution they would start following it and put their political views to the side.

    MA gay marriage law cannot supercede IN recognition as marriage between a man and a women. the only power that can override a state law is a federal law not another state.

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    You should pay attention to what I am saying. I strongly support legalizing gay marriage. There is a difference between that and supporting efforts to declare it a constitutional right.
    But it was the SC that has repeatedly declared marriage a 'right.' Whether you approve of how the country got to a 'right' to marriage, that IS the law, and the SC makes laws like with every single decision, individuals and businesses rely on those laws, and file lawsuits when they believe some other law conflicts with this SC precedent and interpretation. It's simply, objectively, how our legal system works, whether you agree or not.

    For some odd reason, when gay activists do the same thing done daily in every federal court in America, it's an outrage. I'm missing something.

    The police were actually called in by the individual's jealous (apparently justifiably so) boyfriend, who was drunk and made a false claim to the police about there being an armed intruder inside. All the two caught having sex would have had to deal with was a few hours in lockup and less than two hundred dollars in fines between the two of them. The fines only increased by a small amount due to the efforts of their attorneys to make a Supreme Court case out of it. Hardly the kind of story you wish to hail as the crowning achievement of your civil rights movement.
    Like I said, when it's not you and it will never BE you, it's easy to trivialize the right of the state to punish some other disfavored minority for consensual act in their own home.

    Only counts if they are actually rights. At any rate, when something is deeply and reasonable contentious, the least provocative route is usually the best, unless there is a dire need for quickly addressing the issue.
    I suppose you mean it's the best for those who have nothing at risk and are quite happy with the status quo. For them, there is NEVER a 'dire need' to address anything affecting other people, not them. And can you name ANY major shift/accomplishment that happened with everyone asking nicely?

    The key point is that it has been constantly argued that gay marriage being legalized would not somehow lead to polygamy. People get all indignant when it is brought up, but these kinds of legal rulings make it only a matter of when a sufficiently-interested group finds cause to make the argument.
    To be fair, the same ones arguing that it will lead to polygamy typically throw in marrying dogs, your sister or brother, and whatever freak union the speaker can come up with. But as I've said, if there is no legitimate compelling, identifiable state interest being advanced with a ban on polygamy, why should you or I care if it's made legal?

    They're fighting in the courts in lieu of pursuing actual legal procedures. I am curious as to what the rush is about. All these couples spontaneously appearing all over the country to try and have gay marriage declared a constitutional right by the courts are not in any imminent danger. Not having marriage is not clearly causing them significant problems.
    That makes no sense, and they're fighting in the courts, through public opinion, and at the state and national legislative levels. Court battles aren't in lieu of anything, they are in addition to those other efforts. The athletes recently outing themselves are part of the effort. 8 states have legalized SSM through the legislature, 3 more through voter referendum, so far.

    And the rest is just a version of, "I can get married and secure those very unique rights, benefits and obligations, in 10 minutes in Vegas. That gays cannot get married at all is no biggee to me, so since I don't care about their so called 'right' to marry, they shouldn't care either! Silly gays. And, hey, if businesses want to deny service to OTHER people, they should just get over it. Why should I care that some other people not like me are getting denied services?"

    The religious and personal aspects have nothing to do with the legal recognition. One can have those without the piece of paper. Inheritance, healthcare, and parental rights can all be addressed in one way or another by existing legal agreements (wills, power-of-attorney, guardianship/second-parent adoption). A strong argument for gay marriage would basically be that it single legal instrument that can encompass all such rights and privileges sought by a committed couple.
    Of course - from the point of view of the state, which is what we're talking about, marriage is ENTIRELY about securing those rights and privileges. And they cannot ALL be addressed with legal papers. E.g, in my state, the spouse gets at least a third of an estate unless he or she signs away that right. If my wife was a live in girlfriend, she's presumed to get NOTHING, and without a will my assets pass to my family. One could draw up a long list of benefits ONLY available to a spouse.

    Mere excuses for horrendous treatment of other people and their freedom of conscience. Weddings are already extravagant bourgeois spectacles that are by no means a necessity, let alone a right. Suggesting you can drive someone out of business for refusing to indulge your pursuit of that spectacle when it goes against their conscience is quite obscene.
    [/QUOTE]

    I think I understand - the Mozilla guy possesses a freedom of conscience to contribute to a fund that is intended to deny his gay employees the right to marry. I'm with you, he has that right. And he also has the right for his acts directed against the rights of his gay employees to be free from protest, and any real world consequences?

    The whole thing is no more than, "It's 'obscene' for people to protest unless I share their concerns! Laws against discrimination against LGBT do not apply if the person declares a religious reason for breaking those laws!"

  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    MA gay marriage law cannot supercede IN recognition as marriage between a man and a women. the only power that can override a state law is a federal law not another state.
    The marriage laws differ from state to state, and some straight marriages legal in one state would be illegal in others. But the states recognize ALL marriages valid in the state where the couple got married. The courts are simply saying to the states, "If you recognize all straight marriages valid in the state of origin, you have to recognize ALL marriages.

  10. #40
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The marriage laws differ from state to state, and some straight marriages legal in one state would be illegal in others. But the states recognize ALL marriages valid in the state where the couple got married. The courts are simply saying to the states, "If you recognize all straight marriages valid in the state of origin, you have to recognize ALL marriages.
    no they wouldn't and you have on proof of this.

    hetrosexual marriage laws differ very little except for made tax code which is a state to state thing anyway.

    they can't do that. they would first havef to overturn IN definition of marriage which i do believe is on appeal to the SCOTUS. until that happens the law is still the law.
    IN has defined marriage as between a man and a women. in a conflicting statue with another state IN wins. This is called state soveriegnty and is protected by the constitution.

    ruling against it means this judge has failed to uphold the constitution and therefore should be removed from the bench. there is a reason we have a constitution.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •