• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

Anthony60 said:
DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, House 342-67. Signed by Bill Clinton. So, keep telling us all how the GOP forced it through. I guess they forced through Obamacare too.

Unfortunately, you really don't seem to have a clue how things are supposed to work. Good luck with the all powerful government you crave.
Click to expand...

You're the one defending authoritarianism. You are defending government restriction on individual choice.
 
roguenuke said:
Please explain to us all in what way expanding rights by striking down state laws such as the same sex marriage bans gives us an "all powerful government". This is what we are discussing, striking down same sex marriage bans, nothing else that the federal government might do. So, if your comment is not dealing with the federal government striking down those marriage laws, then it is way off topic.
Click to expand...

Armageddon is coming for some of these people, (or so they think) Because: The Geys.

There is no rationalizing. There is no actual reality.
 
Deuce said:
You're the one defending authoritarianism. You are defending government restriction on individual choice.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, no he's not.

He's defending government restriction of what benefits are provided for that individual choice.

The "individual choice" is entering into a marriage. The government does not restrict that choice in any fashion.

What it restricts is whether or not the government will RECOGNIZE that marriage and provides it with all the legal ramifications said recognition provides.

When speaking of Marriage as a legal entity you are not speaking of an "individual choice", because it has a component that is absolutely not "individual" in nature (the legal ramifications and benefits of it).
 
roguenuke said:
Single people wouldn't have a standing because they could get the same "benefits" by simply getting married, which also comes with responsibilities.

And you are mistaken on how "compelling government interest" works. It is based on a "compelling government interest" to prevent something, not to have something happen. This means the government would have to show why two people should not be allowed to marry even if they say "I'm not attracted to this person". It isn't any of their business if the people aren't attracted to each other. Court testimony, so long as it still only applies while the people are in a relationship, wouldn't change. Custody rights work or should work the same whether the people are married or not. The only difference should be if married, this shows that someone who is not a parent to the children is willing to take on the responsibility of those children.

We don't actually require married people to live together now. We don't require a love or attraction test for married couples now. Marriages for reasons other than love or attraction happen all the time.
Click to expand...

I'm saying if it became a pattern like a critical mass of people started marrying their friends they don't live with, just for tax benefits or immigration or whatever, it would be a "compelling government interest" to not allow it. I could "sell" a green card to a foreigner by marrying them. I could bribe a witness to marry me before they get to testify against me in court. Yes, these tactics are done already. But if marriage became so cheapened it became more common to marry a friend than partner, don't expect the INS or justice dept or adoption agencies to sit there and go along with it.

But this is the last i intend to say about it, because to me, SSM has always been about the rights of gay couples
 
Lursa said:
Sexual orientation is not yet recognized at the federal level as a protected class. Some gay people would like to get married now. Gender discrimination is already established law. So I'm taking the 'humane' and 'human' approach.

It's called winning a battle, one of many, in the war.
Click to expand...

i would rather wait until june than to 'win' under a false banner. In addition, depending how the majority ruling is worded, orientation may indeed be construed as a protected class starting this summer. Then the dominoes really start to fall in terms of employment and housing rights etc
 
chromium said:
i would rather wait until june than to 'win' under a false banner. In addition, depending how the majority ruling is worded, orientation may indeed be construed as a protected class starting this summer. Then the dominoes really start to fall in terms of employment and housing rights etc
Click to expand...

That's nice. For you.
 
Lursa said:
That's nice. For you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my heart really weeps for the same sex 'friends' who don't love each other and aren't going to live together, but want to marry for tax benefits

Or is there some other group you're referring to?
 
chromium said:
Yeah, my heart really weeps for the same sex 'friends' who don't love each other and aren't going to live together, but want to marry for tax benefits

Or is there some other group you're referring to?
Click to expand...

Nope. I, nor they, recognize any difference in desiring to marry the person they love, those that have, and those that still desire to...
on the dates that they set...just like any straight couple.

If you think you hold some High Ground here, you do not.
 
chromium said:
I'm saying if it became a pattern like a critical mass of people started marrying their friends they don't live with, just for tax benefits or immigration or whatever, it would be a "compelling government interest" to not allow it. I could "sell" a green card to a foreigner by marrying them. I could bribe a witness to marry me before they get to testify against me in court. Yes, these tactics are done already. But if marriage became so cheapened it became more common to marry a friend than partner, don't expect the INS or justice dept or adoption agencies to sit there and go along with it.

But this is the last i intend to say about it, because to me, SSM has always been about the rights of gay couples
Click to expand...

It isn't likely to become "a pattern" any time in the near future though. If it was, it could have already happened with opposite sex couples. Plus, marriage has only recently has been about love and/or attraction. That is a relatively new thing.

Plus, I am not saying that it would be okay to "sell" the relationship. There is a difference between two people who know each other deciding to get married so that neither is alone and a person selling their ability to be a spouse and some of the privileges that come with it, particularly the one dealing with immigration. In fact, that is the only one that concerns me because it is the main one that generally would involve a money exchange to be a spouse for a purpose that is purely for some gain by each party. It has nothing to do with any kind of relationship.

The witness thing wouldn't work. The rules regarding spousal testimony only apply to things actually heard/seen during the marriage, not prior to it. You therefore would have to know that the person was going to witness/hear something that could cause them issues, something illegal, prior to it happening.

Single people should already be allowed to adopt so long as they can care for the child. In many places, they are.
 
chromium said:
i would rather wait until june than to 'win' under a false banner. In addition, depending how the majority ruling is worded, orientation may indeed be construed as a protected class starting this summer. Then the dominoes really start to fall in terms of employment and housing rights etc
Click to expand...

It's not a "false banner" though. Just like the word "marriage" does not belong to straight couples, same sex marriage does not "belong" to gay couples either. You don't get to determine why people of any combination of sexual attractions get married. That is a personal decision of theirs, and it should be none of the business of the courts either or public either so long as there is no illegal coercion involved, such as blackmail or undue influence or abuse.
 
"There is an additional argument that advocates of equality for same-sex couples had previously relied upon fairly heavily but more recently have given less emphasis: that discrimination against them is also discrimination that is based on gender, as such. Bans on same-sex marriage, this claim goes, forbid a man to marry a person that a woman could marry, and vice versa, and the difference is based directly on gender. Again, the advocates rely upon the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision to protect marriage between the races, noting that a ban on such marriage was not neutral just because it applied to two races; a person of either race was barred from marrying a person of the other. One of the reasons that this argument tends to be downplayed now is that the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in the Minnesota case, however limited it was, at least implied that a ban on same-sex marriage did not violate gender equality principles."
Click to expand...
Same-sex marriage II: The arguments for : SCOTUSblog

So, same as before, unless the strategy is to empty the legal quiver of every arrow - used & new, it seems wise to present arguments that don't look like they've already missed the target.
 
bubbabgone said:
Same-sex marriage II: The arguments for : SCOTUSblog

So, same as before, unless the strategy is to empty the legal quiver of every arrow - used & new, it seems wise to present arguments that don't look like they've already missed the target.
Click to expand...

Again, you show a lack of understanding of the judicial process and constitutional law. The court case it's referring to is not a SCOTUS case but actually a lower court case. The SCOTUS at the time did not actually take up the case, declaring that it was lackinga substantial federal question. That is not the case currently. Baker v. Nelson was also heard in 1972, a time in which no current members of the SCOTUS were on the bench AND prior to new precedence being set that classify gender as a hightened teir of scrutiny.

Baker v. Nelson was a case ruled on at a time when precedent did not require gender discrimination to be substantially related to serving an important state interest. As such, it is not unquestioned defacto precedent today because it's ruling was based on a different criteria than exists on precedent today. Just as prevoius SCOTUS cases created precedent that was then undone when Brown v. Board of Education became precedence, so too could one argue that Baker v. Nelson's precedence is not definitive post Craig v. Boren and as such is worthy of another look by the SCOTUS.

Baker v. Nelson, at best, indicates precedence that Gender descrimination when it comes to marriage does not rise to the level of violating the lowest tier of the EPC. However, it in no way provides precedence that Gender discrimination when it comes to marriage does not rise to the level of violating intermediate teir requirements of the EPC.

Additionally, your argument that this has "already missed the target" is a poor one given the fact that post Windsor, only one of the multiple court of appeals that had these cases before them held that Baker had any actual controlling precedence in the case. I'd note, that the Windsor verdict came after your blog entry.

From a technical sense, Baker is still precedence until the SCOTUS rules on the issue directly. However, the fact that lower appeals courts have not had a consistent record in recent years of applying it and/or outright disagreeing with it, the fact that it was ruled at a time prior to significant changes regarding the heightened scrutiny given to gender, and the fact you have a current SCOTUS Justice suggesting you can't extract much from Baker due to that makes a claim that it's "already missed the target" laughably naive and ignorant of the relaities of constitutional law.

Precedence is not permanently binding, nor is it an entirely unheard of thing for the SCOTUS to re-look at a particular issue in light of changes that have occured since the previous ruling, and alter precedence. Considering multiple lower courts have found that the gender argument is legitimate, a SCOTUS justice has intimated that not much can be read into the Baker ruling, and the fact that there have been significant chances in precedence regarding constitutional law and the EPC in terms of Gender since the time Baker was ruled on, it is absolutely still a legitimate potential challenge on the constitutional nature of marriage. Baker provides no argument, what so ever, that gender discrimination in marriage doesn't violate the intermediate scrutiny necessary because at the time of it's ruling Gender was not deemed to require intermediate teir scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
Same-sex marriage II: The arguments for : SCOTUSblog

So, same as before, unless the strategy is to empty the legal quiver of every arrow - used & new, it seems wise to present arguments that don't look like they've already missed the target.
Click to expand...

Much better! Not only are you doing research but you are using one of the best sources. Now, it does not say quite what you claim, that the arrow missed the target(it hit at least once), but that it is not the primary argument. Now more than likely SCOTUS is not going to rule that SSM bans are gender discrimination, though they probably won't rule that it isn't. However it is possible they will directly address that and it certainly will be part of the oral arguments. So far, pretty much all the cases have had judges ruling in as narrow a fashion as possible. The common thread among decisions against SSM bans has been for the ruling to say(paraphrased) "well, it should be strict scrutiny because it is a fundamental right, and it could be Intermediate scrutiny based on a quasi-suspect class, but it fails under rational basis review, so we don't have to actually look at what level of review is best fitted". Based on that and the fact that SCOTUS seemed reluctant to rule on this until they had to, I think they will continue to make the ruling as narrow as possible. That would mean overturning the bans based on rational basis review and therefore not addressing the issues of potential gender discrimination, whether orientation falls under quasi-suspect classes, or even whether marriage for the purposes of EPC really is a fundamental right.

Interestingly, the desire to make the ruling as narrow as possible actually limits the courts options to let SSM bans stand. To do that they do have to rule on much of that. The court then would have to rule specifically that rational basis review is the correct level of scrutiny since SSM bans would fail(or almost certainly fail) anything other than rational basis review. So the court would have to deny strict scrutiny on the basis of marriage being a fundamental right(a can of worms I do not think SCOTUS wants to open), deny both gender based discrimination claims and that orientation results in quasi-protected classes so that intermediate scrutiny does not apply, and then rule that SSM bans do serve a reasonable means to a legitimate government interest. This is not impossible and with the Windsor ruling SCOTUS suggested some willingness to rule more broadly than the lower courts(though in the other direction).
 
Zyphlin said:
Again, your lack of actual understanding of the judicial process and constitutional law, is striking as evidenced by actually reading the full blog. The court case it's referring to is not a SCOTUS case but actually a lower court case. The SCOTUS at the time did not actually take up the case, declaring that it was lackinga substantial federal question. That is not the case currently. Baker v. Nelson was also heard in 1972, a time in which no current members of the SCOTUS were on the bench AND prior to new precedence being set that classify gender as a hightened teir of scrutiny.

Baker v. Nelson was a case ruled on at a time when precedent did not require gender discrimination to be substantially related to serving an important state interest. As such, it is not unquestioned defacto precedent today because it's ruling was based on a different criteria than exists on precedent today. Just as prevoius SCOTUS cases created precedent that was then undone when Brown v. Board of Education became precedence, so too could one argue that Baker v. Nelson's precedence is not definitive post Craig v. Boren.

Baker v. Nelson, at best, indicates precedence that Gender descrimination when it comes to marriage does not rise to the level of violating the lowest tier of the EPC. However, it in no way provides precedence that Gender discrimination when it comes to marriage does not rise to the level of violating intermediate teir requirements of the EPC.

Additionally, your argument that this has "already missed the target" is a poor one given the fact that post Windsor, only one of the multiple court of appeals that had these cases before them held that Baker had any actual controlling precedence in the case. I'd note, that the Windsor verdict came after your blog entry.

From a technical sense, Baker is still precedence until the SCOTUS rules on the issue directly. However, the fact that lower appeals courts have not had a consistent record in recent years of applying it and/or outright disagreeing with it, the fact that it was ruled at a time prior to significant changes regarding the heightened scrutiny given to gender, and the fact you have a current SCOTUS Justice suggesting you can't extract much from Baker due to that makes a claim that it's "already missed the target" laughably naive and ignorant of the relaities of constitutional law.

Precedence is not permanently binding, nor is it an entirely unheard of thing for the SCOTUS to re-look at a particular issue in light of changes that have occured since the previous ruling, and alter precedence. Considering multiple lower courts have found that the gender argument is legitimate, a SCOTUS justice has intimated that not much can be read into the Baker ruling, and the fact that there have been significant chances in precedence regarding constitutional law and the EPC in terms of Gender since the time Baker was ruled on, it is absolutely still a legitimate potential challenge on the constitutional nature of marriage. Baker provides no argument, what so ever, that gender discrimination in marriage doesn't violate the intermediate scrutiny necessary because at the time of it's ruling Gender was not deemed to require intermediate teir scrutiny.
Click to expand...
The writer doesn't appear to think the gender discrimination argument was very strong, unless " ... that advocates of equality for same-sex couples had previously relied upon fairly heavily but more recently have given less emphasis." has some secret coded tricky implication.
You get really loquacious & jacked up about this argument.
Are you on somebody's legal team pushing it or something?
You sure do seem to be hanging a lot on this one argument that's been tried and beaten.
But I have to admire the consistent lengths of your comments.
Is wordsmithing necessary for your work?
 
Zyphlin said:
Again, your lack of actual understanding of the judicial process and constitutional law, is striking as evidenced by actually reading the full blog. The court case it's referring to is not a SCOTUS case but actually a lower court case. The SCOTUS at the time did not actually take up the case, declaring that it was lackinga substantial federal question. That is not the case currently. Baker v. Nelson was also heard in 1972, a time in which no current members of the SCOTUS were on the bench AND prior to new precedence being set that classify gender as a hightened teir of scrutiny.

Baker v. Nelson was a case ruled on at a time when precedent did not require gender discrimination to be substantially related to serving an important state interest. As such, it is not unquestioned defacto precedent today because it's ruling was based on a different criteria than exists on precedent today. Just as prevoius SCOTUS cases created precedent that was then undone when Brown v. Board of Education became precedence, so too could one argue that Baker v. Nelson's precedence is not definitive post Craig v. Boren.

Baker v. Nelson, at best, indicates precedence that Gender descrimination when it comes to marriage does not rise to the level of violating the lowest tier of the EPC. However, it in no way provides precedence that Gender discrimination when it comes to marriage does not rise to the level of violating intermediate teir requirements of the EPC.

Additionally, your argument that this has "already missed the target" is a poor one given the fact that post Windsor, only one of the multiple court of appeals that had these cases before them held that Baker had any actual controlling precedence in the case. I'd note, that the Windsor verdict came after your blog entry.

From a technical sense, Baker is still precedence until the SCOTUS rules on the issue directly. However, the fact that lower appeals courts have not had a consistent record in recent years of applying it and/or outright disagreeing with it, the fact that it was ruled at a time prior to significant changes regarding the heightened scrutiny given to gender, and the fact you have a current SCOTUS Justice suggesting you can't extract much from Baker due to that makes a claim that it's "already missed the target" laughably naive and ignorant of the relaities of constitutional law.

Precedence is not permanently binding, nor is it an entirely unheard of thing for the SCOTUS to re-look at a particular issue in light of changes that have occured since the previous ruling, and alter precedence. Considering multiple lower courts have found that the gender argument is legitimate, a SCOTUS justice has intimated that not much can be read into the Baker ruling, and the fact that there have been significant chances in precedence regarding constitutional law and the EPC in terms of Gender since the time Baker was ruled on, it is absolutely still a legitimate potential challenge on the constitutional nature of marriage. Baker provides no argument, what so ever, that gender discrimination in marriage doesn't violate the intermediate scrutiny necessary because at the time of it's ruling Gender was not deemed to require intermediate teir scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Baker v Nelson was in 1971 when no state allowed any union of same sex individuals. As soon as states began to allow their citizens to join in civil unions and marriage [Massachusetts in 2004] the right of SSM was affirmed in states' and lower courts.


Now the question is equal application of that right. The question is not if SSM lawful as it clearly is...the question is can a state keep banning SSM in the light of others being able to enjoy that liberty.


The Nelson court would have to weight the question today in the same circumstances of states allowing SSM. As will the Robert's court.
 
bubbabgone said:
The writer doesn't appear to think the gender discrimination argument was very strong, unless " ... that advocates of equality for same-sex couples had previously relied upon fairly heavily but more recently have given less emphasis." has some secret coded tricky implication.
You get really loquacious & jacked up about this argument.
Are you on somebody's legal team pushing it or something?
You sure do seem to be hanging a lot on this one argument that's been tried and beaten.
But I have to admire the consistent lengths of your comments.
Is wordsmithing necessary for your work?
Click to expand...

The argument has not been "tried and beaten" as you claim, and as Zyphlin explained.
 
Redress said:
Much better! Not only are you doing research but you are using one of the best sources. Now, it does not say quite what you claim, that the arrow missed the target(it hit at least once), but that it is not the primary argument.
Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:
Same-sex marriage II: The arguments for : SCOTUSblog
Click to expand...

I should actually second Redress's statement here. While the blog article doesn't say what you seem to be implying it says, I appreciate the fact you sought out information that was relevant to the claim I'm actually making.
 
roguenuke said:
Please explain to us all in what way expanding rights by striking down state laws such as the same sex marriage bans gives us an "all powerful government". This is what we are discussing, striking down same sex marriage bans, nothing else that the federal government might do. So, if your comment is not dealing with the federal government striking down those marriage laws, then it is way off topic.
Click to expand...

You are not expanding rights, you are expanding government power. You are giving it power that the Constitution does not give it. This is what I am concerned about.

SSM just happens to be the issue du jour (and the Dems are happy to use you for it. They would swing the other way in a heartbeat if it would benefit them). If you want to give the government that power, you need to amend the Constitution.
 
Zyphlin said:
I should actually second Redress's statement here. While the blog article doesn't say what you seem to be implying it says, I appreciate the fact you sought out information that was relevant to the claim I'm actually making.
Click to expand...

... the argument (as 0f 2012 anyway) said what it said. I quoted it twice.
But who is this Redresss, person?
 
bubbabgone said:
The writer doesn't appear to think the gender discrimination argument was very strong, unless " ... that advocates of equality for same-sex couples had previously relied upon fairly heavily but more recently have given less emphasis." has some secret coded tricky implication.
Click to expand...

First, the writer's opinion on the matter is not some kind of absolute argument. I would argue that the writer's opinion on the worth of Baker as some means of closing the book on the issue is undoubtably no MORE valuable than that of a Supreme Court Justice:

“The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. And the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so I don’t think we can extract much in Baker v. Nelson.” (SOURCE)
Click to expand...

To claim the notion has "missed the target" in such an emphatic and definitive way, when you have a SCOTUS Justice plainly stating that much can be extracted from that case given the changes in precedence since then, is ridiculous.

Second, the writer's opinion came out prior to the Windsor decision regarding DOMA, which shifted the playing field so to speak as it came to constitutional law and marriage. Since Windsor, the majority of judges faced with an issue regarding Gender discrimination with regards to marriage have viewed Baker[/i] as a relic who's precedence is no longer applicable. For example, from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals:

In its 2-to-1 decision striking Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit noted that all federal court decisions since the Windsor decision have found that Baker was no obstacle to deciding the merits of the cases.

“The Supreme Court’s willingness to decide Windsor without mentioning Baker speaks volumes regarding whether Baker remains good law,” wrote Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd. (SOURCE)
Click to expand...

Note, I stated a majority and not "all". There is still a dispute on the issue within the judicial system. However, the very notion that there is a dispute indicates it by no means is an issue that has outright and permanently "missed the target. The reality is that post Windsor, which altered the precedential landscape, the majority of judges have found that it is BAKER that missed the target, not the argument.

Third, and not surprisingly given how you've been posting all thread, the blog article still did not offer up how discrimination against gender in terms of marriage is substantially related to an important state interest, the question I've asked from the beginning and that you've continually and incessantly avoided answering. Pointing to Baker doesn't actually answer that question, because Baker wasn't ruled on at a time where Gender was given intermediate scrutiny.

You get really loquacious & jacked up about this argument.
Click to expand...

I get really loquacious on just about every argument. You've apparently not read much of my posts. It's kind of a running joke with long time posters that I'm excessively wordy. I'm a stream of conciousness typer, so I tend to be a bit long winded.

I'm may appear "jacked up" because it's irritating taking the time to discuss something when someone continually basically ignores what you've written.

Are you on somebody's legal team pushing it or something?
Click to expand...

Nope. No hand in any legal team. No real impact on me personally either, as I'm not really close currently with any individual who this would actually benefit. I'm just a guy on a political debate board that enjoys debating political things.

You sure do seem to be hanging a lot on this one argument that's been tried and beaten.
Click to expand...

See my previous statement as to why it appears I may be "jacked up". This argument, the one I'm making, has not been "tried" because my argument hinges on it being intermediate scrutiny, which it was not in 1972 with Baker. As I already told you. Additionally, as I already stated as well and you've just ignored, the reality is that judicial opinion regarding the legitimacy of Baker as modern precedence is decidingly split, with the majority seeming to lean towards it being a non-factor on the issue now.
 
bubbabgone said:
... the argument (as 0f 2012 anyway) said what it said. I quoted it twice.
Click to expand...

The argument you posted said what it said, I never disagreed with that. My claim was that it did not say what you were implying that it said. Specifically, that MY argument has "missed the target" in some sort of definitive fashion.

You've implied that the article you posted asserted that gender argument I was making had "missed the target". The article says no such thing, nor implied such a thing.

First, it plainly acknowledges that it's absolutely plausible for the current SCOTUS to consider the issue despite Baker. Your source states:

"The answer to that depends upon how the Supreme Court currently would interpret a one-line decision it issued in 1972, in the case of Baker v. Nelson."

The very fact that he's acknowledging that it DEPENDS upon how the SCOTUS will act indicates CLEARLy that the argument has not inherently "missed the target" completely and IS still plausible to be something that the current SCOTUS listens to.

Second, you've pointed out where the article suggests that "recently" (as of 2012) the gender argument has seen less use as an argument than before. The argument not being used as heavily is not defacto proof that it's "missed the target". And...going back once more as to why I may seem "jacked up"...I've given my opinion on why it's likely seen less use repeatedly now and I'm not going to repeat myself yet again for you to simply ignore it once more.

