Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 258

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

  1. #191
    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: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So is marital status but polygamy remains banned. So is familial relation yet incest remains banned even-though people with other inheritable genetic disorders can marry and have defective children. Again, stop trying to apply logic to the law, the two are incomparable.
    Laws limiting number of legal spouses would be at the lowest level of scrutiny and do apply to all people equally, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation. Even if you use the argument of marital status, that would still ignore the arguments for those restrictions to be in place. Those are significant to this argument. It is not just unequal treatment that causes a violation. The unequal treatment can't be shown to further some legitimate at least state interest.
    "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.

  2. #192
    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: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Both can marry the opposite sex, neither can marry the same sex. That's equality.

    All unmarried people can marry unmarried people, but not married people, and married people can marry neither unmarried nor married people. That's exactly like saying men can marry men but men cannot marry women, and women cannot marry women, either. That's inequality, and marital status is a federally protected class, too, while sexual orientation is not. So let's stop pretending the law is based on a common system of rational thought.


    So hey, great, let's expand marriage to include same-sex couples, no problem, but's just not an equality issue, nor does it have to be.
    No one can marry someone who currently married just as no one can legally marry a five year old
    "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.

  3. #193
    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

    If you look at the wording of the question before the supreme court, they are not looking at sexual orientation, but at the sex of people getting married.

    The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
    certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
    1)
    Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
    marriage between two people of the same sex?
    2) Does the
    Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
    between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
    lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...615zr_f2q3.pdf

    No mention of sexual orientation.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  4. #194
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Things that have been mostly good for the people and individual rights more often than against them. And since the majority seems to support a good amount of their interpretations, then too bad for those who prefer state rights triumph over individual rights.
    Doesn't really matter if it's been mostly good or not, the question is does it pass Constitutional muster. This does not, in my opinion.

    I always find it funny how so many antigay and/or state rights people are so opposed to an interpretation of the Constitution that grants individuals more rights. It just proves that those people want to live in tyrannies ruled by a majority, as long as they are part of the majority.
    I find it quite juvenile when people start pointing fingers and resorting to name-calling, as in you are anti-gay or a bigot if you don't suspend the Constitution for my cause. When you resort to those tactics, it hints at a lack of a well reasoned argument.
    "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

  5. #195
    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: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Doesn't really matter if it's been mostly good or not, the question is does it pass Constitutional muster. This does not, in my opinion.

    I find it quite juvenile when people start pointing fingers and resorting to name-calling, as in you are anti-gay or a bigot if you don't suspend the Constitution for my cause. When you resort to those tactics, it hints at a lack of a well reasoned argument.
    Actually it does matter because the only reason the Constitution works is because of the Court and it's interpretations and how willing the people are to accept those interpretations. Otherwise, the Constitution is just words on paper.

    I think it's juvenile to try to use state laws and "power of the majority" to restrict others from activities that do not affect them or do any harm then try to claim victim hood in getting called something that matches the side they are on. Are you against same sex marriage and/or homosexuals getting married? If so "antigay" as a label fits fairly well.

    Claiming victim hood is what shows you have no legitimate argument and are trying to deflect.
    "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.

  6. #196
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,742

    Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Both can marry the opposite sex, neither can marry the same sex. That's equality.

    All unmarried people can marry unmarried people, but not married people, and married people can marry neither unmarried nor married people. That's exactly like saying men can marry men but men cannot marry women, and women cannot marry women, either. That's inequality, and marital status is a federally protected class, too, while sexual orientation is not. So let's stop pretending the law is based on a common system of rational thought.


    So hey, great, let's expand marriage to include same-sex couples, no problem, but's just not an equality issue, nor does it have to be.
    People made exactly this argument about interracial marriage. "Everyone has equal right to marry someone of the same race." But this argument is rejected because race is a protected classification and the government needs a good enough reason to make a distinction like that.

    Well, gender is also a protected classification, and this is an issue of gender. You said it yourself, a man cannot marry a man. That's gender, not sexuality. You should know, marriage and sex aren't the same thing, right? So yes, actually, this is a 14th amendment issue.

    "Is this person married already" is not a protected classification, so no, it's not the same argument. The lowest tier of scrutiny would apply to challenges to polygamy statutes. The rational basis test, which is a pretty low hurdle. I suspect the state could clear this hurdle if needed.
    Last edited by Deuce; 01-19-15 at 02:00 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.

  7. #197
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    And it didn't work then, why would it work now?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Did I say it would? Don't start applying logic and reason to the law, you're head will explode.

    The sexes are being treated equally, and that being a fact doesn't mean the Court will pay it any attention. The Court will base it's decision on politics, as it always does, and politics are based on who can make the most noise and load the biggest diaper (that's why we have texting-while-driving bans instead of a general distracted-driving ban).
    So Jerry why are you arguing for something that you agree didn't work before and probably won't work now? I hesitate to call you a troller, but really - what's the point except to irritate people with an illogical argument? Why is this even a part of this thread?

    No, the courts won't say that because neither gender can marry the same gender it isn't discrimination.

    Did you want to throw up another straw man argument?

  8. #198
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Actually it does matter because the only reason the Constitution works is because of the Court and it's interpretations and how willing the people are to accept those interpretations. Otherwise, the Constitution is just words on paper.
    Really, the Constitution only works because of the Supreme Court (which was created through the Constitution)? Like slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps, all interpreted by the SC to be Constitutional? Yep, stellar record there, Constitution can't work without all that. I'll give you a Mulligan on that one, it's so far off.

    I think it's juvenile to try to use state laws and "power of the majority" to restrict others from activities that do not affect them or do any harm then try to claim victim hood in getting called something that matches the side they are on. Are you against same sex marriage and/or homosexuals getting married? If so "antigay" as a label fits fairly well.

    Claiming victim hood is what shows you have no legitimate argument and are trying to deflect.
    Oh, yes, quite juvenile, wanting the government to obey that which created it. Victim hood? Oh, people throw around the personal insults and what you see is victim hood? Like those lousy cry babies in France?

    It doesn't matter how I feel about ssm, I'm against the federal government doing things that it was not granted the power to do. You seem to be okay with that, as long as it's something you support. How are you going to feel if one day the government says this is too much of a mess, and there are too many people, so people with incomes under $50k can't have kids, with the power you gave them?
    "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

  9. #199
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,781

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

    watching the last minute fear of the bigots and those that are against equality is hilarious

    equal rights will soon be national and i cant wait for such a great thing to be accomplished and to witness and live this history. I for one will be watching the bridges for jumpers lol
    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

  10. #200
    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: Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Really, the Constitution only works because of the Supreme Court (which was created through the Constitution)? Like slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps, all interpreted by the SC to be Constitutional? Yep, stellar record there, Constitution can't work without all that. I'll give you a Mulligan on that one, it's so far off.

    Oh, yes, quite juvenile, wanting the government to obey that which created it. Victim hood? Oh, people throw around the personal insults and what you see is victim hood? Like those lousy cry babies in France?

    It doesn't matter how I feel about ssm, I'm against the federal government doing things that it was not granted the power to do. You seem to be okay with that, as long as it's something you support. How are you going to feel if one day the government says this is too much of a mess, and there are too many people, so people with incomes under $50k can't have kids, with the power you gave them?
    Actually, the majority would be the ones giving any state/government the power to limit people with incomes under 50K from having kids, since that is where all laws start and are only challenged on their consitutionality up to the SCOTUS. You obviously have no clue how the Federal Court system works.

    You show how juvenile your argument is when you blatantly ignore what I said, which included that it wasn't just the SCOTUS and their decisions, but also how well the people took those decisions as to what was or wasn't constitutional. If the people did not approve in supermajorities of a decision the SCOTUS made, then the people could blatantly change the Constitution or simply ignore the decision if they wanted to do so. But the key is they have to have the numbers to back up their defiance, whether it is defying a ruling legally (say not issuing marriage licenses to interracial couples) or changing the Constitution via Amendment (such as perhaps an Amendment that plainly stated that states controlled who could get married in their state completely, by popular vote or legislative action or that marriage was only between x person and y person, and no others were eligible to be recognized).
    "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 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •