Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 187

Thread: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

  1. #71
    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
    Again, I don't see anything in the majority that indicates they think the same rationale would apply to marriage. O'Connor's concurrence was actually the broadest opinion in terms of application to a marriage case, and even she suggested that it would be possible for states to limit it.
    Exactly, O'Connor was the only one to sign onto that concurrence. The remaining 5 justices in the majority did not. They did, however, signed the majority that stated, "The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

    That could be evidence of what will happen if and when this Court is confronted with the issue.

  2. #72
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Forget it, you're not listening, never mind.
    I've argued with you about this before, and your position isn't that hard to understand. You've been saying for a long time that things are equal now because everyone (gay and straight) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, while nobody (gay or straight) has the right to marry someone of the same gender. It sounds logical and has a nice ring to it, but all you do is repeat it ad-nauseum. I've never seen you defend this argument when it comes under scrutiny.

    You have consistently failed to explain why that reasoning is any different than when it was used to prohibit interracial marriages. You know, that whole "Everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race" nonsense.

    You have consistently failed to address the fact that gays/lesbians do not have the right to marry the person they are in love with, while straights do have that right. And I think you diminish the idea of marriage by implying that gender is more important than the love that makes a marriage work.

    No matter how much you narrow the goal posts and manipulate what "equality" means, nothing you say can change the fact that gays and lesbians do not have the same rights as heterosexuals - the right to marry the adult citizen with whom they are in love.

  3. #73
    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
    Exactly, O'Connor was the only one to sign onto that concurrence. The remaining 5 justices in the majority did not. They did, however, signed the majority that stated, "The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

    That could be evidence of what will happen if and when this Court is confronted with the issue.
    But that opinion also indicated that it could not be used as a justification for forcing states to recognize gay marriage, because it explicitly distinguished it. O'Connors opinion looked at it on equal protection grounds, not due process, which is what gay rights advocates wished the majority had based their case on.

    As of now, there are no justices on the court who have indicated that they would apply equal protection to this scenario, which is the only way it could happen.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #74
    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
    But that opinion also indicated that it could not be used as a justification for forcing states to recognize gay marriage, because it explicitly distinguished it. O'Connors opinion looked at it on equal protection grounds, not due process, which is what gay rights advocates wished the majority had based their case on.

    As of now, there are no justices on the court who have indicated that they would apply equal protection to this scenario, which is the only way it could happen.
    Yes, the ruling cannot be used to force same-sex marriage on the States, but only because the ruling was not directly related to that issue.

    As far as the majority explicitly distinguishing it, I'll need to see that. I do not remember anyone but O'Connor distinguishing the ruling from same-sex marriage. That concurring opinion was not part of what the other 5 justices signed on, suggesting that they did not agree.

  5. #75
    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
    Yes, the ruling cannot be used to force same-sex marriage on the States, but only because the ruling was not directly related to that issue.

    As far as the majority explicitly distinguishing it, I'll need to see that. I do not remember anyone but O'Connor distinguishing the ruling from same-sex marriage. That concurring opinion was not part of what the other 5 justices signed on, suggesting that they did not agree.

    "The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

    That's from the majority. They're 1) stating that this case doesn't speak to the issue of marriage, and 2) lumping marriage in with a whole bunch of other failed arguments.

    O'Connor's concurrence is the only one that even suggested that marriage might have a shot at success, and approached it via the EP clause. I would consider the fact that nobody else signed onto that to be the most relevant consideration.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #76
    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
    "The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
    The last sentence there is only stating the fact that this case does not involve same-sex marriage directly (as you pointed out). It does not say anywhere in it that same-sex marriage cannot be done.

    The quote I provided, however, does say that marriage is constitutionally protected, without specifying heterosexuals only. ("The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage...")

    LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    That's from the majority. They're 1) stating that this case doesn't speak to the issue of marriage, and 2) lumping marriage in with a whole bunch of other failed arguments.

    O'Connor's concurrence is the only one that even suggested that marriage might have a shot at success, and approached it via the EP clause. I would consider the fact that nobody else signed onto that to be the most relevant consideration.
    This is in O'Connor's concurrence:

    "That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

    LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

    She obviously was making a distinction between this case and same-sex marriage and believed the State had a legitimate basis for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. That was not signed on by the rest of the majority. The way I see it, this is the most telling part of the ruling in relation to what may happen in a same-sex marriage case brought before this court.

    If the other 5 justices agreed with O'Connor's assertion that the State had an interest in preserving traditional marriage, then why didn't they sign onto it?

  7. #77
    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
    The last sentence there is only stating the fact that this case does not involve same-sex marriage directly (as you pointed out). It does not say anywhere in it that same-sex marriage cannot be done.
    It's listing it alongside other things that would not be overturned. The implication is this:

    "The present case does not involve minors (because that law would not be overturned). It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused (because that law would not be overturned). It does not involve public conduct or prostitution (because that law would not be overturned). It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter(because that law would not be overturned)."
    The quote I provided, however, does say that marriage is constitutionally protected, without specifying heterosexuals only. ("The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage...")
    Casey was decided on due process grounds, so it's not really applicable to a hypothetical marriage case.


    This is in O'Connor's concurrence:

    "That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

    She obviously was making a distinction between this case and same-sex marriage and believed the State had a legitimate basis for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. That was not signed on by the rest of the majority.
    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

    The way I see it, this is the most telling part of the ruling in relation to what may happen in a same-sex marriage case brought before this court.

    If the other 5 justices agreed with O'Connor's assertion that the State had an interest in preserving traditional marriage, then why didn't they sign onto it?
    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.)
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Forget it, you're not listening, never mind.
    We get it Jerry; before heteros couldn't marry the same sex and now they can. It's you that either doesn't get Ikari's argument or you're being obtuse, which is it?

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well I suppose the flaw in my argument is in using 2 different groups (hetero and gay) when I don't see sexual orientation at all while looking at the issue; I see only citizens per-se.

    So that's my fault.

    Maybe after dinner I'll give it another go.
    So what you're saying is that you are discussing citizen marriage and all of the rest of us have been discussing gay marriage... now you know the difference, welcome to the discussion.

  10. #80
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,764

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I think the SCOTUS would like the states to settle this issue themselves.....
    I completely agree with you here. Whatever the individual states decide, it is none of the Federal government's business. Same with abortion.
    Last edited by danarhea; 04-08-09 at 03:52 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •