Page 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 411

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

  1. #301
    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
    Lets use your example of laws barring 9 year olds from marrying. Based on the 14th amendment, there are 3 levels of scrutiny that could apply. The most strict is called Strict Scrutiny, which applies in cases of fundamental rights. For a law restricting a fundamental right, it must pass 3 tests:

    1: The law must be a compelling government interest. This is somewhat vague, but it is certainly safe to say that protecting minors is a compelling government interest, so no problem on that front.
    2: The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest. In this case, a law prohibiting minors below a certain age would fit, as it applies to that interest.
    3: The law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Again, in this example, making it illegal for those under a certain age to marry is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest.
    Like most people who pass the bar exam, I understand the strict scrutiny standard. If you know of any decisions where the Supreme Court has heard a challenge to a state law against bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, or child marriage, applied strict scrutiny, and yet upheld the law, please cite them. Strict scrutiny review is so demanding that it's next to impossible for any law, no matter what subject it concerns, to survive it.

    You won't find any such decisions, because contrary to what you claim, the Court has never said that there is a fundamental right to bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, or child marriage. The Court in Loving v. Virginia, citing a 1942 decision, Skinner v. Oklahoma, said marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival," calling it a "fundamental freedom." But Loving concerned a marriage between one man and one woman, and nowhere did the Court even imply that its comments applied to any other form of marriage. Nor has it implied that in any other decision.

  2. #302
    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 Cardinal View Post
    Yes. I did not support the war, but I supported the troops. Opposing the war by not supporting the troops, not taking emotional/moral arguments into consideration, is patently ridiculous, because it's not our soldiers who chose which war they would be deployed to. So my opposition to the war was directed toward the people who created it in the first place: the Bush administration. However, I believe that soldiers should receive much better veteran benefits than they currently do.



    I don't understand the relevance of this question to the topic.



    I really don't understand the relevance of this one. So does Carson oppose LGBT rights?



    Er...yes, but Carson said he supports LGBT rights.



    Alright, that's nice, but Carson said he supports both LGBT rights while supporting the rights of an entity to discriminate against them. CandaJohn wasn't able to answer this question so perhaps you can take a whack at it: how do you demonstrate the rights of the state to discriminate against LGBT's while equally supporting LGBT rights?

    At the very least Carson is prioritizing one over the other, because if one wins, the other is going to lose.
    It makes sense that you don't understand the relevance of the question. That same inability stops you from understanding how you can support states rights but still have issues with the state.
    "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. #303
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,038

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    It makes sense that you don't understand the relevance of the question. That same inability stops you from understanding how you can support states rights but still have issues with the state.
    Wow, you folded in one post.

  4. #304
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Like most people who pass the bar exam, I understand the strict scrutiny standard. If you know of any decisions where the Supreme Court has heard a challenge to a state law against bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, or child marriage, applied strict scrutiny, and yet upheld the law, please cite them. Strict scrutiny review is so demanding that it's next to impossible for any law, no matter what subject it concerns, to survive it.

    You won't find any such decisions, because contrary to what you claim, the Court has never said that there is a fundamental right to bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, or child marriage. The Court in Loving v. Virginia, citing a 1942 decision, Skinner v. Oklahoma, said marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival," calling it a "fundamental freedom." But Loving concerned a marriage between one man and one woman, and nowhere did the Court even imply that its comments applied to any other form of marriage. Nor has it implied that in any other decision.
    The court has said that marriage is a fundamental right. That is all that I have claimed. As any one who has passed the bar exam should know, when a fundamental right is being infringed, Strict Scrutiny applies.
    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.

  5. #305
    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 sangha View Post
    You are playing word games. SCOTUS has clearly stated that marriage is a fundamental right. In the circumstances you mention, the state has a legitimate interest that is furthered by such limitations.
    See above. Words matter in issues of constitutional law. Every decision in which the Supreme Court has discussed marriage as a fundamental right concerned marriage between one man and one woman. It has never suggested there is a fundamental right to marriage, period. "Furthering a legitimate interest" is the language of rational basis review. If there were a fundamental right to marriage in general, and not just to marriage between a man and a woman, a state would have to prove it had a whole lot more than just a legitimate interest in excluding the kinds of partners I mentioned from marriage. If that were true, laws excluding bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous or underage partners from marriage would not receive ordinary rational basis review, but rather strict scrutiny. And they don't.


    Our opinions applying the doctrine known as "substantive due process" hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. We have held repeatedly . . . that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called "heightened scrutiny" protection--that is, rights which are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." . . . Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Fourteenth Amendment protects "those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.") All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 593 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis added; some internal citations and quotations omitted).


    The only right to marriage that is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," as a right must be to be fundamental, and therefore subject any state law that restricts it to heightened scrutiny in a substantive due process challenge, is the right of one man and one woman to marry each other. Bigamous marriage certainly does not meet this standard, nor does incestuous marriage, nor does child marriage--and polygamous marriage has been deeply despised in this country's laws from the beginning.

  6. #306
    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
    The court has said that marriage is a fundamental right. That is all that I have claimed. As any one who has passed the bar exam should know, when a fundamental right is being infringed, Strict Scrutiny applies.
    Instead of just repeating that assertion over and over, back it up by showing us where the Supreme Court has ever so much as suggested there is a fundamental right to any form of marriage other than that between one man and one woman. You can't, because it never has.

    Windsor v. United States was a 2013 case which involved the effect of part of the Defense of Marriage Act on the estate tax owed by a woman upon the death of the woman she'd been married to. Even in Windsor, the Court did not claim that same-sex marriage met its standard for fundamental rights. Under that standard, a right must be both "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty." And it had good reason not to. As Scalia notes, it "would of course be quite absurd" to claim either.

  7. #307
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    See above. Words matter in issues of constitutional law. Every decision in which the Supreme Court has discussed marriage as a fundamental right concerned marriage between one man and one woman. It has never suggested there is a fundamental right to marriage, period. "Furthering a legitimate interest" is the language of rational basis review. If there were a fundamental right to marriage in general, and not just to marriage between a man and a woman, a state would have to prove it had a whole lot more than just a legitimate interest in excluding the kinds of partners I mentioned from marriage. If that were true, laws excluding bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous or underage partners from marriage would not receive ordinary rational basis review, but rather strict scrutiny. And they don't.


    Our opinions applying the doctrine known as "substantive due process" hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. We have held repeatedly . . . that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called "heightened scrutiny" protection--that is, rights which are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." . . . Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Fourteenth Amendment protects "those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.") All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 593 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis added; some internal citations and quotations omitted).


    The only right to marriage that is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," as a right must be to be fundamental, and therefore subject any state law that restricts it to heightened scrutiny in a substantive due process challenge, is the right of one man and one woman to marry each other. Bigamous marriage certainly does not meet this standard, nor does incestuous marriage, nor does child marriage--and polygamous marriage has been deeply despised in this country's laws from the beginning.
    As someone who passed the bar, surely you're also aware that intermediate scrutiny applies to gender.
    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.

  8. #308
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Instead of just repeating that assertion over and over, back it up by showing us where the Supreme Court has ever so much as suggested there is a fundamental right to any form of marriage other than that between one man and one woman. You can't, because it never has.

    Windsor v. United States was a 2013 case which involved the effect of part of the Defense of Marriage Act on the estate tax owed by a woman upon the death of the woman she'd been married to. Even in Windsor, the Court did not claim that same-sex marriage met its standard for fundamental rights. Under that standard, a right must be both "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty." And it had good reason not to. As Scalia notes, it "would of course be quite absurd" to claim either.
    The Supreme court has stated, repeatedly, that marriage, not certain types of marriage, but simply marriage itself, is a fundamental right. They have not stated only certain types of marriage is a fundamental right.
    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.

  9. #309
    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 Cardinal View Post
    Wow, you folded in one post.
    You didn't give me anything worthwhile other than pointing out you didn't understand how someone could support states rights and at the same time have issues about some state decisions. I agree with you, if you don't understand, you don't understand.

    Carson said he believed that states have the authority to regulate marriage and he did not support gay marriage. I don't find any inconsistency in that statement because the two opinions aren't conjoined.
    "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

  10. #310
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,038

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    You didn't give me anything worthwhile other than pointing out you didn't understand how someone could support states rights and at the same time have issues about some state decisions. I agree with you, if you don't understand, you don't understand.

    Carson said he believed that states have the authority to regulate marriage and he did not support gay marriage. I don't find any inconsistency in that statement because the two opinions aren't conjoined.
    I asked you this question which you, like Canadajohn, apparently cannot: "How do you demonstrate the rights of the state to discriminate against LGBT's while equally supporting LGBT rights?"

    Or are you simply unaware of what LGBT rights are being discussed? Are you unaware that gay marriage is one of the LGBT-rights topics in contention?

Page 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •