Page 142 of 189 FirstFirst ... 4292132140141142143144152 ... LastLast
Results 1,411 to 1,420 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1411
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I think maybe I found it. I hope this is what Harshaw is referring to, since searching the document on the terms he provided has brought me to almost the end of the document(page 134 of 138). So here it is:



    Now, if this is what Harshaw is basing his comments on, we can already see the fracturing of his argument, but let's read on a bit more.



    The very start of this quote is why Harshaw's argument fails. "In the absence of rational basis". Gays where able to show that their being married is every bit as good as straits. For polygamy to be allowed, under this, and just this aspect of the ruling(and this is far from the only aspect relevant), they would have to show that the only reason to object is based on "moral disapproval", "animus" or unreasoned belief.
    You may think it fails if you don't know how to read a case or how to conduct proper legal issue-spotting.

    This IS the holding of the case. He boiled down what he considered the defendants' argument to be ruled on it.

    And the absence of a rational basis is a finding of fact. This decision doesn't rule on that for cases of polygamy. Under this ruling, you have to find a basis other than moral or traditional concerns for prohibitions of polygamy to stand. This case doesn't dispose of that issue; it invites it. It invites litigating the whole issue as to whether there IS a rational basis for such a prohibition, because any moral or traditional reasons are now out the window.

    So yeah, it's now a very live question, much moreso than it was before this decision, 'coz now you have to get past the "weird" factor for banning polygamy. You have to get into the facts.

    Before this, a state defining marriage under traditional, opposite-sex, two-person terms took care of the question. No more.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 08-07-10 at 05:29 PM.
    “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

  2. #1412
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I am not seeing where that was the basis for his ruling. Maybe you can actually quote where he said it so I can find it. I do see things like this though:

    This is not sounding like polygamy can easily shoehorn it's way into this ruling.
    How about here:

    marriage under law is a union of
    equals.
    The other things you quoted are summaries of the plaintiffs' arguments. They're not the holding.
    “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

  3. #1413
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,357
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    You may think it fails if you don't know how to read a case or how to conduct proper legal issue-spotting.

    This IS the holding of the case. He boiled down what he considered the defendants' argument to be ruled on it.

    And the absence of a rational basis is a finding of fact. This decision doesn't rule on that for cases of polygamy. Under this ruling, you have to find a basis other than moral or traditional concerns for prohibitions of polygamy to stand. This case doesn't dispose of that issue; it invites it. It invites litigating the whole issue as to whether there IS a rational basis for such a prohibition, because any moral or traditional reasons are now out the window.

    So yeah, it's now a very live question, much moreso than it was before this decision, 'coz now you have to get past the "weird" factor for banning polygamy. You have to get into the facts.

    Before this, a state defining marriage under traditional, opposite-sex, two-person terms took care of the question. No more.
    Except that there is and can be a rational basis to not extend marriage to polygamy.

    And the whole "You don't know what you are doing" bit is tired. One of us managed to actually back up their comments, and one of us has, and continues to, fail at doing so. You fail again in claiming that this quote "IS" the finding. It is not. It is a part of the finding, and a small part.
    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.

  4. #1414
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,357
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    How about here:



    The other things you quoted are summaries of the plaintiffs' arguments. They're not the holding.
    Hey look, you can take one tiny quote out of context and try and claim it means something. You are not doing well here, you might want to save legal analysis to those who know how to do it.
    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.

  5. #1415
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Before this, a state defining marriage under traditional, opposite-sex, two-person terms took care of the question. No more.
    Are you suggesting that there is no rational argument to be made against polygamy? Slippery slope arguments are a not a rational basis for determining policy or law.

  6. #1416
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Except that there is and can be a rational basis to not extend marriage to polygamy.
    And where in this decision was that rational basis found? Where in any decision was that rational basis found?


    And the whole "You don't know what you are doing" bit is tired. One of us managed to actually back up their comments, and one of us has, and continues to, fail at doing so.
    No, Redress; it's actually true. The first statement of yours I quoted above shows it conclusively. You claim there IS a rational basis for prohibiting polygamy, thus my argument fails. But you don't get to simply declare that there is such a rational basis. That is a question which must be litigated and ruled upon, in a federal venue. That you don't understand that is only illustrating what I'm saying. It would explain why you think my argument "fails," however.

    Also, that you think

    You fail again in claiming that this quote "IS" the finding. It is not. It is a part of the finding, and a small part.
    Redress, there's a difference between a "finding" and a "holding."

    And I never said it was the only holding; there are, in fact, TWO -- due process and equal protection. That paticular one I mention is the equal protection holding, and it's the one relevant to inroads for polygamy.

    But hey, if you want to get into his due process arguments, we can do that, too.

    “Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States”: “two parties . . . give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household.” “The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” "“[M]arriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.” But that’s “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage.” “Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents.” Plaintiffs’ same-sex relationships “are consistent with the core of the history, tradition, and practice of marriage in the United States.”"

    And on the basis of all of that, "“Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.”"

    Strict scrutiny. Do you know what that is? Do you know how high of a standard that is? Tell you what -- you apply strict scrutiny and explain exactly why a restriction on number would succeed when a restriction on gender would not. And do it without needing to litigate any questions, because that's what you need to do show my argument "fails."

    My argument, by the way, to remind you, is that this decision opens the question of polygamy in a way which was not available prior to this decision.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 08-07-10 at 06:15 PM.
    “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

  7. #1417
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Hey look, you can take one tiny quote out of context and try and claim it means something. You are not doing well here, you might want to save legal analysis to those who know how to do it.
    Yeah? Look above. Your turn.
    “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. #1418
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Are you suggesting that there is no rational argument to be made against polygamy? Slippery slope arguments are a not a rational basis for determining policy or law.
    Nope. I'm saying that it's an issue which must be litigated. Redress, however, is evidently claiming that there IS a rational basis, which is why my argument fails. But the decision says nothing of the kind.
    “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

  9. #1419
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Again, the moral issue is easily overridden by the benefit to society issue.

    But now that has to be litigated. Before this decision, it did not.
    “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

  10. #1420
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,357
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But now that has to be litigated. Before this decision, it did not.
    And you are still basing this on what you have based on your nonsense claims in this thread on. Because I say so is not a good argument.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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