Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 183

Thread: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Then make a substantiated legal argument that would overturn Loving v. Virginia. Go ahead. We'd all like to hear it. And if it's "the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage" we already have that defeated. Go read the ninth amendment.



    Oh look, there it is. Go read the ninth amendment. You also have the right to wear baseball caps, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to build a sand castle, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to eat cheese, despite the constitution not mentioning it. If the government tries to stop you from doing those things, you have a right to do them unless it has a damn good reason.



    Pay attention, the following is for you, too.



    It's pretty hard to get a coherent argument out of someone who thinks that progressive taxation is violating someone's rights. Probably paid maternal leave is, too, because men don't get time off to birth and nurse children. Or a public works project in a poor neighborhood, because it's not benefiting rich people the same way.

    Unequal treatment is perfectly permissible with a compelling reason. That's why we have a court and constitutional scrutiny, so we can determine if the reasons are compelling. "I think gays are icky" is not a compelling reason. Biological differences (like contraceptives for women) is. Redressing the very lingering effects of slavery is. Raising revenue from people who have more money as opposed to people who don't is.

    If someone wants to make a constitutionally and factually supported argument to the contrary, by all means, take it to the court. The idea that equality means treating people in different situations as if they were all in the best possible situation is moronic at best and probably a lie to justify leaving less fortunate or historically oppressed people behind. Unequal treatment is necessary when people are in unequal positions. That's how you push people closer to actual equality. When unequal treatment is no longer necessary, that's when we have the real thing.
    Almost as hard as understanding the arguments of someone who believes everyone who is productive and creative has a "civic duty" to provide luxuries and a living to the non-productive, lazy and stupid.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  2. #72
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Almost as hard as understanding the arguments of someone who believes everyone who is productive and creative has a "civic duty" to provide luxuries and a living to the non-productive, lazy and stupid.
    I can't help but notice that you didn't actually provide any rebuttal to his point about constitutional scrutiny. Perhaps reading this little blurb on constitutional scrutiny can make the argument more clear:

    Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

    You'll see gender listed under middle-tier scrutiny. (also sometimes referred to as "heightened" or "intermediate" scrutiny) Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a classification of gender, obviously, and therefore has the test of being "substantially related" to an "important state interest."

    Failing to provide this interest means a state defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

    The closest that the social conservatives have managed on this is declaring procreation to be an important state interest. Leaving aside the implications for elderly or otherwise infertile couples, I'd then ask the question of how exactly banning same-sex marriage leads to more babies. Even dropping down to the lowest tier of review, one has to wonder what rational basis someone could have for believing same-sex marriage bans lead to more babies.
    Last edited by Deuce; 05-11-14 at 06:22 PM.
    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. #73
    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: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Challenges to laws based on the U.S. Constitution are proper channels.
    Only when they are actually covered by the Constitution. I know. I know. "But, but, equal protection! Prior Supreme Court rulings! Authoriteh!" I, however, am talking about what the Constitution actually says and actually covers as opposed to what a bunch of unelected life-term appointees have decreed it says and covers. Just because you are getting your way with this ruling does not magically mean those same unelected life-term appointees won't decree it says and covers something you do not wish it did. How many people cheering these rulings were outraged by Citizens United? You can't have it both ways. Either the decrees of the judges are all that matters or the Constitution itself is what matters and the judges should adhere to it rather than serving as de-facto legislative body.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  4. #74
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Only when they are actually covered by the Constitution. I know. I know. "But, but, equal protection! Prior Supreme Court rulings! Authoriteh!" I, however, am talking about what the Constitution actually says and actually covers as opposed to what a bunch of unelected life-term appointees have decreed it says and covers. Just because you are getting your way with this ruling does not magically mean those same unelected life-term appointees won't decree it says and covers something you do not wish it did. How many people cheering these rulings were outraged by Citizens United? You can't have it both ways. Either the decrees of the judges are all that matters or the Constitution itself is what matters and the judges should adhere to it rather than serving as de-facto legislative body.
    You've got this strange idea that there's a singular set of rules the wording of the Constitution provides. So Equal Protection doesn't mention marriage... well, it doesn't mention anything specific. Does that mean it doesn't cover anything, or that it covers everything? How about the second amendment? The right to bear arms. You have two, I presume, attached to your shoulders. Are you telling me you interpret that to protect gun ownership? I suppose you want activist judges to protect that "right," eh?

    If you say homosexuals already have equal protection under the law, and I say they don't, why does your opinion count and not mine?

    And you know what? Yeah, I do want an unelected set of people to rule on these things. That way, we can pick good people who will rule on real legal reasoning instead of pandering to the tyrannical whims of the majority or our partisan, two-party system. I don't think 51% of the population should get to vote on **** regarding my personal freedom. Do you?
    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.

  5. #75
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I can't help but notice that you didn't actually provide any rebuttal to his point about constitutional scrutiny. Perhaps reading this little blurb on constitutional scrutiny can make the argument more clear:

    Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

    You'll see gender listed under middle-tier scrutiny. (also sometimes referred to as "heightened" or "intermediate" scrutiny) Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a classification of gender, obviously, and therefore has the test of being "substantially related" to an "important state interest."

    Failing to provide this interest means a state defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

    The closest that the social conservatives have managed on this is declaring procreation to be an important state interest. Leaving aside the implications for elderly or otherwise infertile couples, I'd then ask the question of how exactly banning same-sex marriage leads to more babies. Even dropping down to the lowest tier of review, one has to wonder what rational basis someone could have for believing same-sex marriage bans lead to more babies.
    As I've already said, if you'd bother to read it.

    "You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights. There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is."

    "Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc."
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #76
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    As I've already said, if you'd bother to read it.

    "You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights. There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is."

    "Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc."
    Well, according to you, the constitution doesn't say taxes and benefits have to be the same based on marital status, therefore you have no constitutional complaint on the matter.

    According to me, tax breaks to promote stable family units are a sufficiently important state interest to have slightly unequal taxation on the basis of marital status.
    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.

  7. #77
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Well, according to you, the constitution doesn't say taxes and benefits have to be the same based on marital status, therefore you have no constitutional complaint on the matter.

    According to me, tax breaks to promote stable family units are a sufficiently important state interest to have slightly unequal taxation on the basis of marital status.
    OK, but how does that square with subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth? Clearly the "safety net" system does not favor stable family units since much of it goes to those that are not.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #78
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Almost as hard as understanding the arguments of someone who believes everyone who is productive and creative has a "civic duty" to provide luxuries and a living to the non-productive, lazy and stupid.
    Almost everyone, even poor people, are the former. Almost no one is, though even some rich people are, the latter. We are not a nation of half hardworking people and half lazy people. We are a nation of almost entirely hardworking people. But some hardworking people are still getting a disproportionately tiny share of the pie. That's not right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Only when they are actually covered by the Constitution. I know. I know. "But, but, equal protection! Prior Supreme Court rulings! Authoriteh!" I, however, am talking about what the Constitution actually says and actually covers as opposed to what a bunch of unelected life-term appointees have decreed it says and covers. Just because you are getting your way with this ruling does not magically mean those same unelected life-term appointees won't decree it says and covers something you do not wish it did. How many people cheering these rulings were outraged by Citizens United? You can't have it both ways. Either the decrees of the judges are all that matters or the Constitution itself is what matters and the judges should adhere to it rather than serving as de-facto legislative body.
    It also says that they have the final say in determining how it applies. Any argument that relies on denying the authority of the court means denying the authority that empowers it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    As I've already said, if you'd bother to read it.

    "You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights. There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is."

    "Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc."
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #79
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    OK, but how does that square with subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth? Clearly the "safety net" system does not favor stable family units since much of it goes to those that are not.
    Helping provide for children is a clear state interest, wouldn't you agree?
    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. #80
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Helping provide for children is a clear state interest, wouldn't you agree?
    No. Now which is the clear state interest, promoting stable families or subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth? If having stable families is the goal then subsidies should be reduced for other than stable family structures.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •