Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 187

Thread: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

  1. #91
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    To be fair, love is absolutely pointless and non-existance in the requirements of a legal marriage if I remember correctly. There is no requirement that one must marry someone they love, that the law requires that you love the person you are marrying, etc.
    True, but the discussion was about what you were gaining. The ability to marry the one you truly love is gained by same sex couples if it's legalized. Love is not absolutely pointless because it factors into the equation of desire and obtaining something someone wants. People want to make the argument that since homosexuals can marry those of the opposite sex, that denying them the full of their right to contract isn't a civil rights issue. Since heterosexual people and homosexual people can marry those of opposite sex the system is balanced. That's completely crap, and crap in a measured sense. Heterosexuals are not affected by same sex marriage. If it's illegal or legal it doesn't matter to them in the practice of their marriage because they had already been able to marry the one they desired most. However, same sex marriage is HUGE to the homosexual community because they are not allowed full access to their right to contract and are unable to marry those whom they desire most. For them the outcome of this is very personal and dramatic.

    So there's an obvious, real world difference here in the practice of marriage. As it stands heterosexuals are fine; they get what they want. But if we change the rules to allow same sex marriage, you have made a drastic impact on the lives of homosexual couples while not impacting heterosexual couples in the least. Thus heterosexual couples for all intensive purposes gained nothing while homosexual couples definitely did. Some people are trying to make arguments counter to this, but this is measured reality. Heterosexual couples will not see their marriage collapses merely due to homosexual marriage and heterosexual couples aren't going to run off to marry same sex partners. They gain nothing and have very little interest in the whole matter as it relates to the actual practice of their marriage. So if heterosexuals gain nothing while homosexuals gain something big, there's disparagy. What is it that homosexuals gain that heterosexuals already have, the thing that makes all the difference in the world to people? The very reason why this is an issue (if it were "balanced" from the start as some claim, there wouldn't be a problem because everyone got the same thing out of the contract, so someone couldn't be denied full access...another measured quantity why the "balanced" argument is crap).

    Without this difference, there would be no argument. Without this difference there is nothing that homosexual couples could gain that heterosexuals already had. It comes in the form of love, total love. The desire to share with the person they love most the whole of their lives and to let their significant others have access to many of the same perks and responsibilities that others already enjoy. There is a difference in the system, heterosexuals already have all they want, but homosexuals can not fully exercise their right to contract as they are forbidden from entering into a contract which is supposed to be about commitment and love with the person they most want to commit to and love. That is why, specifically in the context of marriage it is important. Because while love is by no means a qualifier for marriage, it's the essence of the difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage and its current legality. You are allowing someone the full access to their right of contract by allowing same sex couples to be married.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender and no one had the right to marry someone of the same gender: everything was already equal.
    No. No mention of gender disparities in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    It says "all persons", period.

  3. #93
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No. No mention of gender disparities in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    It says "all persons", period.
    Yet people manage to find arguments and remain insistant on those arguments despite the constitution clearly stating "all persons". I think they just like a bit of drama.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Where are the heteros fighting for the right of heteros to marry other heteros of the same gender?
    THIS is what you're using as an argument?

  5. #95
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    No marriage is a specific guaranteed right under the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court has addressed it.

    You are right in that the Supreme Court probably felt in 1972 that same-sex marriage is a state issue (Baker v. Nelson). In these times, the States are addressing it, both approval and denial.

    It is because of the fact that the issue is not resulting in uniformity throughout the lower courts that the Supreme Court will have to address this issue someday.
    True. I fully believe that they'll likely have to address the issue one day. Though I hold on hope that somehow someway politicians wisen up, get rid of the term marriage, and institute civil unions for any two consenting adults

    HOWEVER

    Until such time as it does, people trying to insinuate or state that its somehow of constitutional fact that gay marriage is a constitutional right are plainly wrong. Its their OPINION, but there is no FACT that states that, no court case that states it, nothing. Its their opinion. They're free to have that opinion. But it bugs the **** out of me watching them act smug and self important acting like its somekind of fact that they're trapping people with when its not.

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed.
    It has?

    How many normal people are going to run out and find a homosexual lover because homosexuals are finally allowed to exercise their right to marry their consenting partner.

    Read what I said carefully. There's never a "new" right, there's only the termination of denial of the exercise of those freedoms.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by azura28 View Post
    But...but....Obama himself said he is against gay marriage.
    So, he's trying to become the perfect president, 100% wrong.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Yet people manage to find arguments and remain insistant on those arguments despite the constitution clearly stating "all persons". I think they just like a bit of drama.
    What I haven't seen is any argument explaining why it shouldn't be allowed.

  9. #99
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    It's listing it alongside other things that would not be overturned. The implication is this:

    Casey was decided on due process grounds, so it's not really applicable to a hypothetical marriage case.

    Yes, but she's also implicitly saying that there would be cases where gay marriage bans could be overturned as failing rational basis. That is farther than any of the other justices were willing to go

    1) Because she wouldn't have overturned Bowers, which the other justices wanted to do

    (This most likely applies to Ginsburg/Breyer/Stevens/Souter)

    or

    2) Because she went too far in saying that laws banning gay marriage could be overturned as EP violations

    (This most likely applies to Kennedy and perhaps one or two of the others)

    I very much doubt that there are 5 justices on the court who would vote in favor of gay marriage (in the sense that the court would see a case.)
    "Because she wouldn't have overturned Bowers, which the other justices wanted to do."

    Any or all of the remaining 5 justices in the majority could have only signed onto the part of the ruling where O'Connor explained that she believes the State has a right to regulate marriage. If they believed the state did have this right, what stopped them from joining her in that part? Signing onto this specific part of O'Connor's concurrence would not have prevented them from overruling Bowers v. Hardwick.

    "Because she went too far in saying that laws banning gay marriage could be overturned as EP violation."

    Please show me where O'Connor stated laws banning same-sex marriage could be overturned as Equal Protection violations. I have provided a quote from O'Connor in the ruling that states the exact opposite.

  10. #100
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    "Because she wouldn't have overturned Bowers, which the other justices wanted to do."

    Any or all of the remaining 5 justices in the majority could have only signed onto the part of the ruling where O'Connor explained that she believes the State has a right to regulate marriage. If they believed the state did have this right, what stopped them from joining her in that part? Signing onto this specific part of O'Connor's concurrence would not have prevented them from overruling Bowers v. Hardwick.
    Because they didn't feel the need to do so?
    Because they didn't want to delve into the EP issue, considering that the entire majority was focused entirely on Due Process?
    Because they didn't agree with a particular aspect of SOC's approach?

    There could be dozens of reasons why they didn't sign on. You can't assume something about their stance based on what they didn't sign.

    "Because she went too far in saying that laws banning gay marriage could be overturned as EP violation."

    Please show me where O'Connor stated laws banning same-sex marriage could be overturned as Equal Protection violations. I have provided a quote from O'Connor in the ruling that states the exact opposite.
    While she arrives at the conclusion that such hypothetical laws would pass rational basis review, the approach that she takes to get there if adopted, would leave open the possibility of a contradictory result on the merits of a different case. That's why her jurisprudence is always so wishy-washy.

    From Scalia's dissent:

    Justice O’Connor argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor.

    “While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas’ sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.” Ante, at 5.

    Of course the same could be said of any law. A law against public nudity targets “the conduct that is closely correlated with being a nudist,” and hence “is targeted at more than conduct”; it is “directed toward nudists as a class.” But be that as it may. Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to “homosexuals as a class,” that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.

    Justice O’Connor simply decrees application of “a more searching form of rational basis review” to the Texas statute. Ante, at 2. The cases she cites do not recognize such a standard, and reach their conclusions only after finding, as required by conventional rational-basis analysis, that no conceivable legitimate state interest supports the classification at issue. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S., at 635; Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448—450 (1985); Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534—538 (1973). Nor does Justice O’Connor explain precisely what her “more searching form” of rational-basis review consists of. It must at least mean, however, that laws exhibiting “ ‘a … desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’ ” ante, at 2, are invalid even though there may be a conceivable rational basis to support them.

    This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas’s interest in §21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms: “preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society.” In the jurisprudence Justice O’Connor has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as “preserving the traditions of society” (good); or invalidate them by characterizing them as “expressing moral disapproval” (bad).
    That's why Justice O'Connor's opinion went farther than the majority - not because it did more on this particular day, but because it opened the door for even more in the future. It's been used by advocates in exactly that same fashion.

    Same-Sex Marriage In Connecticut: Justice Scalia Was (In Part) Right | A Connecticut Law Blog

    Brenda Feigen, Same-Sex Marriage: An Issue Of Constitutional Rights Not Moral Opinions
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •