Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 116 of 116

Thread: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

  1. #111
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Well, no... because it was never defined that way. They were seeking to regulate marriage, not define what it means to be married.


    Of course they did, or they wouldn't have written statutes invalidating these marriages. There would have been nothing to invalidate.
    You are still arguing semantics. The rest of us are arguing about actions and freedom. I'm not sure why you think the phraseology is so important. Interracial couples were not able to get legally married on the basis of their race. Currently, same ex couples are not able to get legally married on the basis of their gender. It doesn't matter whether you call it "defining marriage" or "banning marriage." If a state wants to define "arms" as "the two things attached to your shoulders," this still guts the 2nd amendment if this results in a gun ban. Nobody is going to be arguing "this doesn't limit your right to bear arms, it's just the state defining arms!

    Since gender is a protected classification under the 14th amendment, albeit at a lower level of scurutiny, the measure is subject to challenge. The test is intermediate scrutiny, the state must demonstrate an "important state interest" that the measure in question is "substantially related" to furthering. Either this test is passed, or the measure is unconstitutional. And this same test does not apply to polygamy or pedophiles or bestiality, because none of those things are protected classifications.

    Some argue that because SCOTUS has repeatedly defined marriage as a "fundamental right," this means the test of strict scrutiny applies. I'm not really convinced, and this logic makes any marriage-based distinction subject to strict scrutiny. And it seems excessive to me that things like tax brackets and license fees all be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.

    Even if intermediate scrutiny doesn't apply, same sex marriage bans do not pass even the rational basis test. Absolutely no state interest is furthered by preventing a same sex couple from marrying. Merely being legislatively or democratically enacted does not pass this test, because if "it was enacted" passes constitutional scrutiny then it's not a test at all.
    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.

  2. #112
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    I didn't say marriage has been eroding. The state's list of "interests" in regulating marriage have been eroding, and they will eventually have no legal standing to regulate it.
    What makes you say the interest is eroding?
    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. #113
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,883

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    What makes you say the interest is eroding?
    Because the State doesn't have a successful argument to make to continue regulating marriage.

  4. #114
    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: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    The SCOTUS wants to wait another generation for all the propaganda to sink in and the old guard who remember to die off some more.

  5. #115
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Because the State doesn't have a successful argument to make to continue regulating marriage.
    Sure they do. They just don't have a successful argument to make to continue denying marriage certificates on the basis of gender. There's still plenty of other interests.
    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.

  6. #116
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    The SCOTUS wants to wait another generation for all the propaganda to sink in and the old guard who remember to die off some more.
    Right. Can't make any tough decisions, now. Wouldn't want the Supreme Court to be to quick about improving individual liberty before the public is sufficiently accepting of freedom!
    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 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •