Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 73

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

  1. #61
    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
    Deuce addressed most of the other points and I have little to add, but do you actually know any gay people or have a memory that goes back a few years?
    In fact, I have a cousin who is a lesbian and even got married out of state, though she has since separated. The whole thing was a big blow-up in my extended family given that I live in a deeply conservative state and my family includes many devout Christians.
    I don't have any idea how you define "minor" when it comes to gays, but anti-sodomy laws are nothing more than a big old F YOU! to gays that reflected the general consensus of the population.
    The case in question resulted in a fine amounting to less than $200 for each and the law was very rarely enforced. Not that those individual cases are acceptable, but it is not even remotely akin to the kind of extreme and systemic legal oppression that was faced by racial minorities in the 1960's.
    And now that immense progress has been made, a lot of it through tactics you decry, and open bigotry now has real consequences, you're complaining about those tactics, the result of which allow you to declare that being gay carries with it no meaningful societal cost.
    Where did I say "being gay" has "no meaningful societal cost"? I was pointing to the legal costs, which is what matters in this discussion when you are comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
    That is self evidently true, but so what? Your problem isn't that expressing a belief has consequences, you just do not believe that expressing a belief hostile to the rights of homosexuals should have consequences. I'm in the Bible Belt. If I took a public stand and contributed to efforts to, say, strip churches of their tax exempt status, I should expect the very large and influential church community in my area to vigorously oppose me were I to be named CEO of a company that served large numbers of evangelicals. You're whining that taking a stand on controversial issues has consequences for a person in the public eye.
    I do not think anyone should be intimidated by a mob into conforming their views to those held by the mob or intimidated into keeping their views secret. Unfortunately, there really can be no viable legal means to solve that problem except when the form of intimidation is so extreme as to constitute a crime. You just have to change the culture.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Then I dont understand...if it is the 'right thing to do' then why should they have to wait at all?
    It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems.
    Should blacks have had to deal with years and years of Jim Crow? It took them standing up and fighting for their civil rights to finally end it. Women had to fight for their civil rights too.
    As noted, those are not even remotely the same as what we are talking about. Not recognizing gay marriage is not even remotely comparable to legally-mandated segregation or being denied the right to vote. Gay pride events and parades go on all over the country with no one sending out the dogs or firehoses.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #62
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,890

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa
    Then I dont understand...if it is the 'right thing to do' then why should they have to wait at all?
    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems.
    The OP clearly illustrates it is. I also know, personally, of a case where a woman died, alone, because her partner was not allowed into her hospital room. Obviously it is not singular and also not up to you to judge what is and is not 'serious.' Every custody case between same sex partners is exceedingly important, every single one. Not only that, the denial of SSM is wrong, period and to write that equality and fairness would 'cause far more problems' as a justification for not doing the right thing? Please, that was indeed an excuse during earlier fights for civil rights...which you also choose to disassociate from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa
    Should blacks have had to deal with years and years of Jim Crow? It took them standing up and fighting for their civil rights to finally end it. Women had to fight for their civil rights too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    In fact, I have a cousin who is a lesbian and even got married out of state, though she has since separated. The whole thing was a big blow-up in my extended family given that I live in a deeply conservative state and my family includes many devout Christians. The case in question resulted in a fine amounting to less than $200 for each and the law was very rarely enforced. Not that those individual cases are acceptable, but it is not even remotely akin to the kind of extreme and systemic legal oppression that was faced by racial minorities in the 1960's. Where did I say "being gay" has "no meaningful societal cost"? I was pointing to the legal costs, which is what matters in this discussion when you are comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. I do not think anyone should be intimidated by a mob into conforming their views to those held by the mob or intimidated into keeping their views secret. Unfortunately, there really can be no viable legal means to solve that problem except when the form of intimidation is so extreme as to constitute a crime. You just have to change the culture. It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems. As noted, those are not even remotely the same as what we are talking about. Not recognizing gay marriage is not even remotely comparable to legally-mandated segregation or being denied the right to vote. Gay pride events and parades go on all over the country with no one sending out the dogs or firehoses.
    Seriously, give me an example of where people are being intimidated into supporting SSM? LOL

    Yes, people have had to fight for their civil rights, but I spoke of inconvenience. You want intimidation? Let's talk about lynchings, being soaked with hoses and splattered with spoiled vegetables, and being beaten to a pulp (for reference: blacks, women, gays)....dont see the people objecting to those civil rights being subjected to those things.

    As history shows, maturity can be painful and there were plenty of objections and 'inconveniences' when blacks and women got were accorded their civil rights....society DID adapt. Again...why should gays have to wait even longer for society 'to do the right thing?'
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,691

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I'm unaware of any states not recognizing 'straight' marriages from other states in any case, event, or situation.
    we are not talking about straight marriage.

    we are talking about where one states laws superscedes anothers which is unconstitutional.

  4. #64
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    we are not talking about straight marriage.
    Sure we are, as the discussion talks about consistent and equal application of the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    we are talking about where one states laws superscedes anothers which is unconstitutional.
    Using some straight marriages as an example. Some states allow 1st cousin Civil Marriages, some do not. Some states allow common law Civil Marriages some do not. In New Hampshire a girl as young as 13 can get Civilly Married, in other states it could be 16 or 18.

    However if a 1st cousin marriage is entered into in another state EVERY state recognizes that Civil Marriage as valid. If a couple enters into a Common Law Civil Marriage they are recognized in valid even if they move to a State that doesn't allow for Common Law Civil Marriages. If a couple is married in New Hampshire and later moves to another State, even if the girl is under age for that State the Civil Marriage remains valid.

    The ONLY exception that has been provided targets those in same-sex Civil Marriages to be exempt from the Full Faith and Credit clause are marriages based on the gender composition of the couple and that is because Congress exercised the "Effect thereof" provisions of that clause when it passed the Federal DOMA in 1996. (Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional, but Section 2 the "Effect thereof" provision was not part of that decision.)



    >>>>

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,691

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Sure we are, as the discussion talks about consistent and equal application of the law.



    Using some straight marriages as an example. Some states allow 1st cousin Civil Marriages, some do not. Some states allow common law Civil Marriages some do not. In New Hampshire a girl as young as 13 can get Civilly Married, in other states it could be 16 or 18.

    However if a 1st cousin marriage is entered into in another state EVERY state recognizes that Civil Marriage as valid. If a couple enters into a Common Law Civil Marriage they are recognized in valid even if they move to a State that doesn't allow for Common Law Civil Marriages. If a couple is married in New Hampshire and later moves to another State, even if the girl is under age for that State the Civil Marriage remains valid.

    The ONLY exception that has been provided targets those in same-sex Civil Marriages to be exempt from the Full Faith and Credit clause are marriages based on the gender composition of the couple and that is because Congress exercised the "Effect thereof" provisions of that clause when it passed the Federal DOMA in 1996. (Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional, but Section 2 the "Effect thereof" provision was not part of that decision.)



    >>>>
    you can talk about straight marriage all you want to that has nothing to do with the topic.

    we are talking about one states law superceding another which according to the constitution of the US is illegal.
    if you want to talk about that i will be more than happy to discuss. if you want to discuss something else create a new thread.

    MA says gays can marry.
    IN recognizes marriage between a man and a women. A judge cannot make a state violate it's own constitution and neither can MA make another state violate it's own constitution.
    I even quoted the rulings either a page or two back that shows this to be the case.

  6. #66
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    you can talk about straight marriage all you want to that has nothing to do with the topic.

    we are talking about one states law superceding another which according to the constitution of the US is illegal.
    if you want to talk about that i will be more than happy to discuss. if you want to discuss something else create a new thread.

    MA says gays can marry.
    IN recognizes marriage between a man and a women. A judge cannot make a state violate it's own constitution and neither can MA make another state violate it's own constitution.

    Using your states, it's unconstitutional for IN to recognize 1st Cousin Civil Marriages from MA?

    It's unconstitutional for IN to recognize underage Civil Marriages from MA?

    It's unconstitutional for IN to recognized Common Law Civil Marriages from MA?


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    I even quoted the rulings either a page or two back that shows this to be the case.

    I must have missed it, I just looked and can't find it. Could you provide the post number of this thread where the SCOTUS has said that States can selectively recognize some legal Civil Marriages but not other legal Civil Marriages?



    >>>>

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,809

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    In fact, I have a cousin who is a lesbian and even got married out of state, though she has since separated. The whole thing was a big blow-up in my extended family given that I live in a deeply conservative state and my family includes many devout Christians.
    And you're not aware of the hardships that I listed and you failed to quote? If you're not, maybe spend a bit of time talking to people in the gay community. What you trivialize isn't actually trivial, unless you're not one of them, don't know what they went and still go through, and don't care enough to find out.

    The case in question resulted in a fine amounting to less than $200 for each and the law was very rarely enforced. Not that those individual cases are acceptable, but it is not even remotely akin to the kind of extreme and systemic legal oppression that was faced by racial minorities in the 1960's.
    I'm not sure what the point is. If it's not as bad as what blacks faced from when they were brought over here in chains until a decade or two after the Civil Rights Acts were passed, then any hardship and unacceptable discrimination is trivial, meaningless in the big picture, not worth caring about? Why oh why won't the gays just accept their second class status and shut up about it???!!!


    Where did I say "being gay" has "no meaningful societal cost"? I was pointing to the legal costs, which is what matters in this discussion when you are comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
    Whatever it takes I guess to dismiss their concerns as trivial, to you, who bears none of their burdens.

    I do not think anyone should be intimidated by a mob into conforming their views to those held by the mob or intimidated into keeping their views secret.
    What is the purpose of the right to free speech, to protest?

    Besides, I know you cannot agree with your own statement because I can't imagine you defending the right of a white supremacist to spout his views without consequence and serve without protest in a position in the public eye. It would be easier to defend your position if you just admitted the obvious and you just want the gay to shut up.

    Unfortunately, there really can be no viable legal means to solve that problem except when the form of intimidation is so extreme as to constitute a crime. You just have to change the culture.
    That is of course the purpose of public protests - change the culture, assign a cost to holding positions opposed by the "mob." I don't care what the subject is - this is why we HAVE free speech and the right to protest. But if you had a single clue about the gay rights movement, another leg on the stool is the wave of public and private figures coming out, and with that people realizing that gays are like everyone else, but gay. The handful of professional athletes coming out is part of this effort. For some reason you feel entitled to dictate the tactics and terms of the debate for OTHER PEOPLE to fight for their rights.

    It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems.
    Cause more problems for whom? People like you, or gays? Because I don't think the gay community needs advice from someone who dismisses their concerns as trivial, who therefore could not care less whether those goals are achieved, then proceeds to tell them the allowable tactics they may use for achieving their trivial goals.

    Besides, what I expect will happen if the SC 'invents' a requirement that states recognize gay marriages performed in other states like states recognize all other marriages is about what happened when the military began allowing gays to serve openly. All but those deeply invested in denying them the right to marry and who actively search for opportunities to be outraged and offended will go on with their lives and not notice a damn thing. Gays now living together will now, some of them,...... live together as married!

    A guy I associate with nearly every day got married to his partner in Maryland last year. If my state recognizes his marriage, it will have the same effect on my life as the ceremony in Maryland - a goose egg, nothing, no change at all in my life or to my marriage of 22 years. He's happy about it! Good for him, his partner, and their two adopted kids from one of their hometown in S. America!

    As noted, those are not even remotely the same as what we are talking about. Not recognizing gay marriage is not even remotely comparable to legally-mandated segregation or being denied the right to vote. Gay pride events and parades go on all over the country with no one sending out the dogs or firehoses.
    Duly noted - "Gays - you don't know how good you have it! No one is sending out dogs to attack you! Now quit your whining"

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,809

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I also know, personally, of a case where a woman died, alone, because her partner was not allowed into her hospital room.
    Trivial, and Demon of Light knows all about gays and their trivial concerns because he has a gay cousin.

  9. #69
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,821

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    The religious factor is a big part of the problem as well. While most of the population is religious, much less of the population is devout. It is the latter segment that is truly leading the drive for legalization of gay marriage and the fact they condemn opponents as bigots and generally seek to demonize them creates a conflict between those who strongly adhere to faith and those who do not. Such a thing is not occurring in isolation either. You have the same courts gradually pushing religion out of public life with increasingly restrictive interpretations of the "separation of church and state" legal fiction concocted by judges some time back. Then you have these instances of activist Internet lynch mobs trying to enforce political correctness such as with Phil Robertson or Mozilla.

    If they did then they presumably did not know too much about their own religion as no condemnation of such a thing exists in any religious that I know about. The religious texts of the Abrahamic faiths, however, explicitly condemn homosexuality. No debate exists on the matter and no one denies it or argues that it is not the case.

    It is, of course, not the same thing as the whole eating of shrimp thing is a dietary law and not a major issue throughout the texts of the Abrahamic faiths. Homosexuality is explicitly condemned and a major focus of one of the earliest narratives with those engaging in the sin subject to divine retribution that is most severe. No cities are destroyed due to their consumption of shellfish.
    Again, not relevant. You're picking and choosing which parts of which religion are important enough to be "in conflict," and therefore it's acceptable for the government to impose that restriction on everyone. It's absurd. We're going to decide the law of the United States on how much God dislikes a particular action? Does it work for other religions? If the single core tenet of my religion is that women must wear hats made from ducks, and all who fail to do so burn in hell, is it in conflict with my religion if that's not the law? Can I be exempt from food safety laws in my restaurant if I truly believe at my core that all illness is the will of God?

    Of course not. This is America, and that's not how we do things. Funny how it's "state sovereignty" when someone wants to do what Christians want, but it's not state sovereignty when a state wants to make discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal. (which is the issue in these bakery cases)

    I'd also point out that no cities were destroyed because of homosexuality either. You are referring to stories in a book, not actual history.
    Since you are throwing out such an incredible figure, perhaps you would be willing to provide a significant list of examples.
    That link was already given to you.
    You see, this is part of the problem with how the Supreme Court has expanded its power. No constitutional test exists in the actual amendment. Were you to look at the context of when the amendments were written, the whole idea of equal protection was that no group should be singled out for a lighter or harsher form of justice under the law due to prejudicial attitudes. It has since been expanded to cover things it was never intended to cover. That is mostly because the Supreme Court, back in the early days of the United States, made a partisan political power grab in giving itself sole authority over interpreting the constitution and that has since lead to the Supreme Court essentially becoming a body where anything it says becomes law that can only be overturned through a cumbersome amendment process. You have the Supreme Court inventing law by issuing interpretations that have no viable basis in the actual text of the constitution and every new decision becomes a new precedent that can lead to further inventions. In this case the "gender-based classification" argument is comically absurd and does not even adhere to the spirit of the original decision in creating such an inventive loophole, because "sexual orientation" was not provided as a legitimate basis for invoking strict scrutiny.
    Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a gender-based classification, I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

    Discouraging relationships that by their very nature do not involve procreation.
    If procreation is a compelling state interest, then infertile couples and elderly couples should have marriages annulled, right? Or couples who simply do not wish to have children? No, that would be silly. Besides, banning same-sex marriage does not actually further this interest.You think homosexuals go "Welp, can't marry a dude, so I'll marry a woman and have kids!"

    Then what basis would you say is used?
    Number of persons in a contract.

    Exactly my point. Interracial marriage bans would always be vague by their nature and create all sorts of opportunities for arbitrary decisions. That would also make it a due process issue as people should be assured that any law will be clear and consistent. Since you are unlikely to have any serious hassles enforcing a law saying only marriages between a man and a woman can be legally recognized, the same constitutional argument does not apply.
    "It's hard to define" is not how these constitutional arguments work.
    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.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,890

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    you can talk about straight marriage all you want to that has nothing to do with the topic.

    we are talking about one states law superceding another which according to the constitution of the US is illegal.
    if you want to talk about that i will be more than happy to discuss. if you want to discuss something else create a new thread.

    MA says gays can marry.
    IN recognizes marriage between a man and a women. A judge cannot make a state violate it's own constitution and neither can MA make another state violate it's own constitution.
    I even quoted the rulings either a page or two back that shows this to be the case.
    ?? The courts have already overrulled/changed state constitutions with regard to SSM.

    It's a shame it will happen too late in that state for this couple.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •