Page 38 of 42 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 411

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

  1. #371
    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
    Why the bans on bigamy, polyfamy, etc are able to pass strict scrutiny has already been posted
    What on earth are you talking about? It is nigh on to impossible for any law about anything to survive strict scrutiny. Please cite specific cases that support your assertion that laws against bigamy and polygamy have ever been subjected to strict scrutiny by the Supreme Court. If you want to embarrass yourself further, you can cite Reynolds again. It was only decided about sixty years before the Court even first suggested the idea of heightened scrutiny, in Footnote Three of Carolene Products.

  2. #372
    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
    What on earth are you talking about? It is nigh on to impossible for any law about anything to survive strict scrutiny. Please cite specific cases that support your assertion that laws against bigamy and polygamy have ever been subjected to strict scrutiny by the Supreme Court. If you want to embarrass yourself further, you can cite Reynolds again. It was only decided about sixty years before the Court even first suggested the idea of heightened scrutiny, in Footnote Three of Carolene Products.
    You are now resorting to making stuff up.

    I did not say that the court subjected polygamy to strict scrutiny. I said such bans would be able to pass strict scrutiny. Do you understand the difference?

    Your argument that we don't have a fundamental right to something unless SCOTUS explicitly states that we do is inane. The court will rule that SSM bans are unconstitutional and will do so for the reason I have stated - because they govt has no legitimate interest in such bans.
    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..

  3. #373
    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
    The court is going to rule that bans on SSM are unconstitutional and they will do so on the grounds that I have said they will - because the govt has no legitimate interest in doing so.
    Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

    You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.

  4. #374
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    the fact that "you people" base your votes on someone's stance on whether you are born gay or not........it's a perfect example of why you people are a danger to the health of the country. I mean, honestly, who bases their vote on that?! This guy could have every fix for the economy in his back POCKET and you wouldn't vote for him because of this dumb crap. unbelievable. and the rest of us have to try and argue with "you people" and rationally explain that their are a HUNDRED bigger problems to deal with that effect MANY, MANY more citizens than just the gay community. insane
    I'm sure that by saying what he said, Carson will look good to some conservative voters. I assume that's not the "you people" referred to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  5. #375
    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: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    The 14th Amendment did not exist when the courts were created.

    The court can certainly administrate a proceeding to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but is bound by existing law that dictates the authority the court has to do that.

    The court can certainly mediate disputes by interpreting what the law says and the LAW, not the court, determines what the court's ruling will mean for the disputing parties.

    No court was intended to have authority to tell the President what bills he could sign into law and what bills he could not. No court was intended to have authority to tell the legislature what laws it could pass. If a law is challenged, the court can certainly rule on whether law is in conflict with any other law including the Constitution, but it must be up to the legislative body to then rescind or change that law to conform. It is not up to the Court to do so.

    That way we have separation of powers. A court given power to dictate to the legislative body or chief executive what it must and must not do is a court with unlimited power.
    The courts have seized certain powers they were never intended for, you are right about that. However, enforcing equal protection is not one of those. It is in the constitution the same as the 1st or 2nd amendment. It's definitely in the court's purview. You know why? Because the amendment says "equal protection" NOT "equal protection of heterosexuals, right handers, people 6 foot or taller" etc. If these groups become oppressed in the course of time, the 14th has been violated. The courts are mandated to render judgment on whether that has occurred in specific cases, such as the ballots in 13 states that have still banned SSM

    The legislature is free to repeal or create new amendments, as it tried to ban SSM under Bush II, but they failed. They lost, get over it

  6. #376
    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
    Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

    You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.
    Ironically, you are absolutely certain of what you're saying even though you are wrong.

    Someone posted that marriage is not a right, so I posted proof that SCOTUS has said it is a fundamental right.

    After I said that, you started going on about strict scrutiny, and because you're so determined to win the internets by finding something wrong with what I've said, you convinced yourself that somewhere along the way I claimed this matter will be decided on the basis of strict scrutiny. However, I never said that.

    Throughout the thread, I have said that the bans will be overturned because the govt has no legitimate interest in banning SSM. If you don't believe me, go back and re-read my posts in this thread.

    I'll wait :
    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..

  7. #377
    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
    Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

    You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.
    As a follow up to my last response to you, I have gone back through the thread and found where and why you invented your straw man about me making any claim about this case being decided on the basis of strict scrutiny

    Here is the post that claimed that marriage is not a right
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Marriage isn't a right anymore than healthcare is a right.
    Which I disputed

    You then mistakenly argued that marriage is not a right. You also bring up "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" which is a reference to strict scutiny, albeit an oblique one

    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.
    I respond by repeating that marriage is a fundamental right, and the need for a legitimate interest. Note, I say nothing about strict scrutiny.
    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.
    Redress is the poster who brought up strict scrutiny. In your haste to find fault with my argument, you came to believe that I said the court will apply strict scrutiny to such bans. So you posted:

    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.
    So you see, it was you who brought up strict scrutiny in the discussion you and I have been having. I've never said nor believed that the court will apply it here. Instead of deciding the issue on the basis of marriage being a fundamental right, they will decide if the states can discriminate on the basis of gender which is subect to a lesser form of scrutiny.
    Last edited by sangha; 03-07-15 at 06:29 PM.
    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..

  8. #378
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

    You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.
    It is interesting you should say this. A number of rulings, going back to the initial ruling on Prop 8 case in California have stated that while SSM bans should be subject to Strict Scrutiny due to marriage being a fundamental right, that since the bans actually do not survive Rational Basis Review, the point is moot. Whether SCOTUS will agree with that line of reasoning remains to be seen. The oral arguments in April should be fascinating as one side tries to get Rational Basis Review, the other tries to get Strict Scrutiny, and both sides explaining why SSM bans pass(or fail) at all 3 levels, since SCOTUS could use any of the 3.
    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. #379
    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 sangha View Post
    This is why the difference between rights and powers is important

    The rights of people do not come from the govt. Instead, the powers of govt come from the people. So the issue is not if people have such a right; It's whether or not the govt has the power to limit marriage to certain people when it has no legitimate interest in doing so.



    The constitution says no.
    If what you say were true, gay marriage would be legal throughout the country. I probably will be some day but not today.

    It's true that powers of the government should come from the people. I used to resist the notion that corporations in reality wielded government power, but no longer. Someone or something gives the government power but I would no longer go so far as saying the people were responsible. The government does however create rights through legislation.
    "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. #380
    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 Deuce View Post
    So, do you think the states have the right to define marriage as between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman?
    Beats the **** out of me. What a foolish question.
    "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

Page 38 of 42 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... 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
  •