Page 123 of 184 FirstFirst ... 2373113121122123124125133173 ... LastLast
Results 1,221 to 1,230 of 1834

Thread: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

  1. #1221
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The government has no reason to sanction something that is not beneficial to society. The basic argument for promoting GM is, for the government to sanction it, is it beneficial to the government, society, the family, and the individual. Evidence shows that it is, therefore, since there is proof, the government would have reason to sanction it. The same can NOT be said for plural marriage. If you can find evidence for this, present it.
    Is that the basic argument for "promoting" ssm? Because in the courtroom, that's not the case at all.

    I don't agree the basic argument for same sex marriage is for the government to "sanction" it, I believe the 14th amendment and equal rights has always been the argument. I've not seen anyone argue it's beneficial to family, society, nor individual much less try to show evidence(that doesn't exist) that it's somehow beneficial. Besides, I can show where a one man/one woman marriage is the MOST "beneficial to society." I believe we can provide for these extra benefits you speak of through domestic partnership laws, marriage should be reserved to the definitions society places on it.

    And your argument that, just because what happens next door doesn't affect me means that it should not be inhibited is faulty and ridiculous. That is like saying that if your next door neighbor was abusing their child in the sanctity of their own home, without any impact on you, it would be OK for this act to be legal. See how foolish your argument is?
    If they were abusing their child, they'd be engaged in illegal activity, that does affect me. Furthermore, how long before they abuse someone else's children. My argument asks someone to show me how the woman living next door taking on another husband affects anyone or anyone elses's marriage, as THAT, rather than you goal post move, is the argument.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  2. #1222
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............
    I have no problem with that; in fact, I welcome it. Let everyone (consenting adults) marry anyone they want and as many as they want.

    We'll just raise your taxes to pay their benefits

  3. #1223
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Why does this ridiculous argument keep being brought up as if it was legitimate?

    Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............

    The reason we "don't understand" is because it's not true.

    Saying that there will no longer be discrimination against gays does NOT mean that therefore you have to allow polygamy or people marrying toasters or any other slippery slope outrageous thing you may claim.

    Nothing under our laws would require that in the slightest. It didn't happen when we held that interracial marriages were unconstitutional, either.

    It's a silly argument. It's not going to happen, and there is no law whatsoever that would require it. It hasn't happened in those states that have made gay marriage legal, and it hasn't happened in any other country that has made gay marriage legal.

    Seriously, there is NO legal argument against gay marriage. "I don't like it" is NOT a legal argument.

  4. #1224
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    However, the judiciary can strike down or accept a law if they deem the societal benefit of said law (or of striking down the law). Louis Brandeis used to include social impact information when he decided upon a ruling. I recently read the SC's ruling on partial-birth abortion, and they used social benefit information to rule on that law, also. The judiciary uses whatever information they can to make decisions.
    I know of no case where they struck down a law based only or even chiefly on societal benefit. They do so for the reasons I said above. If you know of one, please indicate it.

    Laws may be upheld because the societal benefit outweighs the protection of a right -- such as with a ban on partial-birth abortion -- but courts do not strike down laws based on public policy reasons alone. That's not a court's place.

    Look, this is basic separation of powers in a tripartite government. Public policy is a matter for the political branches, not the judicial. In the case of partial-birth abortion, the policy had been decided on by the legislature. They did not substitute their own.


    There are two issues, here. The first is to have the Supreme Court strike down DOMA. This has been attempted via discrimination lawsuits, but not via a social benefit attempt. Based on past SC behavior, this is a far more logical attack and, IMO, would have more of a chance of striking down the law.
    And we're back to the same problem. It's not a basis on which they can strike down a law.


    Second. IF a GM law were passed, either federally or in a state and an attempt to strike it down were made, the social benefit defense holds more water than the discrimination defense. In both cases, judicially or legislatively, the discrimination position is not strong, but the social benefit position is.
    I already said that if same-sex marriage is passed, there are few, if any, judicial recourses to challenge it. There would be no reason to reach any public policy questions, because the case would be dismissed on other grounds long before it ever reached them.



    Not necessarily, though probably.
    Your construct of passing same-sex marriage and then bringing suit over absolutely DOES require that it be passed.


    What I said was a broad stroke, but ultimately, it IS that simple.
    Not from anything I've seen concerning public attitudes toward the subject.


    I agree, though it is the most logical position.
    The "logic" of a position depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish. The "logical" thing to do toward one end is not necessarily the "logical" thing to do toward a different one.



    No, as I explained above.
    What can I say? You're simply wrong. Psychiatry is not my bailiwick, but the law is, and what I've explained about the place of the courts vis-a-vis public policy questions is correct.



    Irrelevant. The analogy addresses your point of what could happen if we found that something was ruining society that had been in existence for a long time. It applies.
    No, as we're talking in "public policy" terms, the idea of taking a car away from a family is absolutely not the same thing as telling a family that they're not a family anymore.


    Of course it has... just as much as many other things have.
    How could the benefits of something which has never existed on a societal level have been studied on a societal level?


    Reasonable sample sizes and universally consistent results. This is what is needed to identify credibility in research... which this research has.
    I'm not arguing what the research currently says; I never have. I'm simply saying that once the whole thing reaches a level that's never existed before, things could well change.


    What would be the problem with that? That would be a GOOD thing, changing something that needs changing.
    Then you be the one to tell a married couple that the government says they can't be married anymore, because it isn't such a good idea. Are you willing to do that personally? If not, then you see the problem.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #1225
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Why does this ridiculous argument keep being brought up as if it was legitimate?

    Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............

    The reason we "don't understand" is because it's not true.

    Saying that there will no longer be discrimination against gays does NOT mean that therefore you have to allow polygamy or people marrying toasters or any other slippery slope outrageous thing you may claim.
    It depends on how you get there. If it's achieved entirely judicially on equal-protection or fundamental rights grounds, then the same arguments would apply to polygamy. Assuming polygamy is about consenting adults choosing form their relationships freely, there are no "rights" arguments which don't apply to both.

    If it's achieved legislatively, because that's how legislatures choose to define marriage, then no, there is no such slope.


    Nothing under our laws would require that in the slightest. It didn't happen when we held that interracial marriages were unconstitutional, either.
    Because it was a different argument. No one challenged the idea that a "marriage" was about one man and one woman.


    It's a silly argument. It's not going to happen
    We'll see. As I said, depending on how same-sex marriage comes about, the avenues may well be wide open. It's open to someone who wants to marry more than one person to step forward and go for it.


    and there is no law whatsoever that would require it.
    No one said there is. But the arguments being made, if adopted, may well require it if someone presses the issue.


    It hasn't happened in those states that have made gay marriage legal
    It all just now happened. Maybe no one has yet brought suit, or has the resources to sustain one. It's not like the decisions leading to same-sex marriage in those states happened in a week, a year, or even a decade, either.


    and it hasn't happened in any other country that has made gay marriage legal.
    No other country has the same constitutional construct as we do.


    Seriously, there is NO legal argument against gay marriage.
    Other than legislatures having defined marriage otherwise?


    "I don't like it" is NOT a legal argument.
    Nor is it against polygamy.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #1226
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    The key here is that the definition of marriage does not have to change really. The ONLY thing that changes is that you cannot deny something to a gay couple that is available to a straight couple.

    It's really that simple, just like when the law was changed to say that you could not deny something to an interracial couple that you allowed for a same-race couple.

  7. #1227
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    The key here is that the definition of marriage does not have to change really. The ONLY thing that changes is that you cannot deny something to a gay couple that is available to a straight couple.
    Sure it does. The "definition," as it currently stands, is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. You would have to change that definition.


    It's really that simple, just like when the law was changed to say that you could not deny something to an interracial couple that you allowed for a same-race couple.
    As explained many pages ago, the definition of marriage (a union between one man and one woman) wasn't challenged, only the restrictions imposed upon who may enter into it with whom, which the Loving court found to be "irrelevant" to the institution. We still have some restrictions, but the definition remains the same.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #1228
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Why does this ridiculous argument keep being brought up as if it was legitimate?

    Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............

    The reason we "don't understand" is because it's not true.

    Saying that there will no longer be discrimination against gays does NOT mean that therefore you have to allow polygamy or people marrying toasters or any other slippery slope outrageous thing you may claim.

    Nothing under our laws would require that in the slightest. It didn't happen when we held that interracial marriages were unconstitutional, either.

    It's a silly argument. It's not going to happen, and there is no law whatsoever that would require it. It hasn't happened in those states that have made gay marriage legal, and it hasn't happened in any other country that has made gay marriage legal.

    Seriously, there is NO legal argument against gay marriage. "I don't like it" is NOT a legal argument.
    Check out the 14th amendment , equal protection clause you might learn something........Equal protection means all citizens and that includes peope who engage in polygamy as well as other classes of people defined by their sexuak preference.......
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  9. #1229
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Check out the 14th amendment , equal protection clause you might learn something........Equal protection means all citizens and that includes peope who engage in polygamy as well as other classes of people defined by their sexuak preference.......
    Amazing. Do you have a single court case that says that?

  10. #1230
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Sure it does. The "definition," as it currently stands, is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. You would have to change that definition.
    Yes, just like it used to say "between one man and one woman of the same race."

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    As explained many pages ago, the definition of marriage (a union between one man and one woman) wasn't challenged, only the restrictions imposed upon who may enter into it with whom, which the Loving court found to be "irrelevant" to the institution. We still have some restrictions, but the definition remains the same.
    It will still be a marriage under all the same laws, but available to any couple and not just to same sex ones. Just like when it was changed to allow any couple and not just same race ones.

Posting Permissions

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