Page 127 of 189 FirstFirst ... 2777117125126127128129137177 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,270 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1261
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, marriage currently doesn't give anyone the right to marry the person they love. It gives them a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. If they love someone of the opposite sex that doesn't get married, they don't have the right to be married to that person. Additionally there's no requirement or need now necessarily to "love" the perosn you're marrying. There's not really a regularly enforced need for monogamy and marriage if a couple doesn't wish it.
    All of that is true...however you left out the one big part. The law current allows the opportunity for heterosexual people to have that. It doesn't until now.....allow that for gays.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #1262
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    so there is no difference, if I am understanding you right, here than, emotional? Do you think the 7 million folks who had their will overturned will not magically accept these "marriages" as anything more than what they were before the ruling, by 1 man?

    Are you suggesting the government can mandate acceptance, mandate diginty, respect, etc?
    Who gives a flying **** about acceptance, mandate...etc. I couldn't care less who accepts my marriage and who doesn't as long as the government does not make that discrimination. Any given citizen has a right to their own opinion and can choose to recognize me or not....I couldn't care less....but they don't have a right to have the government engage in selective bigotry.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #1263
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Every scholar that has gave and opinion on the issue has said the SCOTUS will reverse the decision on a 5 to 4 basis with Kennedy casting the deciding vote and you libs don't have time to put any more lefties on it......sorry.........
    Once again Navy you are absolutely....completely wrong. Even most conservative scholars have written that they are concerned that this law cannot pass Constitutional muster. The sad reality for you is that IF it comes down to a 5-4 decision, Kennedy is likely to side against the bigots and for freedom and equality. Read Kennedy's decisions and his analysis. It is highly unlikely that Kennedy would vote with your side on this issue. Your only hope is that this case doesn't get to the Supreme Court before right-wing activists can get another activist judge to push their social agenda....and that is very unlikely to happen any time soon.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #1264
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    So does that mean if the SCOTUS rules against gay marriage you will drop the issue forever?
    It really wouldn't make a hill of difference in the long run Navy....because even IF that were to happen (which is unlikely), public opinion is changing at a rapid pace and gay marriage is coming one way or another. You are losing this battle in the Courts and in the public arena. You continually refuse to recognize that public opinion has shifted by close to 20 percentage points in the last decade to the point that the public is almost evenly split on the issue. As your generation dies out, the more tolerant and moderate generations are embracing liberty and justice for all (in REALITY....not just something to recite in a Pledge). The storm is coming Navy.....and I suspect that even YOU will be alive to see it happen.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #1265
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    LOL How can you say that? Your stance is based on the law or is it based on emotion?
    Pretty simple.

    "Marriage" is what was found to be constitutional. BASED on the fact that marriage was found a constitutional right, the equal protection clause stated that you can't discriminate without meeting the threshold allowing it. The threshold to descriminate on race wasn't reached, so discrimination of marriage laws against race was struck down.

    However, the constitutional right that was determined wasn't "The right for blacks to marry people other than blacks". It was "The right to marriage", which then could have the EPC applied to it.

    The Equal Protection Clause protects against more groups than just race.

    Therefore just because its only, so far, been used in regards to marriage about race does not mean it can't be used in regards to marriage concerning other discrimination of protected groupings either.

    "Marriage" is the broadly defined constitutional right, and as a constitutional right it must be equally protected under the law, a process that covers gender discrimination.

    So the fact that its only been used so far in regards to race when it comes to marriage is irrelevant, because what matters is that the EPC applies to marriage as shown by the court cases challenging it based on race.

    I can provide your definitive and unquestionable proof that the Equal Protection Clause applies to marriage, by showing you those court cases that use said clause to strike down discrimination in marriage based on race. Can you provide me with evidence that the Equal Protection Clause DOESN'T apply to marriage or is somehow limited to which of its groups it'll actually protect?

    You think you can relate a semi vs a full auto to hetero and homosexuals? Please tell me you're kidding.
    No, I'm relating rifles from the age of the founders vs fully automatic SMG's to opposite sex vs same sex marriage. They did not have semi-automatic pistols and rifles in the time the constitution was created.

    I'm equating them as different forms of the same thing. Specifically, situations where for some time court cases didn't involve one particular type, but that did not mean that later on it couldn't. Essentially, just because the court cases thus far have looked at opposite sex marriage doesn't mean it can't look at same sex marriage with both being under the auspice of the same deemed constitutional right of "marriage". Equally even, just because that constitutional right has only had court cases arguing against it on account of discrimination on race doesn't mean it can not be argued against on discrimination in other ways either.

    Why are you so against going through the same process for law that is actually in the Constitution?
    That's funny.

    I thought the constitution is the one that specifically says the courts are there to uphold the constitution.

    I thought the constitution is the one that dictates that a judges ruilng regarding to constitution is essentially constitutional law.

    I thought the constitution is the one that had the surpemecy clause in it.

    I thought the constitution is the one with the equal protection clause in it.

    I thought then that until such a time that a case manages to occur that causes marriage to be rejected as a constitutional right, that the surpemacy clause says equal protection must apply to state laws as well and basing this simply off my argument, that when you apply the EPC to marriage with regards to gender discrimination you find that it is an unconstitutional discriminatory practice.

    Everything I just said is founded singularly and solely on the constitution. I am not reaching out to foreign law, I am not inventing any new rights or privledges that aren't stated in the constitution or aren't considered at this point constitutional law.

    Marriage is a constitutional right
    The 14th amendment garauntees equal protection under the law.
    The Supremecy Clause garauntees constitutional protection against state laws as well.
    Court cases have certified without question that gender discrimination falls under the EPC.
    Court cases have also showed clearly that the right of marriage is subject to the EPC.
    Due to the high level of standard needed to discriminate based on Gender, I do not see the arguments for keeping the discriminatory practices happening as legitimate important state interest as being substantial enough.
    As such I believe that such discrimination based on gender is unconstitutional.

    Every single thing I said there was based off the system the constitution has set in place.

    If you dislike it, actually address it, and clearly show me where and why its not.

    But that isn't the law for marriage. The only court rulings have been on race and never ever sexual orientation.
    Jesus Christ, how many times do I need to say I personally am not arguing about sexual orientation.

    And actually, court rulings have been about the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE with specificity towards race. However the EPC does not cover ONLY race.

    Cheap words without evidence to support it weighs very small.
    We'll get to this one in another post because you did the same thing again this time.

    Again you did not answer the question. How can you limit marriage to 2 people or two people over 18, 16 or whatever if you conclude marriage is based off gender alone?
    Marriage is not based on gender alone. Where did I say that? I stated that its currently discriminates against gender, that the EPC garauntees that such discrimination can't happen unless a certain burden is met, and that I don't believe that said burden is met.

    The burden required for age to be discriminated against has been shown through cases to be lower than that which is required for gender. Furthermore, the status of minors has been challenged in court a number of times and held up as meeting the necessary level of state interest to have such a status. Said status and their inability to enter into contracts invalidates them from the marriage discussion entirely. Now if you want to actually address my point, that I've now stated twice, instead of just repeating "No no no, it should work with age too!" without giving any reasons why in relation to my argument then we can talk. If not, I'm not going to answer you a third time with you continually not responding.

    The answer is you can't. And you could never point to any sexual orientation and claim there is interest in performing discrimination if you claim that gender alone validates marriage. That is the trap you keep falling into.
    Sure you can, gender is more protected than age, and minor status has already been upheld as having the needed level of necessity. I have never claimed gender alone validates marriage, no more than race alone validates it. Currently, constitutional law says MARRIAGE...just that MARRIAGE...is a constitutional right. That means the EPC applies to it. That means the EPC applies to it for all the various protected groups under it.

    For now, for the purpose of this, I'll conceed the whole natural/nurture thing though I disagree and everything I've seen counters what you're saying. However, since its not pertinent to my particular argument in the least I'm not going to waste time with it nor allow it to be used for a distraction.

    Again, my focus will be solely on my own personal argument...which is that its GENDER discrimination.

    Which again is no basis for marriage in any law or judgment ever made. You can't make up law when you want to support a personal conclusion. You go through the process of creating the law you want but for some reason you don't want to play by the rules set forth in the Constitution. You want to avoid them and let a judge for the second time invalidate the votes of 7 million people
    True or False, Marriage has been deemed a constitutional right under the courts.
    True or False, the challenge to marriage regarding race was challenged based on the Equal Protection Clause.
    True or False, the equal protection clause has been used in gender discrimination and found to be a protected group?

    Guess what, all that together means that its perfectly reasonable to argue the constitutionality of discrimination of a protected group with regards to marriage under the EPC.

    Then you cannot discriminate how many spouses, how old they are or any other limitation based off that argument.
    Yes, you can.

    Read my damn posts.

    Age discrimination is at a lower tier than gender is in regards to the EPC. Rather than needing substantial proof of an important state interest one must only show a rational proof of any state interest. There is not substantial court evidence to suggest age discrimination is on par with gender discrimination with regards to constitutional protections.

    "Number of people" is not a protected group, its not a group, at all. You could possibly argue simply of "polygamists", but even they wouldn't raise beyond the lowest tier of the EPC. And as was shown in a later point, they can not show specific discrimination towards polygamists, only towards the number of spouses one can have, which is not a group, its a number.

    My argument does not mean you have to allow EVERYONE to marry. It means you have to allow protected groups under the EPC who the government can not show the required level of proof regarding the required level of necessity needed to discriminate against them.

    My contention, as its been clearly laid out, is that due to Gender being at a higher level...behind only race, religion, and ethnicity..that the state does not have the necessary proof of the necessary importance to discriminate based on it. I have no seen an argument concerning any of the other groups you speak of stating why the same is true for them. Perhaps if you actually make one other than "Well, um, its the same" then we could debate it.

    What stops polygamists from claiming you can't discriminate against them based on gender?
    Nothing.

    Please demonstrate how they're being discriminated against based on gender. I have done so with regards to my argument, let us see yours.

    What about the sicko who wants to marry a child and they base it off gender?
    He's allowed to want to marry them based off their gender, however he can't do so because the law states that a child is a juvenile and thus not able to enter into such contracts.

    The Constitution specifies how laws are to be created and it was never through the court system
    You're correct. However the constitution has stated that laws which are unconstitutional are meant to be struck down by the court, and interpritation of the constitution with regards to laws falls to the courts.

    No where am I advocating the creation of a new law, I am advocating for the abolishment of a law OR the adherence to it to the constitution, both through the proper venue for unconstitutional laws. What I am not arguing for is to maintain an unconstitutional law.

    but since your side continues to loose each and every public vote, you use judicial activism to get what you want but don't pretend you are following the constitution because its clear you aren't nor do you take into account the incredible slippery slope you fall into with such general arguments based on nothing but gender.
    Again, I laid out clearly, plainly, and specifically how I come to my conclussion based off the constitution and the system it has laid in place.

    You have done nothing but give accusations.

    Why don't you actually make an arguments with some specifics this time.

  6. #1266
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:29 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,159

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    That is odd, I have been seeing the opposite...not every scholar, but most, even conservative ones. Something about the facts of the case being determined by this judge.
    He tried. The 9th circuit decision is irrelevant as this will end up in the SCOTUS. They aren't going to decide a landmark case based on Walker's "facts."

  7. #1267
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Cheap words without evidence to support it weighs very small.
    Tex, I figure it'd probably be good not to derail a thread with a ton of quotes showing my evidence you requested so you likely know what direction to look to find my post showing it.

  8. #1268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Because the marriage license is conected to hundreds of privleges between the two who forge the contract. Were you not paying attention?
    They are also attached to negatives

  9. #1269
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    Do tell how immorality comes into play then, and what exactly you were inferring with your word choice then, what immorality would there be other than sexual immorality in this scenario?

    Seems like a pathetic attempt to weasel out of what you stated to me
    I did not mention sex I can not help it if you have a perverted way of thinking

  10. #1270
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Marduc -
    1)People -and the ruling -claim the issue violated parts of the constitution (x), and some even claimed it violated constitutional rights.
    2) you have a great argument that would undermine X based on the superficially similar fundamental rights position Y
    3) person B begs for someone to set him up so that he can attack position Y, concluding that position X (the ruling) is flawed
    I prefaced my original entry into this thread with the statement that "If I were arguing in front of the Supremes this is the tact I would take". The reason for that is because the Appellate Court, will only uphold, or strike down a case based on matters of law, or if the court made an egregious error. I don't believe Walkers decision did any of that. It will then go to the Ninth Circuit, and they too have the same criteria, however, they have more broad authority. If that fails, then the SCOTUS gets to hear it, or they can reject the case. My guess is they'll hear it, but, it is my theory that the conservative justices, and Kennedy, will want to run from it. I provided them a way out, and I made that clear. The SCOTUS has broad sweeping power to decide constitutional matters, and in fact due to substantive interpretation, have authority to "write law", and effectively legislate from the bench.

