Page 16 of 53 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 524

Thread: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

  1. #151
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Oh come on, that is nonsense. Thousands of years of history and you are saying it is "cherry-picking" to not include the last ten or so years as part of that history? I am including it, of course, but as an ongoing process of changing the traditional and historic meaning of marriage that has existed for the previous thousands of years.



    Not what I was doing, but just pointing out that even the polygamous marriages were taken as being between a man and a woman. The women were not married to each other. Each was married individually to the man.



    Such laws had nothing to do with the institution of marriage and everything to do with general hostility towards race-mixing. It was opposition to the mixing of black and white blood. Nothing arbitrary about saying marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. That is a clear bright line.



    Yet, those traditions had more than their fair share of prominent opposition and faced bans throughout history. Abolition of slavery goes back thousands of years. Many contemporary countries had banned slavery decades prior to the U.S. or even earlier.



    The problem is not the government, but the people in charge of it. Enforcing the constitution, like all law, is great so long as people are committed to an honest and faithful interpretation. When people abuse their position of authority over the law to push their political views on society, that is when I have a problem.



    I don't have a problem with the amendments. What the **** are you talking about? You are now being completely dishonest in attacking my position. My point is actually that the amendment did not somehow require recognition of gay marriage.



    Except, legal recognition means they do have to accept it on some level. I mean, are their businesses not now going to be required take part in any gay marriage ceremony at request? They can only avoid it by coming up with some non-religious excuse. Any argument that "it is against my beliefs" will be promptly met with a lawsuit saying this photographer has to take photos at my gay wedding no matter how they feel about it or this person has to bake my wedding cake even if it goes against everything in their religion. You can say that is not being "forced to accept" gay marriage, but it is in effect putting people in a position where they either take some part in the celebration of the union or lose their livelihood. People are, in effect, being forced to accept it as lawsuits and financial penalties are a form of coercive force.

    Do you really support that?



    Again with the illogical retorts. People are going to have to accept it when it is legalized and that would be fine if this was the choice of the people. When it is the choice of certain activist judges then they are being forced by a small group of individuals to accept that marriage no longer means what it has meant for thousands of years. No one needs to be forced to marry anyone for the change to be forced on society.



    Orwellian does not inherently mean "oppressive", but merely something that is akin to the world in Orwell's writings. By arguing that the 14th Amendment requires legal recognition of gay marriages, they are effectively reinventing history, because even those who wrote it most assuredly did not think it applied in such a manner and only in the past few years has anyone taken it that way. The law should be firm, not subject to the whims of judges. Interpretation of the law should be limited in scope and not become a way to perpetually move the law closer to a position favoring a political end not even remotely envisioned by its authors. When the law is seen to have deficiencies that prevent a certain political goal it should be revised in accordance with the appropriate procedures, not perverted through arbitrary decisions by partisan judges.



    Wikipedia fail. Even if the stories are true, you should play closer attention as it explicitly says such unions were not recognized under the law. Anyone can have a ceremony, but we are talking about legal recognition.
    Go ahead and revise history if you wish.

  2. #152
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,117

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Oh come on, that is nonsense. Thousands of years of history and you are saying it is "cherry-picking" to not include the last ten or so years as part of that history? I am including it, of course, but as an ongoing process of changing the traditional and historic meaning of marriage that has existed for the previous thousands of years.



    Not what I was doing, but just pointing out that even the polygamous marriages were taken as being between a man and a woman. The women were not married to each other. Each was married individually to the man.



    Such laws had nothing to do with the institution of marriage and everything to do with general hostility towards race-mixing. It was opposition to the mixing of black and white blood. Nothing arbitrary about saying marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. That is a clear bright line.



    Yet, those traditions had more than their fair share of prominent opposition and faced bans throughout history. Abolition of slavery goes back thousands of years. Many contemporary countries had banned slavery decades prior to the U.S. or even earlier.



    The problem is not the government, but the people in charge of it. Enforcing the constitution, like all law, is great so long as people are committed to an honest and faithful interpretation. When people abuse their position of authority over the law to push their political views on society, that is when I have a problem.



    I don't have a problem with the amendments. What the **** are you talking about? You are now being completely dishonest in attacking my position. My point is actually that the amendment did not somehow require recognition of gay marriage.



    Except, legal recognition means they do have to accept it on some level. I mean, are their businesses not now going to be required take part in any gay marriage ceremony at request? They can only avoid it by coming up with some non-religious excuse. Any argument that "it is against my beliefs" will be promptly met with a lawsuit saying this photographer has to take photos at my gay wedding no matter how they feel about it or this person has to bake my wedding cake even if it goes against everything in their religion. You can say that is not being "forced to accept" gay marriage, but it is in effect putting people in a position where they either take some part in the celebration of the union or lose their livelihood. People are, in effect, being forced to accept it as lawsuits and financial penalties are a form of coercive force.

    Do you really support that?



    Again with the illogical retorts. People are going to have to accept it when it is legalized and that would be fine if this was the choice of the people. When it is the choice of certain activist judges then they are being forced by a small group of individuals to accept that marriage no longer means what it has meant for thousands of years. No one needs to be forced to marry anyone for the change to be forced on society.



    Orwellian does not inherently mean "oppressive", but merely something that is akin to the world in Orwell's writings. By arguing that the 14th Amendment requires legal recognition of gay marriages, they are effectively reinventing history, because even those who wrote it most assuredly did not think it applied in such a manner and only in the past few years has anyone taken it that way. The law should be firm, not subject to the whims of judges. Interpretation of the law should be limited in scope and not become a way to perpetually move the law closer to a position favoring a political end not even remotely envisioned by its authors. When the law is seen to have deficiencies that prevent a certain political goal it should be revised in accordance with the appropriate procedures, not perverted through arbitrary decisions by partisan judges.



    Wikipedia fail. Even if the stories are true, you should play closer attention as it explicitly says such unions were not recognized under the law. Anyone can have a ceremony, but we are talking about legal recognition.
    "Next thing you know they'll be wanting to go back to living in caves. There's always been a lottery." -Old Man Warner

  3. #153
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Actually, the introduction of no-fault divorce was regarded with some controversy. Divorce was certainly not considered a very good thing a few decades ago. People have just become so accustomed to it that it is much less contentious.
    And so it shall be with same sex marriage. And, in fact, so it already is in a number of places now.

    Indeed, a September poll this year found that 85% of Massachusetts voters saw a positive or little to no impact from gay marriages in the commonwealth. In the poll, voters in the state support legalizing gay marriage 60% to 29%. Nationally, support for marriage equality has almost doubled since 1996 when a Gallup poll found 27% of Americans thought same-sex marriage should be legal. In 2013, that figure jumped up to 53%.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/10th-anni...ge-equality-ma

    85% of people who have to live in a state with ssm came to the same conclusion we already predicted ourselves: if two other people of the same gender get married, but the infrastructure to our own marriage remains unchanged, then what's the big deal? Answer: none at all. Unless you hate the Red Sox, that is, in which case some might argue same sex marriage was a disaster.

    But marriage equality has not turned society inside out, nor has the promised parade of horribles has not come to pass. Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections, and the Boston Red Sox have the best record in Major League Baseball.
    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/0...tts-ten-years/
    Last edited by Cardinal; 06-09-14 at 01:10 PM.

  4. #154
    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 strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Your talk of intent is ad hominem.
    Please review the meaning of "ad hominem" and get back to me on that.

    You are attempting to dismiss my constitutional argument based on this notion that you think I have some kind of ulterior motives.
    I am dismissing the notion that it is a constitutional argument. Everything you mention is a reference to a previous court ruling, not anything contained within the Constitution.

    No, that's your deal. You're the one obsessing over original intent, not me.
    You're right, whether gay marriage should be legally recognized has nothing to do with science. Nor does it have anything to do with the personal opinion of a bunch of people whom you outright admit never even considered the possibility.
    Are you not paying attention? The point is not whether they considered the possibility, but that it was not some completely alien concept. Homosexuality was around back then too, unlike nuclear weapons and the Internet. If your argument is that because they did not think something they never considered unconstitutional would one day be considered unconstitutional on the basis of their wording and therefore it is fair game then you are really just dismissing the whole idea that their intent mattered. You are not arguing that the constitution or the law matters, but that what the judges decide matters.

    Classifications of gender require that the state demonstrate that the classification is substantially related to an important state interest. That's the constitutional test. You either provide that interest and pass the test, or the law gets canned. Just because our snail-paced court system hasn't accomplished that yet doesn't render the argument void.
    Usage of "gender" in this case is just a comical distortion of even the original court rulings, never mind the Constitution.

    Interracial marriage was illegal until it wasn't. Sodomy was illegal until it wasn't. Are you saying both of those things should still be illegal because the people who wrote the 14th amendment hadn't overturned those laws?
    Actually, those who were from the Republican Party and the North generally opposed laws against interracial marriage and many Northern states did not even pass such laws. However, the original intent question is not whether they thought it applied to a specific thing, but how it applied to any issue. The time it was created the law was about insuring laws did not single out freed slaves for unusual punishment or restrictions under the law. No one is penalized by the mere lack of recognition for a gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    What grounds, in the Const, do you see for recognizing marriage? (If you do)
    I don't think the Constitution ever had anything to say about marriage explicitly or implicitly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Can you please give some specifics on how the institution of marriage is being changed? Besides gender?
    Are you suggesting that is not a significant change that would impact all of society?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    And so it shall be with same sex marriage. And, in fact, so it already is in a number of places now.
    I do not dispute that it will become less contentious and already has in some places, but, while I am not inclined to view it as potentially harmful, one cannot act as though ten years of legal gay marriage is sufficient to gauge the impact on society. No-fault divorce has definitely had an impact on society and the institution of marriage.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #155
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post

    Are you suggesting that is not a significant change that would impact all of society?
    Well, to be fair, any positive change toward civil liberties will have an impact on society, albeit a positive one.

  6. #156
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,662

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post

    I don't think the Constitution ever had anything to say about marriage explicitly or implicitly.

    Are you suggesting that is not a significant change that would impact all of society?

    .

    I agree, the Const. didnt and doesnt. However it does cover discrimination and due process and equality. So I see SSM as the right thing to do.

    And how will it impact all of society? It will be recognized by all society but aside from that, what impacts will it have?
    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.

  7. #157
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I agree, the Const. didnt and doesnt. However it does cover discrimination and due process and equality. So I see SSM as the right thing to do.

    And how will it impact all of society? It will be recognized by all society but aside from that, what impacts will it have?
    (bold mine)

    This is a question those who oppose ssm can't answer, along with related questions like "how does it directly impact you?" Instead they can only answer that it will be different than before, that tradition is being overturned, etc. But specifics as to what they think we're heading towards? None at all.

  8. #158
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    The reality is....those who oppose marriage equality really only have themselves to blame. If they hadn't fought so hard to deny gays domestic partnerships, we probably wouldn't be here today where marriage equality will be the law of the land. Many gays were fine with domestic partnerships having equal footing to straight marriage...but that was before the right-wing fought tooth and nail to deny those. Now....all of sudden, the right-wing is crying "Why aren't domestic partnerships enough.....why do you have to take our word away from us". To that supporters of marriage equality say...."Sorry.....too little too late....you can take your "domestic partnerships" and shove them where the sun doesn't shin....because marriage equality will be nationwide within a couple of years."
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #159
    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 strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Well, to be fair, any positive change toward civil liberties will have an impact on society, albeit a positive one.
    As I said, you obviously think it would be a change for the better. You do not know it will, but just have a firm belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I agree, the Const. didnt and doesnt. However it does cover discrimination and due process and equality. So I see SSM as the right thing to do.
    It does not mandate equality in all things or no discrimination in all things. Many forms of discrimination exist that are completely legal. Age discrimination is legal and common, for instance. Discrimination on the basis of criminal history is also common and legal.

    And how will it impact all of society? It will be recognized by all society but aside from that, what impacts will it have?
    That would be difficult to fully define without it occurring, though there would have to be a change in perception about marriage and same-sex relationships. Admittedly the greater social concern for me are how various actions related to it are developing. I mentioned the wedding cake and photography issues before as an example. Non-recognition of gay marriage being declared unconstitutional at the Supreme Court level would increase the occurrence of such cases. Unfortunately, I am concerned about how certain people will react to that. Most on the receiving end of such suits are just acting according to their religious beliefs and only limiting themselves with respect to events involving marriage, not other matters. Judges appointed by one side of the debate ruling in favor of their side of the debate and forcing legal recognition even in the states most fervently opposed to gay marriage is something that could create a serious backlash.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  10. #160
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,708

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I am dismissing the notion that it is a constitutional argument. Everything you mention is a reference to a previous court ruling, not anything contained within the Constitution.
    Equal protection under the law is mentioned in the constitution.

    Are you not paying attention? The point is not whether they considered the possibility, but that it was not some completely alien concept. Homosexuality was around back then too, unlike nuclear weapons and the Internet. If your argument is that because they did not think something they never considered unconstitutional would one day be considered unconstitutional on the basis of their wording and therefore it is fair game then you are really just dismissing the whole idea that their intent mattered. You are not arguing that the constitution or the law matters, but that what the judges decide matters.
    They can't have an intent about a subject they never considered. I didn't say their intent was irrelevant, you said they didn't have an intent at all.

    Usage of "gender" in this case is just a comical distortion of even the original court rulings, never mind the Constitution.
    If you think defining marriage as between a man and a woman is anything but a classification of gender, you are free to explain that.

    Actually, those who were from the Republican Party and the North generally opposed laws against interracial marriage and many Northern states did not even pass such laws. However, the original intent question is not whether they thought it applied to a specific thing, but how it applied to any issue. The time it was created the law was about insuring laws did not single out freed slaves for unusual punishment or restrictions under the law.
    You are reading an intent to only apply to freed slaves, but that is unwarranted. Equal protection was written broadly, intentionally. To you, apparently, it doesn't apply to anything because it doesn't actually say anything specific. People argued that it was still equal protection to punish blacks more than whites for the same crime, because you were punishing all blacks equally and all whites equally. According to you, that's apparently constitutional because the 14th amendment doesn't say it's unconstitutional.

    No one is penalized by the mere lack of recognition for a gay marriage.
    False.
    Last edited by Deuce; 06-09-14 at 09:41 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.

Page 16 of 53 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •