Page 9 of 43 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #81
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    From what I can tell, the way this is all set up, the States aren't actually allowed to ban gay marriage, per se. They can merely define the legal term "marriage" as it exists in the marriage contract.
    I would entertain the argument that the 14th amendment may prohibit states from only allowing hetero couples to get married, but this would require that it is unconstitutional for a state to discriminate against homosexuals when granting its privileges. I am not aware of any such plenary ruling.

  2. #82
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Once again it has become necessary to point out that no right is absolute, universal or without limit. You have the right o free speech, that doesn't mean you can threaten the President. You have the right to free religious practice, that doesn't mean you can sacrifice humans or animals. You have the right o keep and carry, that doesn't mean you can have a missile. You have the right to marry, that doesn't mean your daughter is on the market. etc, etc, ad nauseoum.
    If the contract you want to enter into can only exist because the state creates the conditions tha allows it, then, in that contract, you are still only enjoying a privilege.

    As I said -- if there weren't more to it than the right to contract, then there'd be no discussion.

  3. #83
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I would entertain the argument that the 14th amendment may prohibit states from only allowing hetero couples to get married, but this would require that it is unconstitutional for a state to discriminate against homosexuals when granting its privileges. I am not aware of any such plenary ruling.
    I wasn't going there, but that is an interesting point.

    What I meant was that states can't ban specifc people from getting married to each other (as in going through a ceremony of some sort and pledging to be permanently bonded to each other in a relationship commonly refered to as "marriage"). They can only define the way that the state views the terminilogy present in the legal contract that is often included in that relationship.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #84
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What I meant was that states can't ban specifc people from getting married to each other (as in going through a ceremony of some sort and pledging to be permanently bonded to each other in a relationship commonly refered to as "marriage"). They can only define the way that the state views the terminilogy present in the legal contract that is often included in that relationship.
    1: No, but it can prohibit certain clases of people from getting married.
    2: Otherwise, true, but if there weren't more to it than that -- that is, if we're discussing a simple contract between people and we arent discussing the institutional and legal framework that defines the terms and limits and procedures and benefits and protections provided within the instutition of marriage -- then there's no issue here.

    You have the right enter into a private contract with someone that provides all of the terms and benefits or a marriage - but we all know that doing so does not (necessarily) create a marriage under the law.

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's all the state deals with now...soooo...changing the name is pointless.

    You're saying the state shouldn't recognize what has been ruled to be a Fundamental Right, that the state should leave this right to private entities and not protect it.

    What other rights do you suppose the State shouldn't protect?
    First, are you suggesting that everything that has been ruled a fundamental right is unquestionably a fundamental right in exactly the way its been ruled? Just wanting to get that on the table first and foremost Jerry.

    Second, I don't believe in a fundamental "right" of marriage because marriage in and of itself is a man made creation. I believe fundamental rights are ones that can be exercised without the aid of anything else or through a social contract. To me, "fundamental rights are the right to life (which thus includes defense. Everyone has the right to attempt to live), the right to liberty (freedom is the natural construct and no person should be forced to surrender that unwillingly), and the persuit of happiness (which includes attempting to gain monetary or tangible things without infringing upon someone elses rights). Anything beyond that to me would be a different kidn of right than "Fundamental", for example I view the right to bear arms a CONSTITUTIONAL right, not a fundamental one.

    Third, I do not believe marriage is a constitutional right. I disagree with the courts on this one. I'm a strict constructionist generally and not one that only uses the term when its the 2nd amendment being talked about. While I believe people have a constitutional right to join together, IE essentially assembly, I see no constitutional right that mandates the state must give you preferencial treatment or recognize your union in any way shape or form.

    Fourth, I do however believe that its in the interest of the state for a variety of reasons to recognize a union of two people. From taxes, property, power of attorny, etc there are a lot of reasonable reasons why its in the states interest to allow for this kind of thing. And I do think that if they recognize unions then, under equal protection, there is a constitutional right that if they are going to recognize a union of two people then people have a right to enter into such unions. IE the government can not say "You 5 people can enter into various unions, but you, Bob, you're not allowed". Its kind of like one of those things where if a law was passed that mandated everyone was allowed to have internet access that'd become a "right". Not a fundamental right, not a constitutional right, but a right as a citizen of the U.S. As such they couldn't then decide that "actually, um, males aren't allowed access".

    As it stands, if "marriage" is going to be used by the government then when speaking of it in regards to a government setting it has ZERO religious meaning. That means whatever religious traditions may be connected to it and what kind of infringement someone may think rules regarding it would have on religion is irrelevant, because in regards to the government its a 100% SECULAR term because our government is secular. As such, the notion that "its always been a man and woman" is irrelevant when it comes to the government because there is no overriding law or ruling with regards to government laws that says "laws that are one way must always be that way". As such there is no need for "defense of marriage" because its simply a secular government term for a government sponsored union, and under equal protection said unions should not be barred from people of specific classes of people. This includes discrimination towards sex, suggesting that the only benefit the government has in regards to combined tax laws, property laws, etc is when a man and woman are involved.

    As such, there is any talk about the "Sanctity" of marriage is irrelevent because its not a sacred nor religious thing in this discussion, its a secular thing of the state. The only way to actually make it sacred would be to remove it from the secular wording all together and thus allow it once more to fall into the hands of religion and religion alone.

    By seperating "Marriage" from the governmental terms you successfully assure its sanctity by making every individual religion or church having full and complete control over "marriage" with the government simply having domain over "unions" that bestow upon them recognition and benefits from the state.

    Any religious arguments, sanctity arguments, tradition arguments are irrelevant in regards to marriage as a secular, governmental term. If the concern is truly about the sanctity of marriage the only way to legally and realistically allow for it is to remove it and give it back to the religions as the sole definition of the word, for as long as its a word in the government the RELIGIOUS meanings of the word are 100% irrelevant when talking about it under the auspices of its affects with regards to the government.

  6. #86
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well yeah until you want automatic inheritance, tax deduction, hospital visitation, spousal privilege or any of the other rights and privileges provided for marriage.
    Irrelevant in this discussion. If Marriage is no longer a state entity, as in the term, then if you get married at a church and that church views you as married it matters NOTHING to the state and you don't get those benefits.

    If you chose to ALSO enter into a "civil union" with regards to the state, then you'd get those benefits.

    The suggestion is making Civil Union = Government, Marriage = Private.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I've tried telling pro-gm that many times before. They don't accept it.
    And they shouldn't. As long as "marriage" is the governments term for a union, under equal protection they should be able to access it and all the benefits the government has deemed to be a right of marriage. If the government passes a law decrying a certain right unto its citizens then based on the constitution they can not discriminate in the application of said right. By limiting it to male/female unions you are discriminating by gender by specifically requiring individual genders for the right to be garnered. IE females ONLY have the choice of a male, males ONLY have the choice of a female, thus making their choices unequal.

  7. #87
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I would entertain the argument that the 14th amendment may prohibit states from only allowing hetero couples to get married, but this would require that it is unconstitutional for a state to discriminate against homosexuals when granting its privileges. I am not aware of any such plenary ruling.
    Doesn't have to be heterosexual.

    We recognize that gender and racial discrimination is prohibited then.

    So lets say there was a ruling that said Marriage is between One White and One Black. This would mean Whites could only marry Blacks and Blacks could only marry whites. Would that be okay?

    Similarly we have a situation where there's a ruling that Marriage is only between One Man and One Woman. Thus it means men can only marry women and women can only marry men.

    If it'd be discriminating to tell an individual race they could only associate with another individual race, why is it not discriminating to tell an individual gender they can only associate with anotehr individual gender?

  8. #88
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-04-15 @ 11:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    808

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Just for reference, here is the text of the complete ruling.

    Ruling.

  9. #89
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by NolaMan View Post
    Just for reference, here is the text of the complete ruling.

    Ruling.
    Thank you. Fascinating reading and I am just getting started:


    As of December 31, 2003, there were at least “a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges,” according to estimates from the General Accounting Office
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #90
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Doesn't have to be heterosexual.
    We recognize that gender and racial discrimination is prohibited then.
    Yes... but then it has been held that a state cannot discriminate based on race and gender.
    No such holding exists for sexual orientation.

Page 9 of 43 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •