Page 40 of 61 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 602

Thread: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

  1. #391
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    A civil privilege like driving.
    Sure...are you going to pass a law that says driving is restricted to Heterosexuals or whites?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #392
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Normaly I wouldn't respond to a post as ignorent as this one, however it seems that I don't have a Standerd Issue Responce on file for such a claim, so here we go...

    Jerry's Standard Issue Response #26:

    Marriage is, in fact, a "Fundimental Right"...

    LOVING v. VIRGINIA
    ...These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.....
    Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)....

    SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL.
    ....But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race....

    ...but what does that even mean?

    The Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine of a constitutional “fundamental right to marry,” and has construed this doctrine to mean a fundamental right to state-recognized legal-marriage. However, the doctrine has several problems:
    The Court never satisfactorily explains why marriage is a fundamental right;
    The Court never defines the boundaries of marriage as a fundamental right; and..
    The Court has occasionally treated marriage as if it were not a fundamental right.

    Further, the idea of a “fundamental right to marry” contains a debilitating internal contradiction: the notion of a fundamental right implies firm privileges which the state cannot deny, define, or disrespect, but marriage boundaries (the legal rules establishing who is eligible to marry whom, what formalities are required for marriage, and the legal ramifications of marriage) in the United States have always been subject to almost plenary state control which denies some marriages and refuses to give legal effect to others. What can a “right to marry” protecting individuals against the state possibly mean when the state itself determines what this thing called “marriage” is?

    Two observations about marriage suggest the answer to this question.
    First: The word “marriage” carries several different meanings which are related to each other but conceptually distinct. The “fundamental right to marry” conundrum arises in part from the conflation of these various meanings.
    Second: The history of western marriage regulation—particularly the contemporary rejection of the traditional beliefs about sexuality and marriage that once provided principled boundaries for a right to marry—explains why the various meanings of marriage often are conflated today, and it suggests how the law can escape the “fundamental right to marry” conundrum. The Supreme Court should reinterpret the fundamental right to marry as referring to the practice of personal-marriage behaviors (cohabitation, economic partnership, joint decision-making, etc.) rather than state-recognized legal-marriage. This would preserve the entrenched idea of a fundamental right to marry while cohering wit! h the negative liberty nature of the Court’s other recognized fundamental rights and accommodating the reality that the Constitution does not (currently) textually define or even mention marriage in any way.


    SUGGESTED CITATION:
    Joseph A. Pull, "Questioning the Fundamental Right to Marry" (May 25, 2006). Yale Law School. Yale Law School Student Scholarship Series. Paper 26.

    Yale Law School
    I remain hopeful that one day people will cease citing the SCOTUS as proof positive for their assertions. I will give you one chance to submit another argument; preferably one that I cannot logically dismantle in few a minutes. Should you choose to retain this flawed premise I will be happy to demonstrate the error of your ways.

  3. #393
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I remain hopeful that one day people will cease citing the SCOTUS as proof positive for their assertions. I will give you one chance to submit another argument; preferably one that I cannot logically dismantle in few a minutes. Should you choose to retain this flawed premise I will be happy to demonstrate the error of your ways.
    Well...if you refuse to accept the notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws....then I can't help you. Sorry.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #394
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    You're simply showing that you do not understand Equal Protection analysis.

    You absolutely could raise a claim that minority housing grants violate equal protection.

    However, under Equal Protection analysis, right to a housing grant would likely only trigger minimal scrutiny (You do understand that there are three levels of scrutiny under Equal Protection analysis, right? ...I'm not trying to be facetious, but there are some people like NP that don't understand and refuse to read "EP for dummies")
    Yes, I'm fully aware of these erroneous legal constructions.

    Under minimal scrutiny, the government would have to show that there is some legitimate public interest that is advanced for the discriminatory conduct or else it would be found to violate equal protection.

    I doubt it would be difficult for attorneys on behalf of the government to establish a legitimate basis for providing such grants.
    "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    -Fourteenth Amendment.


    Mmmmmm, I can't seem to find the part where it says a "legitimate public interest" is sufficient cause to violate the Constitution.

  5. #395
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Sure...are you going to pass a law that says driving is restricted to Heterosexuals or whites?
    I don't pass laws.

  6. #396
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Well...if you refuse to accept the notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws....then I can't help you. Sorry.
    *Sigh*

    I do not deny the SCOTUS's legal role in interpreting the Constitution. I do, however, deny that they are infallible. Unless you are arguing the facts of a specific case there is no reason to cite the SCOTUS for anything. All questions concerning the Constitution can be debated factually and logically simply by referencing the text itself.

  7. #397
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Mmmmmm, I can't seem to find the part where it says a "legitimate public interest" is sufficient cause to violate the Constitution.
    Its because you don't understand jurisprudence. There are a lot of links on the internet if you search around. I posted some a while back.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #398
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    *Sigh*

    I do not deny the SCOTUS's legal role in interpreting the Constitution. I do, however, deny that they are infallible. Unless you are arguing the facts of a specific case there is no reason to cite the SCOTUS for anything. All questions concerning the Constitution can be debated factually and logically simply by referencing the text itself.
    Thats a rather simplistic reasoning. Courts have always looked at other cases in forming their rulings. Its called starei decisis. The text of the Constitution itself is subject to the interpretation of the person reading it. If it weren't there would be absolutely no need for the Supreme Court, it would be obvious.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #399
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,807

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    A civil privilege like driving.
    But drinking is open to everybody... why isn't marriage then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #400
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I don't pass laws.
    But would you advocate for that?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 40 of 61 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... 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
  •