Page 65 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 880

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

  1. #641
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Well I spelled it out pretty clearly for you and you ignored it:
    yeah thanks, i figured he wasn't worth my time to put together a more detailed argument. We both could link to dozens of articles and police reports on soldiers discharged under DADT, assaults, school expulsion etc etc, but he won't even bother to read and will just hold fingers to ears, so screw it.

  2. #642
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I quite agree, but SSM was so far outside the imagination of the court at the time that I don't think Loving applies. I suspect that's why the SCOTUS is letting SSM be established without having to take up that question.
    I'm not sure if you meant to agree with his Loving v. Virginia argument, but I'd advise against it. I've seen people who want the Supreme Court to concoct a constitutional right to same-sex marriage try to use Loving in similar arguments before. And in this case, he contradicts himself by claiming the Court didn't mean same-sex marriage, even as he claims that because it meant marriage generally, it meant there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

    Let's assume he's right that by saying marriage is a fundamental right--period--the Supreme Court meant not only traditional marriage between one man and one woman, but also marriage between two partners of the same sex. Why should we think that the Court meant to include only that one form of non-traditional marriage in the fundamental right to marry?

    Isn't it suspiciously convenient that this fundamental right to marriage only extends far enough outside traditional marriage to include same-sex marriage? Why doesn't it also include bigamous, incestuous, and polygamous marriages, for example?

    And if there is a fundamental right to these other forms of marriage, how can it be that almost a half-century after Loving, bigamy, polygamy, and incestuous marriages are still prohibited by state law? Probably all fifty states prohibit them--Congress required several states to pledge in their constitutions to prohibit polygamy forever, as a condition of being admitted to the Union.

    When a state law involves a fundamental right, it changes things a lot. In a suit challenging a law like that on Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process or equal protection grounds, the court will apply the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard. Because that standard is extremely hard to meet, a state law that restricts a fundamental right will usually be unconstitutional.

    The obvious answer to this conundrum is that the poster's assertion is wrong, and that the Supreme Court has never said--in Loving or anywhere else--that the fundamental right to marriage includes anything except marriage between one man and one woman. And a look at the standard the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental shows why. The Court has stated this standard in slightly different ways in cases going back to before WWII, but the following statement of it from Lawrence v. Texas is as good as any.

    To be fundamental, a right

    "must not only be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' but it must also be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' so that 'neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it] were sacrificed'"

    Anyone who thinks same-sex marriage meets that standard is welcome to try to make the case.
    Last edited by matchlight; 10-09-14 at 08:01 PM.

  3. #643
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,867
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I'm not sure if you meant to agree with his Loving v. Virginia argument, but I'd advise against it. I've seen people who want the Supreme Court to concoct a constitutional right to same-sex marriage try to use Loving in similar arguments before.

    Let's assume he's right that by saying marriage is a fundamental right--period--the Supreme Court meant not only traditional marriage between one man and one woman, but also marriage between two partners of the same sex. Why should we think that the Court meant to include only that one form of non-traditional marriage in the fundamental right to marry?

    Isn't it suspiciously convenient that this fundamental right to marriage only extends far enough outside traditional marriage to include same-sex marriage? Why doesn't it also include bigamous, incestuous, and polygamous marriages, for example?

    And if there is a fundamental right to these other forms of marriage, how can it be that almost a half-century after Loving, bigamy, polygamy, and incestuous marriages are still prohibited by state law? Probably all fifty states prohibit them--Congress required several states to pledge in their constitutions to prohibit polygamy forever, as a condition of being admitted to the Union.

    When a state law involves a fundamental right, it changes things a lot. In a suit challenging a law like that on Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process or equal protection grounds, the court will apply the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard. Because that standard is extremely hard to meet, a state law that restricts a fundamental right will usually be unconstitutional.

    The obvious answer to this conundrum is that the poster's assertion is wrong, and that the Supreme Court has never said--in Loving or anywhere else--that the fundamental right to marriage includes anything except marriage between one man and one woman. And a look at the standard the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental shows why. The Court has stated this standard in slightly different ways in cases going back to before WWII, but the following statement of it from Lawrence v. Texas is as good as any.

    To be fundamental, a right

    "must not only be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' but it must also be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' so that 'neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it] were sacrificed'"

    Anyone who thinks same-sex marriage meets that standard is welcome to try to make the case.
    My point was that Loving cannot stand as a precedent in the gay marriage discussion because Loving was about access to an established social convention and the gay marriage discussion has been about whether a new social convention should be established. That question has been answered in the affirmative. Your points about bigamy, polygamy, etc. are logical. I expect to see those discussions begin after the gay marriage dust has settled.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #644
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Yeah, think i see some of the same bigots in both pics sadly.
    I wouldnt be surprised if minimum some are at least from the same family tree. Stupidity like that is taught.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #645
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Day 4 and still not a peep from DP's resident homophobe. I'm shocked...I tell ya....shocked. Could it be that he has finally come to the realization that he and his ilk have been defeated?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #646
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    That is your opinion. Too bad, what you think doesn't matter AT ALL in REALITY.
    Guess what? Your opinion doesn't matter either. Well, that's cleared up now.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  7. #647
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, it isn't. You just personally disagree with the legal and constitutional reasoning behind the overturn.
    At least I've been able to back it up with a well reasoned set of facts and arguments. You have not. You have "just because" as your reasoning.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  8. #648
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,803

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    At least I've been able to back it up with a well reasoned set of facts and arguments. You have not. You have "just because" as your reasoning.
    so i dont misunderstand what are you claiming that you backed up with facts?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #649
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    It might not be the gay community, the illegal aliens are looking ripe for the liberals right now. There is also free contraceptions for all the women that can't stop themselves from getting pregnant, though it might be getting old now. But don't worry, they have to find some less important issue to scream about instead of focusing on important issues.
    Please tell me of one woman who uses birth control without a man? There are some that are prescribed The Pill for medical purposes but otherwise, ALL bc is used equally by men and women...but women are stuck with purchasing most of it. Men benefit equally from bc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #650
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Yes. I agree. The breathtaking feature this time is the speed.
    Or perhaps there is just shame in the past...100 yrs for Jim Crow to finally be dismissed (but still lingers), and how many years for women's suffragacy? And that's just 'since that movement,'....the fact that it had to occur at all?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 65 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775 ... 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
  •