Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 161

Thread: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

  1. #21
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,023

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    In context, not the sort of rights at discussion. In this discussion thus far, rights=federal constitutional rights. But everything listed there could indeed be handled by the individual states.
    Those things aren't handled by individual states. But it isn't just things that can be handled by individual states either. The federal government recognizes spouses for federal employees and for military benefits, just as they do other legal family of at least some 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.

  2. #22
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,715

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Knowing that court as we do, they'll be an incomplete gotcha attached. Room for wiggle. They will only "sorta" decide.
    Unfortunately you are probably right.

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,847

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    In context, not the sort of rights at discussion. In this discussion thus far, rights=federal constitutional rights. But everything listed there could indeed be handled by the individual states.
    Lots of them ARE handled by the states. And states determine the requirements for marriage and divorce. The federal role you're complaining about is its legitimate role protecting Constitutional rights, and to ensure that the benefits and obligations of marriage are available to couples on a non-discriminatory basis.

    The only problem with the Federal role that I can see is the Federal courts are requiring states to recognize SSM. I understand you might not agree with some Courts' decisions about that, but it simply IS a legitimate function of the Federal courts to rule on such matters. I'm assuming you recognize the authority of the courts to strike down miscegenation laws that prohibited some marriages of straight couples? I hope so, and if you do, you recognize the Federal courts have a role in marriage, you just don't agree with their decisions. That's different than claiming they have no role.

  4. #24
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.
    They already can do this. It just has to be in accordance with the constitution.
    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. #25
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    I had a meeting down town Cincinnati with some attorneys on a matter and we parked under Fountain Square. The square was packed with gay rights advocates-the Federal Courthouse is one block east of Fountain Square. Oral Arguments normally are limited to 15 minutes a side but apparently this consolidated argument went north of three hours. The local news is carrying extended coverage-from gay couples and their advocates such as well known civil rights advocate/attorney Alphonse Gehardstein (one of the best trial attorneys in the area) to representatives of the various state governments who argued against the gay marriage position.

    COOK
    SUTTON
    DAUGHTREY are the Judges

    Cook and Sutton are Bush appointees while Martha Craig Daughtery is a Clinton appointee. Sutton is widely regarded as one of the two brightest judges on the Sixth Circuit and until he voted to uphold Obama Care he was a leading candidate for the USSC the next time a GOP president takes office. Another Michigan appointee, Raymond Kethledge has surpassed judge Sutton in some circles as the leading light on the court but Sutton is brilliant and is hard to pigeonhole. Cook is a more reliable GOP vote


    Martha Craig Daughtrey is a pretty solid judge who is in her early 70s/ One expects she would vote in favor to sustain the district courts' decisions striking down gay marriage bans


    Sutton has a well known reputation for lively engagement of counsel during oral arguments but he is unfailingly polite and not known for berating counsel. He sometimes goes off on a tangent he finds intellectually intriguing. Cook is a bit more passive and tends to ask straightforward questions when needed. I have argued before Cook (2X) and Daughtrey (3X). All I remember from Daughtrey was calling out opposing counsel when he misrepresented the holding of one of her prior decisions



  6. #26
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
    They aren't "muggling" around. Merely enforcing the constitution. A state cannot make a distinction of gender without showing an important interest in doing so. Anti-equality advocates have failed to provide that interest.
    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.

  7. #27
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.
    Except there's no tangible benefit for anyone to support this. In addition, it appears to be such a fringe position that no search I do can seem to dig up a poll on the number of people who want the Federal government removed from marriage. But while I'm pretty alright at googling, I'm not a wizard so if you can find one I'd like to see it.

  8. #28
    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 clownboy View Post
    Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
    The right to travel freely between states is likewise "made up" by the supreme court. As is the right to use birth control, and the right to raise one's children. None of those are enumerated in the constitution. Do you want to do away with those, too, and simply hope that no state ever tries to use its general police power to take them from you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Except there's no tangible benefit for anyone to support this. In addition, it appears to be such a fringe position that no search I do can seem to dig up a poll on the number of people who want the Federal government removed from marriage. But while I'm pretty alright at googling, I'm not a wizard so if you can find one I'd like to see it.
    It's pretty much only a position held by those who want to discriminate against gays but are also obsessed with small government. It's a weird attempt to merge those two positions.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #29
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, why should the federal government not recognize legal relationships, which is why they are in marriage? They have programs that recognize spouses and rely on this recognition to determine how they deal with certain things, including SS, military benefits, and taxes.

    The states don't have any right to have a definition of marriage that treats people differently in whether they can marry or who they can marry based on their religion, race, sex, or other characteristics that they cannot show further a legitimate state interest by basing restrictions on, whether the federal government recognizes marriages or not.
    Why should they be involved in the first place. All the federal benefits can revolve, like taxes, around how many people you support. This would actually make those systems far more fair and equal.

    As to that last, it's the throw in of "other characteristics" that doesn't work. I like living in a state with no sales tax, so I do. It's one of the wonders of being a union of states. There will be enough states that do license homosexual marriage.

  10. #30
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The right to travel freely between states is likewise "made up" by the supreme court. As is the right to use birth control, and the right to raise one's children. None of those are enumerated in the constitution. Do you want to do away with those, too, and simply hope that no state ever tries to use its general police power to take them from you?
    Actually, no, it's not made up by the SCOTUS. We inherited a good body of law behind the Constitution. And the US Constitution protects INTERSTATE travel and commerce, giving Congress the power to regulate it. However, it's the state constitutions that protect and enshrine freedom of movement within the state.

    AND as enumerated in the US Constitution what happens to all those rights not enumerated in the US Constitution? That's right, they fall to the state and the people.

Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •