Page 189 of 193 FirstFirst ... 89139179187188189190191 ... LastLast
Results 1,881 to 1,890 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1881
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,890

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Nope. One was trying to constrict marriage to less than what it was, between a man and a woman. The other is trying to change the very definition to include more than just a man and a woman. Completely different. But anyway, that is getting way off on a tangent away from what the Court did.
    You all always fall back to the failed and ridiculous argument that includes your personal subjective definition of marriage based solely on who it is restricted to rather than what it actually is.
    "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.

  2. #1882
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,267

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Just remember, as of 2011 46% of Republicans in Mississippi still believe interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Only 40% thought it should be allowed. These stone age cave dwellers are the GOP's problem now.
    What was the acceptance rate among white Democrats?

  3. #1883
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,968

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    That's not true. The same arguments that are used against SSM today were used to ban interracial marriage back then. Black people weren't denied the right to marry, only the right to marry white people. They always had the ability to marry someone of their own race. Likewise, gays have always had the opportunity to marry someone of an opposite sex. It's essentially identical.
    Trying to draw an analogy between Obergefell and Loving seems to all the rage among the proponents of the homosexual agenda. It is a far-fetched and transparent attempt to legitimize an illegitimate dictate. The Virginia statutes at issue in Loving made it a felony crime for a white person and a colored person to leave the state to get married, and then return to live as man and wife. The Court found both that "penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery," 388 U.S. 1, 6 (1967), and that the Virginia laws were "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id. at 11. But "the clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States." Id. at 6.

    The laws in Loving were challenged on both equal protection and due process grounds. In both analyses, the Court applies its "strict scrutiny" standard where a fundamental right is involved. The Supreme Court had long recognized that the right to marry--universally understood until last week's dictate to mean the right of one man and one woman to marry each other--was fundamental. "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." Id. at 12; See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) ("[T]he liberty thus guaranteed [by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] . . . denotes . . . the right of the individual to marry . . . .")

    The state had to show the statutes were necessary--that they served some overriding government purpose independent of invidious race discrimination. But the Court held it did not show that: "there can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race," id. at 11, The statutes therefore failed the equal protection challenge.

    The Court's due process analysis was similar, and very short:

    "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."


    Loving was not that difficult a case, because the invidious racial discrimination the state statutes imposed, for the purpose of maintaining white supremacy, was obviously the very thing it was "the clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate." The notion that it was ever the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit states from choosing not to extend a government benefit like a marriage license to homosexuals does not even pass the laugh test. The only way to get that result is to ignore the Constitution completely, and make the Fourteenth Amendment say whatever supports the policy you personally favor--which is just what Anthony Kennedy et al. did. Justice Scalia summarized very simply and accurately why Kennedy's noble-sounding fortune cookie gobbledygook in Obergefell is nothing but a weak attempt to disguise an arbitrary, lawless dictate:


    When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as 'due process of law' or 'equal protection of the laws'—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. (citing Town of Greece v. Galloway; all emphases added)

  4. #1884
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,096

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You all always fall back to the failed and ridiculous argument that includes your personal subjective definition of marriage based solely on who it is restricted to rather than what it actually is.
    Sorry, I can't take credit for the definition of marriage, just falling back on facts and the truth. You should take the blinders off and try it sometime. Stop trying to put the square peg in the round hole. It doesn't fit now, and never will.

    But it seems that you are a-okay with the SC shutting down the national debate on marriage and imposing the personal opinion of five people on the rest of the country.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #1885
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,096

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Just remember, as of 2011 46% of Republicans in Mississippi still believe interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Only 40% thought it should be allowed. These stone age cave dwellers are the GOP's problem now.
    And where is this poll?

    This is what I found...

    On Monday, polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) revealed that 29 percent of likely GOP voters surveyed in Mississippi believe that interracial marriage should be illegal. Fifty-four percent said intermarriage should remain legal, and the rest responded that they weren't sure. The survey also found that 21 percent of likely GOP voters polled in Alabama believe that interracial marriage should be illegal.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #1886
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,619

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    And where is this poll?

    This is what I found...
    Link?
    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. #1887
    Engineer
    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,201

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Nope. One was trying to constrict marriage to less than what it was, between a man and a woman. The other is trying to change the very definition to include more than just a man and a woman. Completely different. But anyway, that is getting way off on a tangent away from what the Court did.
    Incorrect again. Interracial marriage was not part of the definition of marriage, just as gay marriage wasn't until about a week ago. Same arguments, same bigots.
    "If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger

  8. #1888
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,335

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    And where is this poll?

    This is what I found...
    Here's the link to the 2012 poll - it was 49/33 legal/illegal at 3/12/2012 (likely GOP primary voters)

    This is the 2011 poll that shows the 40/46 legal/illegal split.

  9. #1889
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,267

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Incorrect again. Interracial marriage was not part of the definition of marriage
    Of course it was.

    Were it not, there would have been no need for laws that automatically voided such marriages. There would have been no reason to criminalize them.

  10. #1890
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,267

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Here's the link to the 2012 poll - it was 49/33 legal/illegal at 3/12/2012 (likely GOP primary voters)

    This is the 2011 poll that shows the 40/46 legal/illegal split.
    It's just a ridiculous poll. No attempt to poll democrats, and not even a question on party affiliation in a state with an open primary in a year where democrats had little to vote for. A campaign year where a Republican Senatorial candidate even openly campaigned for Democrats to cross-over, an action that fivethirtyeight and other sources credit with helping him to win. There was no context, no reason at all for a question of this nature to be included other than the leftist pollster's desire to provide some talking points and fuel to the "Republicans are racist" narrative.

    Complete garbage.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •