Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 183

Thread: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

  1. #81
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    1.)How about instead I provide just as much FACTUAL proof as you have.
    2.)Oh, wait, that would mean I would have to present none at all.
    Thats what i thought, you cant, you got nothing so you continue to dodge and have your posts further destroyed lol
    1.) PLEASE PLEASE do this, that would be AWESOME!
    2.) another lie that nobody educated, honest and objective buys lol

    let us know when you can defend your failed and false claims, thanks, we are waiting/
    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. #82
    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 Deuce View Post
    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?
    There are honest ways to interpret a legal document and dishonest ways. It is widely understood what "arms" meant in the second amendment. Equal protection, at the time it was put in the Constitution, was conceived as protection from people being given different treatment under the law on the basis of something like racial heritage. As it was applied, that meant laws that explicitly targeted one group for penalties in a way meant to deprive that group of life, liberty, or property, was unconstitutional. No one is being penalized by non-recognition of gay marriage. Equal protection means the laws should protect and penalize everyone equally without discriminating. Non-recognition of gay marriage denies people certain benefits or privileges, but it does not penalize them nor does it deny them the equal protection of the laws. What has happened is that judges have increasingly moved away from the constitution and instead begun to focus primarily on finding wording in past court rulings that can be interpreted to justify whatever policy objective is currently desired by the establishment. Courts are increasingly avoiding interpreting the Constitution and instead are interpreting past rulings that are themselves interpretations of past rulings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    No, it does not. It allows them to review how the law applies to cases brought before it as it should, but it in no way makes the courts the sole and exclusive lords of the Constitution. That power grab was itself an act of judges "interpreting" the Constitution to make it say something it did not say.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  3. #83
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.
    False dichotomy, and a blatant misrepresentation of social safety nets. Come on man, we both know you're better than this.
    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.

  4. #84
    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 Demon of Light View Post
    No, it does not. It allows them to review how the law applies to cases brought before it as it should, but it in no way makes the courts the sole and exclusive lords of the Constitution. That power grab was itself an act of judges "interpreting" the Constitution to make it say something it did not say.
    "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

    All cases, including ones which ask a fundamental constitutional question. Including ones which assert the unconstitutionality of a law. Including ones about interpreting our fundamental rights. "All cases" means all cases. Judicial review is in the constitution.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #85
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,561

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

    All cases, including ones which ask a fundamental constitutional question. Including ones which assert the unconstitutionality of a law. Including ones about interpreting our fundamental rights. "All cases" means all cases. Judicial review is in the constitution.
    Then why are so many cases denied that review based on lack of "standing" or just plain old lack of interest? Allowing the opinion of a particular judge to trump law using stays is not in the constitution.
    “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

  6. #86
    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 Paschendale View Post
    "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

    All cases, including ones which ask a fundamental constitutional question. Including ones which assert the unconstitutionality of a law. Including ones about interpreting our fundamental rights. "All cases" means all cases. Judicial review is in the constitution.
    That basically means the courts can rule on all cases brought to it under federal law on the basis of the law. In no way does that translate to "has absolute and unquestioned power over the Constitution's meaning and purposes" as it is regarded today.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  7. #87
    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 ttwtt78640 View Post
    Then why are so many cases denied that review based on lack of "standing" or just plain old lack of interest? Allowing the opinion of a particular judge to trump law using stays is not in the constitution.
    I don't have the time or interest to explain standing to you, but it has nothing to do with the court and everything to do with the petitioner's relationship to the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    That basically means the courts can rule on all cases brought to it under federal law on the basis of the law. In no way does that translate to "has absolute and unquestioned power over the Constitution's meaning and purposes" as it is regarded today.
    If it were regarded or used that way, then you might have a point.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #88
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    There are honest ways to interpret a legal document and dishonest ways. It is widely understood what "arms" meant in the second amendment. Equal protection, at the time it was put in the Constitution, was conceived as protection from people being given different treatment under the law on the basis of something like racial heritage. As it was applied, that meant laws that explicitly targeted one group for penalties in a way meant to deprive that group of life, liberty, or property, was unconstitutional. No one is being penalized by non-recognition of gay marriage.

    If I remember correctly Edith Windsor, of United States v. Windsor, would have had to pay over $350,000 in taxes that would not have been required for a different-sex couple in the same legal status.

    Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were legally married and would have been subject to significant loss of property as a result of their non-recognition of their same-sex marriage.



    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 05-12-14 at 12:19 AM.

  9. #89
    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 WorldWatcher View Post
    If I remember correctly Edith Windsor, of United States v. Windsor, would have had to pay over $350,000 in taxes that would not have been required for a different-sex couple in the same legal status.

    Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were legally married and would have been subject to significant loss of property as a result of their non-recognition of their same-sex marriage.



    >>>>
    The DOMA case is different as that was the federal government interfering with the affairs of the states. It was intended to undermine the laws of the states on a matter where the federal government had no constitutional authority.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

    To the unjust Judge, the dishonorable Chris Piazza, who fears neither God nor any man:

    "You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires"

    "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

    Please sir, just leave, go to some Godless state like New York, you will never be elected in Arkansas again, the House may even impeach you.

    Oh, and may you never bear fruit again.

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •