Page 53 of 61 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 609

Thread: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

  1. #521
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    What was offensive was your description of my religious beliefs. And when it comes to matters of social law in a secular society, the religious have a right to voice and vote their moral code into law. My "ancient religious practices" have nothing to do with modern law, you are right. However, those that believe in "ancient religious practices" are allowed to voice their beliefs into law through the democratic and constitutional process of voting. Marriage is a social, religious, and legal union.
    You can vote it all you want but the courts can strike it down as an unconstitutional attempt to enforce religious beliefs through the state. And that is what I hope the SCotUS does each and every time.

    The archaic religious definitions obviously have bearing on modern society when many states have voted these definitions into law. People have every right to believe and support a traditional/religious definition of marriage, just as others can believe and support irreligious/new definitions of marriage. The state has obligation to define social and civil contracts based on what the voters say, who do happen to believe and have devotion to a living set of religious beliefs. I won't demean secular morals or borderline flame you, so I ask that you do the same. But whatever
    No, the state has an obligation to enforce social and civil contracts based on what is in the Constitution. That comes with equal access and protection for all citizens despite the moral disapproval of religious zealots who wish to lay claim to and hold hostage a single word in the English language. That includes puerile attempts to exclude civil contracts based on nothing more than flimsy "sanctity arguments".

  2. #522
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    In a democratic society why not? I believe that's wrong, but marriage is a social, religious, and legal construct. Likewise, we could also recognize a human to animal union as a marriage.
    You're right and wrong at the same time. Marriage is a social construct. Marriage is a legal construct. And marriage is a religious construct. However, in this particular instance we are just talking about the legal construct of marriage.

    The legal construct of marriage is a contract between two consenting, non-related adults (currently of opposite gender only) who are entering into the contract to become legally related to each other, and specifically, to become the closest legal relative to one another. This legal recognition gives them certain benefits/privileges, but it also comes with some responsibilities. Animals cannot enter into a legal contract. Minors cannot enter into a legal contract, unless they are of a certain age and/or their parents sign to allow it. Homosexual and heterosexual men and women should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage with each other, no matter what the genders of either person.

    In the context of the law, the government owns the word marriage, therefore, it should meet equal protection analysis. Currently, it doesn't because it does not allow a woman to enter into the marriage contract with another woman, nor a man to enter into the marriage contract with another man. There really hasn't been a good reason given for this discrimination.

    The main argument seems to be that marriage's main purpose is procreation. The main issue with this argument is that it does not seem to be true in the current laws. There is nothing in the legal marriage contract that says a couple must have children or even checks to see if the couple can have children. In fact, there are five states where some couples must be unable to procreate in order to enter into the marriage contract. And that kind of couple is required to be legally recognized as married in every state in the US.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #523
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    You can vote it all you want but the courts can strike it down as an unconstitutional attempt to enforce religious beliefs through the state. And that is what I hope the SCotUS does each and every time.
    We did vote and in my state the constitution clearly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The majority of the nation has banned same sex marriage at the state level by amending their state constitutions. It is purely in line with the Constitution of the United States and none have been shot down by the Supreme Court. It isn't unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, and it's completely legal to enact laws because religious individuals voted to uphold/create them. We aren't some atheist form of theocracy (I understand atheism isn't a faith, I use the term theocracy loosely) that bans all laws because religious people have voted on them. The Supreme Court can't overturn these bans because the are constitutional. The states have rights and so do the voters.
    No, the state has an obligation to enforce social and civil contracts based on what is in the Constitution. That comes with equal access and protection for all citizens despite the moral disapproval of religious zealots who wish to lay claim to and hold hostage a single word in the English language. That includes puerile attempts to exclude civil contracts based on nothing more than flimsy "sanctity arguments".
    Yes, and the Constitution gives the people and states the right to vote and make policy. As far as I see it, homosexuals aren't being segregated or denied rights that I don't have. Their union just isn't being recognized as marriage because by definition it isn't marriage. The Constitution doesn't support setting up an anti-religious moral system that in a totalitarian fashion forces secular morals and definitions upon the majority. Again, banning same sex marriage is not unconstitutional, many states have done it and none have been overturned in court.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #524
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We did vote and in my state the constitution clearly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The majority of the nation has banned same sex marriage at the state level by amending their state constitutions. It is purely in line with the Constitution of the United States and none have been shot down by the Supreme Court. It isn't unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, and it's completely legal to enact laws because religious individuals voted to uphold/create them. We aren't some atheist form of theocracy (I understand atheism isn't a faith, I use the term theocracy loosely) that bans all laws because religious people have voted on them. The Supreme Court can't overturn these bans because the are constitutional. The states have rights and so do the voters.

    Yes, and the Constitution gives the people and states the right to vote and make policy. As far as I see it, homosexuals aren't being segregated or denied rights that I don't have. Their union just isn't being recognized as marriage because by definition it isn't marriage. The Constitution doesn't support setting up an anti-religious moral system that in a totalitarian fashion forces secular morals and definitions upon the majority. Again, banning same sex marriage is not unconstitutional, many states have done it and none have been overturned in court.
    You do realize that once DOMA is repealed or ruled unconstitutional that your state and all those other states will have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states as marriages, no matter what your state constitution says, right? And DOMA will eventually go away, probably within the next 10, maybe 15 years, but most likely sooner.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #525
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You're right and wrong at the same time. Marriage is a social construct. Marriage is a legal construct. And marriage is a religious construct. However, in this particular instance we are just talking about the legal construct of marriage.

    The legal construct of marriage is a contract between two consenting, non-related adults (currently of opposite gender only) who are entering into the contract to become legally related to each other, and specifically, to become the closest legal relative to one another. This legal recognition gives them certain benefits/privileges, but it also comes with some responsibilities. Animals cannot enter into a legal contract. Minors cannot enter into a legal contract, unless they are of a certain age and/or their parents sign to allow it. Homosexual and heterosexual men and women should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage with each other, no matter what the genders of either person.

    In the context of the law, the government owns the word marriage, therefore, it should meet equal protection analysis. Currently, it doesn't because it does not allow a woman to enter into the marriage contract with another woman, nor a man to enter into the marriage contract with another man. There really hasn't been a good reason given for this discrimination.

    The main argument seems to be that marriage's main purpose is procreation. The main issue with this argument is that it does not seem to be true in the current laws. There is nothing in the legal marriage contract that says a couple must have children or even checks to see if the couple can have children. In fact, there are five states where some couples must be unable to procreate in order to enter into the marriage contract. And that kind of couple is required to be legally recognized as married in every state in the US.
    I see your point, but because marriage is a social and religious construct, citizens have a right to define it. Because it is a social construct, the states have given the citizens the right to vote on defining marriage and enforcing their definition as a legal construct. Society determines what the definition of marriage is, and the state enacts that definition as law. People can define marriage based on their religious beliefs, and that's how religion plays its part in regards to society. In a Republic/Democracy, society determines the laws, and social issues are either lawfully moral or immoral because society deems them to be so. Is society always right? No, but in a democracy society gets to dictate what moral platforms and social issues are legal and illegal. In more liberal societies and countries the populace voted to define marriage in their state/nation to include homosexual unions. Other countries (like in the Middle East) allow polygamy for religious reasons. There are many definitions for marriage around the world, and man different forms and legal status of the marriage contract between states and nations. In a free democratic society the people have the right to define marriage for their state or country (if the vote goes federal). People may hold their definition of marriage and they can believe they are right and work to change laws where they live to reflect that. But if the majority and society decide on something, that becomes law. Canada has gay marriage, and if I became a Canadian citizen I could voice my opinion that their definition of marriage is wrong and immoral, but unless my view gains support and can legally overturn things, then gay marriage will be legal there. On the flip side, it is the same for states (like California) who have asked society to morally define and decide a lawful stance on a social issue. Californian's voted, and in their state/society the majority said marriage is a union between a man and woman and thus it shall legally be.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #526
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You do realize that once DOMA is repealed or ruled unconstitutional that your state and all those other states will have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states as marriages, no matter what your state constitution says, right? And DOMA will eventually go away, probably within the next 10, maybe 15 years, but most likely sooner.
    That would infringe upon State's rights though and be an unconstitutional act in and of itself. As long as marriage licenses are issued by the state, then the state gets to define what is marriage and what isn't. The federal government doesn't have the right to overturn state constitutions and force liberal morality upon an entire state because they feel like it.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #527
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,273
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    That would infringe upon State's rights though and be an unconstitutional act in and of itself. As long as marriage licenses are issued by the state, then the state gets to define what is marriage and what isn't. The federal government doesn't have the right to overturn state constitutions and force liberal morality upon an entire state because they feel like it.
    Ok so let me get this straight. You don't want people to "Force Liberal Morality" on you... but you're quite happy forcing Conservative Morality on others... I'm sorry Dig, but that simply doesn't make sense... it's what they call a "Contradiction"

  8. #528
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Ok so let me get this straight. You don't want people to "Force Liberal Morality" on you... but you're quite happy forcing Conservative Morality on others... I'm sorry Dig, but that simply doesn't make sense... it's what they call a "Contradiction"
    Yep. If liberal morality was the majority in my state, and they voted to define marriage as a union between two people of any gender then I would have to be fine with it. However, if the government took my state's right away to define marriage and forced them to repeal their definition then that would be wrong. I support the state's rights to define marriage. Would it not be a contradiction the other way around? For socially liberal people to force their definition of marriage upon social conservatives? Please read my illustration about if I was Canadian.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  9. #529
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    That would infringe upon State's rights though and be an unconstitutional act in and of itself. As long as marriage licenses are issued by the state, then the state gets to define what is marriage and what isn't. The federal government doesn't have the right to overturn state constitutions and force liberal morality upon an entire state because they feel like it.
    Read the 14th Amendment, specifically the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It says that states must recognize the contracts entered into by American citizens in other states. It is why, although there are many states that do not allow first cousins to marry in those states, if first cousins married in other states, the marriage still must be legally recognized in those states where they couldn't get married. The Full Faith and Credit Clause must be applied to same sex marriages, even if they are against the constitutions of some states.

    Also, the SCOTUS has already overturned states' amendments before, specifically pertaining to marriage. Interracial marriages were actually unconstitutional in some states before and even after Loving v. Virginia decision. In fact, Alabama didn't change that particular part of their state constitution until 2002, yet they had to recognize interracial marriages.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 06-30-10 at 01:34 AM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #530
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We did vote and in my state the constitution clearly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The majority of the nation has banned same sex marriage at the state level by amending their state constitutions. It is purely in line with the Constitution of the United States and none have been shot down by the Supreme Court. It isn't unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, and it's completely legal to enact laws because religious individuals voted to uphold/create them. We aren't some atheist form of theocracy (I understand atheism isn't a faith, I use the term theocracy loosely) that bans all laws because religious people have voted on them. The Supreme Court can't overturn these bans because the are constitutional. The states have rights and so do the voters.

    Yes, and the Constitution gives the people and states the right to vote and make policy. As far as I see it, homosexuals aren't being segregated or denied rights that I don't have. Their union just isn't being recognized as marriage because by definition it isn't marriage. The Constitution doesn't support setting up an anti-religious moral system that in a totalitarian fashion forces secular morals and definitions upon the majority. Again, banning same sex marriage is not unconstitutional, many states have done it and none have been overturned in court.
    Oh it most certainly is unconstitutional. It just hasn't been challenged properly yet. There is already precedent that the State may not impose separate penalties based on society's moral disapproval (that was a case won against the state of Iowa at the SCotUS level) and citizens of other states that do accept gay marriage will continually challenge DOMA and other fallacious attempts to limit individuals' rights to move freely between states without having their most important civil contracts dissolved. Further, the full faith and credit clause comes into question and the 14th Amendment will continue to be a thorn in the side of religious zealots trying to enforce their moral code through the State. You can vote on it until you all drown in the pile of worthless ballots but the challenges will just keep coming until you wear yourselves out or your religious fervor for this issue dies when you find some new cause to crusade against.

    Christianity is fading. In your lifetime you will see it die a slow death as more and more people recognize that they don't need your churches or your corrupt preachers to have spiritual faith. The more your type attempts to limit liberties with one hand while condoning the very sins against your sacraments that you pretend to be protecting with the other, the more you will garner support for your opposition.

    And there is one final card to play in this game: there is always the play to remove the state from marriage altogether, nullifying of yours what you attempt to horde from us. If it comes to that, I don't doubt for one minute that the fight will move in that direction. The more you tell someone they can't have something, the more you make them want it and fight for it.
    Last edited by jallman; 06-30-10 at 01:36 AM.

Page 53 of 61 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 ... 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
  •