Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 116

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

  1. #81
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    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.
    Marriage isn't sex, dude. And, yeah, actually, your personal moral disapproval is not by itself a good enough reason to suppress individual liberty. Sorry this offends you. If you want to continue banning same-sex marriage or polygamy or the wearing of blue t-shirts, you need a better reason than your holy book says so.

    Interesting observation:
    Anti-equality types often argue that same-sex couples can't marry because they can't have children. But first cousins often are allowed to marry only if they are unable to have children.
    Last edited by Deuce; 10-04-14 at 09:39 PM.
    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. #82
    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
    They said exactly this about interracial marriage. "Everyone has equal right to marry someone of the same race!"

    Same ****, different decade.
    Your ignorance is showing--again. There is no parallel at all.

    Invidious discrimination against blacks by states is the very thing the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily intended to prevent. That is why it was not all that hard for the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, to hold a law unconstitutional because it made an act (entering into marriage with a white person) a crime solely on the basis of the actor's race.

    The notion that the Fourteen Amendment was meant to make homosexuals a protected class, on the other hand, doesn't even pass the laugh test.

  3. #83
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Your ignorance is showing--again. There is no parallel at all.

    Invidious discrimination against blacks by states is the very thing the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily intended to prevent. That is why it was not all that hard for the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, to hold a law unconstitutional because it made an act (entering into marriage with a white person) a crime solely on the basis of the actor's race.

    The notion that the Fourteen Amendment was meant to make homosexuals a protected class, on the other hand, doesn't even pass the laugh test.
    Gender. Not sexuality. Marriage is being prevented on the basis of gender, not sexuality.

    Marriage isn't sex.
    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.

  4. #84
    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
    Marriage isn't sex, dude. And, yeah, actually, your personal moral disapproval is not by itself a good enough reason to suppress individual liberty. Sorry this offends you. If you want to continue banning same-sex marriage or polygamy or the wearing of blue t-shirts, you need a better reason than your holy book says so.

    Interesting observation:
    Anti-equality types often argue that same-sex couples can't marry because they can't have children. But first cousins often are allowed to marry only if they are unable to have children.
    Don't be familiar--whoever you are, I don't know you personally and don't want to.

    And do not take that smart-mouthed personal tone with me. You have not the faintest idea what offends me, or what I consider immoral, or what I personally want to prohibit by law, or whether I look to any holy book, or any other damn thing. Pretending you do is your way of personally insulting me from a safe distance, and I doubt it meets the civility standards of this site.

  5. #85
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Don't be familiar--whoever you are, I don't know you personally and don't want to.

    And do not take that smart-mouthed personal tone with me. You have not the faintest idea what offends me, or what I consider immoral, or what I personally want to prohibit by law, or whether I look to any holy book, or any other damn thing. Pretending you do is your way of personally insulting me from a safe distance, and I doubt it meets the civility standards of this site.
    Tone fallacy to hide the inability to respond to any particular point.

    So let's be civil. Why don't you calmly explain to me what other aspects of personal liberty you think it's ok to suppress based on nothing other than a moral disapproval of 51% of the population? Because if nobody can identify any actual problems caused by legalizing same-sex marriage, why on earth should I expect the United States government to prevent it? How does that align even remotely with the principles on which this country was founded?

    Try to explain these things in a civil fashion. You know, without calling me ignorant.
    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. #86
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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)?
    WOW. The fact that there has never been a marriage in this country between two people of the same sex prior to the last decade or so should have tipped you off but I suppose if you want to believe something badly enough, reality doesn't pose a serious obstacle to self-delusion.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #87
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    But, then again, they may realize that they will have no recourse to decide that they'll have to over-turn all the lower court decisions.
    If they have no recourse to decide then the lower courts made the correct legal decision.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  8. #88
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    If they have no recourse to decide then the lower courts made the correct legal decision.
    Finally, someone recognizes my point.
    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.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,169

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    WOW. The fact that there has never been a marriage in this country between two people of the same sex prior to the last decade or so should have tipped you off but I suppose if you want to believe something badly enough, reality doesn't pose a serious obstacle to self-delusion.
    I was referring to the claim that " marriage used to 'virtually always' be defined as 'one man and one woman of the same race,' "

  10. #90
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I was referring to the claim that " marriage used to 'virtually always' be defined as 'one man and one woman of the same race,' "
    Most states had interracial marriage bans at some point. And when they defended those bans in court, it was all of the same arguments. It's traditional, interracial marriage bans are the will of the people, they're the will of God, interracial marriage is unnatural, etc etc.
    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 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •