Page 18 of 88 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #171
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,767

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
    Gender is, and your "intent" argument is just an opinion. If the people writing the 14th amendment only wanted it to cover race, they worded it wrong. How terrible, they worded it in a manner that can be broadly interpreted towards individual liberty. Sorry this bothers you.
    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. #172
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,457

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
    You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  3. #173
    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: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You are citing the 10th amendment.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The problem with your argument is along came the 14th amendment which put a certain limit on the powers of the states. It states...

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    So...the constitution does no specifically mention "marriage" but it does mention "laws" and same sex marriage bans happen to be "laws" and as a matter of argument they happen to be "laws" which deprive certain people " of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and deny certain people with their jurisdiction "equal protection."

    Now if you need further precedent we have Loving versus Virginia which was the court case in 1968 in which the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans and as the majority decision stated...

    "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

    So to take the "state marriage bans are fine because marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution" argument would mean that SCOTUS was somehow wrong in striking down the interracial marriage bans on the grounds of the 14th amendment. It just is not a historically or Constitutionally sound argument to make.
    Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.

    As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.

  4. #174
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,767

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?
    Hey now, all 42 of those federal judges are activist judges maybe?
    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. #175
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    All federal courts.
    Not all. There is the one district federal ruling over Louisiana. Robicheaux et. al v. Caldwell. That upheld a same sex marriage ban.

  6. #176
    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: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?
    Correct, it does not. Not it's purpose nor it's intent.

  7. #177
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,457

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Hey now, all 42 of those federal judges are activist judges maybe?
    An activist judge is one whose rulings you don't agree with.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  8. #178
    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: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Not all. There is the one district federal ruling over Louisiana. Robicheaux et. al v. Caldwell. That upheld a same sex marriage ban.
    Wasn't talking about the ones that upheld the ban but those that struck the bans. And in the cases where state courts struck down the bans they improperly used federal court precedencies to do so.

  9. #179
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.

    As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.
    If you want to make the new argument that "procreation is a legitimate state interest for marriage bans" or that "denying marriage to same sex couples does not violate equal protection because it discriminates equally" then that is fine and I can easily contest those new arguments. However, I was contesting your old 10th amendment argument that "marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution so the federal government has not place in it." That was not a sound argument.

    Which argument would you like to put forward now?

  10. #180
    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: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    An activist judge is one whose rulings you don't agree with.
    No, not for me. An activist judge is one who improperly uses law or constitution to decide in the favor of a cause.

Page 18 of 88 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... 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
  •