Page 122 of 189 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122123124132172 ... LastLast
Results 1,211 to 1,220 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1211
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    once more, it is time magazine, not any petty little dp personality, making the case that:

    1. the administration in court compared homsexuality to pedo... to sex with a 16 year old

    2. the administration was under no legal, even less political, obligation to stand up for doma (and in such a vulgar way)

    it is what it is

    i think time was offended, no other way to take it, really
    Last edited by The Prof; 08-05-10 at 11:08 PM.

  2. #1212
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    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.

  3. #1213
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    once more, it is time magazine, not any petty little dp personality, making the case that:

    1. the administration in court compared homsexuality to pedo... to sex with a 16 year old
    Time magazine never used the word, "pedophilia". You interjected that word on your own and incorrectly. You are seeking to flame people.

  4. #1214
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,764

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Another way is to beat the issue like a dead horse...........
    You mean like Obama is really from Kenya, and not qualified to be president?
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #1215
    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: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    boy, everything they don't like is trollish

    if you don't think having relations with a 16 year old is pedophilia, it just says stuff about you

    either way, i wouldn't say it to her dad



    Why Does Obama Keep Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage? - TIME
    right, got it.

    When Obama disagrees with you, you criticize him.

    And when Obama agrees with you, you criticize him.

  6. #1216
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    Go to your control panel and set to 40 posts per page. That way there will only be 30 pages - and many of them are repetitive rubbish.
    Indeed

    Many

    Are

    Pretty

    Repetitive arenít they.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  7. #1217
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    refute time, have at it

    it's right there, has been for months

    1. the admin argued in the central district of CA that homosexuality is akin to pedo... sex with a 16 year old

    2. under no legal obligation proceeded doj

  8. #1218
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.
    You need to reexamine the facts surrounding the 14th amendment and the legal precedents on how it is enforced and determined Dana.

    The government can pick and choose who the law protects and absolutely call allow laws to be unequal.

    However, to do so it must reach a specific level of proof showing a specific level of necessity based on the particular protected status in question.

    For example, race/religion/ethnicity requires a very high burden of proof showing an unquestionably high level of necessity. Gender requires a slightly lower burden of proof and level of necessity, but still relatively tough. Most others require the lowest standard which is simple a rational explanation of why its necessary.

    IF those standards can be met, discrimination is absolutely allowed on the part of the government under the 14th. Such is present every day in our society. The very nature of a "minor" status is age discrimination, but there was sufficient evidence to show the needed necessity in regards to state interest in having it. One could look at the laws and policies regarding women on the front lines in the military as well. Or look at the ability to strip felons from their rights.

    So, because the government CAN legally discriminate if it meets certain requirements, and because it bestows certain benefits to those that are married, it DOES have a legitimate and constitutionally authorized stake in saying who and who can't be married.

    The issue however is that Polygamists, as a grouping, at BEST could be considered under the lowest tier, "Rational Scrutiny", level as there's no proof what so ever of the inherent nature of such a group nor is it directly protected constitutionally (as is the only unquestionably self-chosen designation granted a high standing, religion). Even then its questionable as the discrimination taking part against polygamists is not actually against polygamists, but against "number of people". Namely, the claim that its discriminatory to say that you can marry one person but that you can't marry two or three people. "Number of people" in no way shape or form can be considered a "protected class" of people.

    So even if you assume it can reach the highest point it could realistically reach, which is Rational Scrutiny...and even that is highly suspect...then the government doesn't really need a lot to deny it by claiming a rational state interest.

    The severity in law changes needed for polygamy dwarfs that of same sex marriages. The impact on the court systems due to the issues with multiple marriages and the benefits of "control" (best way to explain the general power of attorney and other type benefits of marriage) would likely be significant and cumbersome due to the inherent issues with having multiple people supposedly being the ones with the legal "Final say of" or "rights to" a person or their property. Add onto the exceptionally large tax hole it creates by allowing multiple people to cling on together creating various tax breaks, bonuses, and benefits in ways that exponentially outweigh that of a simple two person binding and you suddenly have such benefits shifting from a positive for the government to a significant drain and negative. All of this contributes to a far more rational argument of tangible things, rather than intangible "cultural" things which is the primary arguments against gay marriage as a government interest (and could equally be applied here anyways), than does gay marriage.

    So in summation...

    Yes, the government CAN discriminate, as long as they reach a certain burden of proof showing a certain level of necessity based on whether or not the group is a protected one and how protected they are. Gender is unquestionably more protected then polygamists or "number of people", and a far stronger argument for sexual orientation being considered higher up on the list can be made then can be made for polygamists or "number of people" at this time.

  9. #1219
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It is discriminatory based on gender, because the definition of marriage is a union between only a man and woman.
    No, its discrimination based on gender because it allows one sex to do something the other sex can't do.

    The definition discriminates against allowing homosexual unions to be put under the same definition.
    Incorrect, the definition discriminates against allowing ANYONE of the same sex to be placed under its definition. You are responding to my argument, which relates to homosexuality but does not deal with it directly. If two guys plan on being bachelors for the next ten years if not for the rest of their life and seek to live together and trust in each other for issues relating to the other, they could enter into such regardless of whether or not they were both straight as an arrow.

    However, this is not wrong. One could also argue that it's discrimination to not include animals into the definition of marriage and say its a union between a human and any consenting organism.
    "Animal" is not something that has been found to be protected as a "group" under the Equal Protection Clause. Additionally, animals have no rational way to show legitimate cognitive reasoning necessary to enter into a contract. Is it legal for a man in a vegetative stance to enter into a contract to purchase a house because someone near him swears that when his breath catches in a certain way it means he understands and the answer is yes? No, it does not. Similarly, a dog can't enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, because they do not have the cognitive ability necessary for such. You're beating on a strawman that doesn't actually deal with my argument. You're also doing a typical fallacy of the anti-gay marriage movement by trying to appeal to emotions by going for something radical and universally thought as relatively "out there" hoping that people won't realize that the fact you view homosexuality as "out there" and radical is the only similarity actually between the two.

    Not all discrimination is unjust, we discriminate against the action of murder by making it illegal.
    Murderer is not a protected status under the EPC, so is irrelevant to my argument. Additionally, murder is directly infringing upon the rights of another DIRECTLY. Marriage does not do that. Finally, there is an unquestionable highest level of proof and necessity in the government discriminating against murder as its a provable, unquestionable, danger and damage to society for one person to kill another. Such is not anywhere near the case for marriage between two men.

    I am not morally equating homosexuality, murder, and bestiality.
    No, you're just trying to legally equate them, because you know that morally equating them would get you absolutely panned so you were hoping this would work better. Unfortunately legally equating them is even more difficult then morally.

    What I am doing is showing how discrimination isn't always a wrong thing and that we discriminate against things all the time.
    You're absolutely correct. Discrimination ISN'T always wrong.

    However, constitutionally, it is unquestionably wrong to discriminate on gender without an *important* state interest that is *substantially* proven.

    Would it be discrimination to define marriage as a union between a man and woman but then also allow civil unions with equal benefits to be in place for other sexualities?
    Would it be discrimination to allow restaurants to have two sides equa-distant to all the important amenities and that have the same service and the same food for the same prices...but one side is only for men and the other is only for women? Or colored and whites?

  10. #1220
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    once more, it is time magazine, not any petty little dp personality, making the case that:

    1. the administration in court compared homsexuality to pedo... to sex with a 16 year old
    Pedophilia is specifically "characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." Sixteen year olds are not prepubescent.

Posting Permissions

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