Page 4 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 524

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

  1. #31
    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
    It is supposed to seem consistent, because that is how effective legal gymnastics works. Sort of like calling the individual mandate a tax or proclaiming corporations to be people with the same rights as individuals. The whole point is to provide a valid-sounding argument. Were these judges to just state outright "I support this policy and therefore I am making this ruling" then no one would could get all sanctimonious about "rights" and "the constitution" as it would be obvious the decision was political rather than legal in nature.



    The reference is to the whole "we at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia" bit in 1984. What is Orwellian is suddenly deciding that an amendment made to the constitution nearly 150 years ago has actually always meant that gay marriage must get legal recognition from the government.



    As I said, it comes down to legal gymnastics. People with fancy law degrees who ignore the intention of the Constitution, even ignore the intention of previous court rulings, and instead just try to find some plausible-sounding argument for why x policy is good or bad will have no trouble coming up with some line that will pass muster. Certainly, partisans who care naught for the law or rights except when it suits them will be more than pleased with any decision that favors their political perspective.

    I could argue that the invocation of "intermediate scrutiny" on the basis of "gender discrimination" is completely unfounded and a perversion even of the original intent of the court rulings, or that even if one accepted the bizarre assertion that it still easily meets the standard. The problem is that when judges make political decisions, this effectively ends the discussion as the only way to undo their decision is to get another judge to overrule them and then act like that judge is more smarter than the other judges. It seems unlikely to happen in this case. When this gets up to the Supreme Court then the current partisan balance of power all but assures these decisions will be affirmed.

    Unfortunately, all one has to do to get an idea of how these decisions will play out is to look at their political affiliations. That is not how it should be and diminishes the credibility of their rulings.
    Aside from legal jargon and jive, the AG of Wisconsin knew he was in violation of the constitution, yet ruled against SS marriage, Gov. Walker did the same. The AG filed a frivolous lawsuit.
    This has little to do with politics and more to do about what is legal and what is not. It also has more to do with people's rights too.

    If Walker and the AG were attempting to make a political statement by banning same sex marriage, it was an epic failure on their part.

  2. #32
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,175

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The thing is, government is not going to get out of the marriage business any time soon. It just is a nonstarter. It is important symbolically for couples, it is a huge benefit to society in promoting stability, it is simply a convenient way to bundle a bunch of legal stuff together in one easy package.
    Well, to be fair, part of the gay rights argument, as it relates to marriage, is that the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman is outmoded and no longer relevant in today's society. I believe that's true. But then, if traditional marriage can be labelled as passe, why not all marriage? What could be more equal than treating each man and each woman equally, separately, irrespective of their marital status.

    The time will come when courts are forced to accept all and varied concepts of marriage and as they do governments will see the wisdom of getting out of the marriage business. I'll be long dead, so I won't be able to say I told you so - but I'll be looking down (or up) and smiling when it happens.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #33
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,264
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Well, to be fair, part of the gay rights argument, as it relates to marriage, is that the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman is outmoded and no longer relevant in today's society. I believe that's true. But then, if traditional marriage can be labelled as passe, why not all marriage? What could be more equal than treating each man and each woman equally, separately, irrespective of their marital status.

    The time will come when courts are forced to accept all and varied concepts of marriage and as they do governments will see the wisdom of getting out of the marriage business. I'll be long dead, so I won't be able to say I told you so - but I'll be looking down (or up) and smiling when it happens.
    I do not think the argument of most is that "traditional" marriage is passe, but that SSM can fit within that framework.
    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.

  4. #34
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,922

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I do not think the argument of most is that "traditional" marriage is passe, but that SSM can fit within that framework.
    While this is obviously not a legal argument, I think it can safely be said that if the framework of my own marriage is unchanged by the recognition of same sex marriage, then marriage has not actually been changed.

  5. #35
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    While this is obviously not a legal argument, I think it can safely be said that if the framework of my own marriage is unchanged by the recognition of same sex marriage, then marriage has not actually been changed.
    exactly thats why i never took that and the failed argument of force seriously.

    there no logic to support it.

    is your marriage still don't the same way? yes
    do people who want your type of marriage free to get one? yes

    no change no force then
    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. #36
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,175

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I do not think the argument of most is that "traditional" marriage is passe, but that SSM can fit within that framework.
    Well, it's clearly passe in that 50% of first marriages end in divorce and second and later marriages stick even less. There's no particular reason for society to push marriage in the ways it has in the past considering that many children are raised just fine in a wide variety of family units and for that matter a male and a female is no longer an absolute need for children in the first place.

    Marriage is passe because more and more young people are abandoning it as an institution that must be respected.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #37
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,264
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Well, it's clearly passe in that 50% of first marriages end in divorce and second and later marriages stick even less. There's no particular reason for society to push marriage in the ways it has in the past considering that many children are raised just fine in a wide variety of family units and for that matter a male and a female is no longer an absolute need for children in the first place.

    Marriage is passe because more and more young people are abandoning it as an institution that must be respected.
    I would counter by asking what percentage of nonmarried relationships end in some form of permanent separation? I suspect it is somewhat higher, in which case marriage does serve a very useful purpose. It is not a cure-all, it is not perfect, but I do think it serves a good purpose in society, and for the individuals involved.
    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.

  8. #38
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,175

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I would counter by asking what percentage of nonmarried relationships end in some form of permanent separation? I suspect it is somewhat higher, in which case marriage does serve a very useful purpose. It is not a cure-all, it is not perfect, but I do think it serves a good purpose in society, and for the individuals involved.
    Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to marriage - I'm opposed to the government's involvement in marriage and it's policy of social engineering through marriage. Too many people, in my view, enter into marriage for lots of wrong reasons - and in fact, some people, particularly the elderly, don't enter into marriage, because of the government's involvement in benefits and penalties related to marriage.

    I'm all for individuals entering into whatever relationship contract they care to create with legal language for dissolving the union as well. No need for government's heavy hand in that relationship.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #39
    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
    While this is obviously not a legal argument, I think it can safely be said that if the framework of my own marriage is unchanged by the recognition of same sex marriage, then marriage has not actually been changed.
    Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence. It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage. This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years. Arguing that a legal document written 150 years ago actually requires a significant change in the millennia-old meaning of marriage is dishonest and rooted in partisan belief rather than sound legal theory. Changes of such a fundamental nature to such a central institution should be based on the approval of society, rather than the whims of activists in robes. Many states have approved it and many countries have approved it. One can safely say that it is only a matter of time before every state approves it through the legislature or a referendum. I consider that a good thing. Hijacking the constitution for one's political agenda is not something I consider good, however.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  10. #40
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    1.)Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence.
    2.)It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage.
    3.) This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years.
    4.) Arguing that a legal document written 150 years ago actually requires a significant change in the millennia-old meaning of marriage is dishonest and rooted in partisan belief rather than sound legal theory.
    5.) Changes of such a fundamental nature to such a central institution should be based on the approval of society
    6.), rather than the whims of activists in robes.
    7.) Many states have approved it and many countries have approved it.
    8.) One can safely say that it is only a matter of time before every state approves it through the legislature or a referendum. I consider that a good thing.
    9.) Hijacking the constitution for one's political agenda is not something I consider good, however.
    1.) factually false and even if this lie was true its would be meanignless to equal rights a legal marriage. meaningless
    2.) no it would be logical, accurate and honest as already shown.
    3.) see one, again this fallacy is meanignless
    4.) accept all the legal theory disagrees with you just like the other equal rights and civil rights issues. These types of same intellectually dishonest and mentally inept "arguments" were used against slavery, minority rights, womans rights and interracial marriage. They all failed because they had no logic to support them and people deemed them retarded just like now.
    5.) wrong again society doesnt get to take individual rights away, see the examples in 4.
    6.) this failed and tried inane dishonest argument as never worked. Claiming "activists judges" is the second fastest way to not be taken seriously on this subject by anybody educated and honest. The only other faster and more mentally inapt way is to try and relate hetero/homosexuality with besitalty and child rape.
    7.) its not a state issue this is way the fed is fixing it.
    8.) dont know where you get this from since thats not the case and again STATE legislature or a referendum has no business on and issue like this. The states over stepped thier power and they are being corrected.
    9.) me neither, good thing equal rights isnt doing that.
    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

Page 4 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •