Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73

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

  1. #41
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,728

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    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.
    In context of the law, legal recognition is the only issue that was discussed. Nobody is suggesting that marriage is a strictly legal institution, but it is strictly a legal institution as far as the state is concerned.

    Whether they were arrested or just prevented from visiting a dying partner, or receiving death benefits, is irrelevant.

    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.
    Failing to recognize a marriage deprives same-sex couples of various liberties. This includes the previously mentioned death benefits, property inheritance, medical power of attorney, automatic child custody, spousal privilege in a criminal or civil case, etc.

    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.
    State legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the constitution. Loving v. Virginia was decided on the 14th amendment.
    The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
    States are bound by the US Constitution. If the equal protection clause is violated, it doesn't matter whether it is a federal, state, or local legislative action, nor does it matter if it was a ballot measure voted on by the people. All are subject to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

    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.
    Irrelevant.
    No one has a right to those benefits.
    No, but if the state offers them at all, they must comply with the Equal Protection clause. The state has the constitutional authority to not recognize any marriage benefits at all, if they want to. But good luck passing that bill.


    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.
    Slippery slope to more rights is a bull**** argument. People said the same about interracial marriage. If you allow interracial marriage, you have to allow people to marry children and animals! Bull****. I could just as easily say if you allow heterosexual marriage you have to allow people to marry furniture.
    Besides, you're wrong. Race and gender are protected classifications under the 14th amendment. Number of persons in a contract is not.

    Right next to where it says any legal recognition of a marriage is a right presumably. In other words, nowhere.
    So you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional?
    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. #42
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,728

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

    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.
    Name the compelling state interest furthered by a same-sex marriage ban. You say it's easy, tell us. Unless you think the mere "desires" of 53% of the population is a compelling state interest?
    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.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    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.
    About half the states BAN marriage between first cousins. If you get married in the states that allow such marriages, ALL states recognize it as valid.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    About half the states BAN marriage between first cousins. If you get married in the states that allow such marriages, ALL states recognize it as valid.
    Yep that falls into the description that marriage is between a man and a women.

    this is a MA statue that says same sex couples can marry.

    IN has defined marriage as between a man and a women. MA law cannot override IN constitution that says marriage is between a man and a women.
    this is what we call state sovereingty. it was put in place for a reason. when there is a conflict between state the defense in this case IN has the precident on their side.

  5. #45
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    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?
    You left off the rest of Article IV Section 1 which is: " And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

    Congress passed DOMA in 1996 which specifies that States are not required to recognize same-sex marriages if such a marriage conflicts with it's own State law.


    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    They seem to get away with it with concealed carry permits.
    I thought States accepted or rejected concealed carry in totality, which is different then recognizing some legal Civil Marriages and not others based on gender.

    So which states accept concealed carry for men but reject the same carry permit for women? (or vice versa)



    >>>>

  6. #46
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    01-15-15 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,578

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    No one has a right to legal recognition of a marriage. It is not and was not part of the Constitution explicitly or implicitly. Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage. 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. Since the court system has no meaningful democratic accountability, this is essentially manipulating the courts to circumvent the democratic process. Legislatures and even referendums are proving successful at getting same-sex marriage legalized and cultural acceptance will be easier over time as a result. Not only does this judicial approach betray democracy and attack the integrity of the constitution, it also will generate a lot more hostility.
    Since marriage brings with it legal rights denied those who are not married there is a Constitutional argument on the equal protection clause. So......the rest of your post is dreck

  7. #47
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    1.)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.

    2.)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.
    so its a conspiracy theory? LMAO

    so the 14 times SCOTUS called marriage a right and then the other 30+ cases of judges ruling similar with very detailed rulings even when the failed argument of the 10th was brought up is all a farce huh? lol

    then all you have to do is provide any logic and facts to show those 44+ cases to be wrong lol We'd love to read it. Tell us why the rulings, laws, rights and facts all fail based on what you have.

    2.) another mistake, this isnt what happened at all, Did you read the ruling? what ACTUALLY happened is IN rights cant supersede individual rights and freedoms and the FED protected those.

    Theres nothign in the ruling that says MA gets to rule IN, please keep it honest and truthful.
    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

  8. #48
    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 ludin View Post
    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.
    Yes, there's very little difference

    https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...arried-couples
    There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
    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. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    so its a conspiracy theory? LMAO

    so the 14 times SCOTUS called marriage a right and then the other 30+ cases of judges ruling similar with very detailed rulings even when the failed argument of the 10th was brought up is all a farce huh? lol

    then all you have to do is provide any logic and facts to show those 44+ cases to be wrong lol We'd love to read it. Tell us why the rulings, laws, rights and facts all fail based on what you have.

    2.) another mistake, this isnt what happened at all, Did you read the ruling? what ACTUALLY happened is IN rights cant supersede individual rights and freedoms and the FED protected those.

    Theres nothign in the ruling that says MA gets to rule IN, please keep it honest and truthful.
    actually you are the one that needs to be truthful and honest.

    the judge says that IN has to acknowledge a law that goes against their constitution. that is a violation of the 10th amendment there is no doubt about it.
    the fact that judges refuse to uphold the constitution is a more serious threat.

    i did show that 44 cases are wrong. the constitution grants state soveriegnty. 44 judges put their political and feelings above the constitution and the law and that is a more grevious threat. they should all be removed for their violation of their office to uphold the constitution.

  10. #50
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    1.)actually you are the one that needs to be truthful and honest.

    2.)the judge says that IN has to acknowledge a law that goes against their constitution. that is a violation of the 10th amendment there is no doubt about it.
    3.)the fact that judges refuse to uphold the constitution is a more serious threat.
    4.)i did show that 44 cases are wrong. the constitution grants state soveriegnty.
    5.)44 judges put their political and feelings above the constitution and the law and that is a more grevious threat.
    6.)they should all be removed for their violation of their office to uphold the constitution.

    Translation: you didnt read the rullings and you still have zero facts that support your claim

    1.) I was and the ruling backs me up It shows that MA is not ruling IA.
    2.) false the ruling was that the state cant infringe on the individual rights, ZERO 10 violation
    3.) he is actually enforcing the constitution, again per the rulling
    4.) LMAO no you didnt all you did is state your opinion with ZERO facts, laws, rights or logic to support it
    5.) false they enforced the constitution
    6.) since this didnt happen your argument still fails


    I will ask you again
    please provide the FACTS that support your claim that all these judges violated the constitution and that the rulling is forcing IN to be ruled by MA now. Until you do there's nobody honest and educated that will take your silly, already proven false, conspiracy theory seriously.
    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 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •