Page 25 of 56 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 557

Thread: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

  1. #241
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,782

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That equal protection does not mean that if state A allows (or does not tax) X, then state B must also do so as well anymore than it means that if state B disallows (or taxes) Y then state A must do as well. There is little sense in having states if the wishes of a federal judge trump their power to pass laws that differ from one another. Laws concerning marriage, voting, guns and recreational drugs differ greatly among the several states yet there is but one constitution defining the rights of the people and powers of the federal gov't.
    That is not how people are applying equal protection to same-sex marriage.

    More accurately: a state can make up its own marriage laws, but those laws must be in compliance with equal protection. A state could choose to not recognize any form of marriage, this would not violate equal protection. But if a state is going to recognize marriage between a man and a woman, they have to also recognize a marriage between a man and a man unless they can identify a sufficiently powerful reason for making that distinction. (exactly how powerful a reason depends on the level of scrutiny being applied, but same-sex marriage bans don't meet any of these standards so that is moot)
    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. #242
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    You failed right form the get-go. If procreation is not a requirement that different-sex couples are held to (and in some places in the US different-sex couples must prove they are INFERTILE to be able to marry), then under equal treatment doctrine it isn't a principle that can be applied to same-sex couples.



    Care to try again?


    >>>>

    But you failed in your question because certain restrictions do apply, and they vary from state to state, which is after all what Sutton was arguing in his opinion. Procreation isn't required, BUT it is preferred by the state and so to is the recognition of what two genders best compliment each other to attain that goal.

    If you believe procreation although not specifically delineated is not a benefit to society and the environment society deems best suited for that, then you're being obtuse.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  3. #243
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,782

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    But you failed in your question because certain restrictions do apply, and they vary from state to state, which is after all what Sutton was arguing in his opinion. Procreation isn't required, BUT it is preferred by the state and so to is the recognition of what two genders best compliment each other to attain that goal.

    If you believe procreation although not specifically delineated is not a benefit to society and the environment society deems best suited for that, then you're being obtuse.

    Tim-
    The problem is that banning same-sex marriage in no way furthers this interest. Same-sex marriage bans do not result in more babies, or better homes for the raising of children. In fact, same-sex marriage bans harm this interest. A married homosexual couple is a more stable household for the raising of children than an unmarried homosexual couple. (adoption, child through previous marriage, surrogacy, etc)

    This is why such reasoning does not pass constitutional challenge. It's not a real reason to ban same-sex marriage. All of the identified reasons either
    1) aren't actually state interest, (protecting the "definition" of marriage)
    2) are interests not actually furthered by banning same-sex marriage, (procreation)
    3) are straight-up false. (the gays are just trying to recruit!)
    Last edited by Deuce; 11-07-14 at 03:25 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.

  4. #244
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,685

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    They recognize legal relationships of any kind. Who issues birth certificates? Who do you turn to in the case of a contractual dispute? A family dispute when it comes to who gets what upon a death? A dispute over custody?
    That isn't answering the question. There are real reasons for wills, and powers of attorney and birth certificates, but what is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  5. #245
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Try making a dependency claim from a SO without being married. Try adopting a kid as a legally single person. Again, you're not even looking at this from a legal perspective. Marriage, gay marriage, straight marriage regulate the laws which go into other matters. Doing away with it means rewriting a myriad of other laws and that is what makes doing away with it unrealistic.
    Well, for one thing, single people should be able to adopt children regardless of what is done towards marriage. As for all the other stuff, again, either it is possible under current law like adding someone to a deed, or it is easily workable in law outside of government recognized marriage.

  6. #246
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    That is not how people are applying equal protection to same-sex marriage.

    More accurately: a state can make up its own marriage laws, but those laws must be in compliance with equal protection. A state could choose to not recognize any form of marriage, this would not violate equal protection. But if a state is going to recognize marriage between a man and a woman, they have to also recognize a marriage between a man and a man unless they can identify a sufficiently powerful reason for making that distinction. (exactly how powerful a reason depends on the level of scrutiny being applied, but same-sex marriage bans don't meet any of these standards so that is moot)
    Hmm... like an all male draft for a unisex military? The idea that any (every?) law must treat all folks equally is great on paper but then why the need for the 15th and 19th amendment if the 14th "really" covers that ground?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #247
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    But you failed in your question because certain restrictions do apply, and they vary from state to state, which is after all what Sutton was arguing in his opinion. Procreation isn't required, BUT it is preferred by the state and so to is the recognition of what two genders best compliment each other to attain that goal.

    So you said there were unequivocal differences and you can't name any from a legal perspective. Don't worry, I've been asking that same question for about a decade and not once has anyone been able to provide a sound legal reasoning as to why homosexuals should be discriminated against. Those that even try fall back on religion, tradition, or procreation as you did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    If you believe procreation although not specifically delineated is not a benefit to society and the environment society deems best suited for that, then you're being obtuse.

    Tim-

    Don't try to put words in my mouth okay? No where did I say that procreation was not a benefit to society.

    Allowing gays to Civilly Marry doesn't mean that we as straights are going to stop getting married and/or having kids - if you believe that you're being obtuse.

    On the other hand there are a large number of same-sex households (about 25% of them) are raising children (84% of those raising children biologically related to an adult in the household) and that those households deserve the same stability factors that Civil Marriage extends.


    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...xual%20parents

    >>>>

  8. #248
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    That isn't answering the question. There are real reasons for wills, and powers of attorney and birth certificates, but what is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?
    Actually there are only certain legal documents that grant kinship recognition, and those are all controlled in some way by the government.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #249
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The problem is that banning same-sex marriage in no way furthers this interest. Same-sex marriage bans do not result in more babies, or better homes for the raising of children. In fact, same-sex marriage bans harm this interest. A married homosexual couple is a more stable household for the raising of children than an unmarried homosexual couple. (adoption, child through previous marriage, surrogacy, etc)

    This is why such reasoning does not pass constitutional challenge. It's not a real reason to ban same-sex marriage. All of the identified reasons either
    1) aren't actually state interest, (protecting the "definition" of marriage)
    2) are interests not actually furthered by banning same-sex marriage, (procreation)
    3) are straight-up false. (the gays are just trying to recruit!)

    Sutton
    Rational basis review.
    Doctrine leads to the same place as history. A first requirement of any law, whether under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause, is that it rationally advance a legitimate government policy.
    Vance v. Bradley
    , 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979). Two words (“judicial restraint,”
    FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc.
    , 508 U.S. 307, 314 (1993)) and one principle (trust in the people that “even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process,”
    Vance
    , 440 U.S. at 97) tell us all we need to know about the light touch judges should use in reviewing laws under this standard. So long as judges can conceive of some “plausible” reason for the law— any
    plausible reason, even one that did not motivate the legislators who enacted it—the law must stand, no matter how unfair, unjust, or unwise the judges may consider it as citizens.
    Nordlinger v. Hahn

    , 505 U.S. 1, 11, 17–18 (1992). A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States. Hesitant, yes; but still a rational basis, some rational basis, must exist for the definition. What is it? Two at a minimum suffice to meet this low bar. One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? That we rarely think about these questions nowadays shows only how far we have come and how relatively stable our society is, not that States have no explanation for creating such rules in the first place. Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them. One way

    DeBoer v. Snyder
    Page 20 to pursue this objective is to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidies and other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing how they tackle such issues.
    Dandridge v. Williams
    , 397 U.S. 471, 486–87 (1970). No doubt, that is not the only way people view marriage today. Over time, marriage has come to serve another value—to solemnize relationships characterized by love, affection, and commitment. Gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of sharing such relationships. And gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of raising children and providing stable families for them. The quality of such relationships, and the capacity to raise children within them, turns not on sexual orientation but on individual choices and individual commitment. All of this supports the policy argument made by many that marriage laws should be extended to gay couples, just as nineteen States have done through their own sovereign powers. Yet it does not show that the States, circa 2014, suddenly must look at this policy issue in just one way on pain of violating the Constitution. The signature feature of rational basis

    review is that governments will not be placed in the dock for doing too much or for doing too little in addressing a policy question.
    I would refer you to Sutton title on Rational Basis Review. I posted a short excerpt above.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  10. #250
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Well, for one thing, single people should be able to adopt children regardless of what is done towards marriage. As for all the other stuff, again, either it is possible under current law like adding someone to a deed, or it is easily workable in law outside of government recognized marriage.
    Not as easily workable as simply having marriage.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 25 of 56 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •