Page 2 of 53 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 524

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

  1. #11
    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]

    It is sad that this is what the court system has become. There is something Orwellian in stating that only extending legal recognition to a traditional marital relationship is now unconstitutional. Of course, certain "liberals" who care naught for the constitution or "rights" except when it suits their policy objectives are going to cheer such a decision. When the same pseudo-constitutional approach is taken to something they oppose then there is a lot of ranting about the court making the wrong decision as there was with Citizens United. The Supreme Court was never intended to be politicized in this manner, though I suppose it was inevitable given that they are ultimately political appointees.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #12
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    It is sad that this is what the court system has become. There is something Orwellian in stating that only extending legal recognition to a traditional marital relationship is now unconstitutional. Of course, certain "liberals" who care naught for the constitution or "rights" except when it suits their policy objectives are going to cheer such a decision. When the same pseudo-constitutional approach is taken to something they oppose then there is a lot of ranting about the court making the wrong decision as there was with Citizens United. The Supreme Court was never intended to be politicized in this manner, though I suppose it was inevitable given that they are ultimately political appointees.
    Apparently you do not understand the constitution and what it means. This is certainly correctable and I would highly recommend you make efforts in that direction.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #13
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,742

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation.
    I'll start with this. It's actually a pretty important distinction.

    Gender has long been recognized as requiring a higher level of scrutiny than the rational basis test. Intermediate scrutiny requires that the measure in question is "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest." A same-sex marriage ban simply cannot pass this test. While most would agree raising children is an important state interest, stopping homosexuals from marrying does not further this goal. We don't get more children, or more children in stable homes, by stopping homosexuals from marrying each other.

    The rulings all seem to come down to equal protection on a very minimal rational basis test. I have argued that legislation passed by states legislatures is by definition meeting the due process clause, and rational basis, as our representatives have carefully considered the legislation of banning gay marriage, and if that isn't at least meeting rational basis, I'm not sure what is?
    I'm not sure I follow. If "it was enacted" meets the rational basis test, then rational basis isn't a test at all.

    The problem, (I think) eventually will come down to whether the rationale to exclude gays in marriage (mostly the preservation of and or higher regard for heterosexual familial contributions to the state over that of gay marriage familial contributions) is rational. A great many do not, I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc.. And I acknowledge that those are valid concerns, but rather than use it as a whipping boy against the virtue of perfect parents in perfect worlds (Which we do not live in and never will) I, on the other hand think that we simply need to move in directions that help strengthen families, and provide a more equal and fair system for divorcing parents allowing access to both equally as the presumption. Add in several other tweaks to marriage and domestic laws and I think we can accommodate all parties concerned.
    Preventing same-sex couples from marrying does not decrease divorce rates, it does not decrease broken homes, it does not decrease single-parent households, and it does not decrease the number of bad parents. If you think there is a rational basis for believing same-sex marriage bans do any of these things, feel free to post it. "there might be other good things to do" is not an argument for same-sex marriage bans.

    Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.


    Tim-
    A child raised by both biological parents in a stable, loving, high-income, well-educated family is certainly a good thing. So, you are arguing that poor people without a PHD shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? Because that's not the "best" model.

    As for "I don't see why," well, I don't see why you can't enjoy marriage if two dudes also enjoy marriage. If you think two dudes marrying harms your marriage, maybe the problem is that your marriage isn't as solid as you tell yourself.
    Last edited by Deuce; 06-06-14 at 11:51 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.

  4. #14
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,742

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    It is sad that this is what the court system has become. There is something Orwellian in stating that only extending legal recognition to a traditional marital relationship is now unconstitutional. Of course, certain "liberals" who care naught for the constitution or "rights" except when it suits their policy objectives are going to cheer such a decision. When the same pseudo-constitutional approach is taken to something they oppose then there is a lot of ranting about the court making the wrong decision as there was with Citizens United. The Supreme Court was never intended to be politicized in this manner, though I suppose it was inevitable given that they are ultimately political appointees.
    Invoking Orwell, eh? So where's the oppression, exactly? Which part of your life is so dramatically affected by two dudes getting married?
    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. #15
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation. The rulings all seem to come down to equal protection on a very minimal rational basis test. I have argued that legislation passed by states legislatures is by definition meeting the due process clause, and rational basis, as our representatives have carefully considered the legislation of banning gay marriage, and if that isn't at least meeting rational basis, I'm not sure what is? The problem, (I think) eventually will come down to whether the rationale to exclude gays in marriage (mostly the preservation of and or higher regard for heterosexual familial contributions to the state over that of gay marriage familial contributions) is rational. A great many do not, I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc.. And I acknowledge that those are valid concerns, but rather than use it as a whipping boy against the virtue of perfect parents in perfect worlds (Which we do not live in and never will) I, on the other hand think that we simply need to move in directions that help strengthen families, and provide a more equal and fair system for divorcing parents allowing access to both equally as the presumption. Add in several other tweaks to marriage and domestic laws and I think we can accommodate all parties concerned.

    Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.


    Tim-
    thats an easy question to answer. and you answered your own question in a way so not sure how you dont see it
    its because if this type of clear precedence is set theres nothing really to discuss about this and many other issues.

    Currently sexual orientation is not directly listed among all national discrimination laws so if this precedence is set and clear, and its based on gender the precedence can be used to instantly make it national with the right push. Where orientation is a slower one.

    And it would effect not only marriage laws but protection laws as well. Some states have equal rights for marriage but the ignorant and bigoted firing of gays or refusal of service, housing etc simply because they are gay is not protected

    it COULD be huge just like the GSK v. Abbott Laboratories which called for heightened scrutiny referring to intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny which gender already requires. Although some rulings have already uses heightened and intermediate as interchangeable even though its not quite defined that they are.

    Since its already been thoroughly, clearly and obviously established theres no rational basis to ban gay marriage and infringe on equal rights, rightfully so since there no logic based on law or rights to support somethign so asinine the issue can move even higher.

    So now that rational basis isnt even a question on this issue because there is none, it moves on to intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny which gender already has.
    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

  6. #16
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.

    Tim-
    That sure would be nice...if anyone had/has done that. But since heterosexuals have not....I'd say that ship has sailed. Gays and polygamists, etc etc have not remotely sullied marriage the way that straight people have over the centuries.

    So there's really no point in reserving anything...since straight people seem to take marriage for granted and abuse the crap out of it, the legal system, each other, and their kids at the drop of a hat.

    A marriage is what the couple make of it. Gays will participate in it the same as straight people have...for better and for worse. But their track record with their kids has not been shown to be inferior to that of straight couples.
    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. #17
    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 Redress View Post
    Apparently you do not understand the constitution and what it means.
    It is hard to keep track when the "meaning" is constantly changing with the tide of politics. Then again, as I recall, you do not understand that "free speech" is not solely about freedom from government. So maybe this is more your problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Invoking Orwell, eh? So where's the oppression, exactly?
    The Orwellian aspect is that by declaring it unconstitutional based off an amendment that has existed for nearly 150 years they are, in effect, saying it was always unconstitutional for states to only extend legal recognition to traditional marriages. Given that the people who wrote the amendment sure as hell were not desiring or envisioning forcing recognition of gay marriage on the states, this is effectively rewriting the amendment to say something it never said and was never meant to say.

    Which part of your life is so dramatically affected by two dudes getting married?
    You are asking the wrong question, especially since I have no problem with it being legal as this is about the means rather than the end result. How many ways could the Supreme Court "reinterpret" the constitution in an unprecedented fashion that would affect your life? If you endorse these decisions because they favor your political views, without considering whether a faithful application of the constitution truly merits the reinterpretation, then you should consider whether there are any ways the Supreme Court could act against your political views using the same sort of legal gymnastics.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #18
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    It is hard to keep track when the "meaning" is constantly changing with the tide of politics. Then again, as I recall, you do not understand that "free speech" is not solely about freedom from government. So maybe this is more your problem.
    Except that is not the case here. Again, a little reading on your part would illuminate how this is very consistent with other equal protection claims.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #19
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Update on this. Ruling: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...DCt-6-6-14.pdf

    Not quoting from it since it formats to one letter per line and I am way too lazy to fix it. However, the ruling does explicitly state that some level of heightened scrutiny is required since the discrimination based on both orientation, and sex.

    Nicely written ruling, makes frequent reference to Loving, stating that prior to Loving, there was no history and tradition of marriage between races, so trying to claim tradition here fails.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Nicely written ruling, makes frequent reference to Loving, stating that prior to Loving, there was no history and tradition of marriage between races, so trying to claim tradition here fails.
    No history and tradition of marriage between races prior to Loving?? The judge is either suprisingly uneducated, or thinks herself to be so powerful that she can make up history in addition to law.
    Last edited by Taylor; 06-07-14 at 04:40 AM.

Page 2 of 53 FirstFirst 12341252 ... 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
  •