Finally, third, your article does not actually address the argument I was making. It addresses whether or not it is gender discrimination in a broad sense, at any time in judicial history. That was not the argument I was making. The argument I was making was that given the fact that Gender is now viewed with intermediate scrutiny, the discrimination on the basis of gender for marriage is not substantially related to an important state interest. Your article doesn't address this argument what so ever because it's only focus is on Baker, which is a case that occur PRIOR to Gender being viewed as needing intermediate scrutiny and thus was not a ruling that states it's constitutional discrimination given the modern precedence.

But who is this Redresss, person?
Click to expand...

Redress is another post who has been responding to you, and who's words you've likely been ignoring similar to what you have by and large done with my posts.
 
Zyphlin said:
The argument you posted said what it said, I never disagreed with that. My claim was that it did not say what you were implying that it said. Specifically, that MY argument has "missed the target" in some sort of definitive fashion.
Click to expand...
You've implied that the article you posted asserted that gender argument I was making had "missed the target". The article says no such thing, nor implied such a thing.

First, it plainly acknowledges that it's absolutely plausible for the current SCOTUS to consider the issue despite Baker. Your source states:

"The answer to that depends upon how the Supreme Court currently would interpret a one-line decision it issued in 1972, in the case of Baker v. Nelson."

The very fact that he's acknowledging that it DEPENDS upon how the SCOTUS will act indicates CLEARLy that the argument has not inherently "missed the target" completely and IS still plausible to be something that the current SCOTUS listens to.

Second, you've pointed out where the article suggests that "recently" (as of 2012) the gender argument has seen less use as an argument than before. The argument not being used as heavily is not defacto proof that it's "missed the target". And...going back once more as to why I may seem "jacked up"...I've given my opinion on why it's likely seen less use repeatedly now and I'm not going to repeat myself yet again for you to simply ignore it once more.

Finally, third, your article does not actually address the argument I was making. It addresses whether or not it is gender discrimination in a broad sense, at any time in judicial history. That was not the argument I was making. The argument I was making was that given the fact that Gender is now viewed with intermediate scrutiny, the discrimination on the basis of gender for marriage is not substantially related to an important state interest. Your article doesn't address this argument what so ever because it's only focus is on Baker, which is a case that occur PRIOR to Gender being viewed as needing intermediate scrutiny and thus was not a ruling that states it's constitutional discrimination given the modern precedence.



Redress is another post who has been responding to you, and who's words you've likely been ignoring similar to what you have by and large done with my posts.
Click to expand...
... I was addressing the gender argument which failed in Minnesota ... if your argument was the exact same argument then, yes, it's fair to say your argument would have failed then also. If it isn't the same, so be it.
... but the MN decision in that case does raise a question ... unless the mention of it was buried in one of your briefs and I missed it, why didn't YOU mention it when I asked if it had been used before?
You didn't think it was relevant?

As for your posts, I tried to comment on the parts that I wanted to respond to.
Couldn't respond to each part ... site bandwidth and all that.

But I hope I haven't personally offended you by creeping toward personal questions.
You seem like a good & decent fellow.

And, no, I haven't seen many of your comments on the board.
I guess we're attracted to different topics.

And seriously, I do admire your way with words, apparent subject knowledge, and resistance to display snarkiness (generally) or worse.
That kind of thing has taught me to ignore people sometimes.
Clearly I don't think you're one of them.
 
roguenuke said:
It's not a "false banner" though. Just like the word "marriage" does not belong to straight couples, same sex marriage does not "belong" to gay couples either. You don't get to determine why people of any combination of sexual attractions get married. That is a personal decision of theirs, and it should be none of the business of the courts either or public either so long as there is no illegal coercion involved, such as blackmail or undue influence or abuse.
Click to expand...

Thanks for those responses. I couldnt bother to take the time. And wouldnt have been as thorough. Good explanations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom