Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 258

Thread: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

  1. #101
    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: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    Thanks for the information on who appointed who.
    We have some crazy rulings as well. Lifetime appts here as well.
    They do not go thru the meat grinder that the Senate puts them thru in the US though.
    Court is not as activist as it once was in some cases.
    But SSM legalization is a slam dunk - If you believe in equal rights for all US citizens, then it is.
    If you support desperation of Church and State, then it is again.
    People on this should eave their religious beliefs at the door.
    Me I am just a plain old Christian. Never did find where Jesus condemned Homosexuality.
    Well its job isn't to be 'activist' but to interpret the constitution. I'm not familiar with Canadian constitution, but maybe therein lies the diff. Another big reason for this here is Roe v Wade. That ruling created a fallout that 30 years later has not relented.

    There's still multiple court cases and violence stemming from attempts by the states to sidestep the very clear ruling. However, this is also the justice's being cowards, because no ruling, including SSM, will lead to the same kind of fallout that the right wing loses their minds over as abortion does.

    As for as the confirmation process, yes, the senate is a hindrance, but few nominations have been blocked and the result of lifetime appointment is 10 years later, it may not work out as intended either way. Those 4 judges i cited were definitely not appointed to make SSM legal, yet they will. The two obama appointees were confirmed despite it was known they would vote for SSM. Why? Because the president has to appoint *someone* the other party won't like
    Last edited by chromium; 01-17-15 at 08:53 PM.

  2. #102
    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: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The federal constitution says marriage is left to the state to regulate, per the 10th amendment. So no its not as easy as you think, not at sll, otherwise it would never have made it to SCOTUS.
    i see, so you believe Loving v Virginia was a mistake and the south should reinstate interracial marriage bans

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    i see, so you believe Loving v Virginia was a mistake and the south should reinstate interracial marriage bans
    Before you even go there, I support every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. You would do well to cling to the facts of the law.

    Loving is not a trump card to get any and all other kinds of marriage. Loving was based on fact-dependent merits which SSM doesn't share, and SSM is based on facts Loving did't include. Loving will not win you SSM just as Loving will not win you polygamy. If SSM can't be won on the merits of SSM then SSM shouldn't exist.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    No one polls with those questions anymore, since the majority of states already have SSM. It is now a yes or no question.
    False.

    And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

    Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

    The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

    That's what matters.

    The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

    No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  5. #105
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Before you even go there, I support every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. You would do well to cling to the facts of the law.

    Loving is not a trump card to get any and all other kinds of marriage. Loving was based on fact-dependent merits which SSM doesn't share, and SSM is based on facts Loving did't include. Loving will not win you SSM just as Loving will not win you polygamy. If SSM can't be won on the merits of SSM then SSM shouldn't exist.
    That is a complete misinterpretation of Loving. The Courts analysis in Loving rested on the Court finding that "marriage is a fundamental right"....while the case involved an inter-racial couple, the language is not limited to inter-racial couples. Are you claiming that marriage isn't a fundamental right for non-inter-racial couples? I doubt it.
    <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. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    That is a complete misinterpretation of Loving. The Courts analysis in Loving rested on the Court finding that "marriage is a fundamental right"....while the case involved an inter-racial couple, the language is not limited to inter-racial couples. Are you claiming that marriage isn't a fundamental right for non-inter-racial couples? I doubt it.
    Loving also said that marriage was essential for reproduction and SSM has taken reproduction off the table. Human kind has a long history of legal interracial marriage whereas legal SSM is a very recent thing. Marriage per-se is a fundamental right but SSM specifically has not been established as such. All Loving guarantees is that a gay white man can marry a gay black woman. Interracial marriage and SSM are different things. You don't get SSM just because Loving exists, it's not that simple, it never is.
    Last edited by Jerry; 01-17-15 at 09:15 PM.

  7. #107
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Loving also said that marriage was essential for reproduction and SSM has taken reproduction off the table. Interracial marriage and SSM are different things. You don't get SSM just because Loving exists, it's not that simple, it never is.
    I never said that we did.....however, it starts with the premise that marriage is a fundamental right and the court has to balance that with whatever legitimate governmental interest there is in banning it. If it wasn't a fundamental right, the government would have to show a much lower interest in banning it but because it involves a fundamental right, the court will give it much higher scrutiny.
    <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>

  8. #108
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    False.

    And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

    Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

    The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

    That's what matters.

    The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

    No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
    Sorry the constitution bothers you so much, but if you think that SCOTUS is going to rule against SSM, you are crazy.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  9. #109
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    False.

    And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

    Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

    The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

    That's what matters.

    The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

    No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
    I'll bet you on it. 3 to 1 odds. My $30 forum donation versus your $10 forum donation says SCOTUS will rule that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
    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.

  10. #110
    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: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Before you even go there, I support every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. You would do well to cling to the facts of the law.

    Loving is not a trump card to get any and all other kinds of marriage. Loving was based on fact-dependent merits which SSM doesn't share, and SSM is based on facts Loving did't include. Loving will not win you SSM just as Loving will not win you polygamy. If SSM can't be won on the merits of SSM then SSM shouldn't exist.
    SSM isn't harmful so you i guess you must support it. In fact, it prevents sham marriages, leads to much needed adoptions, and doesn't make our self-proclaimed "land of the free" quite so much an orwellian embarrassment, and that's not even getting into the benefits to the gay couples

    "fact dependent merits" being code for "i'm not racist but screw ze homos." In fact, whatever merits you list will be the same as those used by the "keep race mixing separate" crowd in 1970s

    How was Loving/Virginia NOT the fed intervening to block state marriage laws? Just as they will do in june to the 14 remaining states that ban SSM. That was my point. The double standard and willful ignorance are so glaring i'll need the world's thickest sun glasses to not get blinded

    The merits are simple: two loving adults, equality, family stability (the MI case is a lesbian couple with adopted kids who are not co-adopted due to the ban), 1000+ rights deprived to them. If it sounds identical to the arguments in Loving, that's because it is ****ing identical. Whole classes of people being denied the right to marry, go figure.

    Race is an identity and so is sexuality. The only way to glean some kind of disparate issue is if you find one to be inferior to the other.

Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •