Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 233

Thread: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

  1. #131
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Of course, but there is no right to sodomy in the US constitution.
    Yes but to enforce such a law would infringe on Constitutional rights like privacy and due process. And when examined by the court, it could also show that, as no harm is done between consenting adults, it infringes on the inalienable right to pursuit of happiness.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  2. #132
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Yes but to enforce such a law would infringe on Constitutional rights like privacy and due process. And when examined by the court, it could also show that, as no harm is done between consenting adults, it infringes on the inalienable right to pursuit of happiness.
    Nice try. But where the constitution does not establish a right to sodomy and does not contain a grant of power for the federal to restrict or control sodomy, it DOES grant the power to the state and local to do so.

    And neither privacy nor due process are violated by anti-sodomy laws. It still has to be proven that the crime was committed in the same way any other crime is proven.

  3. #133
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    27,703

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    Just another roadblock and a legal case that if SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, this will take a bit of time to throw in the dustbin.
    It's not a roadblock, it's just Texas being desperate and stupid, as usual. The supremacy clause makes federal rulings supreme over state rulings. Texas loses. Those who refuse to follow federal law can be arrested and imprisoned and while there are probably a few who are willing to do so, most will just do what the Supreme Court decides.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #134
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,342

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetron View Post
    Religious ceremonies are valid without a license, what one does not acquire without a license is recognition by the state. This is a common misunderstanding. The institution of marriage is a religious one, to gain state benefits from this religious institution one must obtain a marriage license. That is the method by which the state has chosen to recognize the religious institution of marriage. The other issue is the concept that its just a word. Marriage has a meaning, a meaning that has existed for an extremely long time. The very fact that there is such a huge debate over this issue shows how well known and deeply ingrained that meaning is. If marriage was just a "word" then there would never have been a gay "marriage" debate. The issue stems from the fact that Marriage has a meaning, and that homosexual unions do not fit that concept. This is why there is such a huge debate. Homosexual unions can obtain all the rights that heterosexual marriages have under the equal rights amendments what they should not be allowed to do is to alter a fundamental concept to include themselves within its boundaries.

    The very fact that the debate is about gay "marriage" shows it is not an attempt to gain equal rights. If one wanted equal rights they could simply bring a court case demanding that civial unions be granted all rights given to state recognized marriages. Under that platform there is no possible way for the courts to turn it down. It would violate the equal rights amendment. This would then solve all the problems such as tax benefits, inheritance, etc. It is plain to see though that this is not the goal. The goal is to alter the fundamental meaning of marriage so as to legitimize these unions morally. The hope is that if the word marriage can be changed to include homosexual unions they will obtain the moral equivalence they desire. The problem is, as evidenced by the public conflict, it is not considered morally equivalent. To attempt to force a change in peoples morals by use of powers of the state one enters very dangerous territory. It should always be the goal of the populace to keep the state out of the game of moral enforcement. The greatest dictatorships arise from such abuses.
    Many marriages have no religious ceremony and religion is not required to marry someone. If you choose to make it a religious rite you can but to say the word marriage is the property of the church is ridiculous. That is what your argument is....

  5. #135
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    27,703

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorado View Post
    I think you are confusing Marriage with Holy Matrimony
    Which really doesn't matter, it's just a made up religious term that has no real meaning. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #136
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,453

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    You dont think that sodomy laws were unConstitutional?
    No, I certainly do not. Lawrence is another one of the Court's substantive due process turkeys, just like Casey. In both cases, Justice Kennedy's opinion rigged the constitutional analysis to produce the desired result.

    In Casey, the Court could not bring itself to overrule Roe v. Wade, so Kennedy et al. cooked up a disingenuous compromise. Their aim was not to decide the issue before the Court, but rather to save at least the core of Roe. The contrivance they came up with downgraded abortion from a fundamental right, such that laws infringing it called for strict scrutiny, to a "liberty interest," which called for a new, less demanding "undue burden" standard. Fiddle with the terms and the standards cleverly enough, and you can make the case come out the way you want.

    In Lawrence, Kennedy found there was also a "liberty interest" in homosexual relationships. This allowed him to avoid the claim--which he knew very well would not have passed the laugh test--that a fundamental right was involved, or that strict scrutiny was required. And yet he applied heightened scrutiny to the challenged state sodomy law even under rational basis review--in which, by the Court's own well-established rules, no heightened scrutiny applies! The majority acknowledged that the law did not involve any fundamental right, and it applied what it called rational basis review. And yet it used sleight-of-hand to replace the deferential standard it uses in rational basis review with the heightened scrutiny it reserves for fundamental rights.

    As Justice Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion,

    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. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, 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'" . . . 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. (emphasis added)

    Lawrence was a result-driven decision, just like Casey before it. More recently, Kennedy cooked up something similar in Windsor. He sprinkled the language of fundamental rights and substantive due process throughout his opinion, but without claiming any fundamental right was at issue, or ever stating that the holding was based on substantive due process. It's not clear that Lawrence is based on any constitutional principle at all, unless "because we say so" qualifies as one. But arbitrary dictates from on high are just fine with statists, as long as they produce the results they want.

  7. #137
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    No, I certainly do not. Lawrence is another one of the Court's substantive due process turkeys, just like Casey. In both cases, Justice Kennedy's opinion rigged the constitutional analysis to produce the desired result.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I don't know, nor do I care. If they are unenforceable, what difference does it make?
    Exactly what is the point of legislation that attempts to reduce personal liberties (that infringe on the rights of no one else), ESPECIALLY if it is unenforceable?

    Esp. when such enforcement would indeed breech Constitutional rights like privacy and due process?
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #138
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,453

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Gosh, a couple cops somewhere in the U.S. weren't up to speed on the law and mistakenly arrested someone under a law that had been invalid for years. Imagine! I hope that soon someone will write an article exposing the menace presented by local police enforcing obsolete laws against fornication, and the needless anxiety it stirs up.

  9. #139
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,180

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Gosh, a couple cops somewhere in the U.S. weren't up to speed on the law and mistakenly arrested someone under a law that had been invalid for years. Imagine! I hope that soon someone will write an article exposing the menace presented by local police enforcing obsolete laws against fornication, and the needless anxiety it stirs up.
    Those were a few news reports- Guess good old Louisiana cannot get the word out.

    And as noted the Sheriff does not give a **** about the SCOTUS ruling.
    Are you OK with that as well?


    Louisiana's Gay Arrests Are a Reminder That Anti-Sodomy Laws Still Exist | Daily Lounge

    According to a Sheriff’s Office spokesperson, investigators pursuing offenders under that law are completely within their rights to do so. “This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” she explained to The Advocate. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”

    The article implies that the step up in arrests was done to decrease the popularity of one of the city's parks, Manchac Park, as a trolling spot for gay men to find anonymous sexual partners. The piece goes on to point out that many of those arrested were older closeted gay men and insinuates that the arrests were more a scare tactic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    The damage to the black community from all this will be devastating.
    Not only on public perception and reputation, but cops simply won't want to police these neighborhoods anymore.
    The shooter was later found to be white.

  10. #140
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,453

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Exactly what is the point of legislation that attempts to reduce personal liberties (that infringe on the rights of no one else), ESPECIALLY if it is unenforceable?

    Esp. when such enforcement would indeed breech Constitutional rights like privacy and due process?
    Exactly what is the point of state laws against going nude, or masturbating, or fornicating in public places, or against prostitution, or against bigamy or adult incest, when engaged in by consenting adults? Oh, the sleepless nights I have spent, agonizing over the way such cruel laws deprive the people involved of their liberty interests without due process! And that's to say nothing of the poor polygamists, who have been viciously oppressed in this country for a couple centuries now by heartless laws.

Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •