Page 47 of 61 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 602

Thread: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

  1. #461
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    joke Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    gays wouldn't be marrying their sister ...that's more of a red neck right-wing thing to do.
    That's a racial slur!

    Only racist religious bigots make racial slurs...are you a bigot? You made a racial slur....
    Last edited by Jerry; 04-07-09 at 10:16 AM.

  2. #462
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I never said it WAS the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court, I was simply agreeing with Etheral that Government should be out of the marriage business.
    Then why are you cheering on a court ruling that most emphatically puts Government in the marriage business?
    Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
    marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
    "Civil marriage" is government regulated marriage; it is the issuance of the marriage license. If you are arguing for government non-involvement in marriage, if you are arguing against the concept of marriage licenses, you are arguing against the institution of civil marriage in its entirety (and I would agree with you in that argument); however, the Iowa Supreme Court ruling does not advance that cause, but hinders it. The ruling, as an inevitable adjunct, endorses the institution of civil marriage, and the constitutionality thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    As for your second point, let me clarify. I agree with that position. However, when I said it was unpersuasive, I was saying that it is unpersuasive as an argument for arguing that bans on gay marriage are constitutional. As an argument for that it fails sadly. However, as a policy matter, it makes absolute sense.
    My argument is that civil marriage is unconstitutional, that it is violative of the First Amendment, and should be discontinued forthwith. If you accept the constitutionality of civil marriage, if you accept that marriage licensure is a power reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment (which, if you accept the institution, it must be), then you acknowledge the power of the States to regulate marriage accordingly; a State's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is quite constitutional in that framework.

    Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue. Civil marriage is.

  3. #463
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Then why are you cheering on a court ruling that most emphatically puts Government in the marriage business?
    They are mutually exclusive. I think government should get out of the marriage business. But as long as they remain in it, then the courts should ensure that they do so in a non-discriminatory fashion that recognizes and does not offend the Constitutional guarentee of equal protection.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    My argument is that civil marriage is unconstitutional, that it is violative of the First Amendment, and should be discontinued forthwith. If you accept the constitutionality of civil marriage, if you accept that marriage licensure is a power reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment (which, if you accept the institution, it must be), then you acknowledge the power of the States to regulate marriage accordingly; a State's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is quite constitutional in that framework.
    No it isn't. States aren't free to disregard the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection simply because civil marriage is a power reserved to the States. Basically you are arguing that States are free to do anything they want. That simply isn't true.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue. Civil marriage is.
    They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
    <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. #464
    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
    They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
    I'm going to say this one last time and then drop off before I rip you a new asshole and earn another 2 day vacation....

    There are no requirements in the constitution regarding marriage.
    Marriage is not a power afforded the Fed nor is it a power denied the Fed. Therefore, and I'll go slow on this part so you can keep up....therefore, per the 10th Amendment, marriage is a state issue and not a federal issue at all.

    Have fun chasing your tail

  5. #465
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I'm going to say this one last time and then drop off before I rip you a new asshole and earn another 2 day vacation....

    There are no requirements in the constitution regarding marriage.
    Marriage is not a power afforded the Fed nor is it a power denied the Fed. Therefore, and I'll go slow on this part so you can keep up....therefore, per the 10th Amendment, marriage is a state issue and not a federal issue at all.

    Have fun chasing your tail

    Sorry, Jerry...but you are simply dead wrong. Marriage has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. Regardless, equal protection applies to privileges as well as rights, so your argument fails on two levels.
    Whenever the government decides to grant privileges OR rights, it must do so in a non-discriminatory manner OR if it is discriminatory the Constitution requires justification for that limitation (either legitimate, important or compelling depending upon the class of individuals restricted and/or the nature of the right/privilege involved). Thats basic conlaw.
    <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>

  6. #466
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    No it isn't. States aren't free to disregard the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection simply because civil marriage is a power reserved to the States. Basically you are arguing that States are free to do anything they want. That simply isn't true.
    I am arguing no such thing. The Iowa statutes--as is generally the case in state laws defining marriage--allow every man to seek a marriage license from the state with the woman of his choice, and allow every woman to seek a marriage license from the state with the man of her choice. The law is applied equally without regard to race, creed, or sexual orientation (keep in mind that sexual union is not a predicate nor a prerequisite for marriage). The law does not handicap any person more than another; it does not preclude two men (or two women) from cohabiting, from bequeathing property to each other, from raising children, or from any other practical practice of "marriage".

    As the law restricts all persons equally, there is no "equal protection" case to be made. Arguing that the law should not restrict is a worthy argument, but it is not an "equal protection" argument.

    As for fairness, in constitutional arguments that is most often a canard. "Fairness" in constitutional terms is simply the equitable application of the law, and is merely a rhetorical addendum to the mantra of "equal protection" with which it is synonymous. Substantively, what is and is not constitutional is a matter of law, not fairness. Fairness is a question of social justice, and the place to debate and remedy social injustice is the legislature, not the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
    They absolutely cannot both be constitutional issues. If civil marriage is constitutional, then states are granted the power to regulate marriage, which amply validates the refusal to issue a marriage license to same sex couples as being constitutional. Similarly, in order for gay marriage to be a constitutional issue, civil marriage itself must be constitutional.

    Declaring civil marriage unconstitutional precludes any discussion on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Demanding gay marriage be constitutional necessitates an acknowledgment of the constitutionality of civil marriage. The arguments are therefore mutually exclusive.

  7. #467
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I am arguing no such thing. The Iowa statutes--as is generally the case in state laws defining marriage--allow every man to seek a marriage license from the state with the woman of his choice, and allow every woman to seek a marriage license from the state with the man of her choice. The law is applied equally without regard to race, creed, or sexual orientation (keep in mind that sexual union is not a predicate nor a prerequisite for marriage). The law does not handicap any person more than another; it does not preclude two men (or two women) from cohabiting, from bequeathing property to each other, from raising children, or from any other practical practice of "marriage".

    As the law restricts all persons equally, there is no "equal protection" case to be made. Arguing that the law should not restrict is a worthy argument, but it is not an "equal protection" argument.
    Your first argument here is fatally flawed because it begins from a flawed premise that misconstrues equal protection and involves circular reasoning.
    You essentially argue that because a gay man and a straight man are both free to marry a straight or gay woman, there is no violation. That is a rather simplistic reading and analysis that the Iowa Court rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    As for fairness, in constitutional arguments that is most often a canard. "Fairness" in constitutional terms is simply the equitable application of the law, and is merely a rhetorical addendum to the mantra of "equal protection" with which it is synonymous. Substantively, what is and is not constitutional is a matter of law, not fairness. Fairness is a question of social justice, and the place to debate and remedy social injustice is the legislature, not the courts.
    The Courts have ALWAYS been involved in issues of fairness. JUSTICE is the very principle under which the courts are intended to operate. This is why there are 3 distinct branches of government. To say that social justice is the sole role of the legislature fails to recognize that.

    Quote Originally Posted by celtliclord
    They absolutely cannot both be constitutional issues. If civil marriage is constitutional, then states are granted the power to regulate marriage, which amply validates the refusal to issue a marriage license to same sex couples as being constitutional. Similarly, in order for gay marriage to be a constitutional issue, civil marriage itself must be constitutional.

    Declaring civil marriage unconstitutional precludes any discussion on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Demanding gay marriage be constitutional necessitates an acknowledgment of the constitutionality of civil marriage. The arguments are therefore mutually exclusive.
    Once again, you are wrong here. If civil marriage is constititutional, states are granted the power to regulate marriage, however, they must do so in a manner that is non-discriminatory and does not offend the principles of Equal Protection. States are not free to do whatever they want simply because they are granted the power to regulate marriage. If that were the case, States could refuse to issue a marriage license to anyone other than Blacks or could deny marriage licenses to inter-racial couples.
    <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. #468
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The Courts have ALWAYS been involved in issues of fairness. JUSTICE is the very principle under which the courts are intended to operate. This is why there are 3 distinct branches of government. To say that social justice is the sole role of the legislature fails to recognize that.
    Justice is never the purview of the courts. Courts only have the competence to decide the law.

    My favorite anecdote regarding Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes frames it nicely:
    ....think of the story of Judge Learned Hand and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. After having lunch together, Justice Holmes entered his carriage to return to the Supreme Court. Overcome by a sudden bout of enthusiasm, Judge Hand ran towards Holmes' carriage and shouted, "Do justice, Sir! Do justice!" Judge Holmes replied, "That is not my job, sir. My job is to apply the law."
    Attempts to apply "justice" are how we get such monstrosities as Dred Scott v Sanford and Roe v Wade.

  9. #469
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    You essentially argue that because a gay man and a straight man are both free to marry a straight or gay woman, there is no violation. That is a rather simplistic reading and analysis that the Iowa Court rejected.
    It is a fairly linear reasoning, and one the Iowa Court erred in rejecting.

    In order for your challenge to that reasoning to prevail, you must establish that sexual congress is fundamental to marriage, and that marriage is fundamental to sexual congress. Without that correlation, any claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is absurd.

    However, what is patently absurd is that civil marriage is necessarily and inherently sexual in nature. Human history refutes this. Even in our own country, civil marriage is not always a sexual expression, or even a romantic expression (case in point, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, and arguably Bill and Hillary Clinton). It is a union for whatever reason a man and a woman wish to unite. Perhaps it is for reasons of economics, or perhaps it is for reasons of politics (e.g., marriage to obtain legal residency in a country). Whatever the reason, people do not marry merely to fornicate.

    If civil marriage is not inherently and necessarily sexual in nature, if civil marriage and sexual expression are not inextricably intertwined, then the sexual orientation of individuals need not be given especial consideration in deriving regulations on civil marriage.

    Consequently, the equal protection argument is non-applicable to the topic of gay marriage.

  10. #470
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    If civil marriage is not inherently and necessarily sexual in nature, if civil marriage and sexual expression are not inextricably intertwined, then the sexual orientation of individuals need not be given especial consideration in deriving regulations on civil marriage.
    Thank you...you just made the argument as to why the state should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In deciding whether to issue marriage contracts to two consenting adults, the government should not give any special consideration to the sexual orientation of the individuals seeking to enter into that contract.

    I knew that eventually you would come around.
    <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 47 of 61 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... 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
  •