    My way out for them, is to the question of what constitutes a fundamental right. If they can qualify a right, and find substantively that a fundamental right to marriage does not exist to all classes, or at least to only one class historically, then they may rule that Walker erred in his ruling, and that no 14th Amendment issue exists. It's not a straw man, it is an alternative way to argue the position for the proponents in defense of traditional marriage. think of it as a procedural thing. The court must decide certain matters of law in a specific order, first comes due process. In Walkers decision, he glances over due process, I think the SCOTUS will review with more scrutiny, and I believe from everything I've read on this case, that the burden of due process was in fact met.

    If I were routinely accused of committing fallacies I would not get used to it, and would really start to wonder why personally.. but I am a "unique individual"
    Hmm.. Yes but to date, I have only been shown why something was a fallacy, by the person making the accusation, twice. Once by you, and once in another thread. In the other thread, it turns out, and through a vibrant debate that I did commit the fallacy of excluded middle. Here however, I have done no such thing. There is no straw man! Bringing up polygamy was only to illustrate a point I was making about fundamental rights. I wasn't arguing for polygamy in a general sense, only using it as an example of a contradiction. In other words, I wasn't setting up polygamy, only to knock it down, and as a result, nullify the gay marriage argument. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The two matters, (polygamy and GM) have different legal barriers to cross, but in terms of what constitutes a fundamental right, I used them in tangent, as they are, in fact, identical to the argument I make for the efficacy of marriage as a fundamental right.

    CC -
    And I LOVE playing with you because of your flawed reasoning... which I have pointed out several times, already on this thread. You make it so easy.
    You've done no such thing. Marduc, on the other hand at least made an attempt to point out why he thoughts something I asserted was incorrect. You, to date, have NEVER made an equal attempt. All you do, (in fact on this forum from everything I've read from you) is claim that someone is wrong, or committed some error in reasoning, and claim victory based on your accusation alone. Well, I have noticed that for some here, that follow you blindly, it is sufficient for them that because you say something is so, it is so. But in the real world, and with an opponent (Like me) that carries with him years of debate experience, and the intellectual capacity to spot your "technique", you're rather very pathetic when it comes to debate. Let me make it crystal clear for you one last time. When you accuse someone of faulty reasoning, or making an error in logic, it is customary among courteous people to make the argument as to why you think they are wrong. It is NOT enough to simply say, "because I said so".. Do you understand that. For example, if I enter a thread, and say to X member that they made an error in reasoning, or they perhaps inadvertently made a logical error, I will show them why. I will say something to the affect: "Here's why you're wrong" and then continue to paint the picture. You so far are incapable of that courtesy. And for someone named, "CaptainCourtesy", I would have expected more.

    I know that you don't like me, and I'm ok with that, but one thing I am not, is a liar, nor am I discourteous to other members. I respect all opinions on the face. When you continue to make accusations that someone is wrong without providing substance, you invalidate your presence in a debate thread. I know some don't see it that way here, but I do.

    Prove that polygamy is NOT a red herring by showing it's benefits and how they outweigh it's negatives.
    What audacity to demand I prove my assertions, when you yourself have never done so. But, no matter, as I stated above, my illustration on polygamy was only to add weight to the argument I was making concerning fundamental rights, and marriage. In that premise alone, polygamy, under the current understanding of what constitutes a fundamental right to marriage, is as equally valid as GM, and Straight marriage, period. And that's all I was saying..

    Marduc -
    now I am no constitutional scholar or anything, but it seems there is a lot of latitude independent of a fundamental rights classification to find issue with this based on the 14th, and the clause I quoted above
    You didn't read the whole thread, or maybe you did and missed it, but we covered it for about 30 pages starting at page 72-ish. The key word is "without" Due Process..

    Zyphlin -
    I'll leave this one up to CC, but the vast majority of studies I've seen linked or referenced that are legitimately peer reviewed and undebunked regarding sexual orientation point to nature over nurture in regards to said orientation
    This is an example of why I need to be here. CC is no authority on homosexuality, IMO. Zyphlin, there are no "debunking" of "peer-reviewed" studies because there is nothing to debunk. Meaning, no study, not a single one I have seen makes any conclusive statement regarding the cause of homosexuality. Period!

    I haven't read every page yet, so I retain the right to come back..

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Posting Permissions

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