Page 29 of 42 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 411

Thread: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

  1. #281
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,511
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    I doubt any American has ever elected a President who agreed with that American on every issue. I really don't CARE what a candidate's personal position is on abortion or the death penalty or guns or gay marriage or evolution/creationism or any other controversial topic that gets tossed around on message boards.

    What I want to know is if the candidate believes it is the federal government's prerogative to order such things. If he does, even if I agree with his position, I will consider him unsuitable for office. If he does not, then we're good to go.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  2. #282
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I think the point is if one says the state can violate a 'right' then it's not a right at all but a privilege. Imagine if I said I believe in the right to bear arms, but also the right for the state to prohibit the lawful ownership of firearms. It's just a weasel way of saying that I don't actually believe that individuals have any such rights, and that gun ownership is a privilege to be granted or not by the state at its discretion.
    Interesting point, however with respect to gun rights, it's codified on the Federal level and our system doesn't allow the states to override Federal statutes. Gay marriage is still being litigated and state by state it's becoming a right but not yet in every state so to your point, it's a right with an asterisk.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  3. #283
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    It is a recognized right in the US. You can disagree with it being a right, you can think it should not be, but legally it is a right until you either get the Supreme Court to declare that it no longer is, or amend the constitution. Saying that it is not a right is kinda ignorant.
    There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.

  4. #284
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.
    I dont know what you mean by "in general", but there's a clear reason why the govt can prohibit bigamy, polygamy and marriage between close relations and it's not because marriage is not a right. It's because those prohibitions further a legitimate governmental interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #285
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,767

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.
    Correct. Number of partners in a contract is not a protected classification, so any unequal treatment under the law would fall only under the rational basis test under the 14th amendment, if challenged. It's a fairly low bar, and one could easily argue that the various legal complications regarding inheritance, child custody, etc, are sufficient to keep marriage between only two people.

    Gender, however, is a protected classification and therefore the level of scrutiny is higher. Intermediate scrutiny requires that the measure in question be "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest."

    No such interest exists in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no state interest being met by preventing two men from signing a marriage contract with each other.
    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.

  6. #286
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,294
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Well, that shoots a big hole in the idea that choice isn't involved, if I catch your meaning.
    Actually it does not. You can choose who you have sex with. It is unlikely that most people can choose "enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions".
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #287
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,294
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.
    By law, in the US, marriage is a "fundamental right". This is true in every state.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Correct. Number of partners in a contract is not a protected classification, so any unequal treatment under the law would fall only under the rational basis test under the 14th amendment, if challenged. It's a fairly low bar, and one could easily argue that the various legal complications regarding inheritance, child custody, etc, are sufficient to keep marriage between only two people.

    Gender, however, is a protected classification and therefore the level of scrutiny is higher. Intermediate scrutiny requires that the measure in question be "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest."

    No such interest exists in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no state interest being met by preventing two men from signing a marriage contract with each other.
    I would bet a lot of money that if and when the Supreme Court decides this issue, the "intermediate" standard of review it has used in cases involving discrimination on the basis of sex (or mental retardation in Cleburne) will play no part whatever in the decision. That seems clear to me from looking at the line of argument Justice Kennedy seemed to follow in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.

    Obviously animosity toward a certain group--"naked hostility," as I think the Court has put it--is not a rational basis for any law that disadvantages that group. A law that is arbitrary or irrational is always invalid, because it is not really a law at all. But the Court has sometimes set the bar in rational basis review much lower than just "fairly low." It showed just how far it may defer to the legislature in Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949). The Court said in that case that it would uphold a law if it represented a "first step" toward any legitimate legislative goal, even if the law were an unwise one, and even if it did not go very far toward any such goal.

  9. #289
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    By law, in the US, marriage is a "fundamental right". This is true in every state.
    That statement is not accurate. There is no fundamental right of nine-year-olds to marry. Neither is there any fundamental right to bigamous and polygamous marriage, or to incestuous marriage. And to date, the Supreme Court has never implied there is any fundamental right to homosexual marriage.

    You might want to look into the standards the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental, for the purpose of applying to the states in Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis. It's stated pretty well in Washington v. Glucksberg, and Justice Scalia discusses it in detail in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

  10. #290
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,294
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    That statement is not accurate. There is no fundamental right of nine-year-olds to marry. Neither is there any fundamental right to bigamous and polygamous marriage, or to incestuous marriage. And to date, the Supreme Court has never implied there is any fundamental right to homosexual marriage.

    You might want to look into the standards the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental, for the purpose of applying to the states in Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis. It's stated pretty well in Washington v. Glucksberg, and Justice Scalia discusses it in detail in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
    No, you are not understanding. Marriage is a fundamental right. That does not mean that it cannot be regulated to an extent, just as the right to free speech does not mean you can libel others or "cry fire in a crowded theater". Being a fundamental right, any law that limits that right must meet certain criteria.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 29 of 42 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... 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
  •