Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 233

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

  1. #211
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    Ah, I was wondering where the line in the sand was drawn. So then, by your logic, Loving v. Virginia struck down Constitutional interracial marriage bans.
    The constitution is silent on the matter, so calling such a law "constitutional" is a simple semantics game you're playing. It should be noted that prior SCOTUS decisions found the law not to be unconstitutional. But the Warren court really, really wanted to interfere on his one. So, they spin an argument based on a standard they cooked up, a standard not at all based in constitution.

    Look, I thought and still think that law was horrid, ugly. In fact, many of the marriages in my own family, my own included would not survive such a law. But it should have been dealt with the proper way rather than the SCOTUS taking the easy path and just making **** up because they really, really wanted to interfere on this one.

  2. #212
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    17,899

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    The constitution is silent on the matter, so calling such a law "constitutional" is a simple semantics game you're playing. It should be noted that prior SCOTUS decisions found the law not to be unconstitutional. But the Warren court really, really wanted to interfere on his one. So, they spin an argument based on a standard they cooked up, a standard not at all based in constitution.

    Look, I thought and still think that law was horrid, ugly. In fact, many of the marriages in my own family, my own included would not survive such a law. But it should have been dealt with the proper way rather than the SCOTUS taking the easy path and just making **** up because they really, really wanted to interfere on this one.
    I will give you points for consistency, but you are placing the importance of SCOTUS following a strict standard they have not followed since 1803 over the fundamental liberties of your own family members. Strictly speaking, the Constitution does not even give SCOTUS the power of judicial review, and that is a power they granted themselves in Marbury v. Madison. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution seems awfully naive. If the courts operated as you envision they should we would still have racial segregation and a whole host of other issues.

  3. #213
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    The constitution is silent on the matter, so calling such a law "constitutional" is a simple semantics game you're playing. It should be noted that prior SCOTUS decisions found the law not to be unconstitutional. But the Warren court really, really wanted to interfere on his one. So, they spin an argument based on a standard they cooked up, a standard not at all based in constitution.

    Look, I thought and still think that law was horrid, ugly. In fact, many of the marriages in my own family, my own included would not survive such a law. But it should have been dealt with the proper way rather than the SCOTUS taking the easy path and just making **** up because they really, really wanted to interfere on this one.
    The SCOTUS is a valid way. We have to have someone to protect us from both the state and federal laws that restrict us from doing things just because the "majority" doesn't want people to do that thing. There needs to be a state interest shown to be furthered, not just "well the people want it". We are not a direct democracy, and we have the Constitution there to protect us from the government.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Uhh. Yeah? You're not reading my posts correctly. Merely matching some religious morality doesn't make something unconstitutional. Nobody said it did.
    I noted in #166 that

    "Most criminal laws in this country, in the end, reflect the teachings of Christianity about right and wrong. But the fact a state law that makes adultery a crime codifies one of the Ten Commandments, for example, does not mean that law is an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into government."

    Your response in #169 was that it does "if that is the only demonstrable basis for the law." That's really just a restatement of the first prong of the "Lemon test" the Supreme Court has sometimes applied, which is that government action must have a significant secular purpose in order not to violate the Establishment Clause.

    The quotation from McGowan v. Maryland shows how the Court has gone out of its way not to find that laws which are ultimately based on religious beliefs--a Sunday closing law in that case--are based solely on those beliefs. The Eighth Circuit followed this same course in Clayton v. Place, a 1989 case in which it found a school district's ban on dancing, even though it clearly was a response to pressure from conservative local churches, did not violate the Establishment Clause because it also served a secular purpose.

    Considering that, just how would you go about showing a religious belief about right and wrong was the "only demonstrable basis" for a state criminal law? The only example I can think of is a law against worshiping a graven image. It could have no basis other than the Second Commandment, and therefore would violate the Establishment Clause by having a religious rather than a secular purpose.

  5. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No they don't.
    No who don't what?

  6. #216
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    No who don't what?
    Most of the laws in our country do not reflect teachings of Christianity. They reflect trying to protect people, either from others, from the government, or in some cases from themselves. And most of our laws are also found in one or more non-Christian or even non-Abrahamic based societies.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #217
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Most of the laws in our country do not reflect teachings of Christianity. They reflect trying to protect people, either from others, from the government, or in some cases from themselves. And most of our laws are also found in one or more non-Christian or even non-Abrahamic based societies.
    That is not accurate. When most people believe an act is so immoral that it deserves to be punished, they make it a crime. Most of the criminal laws in the U.S., which are largely state laws, today are codified as statutes. And those criminal statutes almost always incorporate the principles and language of the common law. That common law developed through decisions by English judges that date back at least to the 1500's. Those decisions, in turn, reflect the views that most people in England, which was almost exclusively a Christian country, held about which actions are right or moral, and which are wrong or immoral.

    Christian teaching that murder, burglary, robbery, adultery, fraud, rape, and other acts are wrong is not the only reason those acts were crimes at common law and still are, but it is a very important one. Widely held moral convictions do not just spring out of thin air, but are taught. Most of our state criminal laws developed through accretion, and the moral values they affirm derive directly from the moral values Christian churches were instilling in Englishmen--including English judges--centuries ago. Contrary to what you are implying, they were not created one day by some secular committee sitting in a room studying the most utilitarian ways to regulate society by law.

    Whether religions other than Christianity consider some of the same acts wrong or immoral, or disagree with other religions about the morality of an act, it does not change the fact criminal prohibitions of those acts are largely based, in the end, on Christian teaching. As the Court noted in McGowan v. Maryland:

    "[F]or temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc., because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue."

  8. #218
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50,840

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    They did so in direct violation of their oath then. Sodomy is not protected in the US constitution, nor by it's intent.
    9th amendment, quit being such an authoritarian.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Well, certainly the customer is not an N-word.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You know her?

  9. #219
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50,840

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I noted in #166 that

    "Most criminal laws in this country, in the end, reflect the teachings of Christianity about right and wrong. But the fact a state law that makes adultery a crime codifies one of the Ten Commandments, for example, does not mean that law is an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into government."

    Your response in #169 was that it does "if that is the only demonstrable basis for the law." That's really just a restatement of the first prong of the "Lemon test" the Supreme Court has sometimes applied, which is that government action must have a significant secular purpose in order not to violate the Establishment Clause.

    The quotation from McGowan v. Maryland shows how the Court has gone out of its way not to find that laws which are ultimately based on religious beliefs--a Sunday closing law in that case--are based solely on those beliefs. The Eighth Circuit followed this same course in Clayton v. Place, a 1989 case in which it found a school district's ban on dancing, even though it clearly was a response to pressure from conservative local churches, did not violate the Establishment Clause because it also served a secular purpose.

    Considering that, just how would you go about showing a religious belief about right and wrong was the "only demonstrable basis" for a state criminal law? The only example I can think of is a law against worshiping a graven image. It could have no basis other than the Second Commandment, and therefore would violate the Establishment Clause by having a religious rather than a secular purpose.
    Yes. If there's a secular value or basis as well, you have a better leg to stand on. (although merely having a secular basis doesn't necessarily comply with constitutional scrutiny either)

    I'm not sure what your disagreement is. Courts will sometimes stretch for that "secular purpose," but if there really isn't anything other than religion it's not likely to stand.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Well, certainly the customer is not an N-word.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You know her?

  10. #220
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Read my posts before you ask silly questions. No, I would not be okay with it, as I said. It just wouldn't be unconstitutional (federally and depending upon the language of the bill).
    The point of the question is on what grounds would YOU object?
    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Of course the third world dregs are breeding like rabbits.

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    ...these people have no responsibility for their own actions. [like third world dregs]

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 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
  •