Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 116

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

  1. #71
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If you're confused, it's your problem, not mine. Stop trying to make your problem my problem.
    I'm sorry that asking you to clarify your opinion is such a burden on a debate forum.

    On what grounds do you think SCOTUS would overturn the circuit court decisions?
    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. #72
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I'm sorry that asking you to clarify your opinion is such a burden on a debate forum.

    On what grounds do you think SCOTUS would overturn the circuit court decisions?
    You made a false statement. Carry on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #73
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.

    Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.

    So just do it.
    Really. This. I don't think it matters what side you or I or anyone else is on, it's an important current issue and it needs to be done once and for all. IMHO, to not rule on it is willful shirking of duties and obligations.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Without an identified important state interest, defining marriage as between a man and a woman can be overturned under the 14th amendment in the same way marriage used to "virtually always" be defined as "one man and one woman of the same race," and was overturned.
    To my knowledge, marriage in this country has *never* been defined in that manner, and most certainly not 'virtually always' - perhaps you can provide evidence (e.g. text of an old statute)?

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the subject.

    Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is clearly a distinction of gender. Such distinctions are subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.
    Baloney. State marriage laws do not discriminate by sex in excluding same-sex partners. They no more allow two men to marry each other than they allow two women to marry each other.

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JC_CT View Post
    No, it couldn't. It provides EQUAL protection, not ANY protection.
    It's a mistake to read the Equal Protection Clause too literally. The Supreme Court has sometimes upheld laws that subjected similarly situated persons to grossly unequal treatment. In Nordliner v. Hahn, a 1978 decision, it upheld a California law known as Proposition 13, which gave a property tax break to longtime residents. In the case that prompted the suit, a homeowner had been charged several times as much property tax as another person who owned a nearly identical house nearby but had lived in it longer. Not unconstitutional. How do you like that for "equal protection?"

  7. #77
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You made a false statement. Carry on.
    You refuse to discuss your statements, which leads me to believe you're unable to defend them. Carry on.
    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. #78
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Baloney. State marriage laws do not discriminate by sex in excluding same-sex partners. They no more allow two men to marry each other than they allow two women to marry each other.
    They said exactly this about interracial marriage. "Everyone has equal right to marry someone of the same race!"

    Same ****, different decade.
    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.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Really. This. I don't think it matters what side you or I or anyone else is on, it's an important current issue and it needs to be done once and for all. IMHO, to not rule on it is willful shirking of duties and obligations.
    Where a majority of the residents of any state favor changing their marriage law to include same-sex couples, they are perfectly free to do that--always have been. What need there is to federalize the issue is never explained.

    If the Supreme Court pulls another Roe v. Wade and concocts a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage, I can't see how excluding incestuous partners can any longer serve a legitimate government interest, especially if the partners were of the same sex. Avoiding the increased risk of genetic defects in offspring has traditionally been a basis for requirements that marriage partners not be more closely related by blood than some specified degree. Where the marriage cannot produce offspring, that consideration is out the window.

    It would also be out the window if one or both prospective incestuous partners had voluntarily been irreversibly sterilized, which is not uncommon today. And the Court has already said that furthering the belief of a majority of a state's residents that an act involving sex is immoral and unacceptable is no longer a legitimate government interest. What's left? Nothing that I can see.

  10. #80
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Where a majority of the residents of any state favor changing their marriage law to include same-sex couples, they are perfectly free to do that--always have been. What need there is to federalize the issue is never explained.

    If the Supreme Court pulls another Roe v. Wade and concocts a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage, I can't see how excluding incestuous partners can any longer serve a legitimate government interest, especially if the partners were of the same sex. Avoiding the increased risk of genetic defects in offspring has traditionally been a basis for requirements that marriage partners not be more closely related by blood than some specified degree. Where the marriage cannot produce offspring, that consideration is out the window.

    It would also be out the window if one or both prospective incestuous partners had voluntarily been irreversibly sterilized, which is not uncommon today. And the Court has already said that furthering the belief of a majority of a state's residents that an act involving sex is immoral and unacceptable is no longer a legitimate government interest. What's left? Nothing that I can see.
    Does lack of ability to marry stop people intent on incest?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •