Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 161

Thread: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

  1. #151
    Sage
    JumpinJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    05-12-17 @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,628

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.
    Marriage, as a legal institution, IS the government's business. You can shack up with anyone you want. You can even "marry" with just you and your partner stating words to each other, or a friendly pastor proclaiming it. But if you want the government to recognize you as a legal couple, which is what this is about, then the government is involved in defining the institution. It has a stake in marriage because of all sorts of laws dealing with it, including tax laws, property laws, inheritance, etc.

  2. #152
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor all turned on the Court's belief that the only possible motive for the laws in question was animosity--a "bare desire to harm"--homosexuals. Now, even if a law doesn't infringe any fundamental right--which would make it subject to "strict scrutiny," a very demanding constitutional test--it still has to at least be "reasonably related" to some "legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. But harming a group of people can never be a legitimate purpose of government. So if the Court thinks that's the only conceivable reason for a law, it will hold that law unconstitutional.
    So, provide the legitimate purpose, then. You've as much as admitted yourself that the burden is on the state to provide the interest. They haven't done so. You claim such an interest exists, other than just moral disapproval and animosity. I'm all ears.

    I can already see the would-be incestuous adult couples arguing, once same-sex marriage has been proclaimed the newest constitutional "right," that the only motive for excluding them from state marriage laws, too, is a "bare desire to harm" them. And how about the polygamists, who have historically been the target of all sorts of animosity and legal persecution in this country? Doesn't justice cry out for legalizing homosexual incest--or even incestuous homosexual polygamy?
    Yes, you'll have to provide a legitimate interest in banning those also.


    And why should we get so uptight about age, either? Don't the NAMBLA people assure us their young cadets are fully consensual partners in sodomy, and that man-boy love is a beautiful thing? Shouldn't everyone be able to force all those Ozzie-and-Harriet squares in bourgeois America to put their seal of approval on his or her way of loving--even if it is a little different?
    Better come up with that legitimate interest, then.


    Your slippery slope is a bunch of bull**** without actually backing it up. People said interracial marriage would lead to bestiality and pedophilia, and all that. Do you agree with them?
    Last edited by Deuce; 08-08-14 at 12:10 AM.
    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. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So, provide the legitimate purpose, then. You've as much as admitted yourself that the burden is on the state to provide the interest.
    Baloney. I haven't admitted that at all. And I never would, because I know better. In rational basis review--which is what I was talking about--the burden of proof is never on the government. It's up to the party challenging the law or other government act to show it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. That's very basic stuff, but you obviously don't know it.

    You claim such an interest exists, other than just moral disapproval and animosity. I'm all ears.
    Trying to persuade you of that, or anything else, does not interest me. I just want to make some observations that other people reading this thread may not have thought about. I do not equate moral disapproval and animosity in the least, as you evidently do. The notion that government has no legitimate interest in promoting the majority's belief that certain acts are immoral and unacceptable is outright bizarre, and completely at odds with the legal traditions of this country. Justice Scalia remarked on this in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and I agree with him.

    Yes, you'll have to provide a legitimate interest in banning those also. Better come up with that legitimate interest, then.
    I'll provide what I choose, when I choose, and to whom I choose. And for the likes of you, I'm not going to bother to provide anything at all.

    Your slippery slope is a bunch of bull**** without actually backing it up.
    I'm sure that kind of slop passes for reasoned debate in your circles. You seem to want to test whether the people who run this site are serious about civility.

    People said interracial marriage would lead to bestiality and pedophilia, and all that.
    People? What were their names? I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

  4. #154
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,804

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Sorry, you'll have to provide divorce data to prove your statement.
    Especially since it's idiotic. Straight marriages divorce at just over 51%. Is he suggesting that gays divorce at 102%? Seriously?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #155
    Educator Amandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Last Seen
    06-19-15 @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    905
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Made up out of whole cloth? I don't think so. The Supreme Court considers certain rights fundamental even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution, because it's clear most Americans would have seen them as basic rights even before the Constitution was written. The Court has phrased its standard for fundamental right slightly differently in its decisions, but the most common phrasing of the "magic words" is that to be fundamental, a right must be so "deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this Nation" that they are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

    The Court has recognized for a long time now that marriage between a male and a female is a fundamental right:

    "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

    And there are similar statements in Supreme Court decisions going back to the 1800's. But notice I said marriage between a male and a female. There is no fundamental right to polygamy, or bigamy, or to marriage between parties very closely related by blood, or where one or both parties is a very young minor, or where the parties are of the same sex. None of those forms of marriage even comes close to meeting the Court's standard for fundamental rights.

    That's why Justice Kennedy has had to be so creative (some would say disingenuous) with the Constitution in the three "gay" decisions he's authored: Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and U.S. v. Windsor last year. I won't go into all the details here. But if you study those three decisions, you can see the bizarre rationale he has been developing, which the Court is probably planning to use when it some day declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor all turned on the Court's belief that the only possible motive for the laws in question was animosity--a "bare desire to harm"--homosexuals. Now, even if a law doesn't infringe any fundamental right--which would make it subject to "strict scrutiny," a very demanding constitutional test--it still has to at least be "reasonably related" to some "legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. But harming a group of people can never be a legitimate purpose of government. So if the Court thinks that's the only conceivable reason for a law, it will hold that law unconstitutional.

    I can already see the would-be incestuous adult couples arguing, once same-sex marriage has been proclaimed the newest constitutional "right," that the only motive for excluding them from state marriage laws, too, is a "bare desire to harm" them. And how about the polygamists, who have historically been the target of all sorts of animosity and legal persecution in this country? Doesn't justice cry out for legalizing homosexual incest--or even incestuous homosexual polygamy?

    And why should we get so uptight about age, either? Don't the NAMBLA people assure us their young cadets are fully consensual partners in sodomy, and that man-boy love is a beautiful thing? Shouldn't everyone be able to force all those Ozzie-and-Harriet squares in bourgeois America to put their seal of approval on his or her way of loving--even if it is a little different?
    Yep, I will support legalizing legal marriage between numerous people and relatives when they come up too. No intrinsic harm in those. There can be individual cases that are harmful and they can be dealt with.

    There is intrinsic harm in having sex with children, so with children, I will not support.

  6. #156
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Baloney. I haven't admitted that at all. And I never would, because I know better. In rational basis review--which is what I was talking about--the burden of proof is never on the government. It's up to the party challenging the law or other government act to show it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. That's very basic stuff, but you obviously don't know it.

    Trying to persuade you of that, or anything else, does not interest me. I just want to make some observations that other people reading this thread may not have thought about. I do not equate moral disapproval and animosity in the least, as you evidently do. The notion that government has no legitimate interest in promoting the majority's belief that certain acts are immoral and unacceptable is outright bizarre, and completely at odds with the legal traditions of this country. Justice Scalia remarked on this in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and I agree with him.

    I'll provide what I choose, when I choose, and to whom I choose. And for the likes of you, I'm not going to bother to provide anything at all.

    I'm sure that kind of slop passes for reasoned debate in your circles. You seem to want to test whether the people who run this site are serious about civility.

    People? What were their names? I've never heard anyone say anything like that.
    You're wrong. The burden is still on the government to show that there is a legitimate state interest being furthered in rational basis review. It is simply a much easier bar to meet because it requires so little of an interest. But it still must be shown to be an actual interest that is consistent with the laws being discussed. This is why the arguments by the state have failed. They either use something that is not an actual interest of the state or they attempt to use something that they do not show they are treating groups equally or consistently in trying to further.

    Scalia was wrong in Lawrence. If that were true, the EPC would be a useless Amendment to this country. It isn't. The government is restricted, not the people.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #157
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Baloney. I haven't admitted that at all. And I never would, because I know better. In rational basis review--which is what I was talking about--the burden of proof is never on the government. It's up to the party challenging the law or other government act to show it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. That's very basic stuff, but you obviously don't know it.
    Easy to do. Same-sex marriage bans do not uphold any government interest at all. A same-sex marriage ban does not result in more children, or more good homes for children. A same-sex marriage ban actually harms the interest of creating stable family units for the raising of children. "Will of the people" or legislative action is not in of itself a rational basis - if "it was enacted" passed rational basis, rational basis wouldn't be a test at all. "It's tradition" is too nebulous, subjective, and always-changing to even bother trying to discuss. My traditions differ from yours. Slippery slope arguments are called a fallacy for a reason.

    Furthermore, marriage is a fundamental right. (Loving v Virginia, Turner v Stafley, etc) Higher scrutiny is warranted.

    And that's it. That's all the arguments that the anti-equality crowd has. Proof complete. Unless you have more arguments.

    Trying to persuade you of that, or anything else, does not interest me. I just want to make some observations that other people reading this thread may not have thought about. I do not equate moral disapproval and animosity in the least, as you evidently do. The notion that government has no legitimate interest in promoting the majority's belief that certain acts are immoral and unacceptable is outright bizarre, and completely at odds with the legal traditions of this country. Justice Scalia remarked on this in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and I agree with him.
    Scalia is a partisan hack. He literally voted to overturn the VRA and the next day said that SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to overturn legislation.
    I'll provide what I choose, when I choose, and to whom I choose. And for the likes of you, I'm not going to bother to provide anything at all.
    Because you have nothing to provide. There is no legitimate interest in a same-sex marriage ban.

    I'm sure that kind of slop passes for reasoned debate in your circles. You seem to want to test whether the people who run this site are serious about civility.
    Dodge noted.

    People? What were their names? I've never heard anyone say anything like that.
    Because you were born in the wrong decade.
    Last edited by Deuce; 08-08-14 at 10:01 AM.
    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.

  8. #158
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Made up out of whole cloth? I don't think so. The Supreme Court considers certain rights fundamental even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution, because it's clear most Americans would have seen them as basic rights even before the Constitution was written. The Court has phrased its standard for fundamental right slightly differently in its decisions, but the most common phrasing of the "magic words" is that to be fundamental, a right must be so "deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this Nation" that they are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

    The Court has recognized for a long time now that marriage between a male and a female is a fundamental right:

    "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

    And there are similar statements in Supreme Court decisions going back to the 1800's. But notice I said marriage between a male and a female. There is no fundamental right to polygamy, or bigamy, or to marriage between parties very closely related by blood, or where one or both parties is a very young minor, or where the parties are of the same sex. None of those forms of marriage even comes close to meeting the Court's standard for fundamental rights.

    That's why Justice Kennedy has had to be so creative (some would say disingenuous) with the Constitution in the three "gay" decisions he's authored: Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and U.S. v. Windsor last year. I won't go into all the details here. But if you study those three decisions, you can see the bizarre rationale he has been developing, which the Court is probably planning to use when it some day declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor all turned on the Court's belief that the only possible motive for the laws in question was animosity--a "bare desire to harm"--homosexuals. Now, even if a law doesn't infringe any fundamental right--which would make it subject to "strict scrutiny," a very demanding constitutional test--it still has to at least be "reasonably related" to some "legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. But harming a group of people can never be a legitimate purpose of government. So if the Court thinks that's the only conceivable reason for a law, it will hold that law unconstitutional.

    I can already see the would-be incestuous adult couples arguing, once same-sex marriage has been proclaimed the newest constitutional "right," that the only motive for excluding them from state marriage laws, too, is a "bare desire to harm" them. And how about the polygamists, who have historically been the target of all sorts of animosity and legal persecution in this country? Doesn't justice cry out for legalizing homosexual incest--or even incestuous homosexual polygamy?

    And why should we get so uptight about age, either? Don't the NAMBLA people assure us their young cadets are fully consensual partners in sodomy, and that man-boy love is a beautiful thing? Shouldn't everyone be able to force all those Ozzie-and-Harriet squares in bourgeois America to put their seal of approval on his or her way of loving--even if it is a little different?
    Nice post, concise and accurately portrayed. The gay side of this debate has been able to control the language for almost a decade, but we the people are catching up. They frame the debate in ways that demean it opponents into some sense of shame for feeling what would otherwise be the non radical position. It's like black is white, and up is down. Conservatives need not argue the aesthetics and intentional muddying of the water arguments providing complexity where none should exist. Instead we should be doing what we ought to have been doing all along. Tell it like it is, be upfront and unashamed to say that our courts, founders, our entire existence and all of the species that have ever come before us, and employed this method for maximizing and providing the best possible and least path of resistance to our own posterity. We need not concede notions that gays can procreate, albeit alternatively, we need not point our these inefficiencies to be accurate when we say that our society and all societies engender male and female couplings as appropriate, naturally evolved, and observably consistent with the order or nature around us. We do not need a lesson in abject equity, we already know that evolution does not melt everything down to it's lowest common denominator. We see quite the opposite, we see what works to be held in higher regard than what does not work, or what does not work as well. It is nothing to be ashamed of for being objectively outspoken about this lucid truism, and we shouldn't be made to feel like we are the exception - and evidence of just how much louder they are, as witnessed in this thread and many forums across the land, expels, in true-to-form brow beating fashion that the louder you are does not equate to how right you are.

    It's not that gay's being married will destroy traditional marriage, it's that gays being married is not as good as straights being married, all things being equal. Society should embrace one form, and exclude other forms less worthy of this recognition.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  9. #159
    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: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You're wrong. The burden is still on the government to show that there is a legitimate state interest being furthered in rational basis review. It is simply a much easier bar to meet because it requires so little of an interest. But it still must be shown to be an actual interest that is consistent with the laws being discussed. This is why the arguments by the state have failed. They either use something that is not an actual interest of the state or they attempt to use something that they do not show they are treating groups equally or consistently in trying to further.

    Scalia was wrong in Lawrence. If that were true, the EPC would be a useless Amendment to this country. It isn't. The government is restricted, not the people.
    That's actually not true. The burden is on the plaintiff, not the government, in a rational basis test. In higher levels of constitutional scrutiny, the burden lies with the government. Also Scalia is wrong about everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    It's not that gay's being married will destroy traditional marriage, it's that gays being married is not as good as straights being married, all things being equal. Society should embrace one form, and exclude other forms less worthy of this recognition.
    Neither you nor anyone else has ever offered evidence to show why we should do this.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  10. #160
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    That's actually not true. The burden is on the plaintiff, not the government, in a rational basis test. In higher levels of constitutional scrutiny, the burden lies with the government. Also Scalia is wrong about everything.



    Neither you nor anyone else has ever offered evidence to show why we should do this.
    thats because there is none, its all forms of bigotry/anti-equality some blatantly obvious and some are hidden (or they try to hide it) but nobody honest and educated falls for it.

    the whole conspiracy theory is retard and just gets laughed at by honest people.
    There hasnt been one sound reason yet to deny people equal rights on this front and there never will be, they all have been debunked as nonsense.

    its all the same or similarly mentally retarded "arguments" that were used to say minorities and straights werent equal or deserving or best blah blah blah, its all transparent fear, bigotry and crap LOL

    I love the panic, dishonesty and fear it causes, its funny.
    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 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 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
  •