Page 16 of 35 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 347

Thread: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

  1. #151
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,545

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Are you kidding me? Even corprorations in our country are recognized as having Constitutional rights.
    Yes, and they are considered individuals in that respect.
    “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. #152
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So, you do see, there -are- reasons that the protections of the 14th do not necessarily apply to everyone - that certain people -can- be denied privilges enjoyed by others without violating the 14th.
    Yes. The only problem is, your example was an example of emancipation and those individuals who are considered minors. And unfortunately for your example, we're not discussing minors. We are discussing homosexual adults. And if you are going to deny an adult immunities and privileges, you're gonna need due process. That's straight out of the Constitution of the USA.
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-08-10 at 12:48 AM.

  3. #153
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Well this will be an excellent opportunity for the state to assert, rather than "presume", that procreation is the state interest for marriage. As it is right now, Walker is correct. The state has not argued that its interest in limiting marriage to a man and woman is based procreation. Furthermore, Walker has provided that the state has another, much more important interest in marriage, and that is providing stable homes for children. Something which same sex couples are will equipped to do, and which would provide a great benefit to the state. So not only will the state need to assert that its interest in marriage is for procreation, but that it is the primary interest in comparison to providing stable homes for children
    Of which it is my opinion that it is.

    I will state this one more time. Fundamental, as it is understood in the context of the Constitution, relates to life, liberty, and property
    Wrong on both parts. It is neither fundamental to the constitution, that life, liberty, and property are defining criteria, but also that this is your definition for fundamental. They may be fundamental, "things", but they are not, by themselves, enough to define fundamental.

    Now you can go find 50 different definitions of "fundamental" but the only one that is relevant to the courts are those that are related to Due Process, which are life, liberty, and property
    How obtuse of you? Seriously? Life is a fundamental right, liberty is a fundamental right, property, well maybe not so much a fundamental right - they do not define fundamental in any legal context. Not even close!


    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

  4. #154
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No - you did not read what he said..
    Under (certain) current law, straight men cannot marry another man. Gay men cannot marry another man.
    As such, -every- group is denied the privilege of marrying a person of the same sex, and as such, there's no discrimination againt gays because the same restriction applies to everyone.
    No, I understood perfectly. You are discussing 'under (certain) current law', as am I. The only difference is you are attempting to interpret the 14th Amendment, and I was reading it literally. And being that the lawyers argued the case on this very point (and won), then there you have it. You may certainly disagree with same sex marriage, but in a court of law, you'd better be ready to prove that the privilege is not Constitutionally protected. Given the wording of the Amendment, it's pretty much cut-and-dried unless you engage in interpretation; in which case, every Amendment would potentially be subject to interpretation regardless of how plain the wording.

  5. #155
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Of which it is my opinion that it is.
    Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and not providing stable homes for children?

    Interesting opinon.

    Wrong on both parts. It is neither fundamental to the constitution, that life, liberty, and property are defining criteria, but also that this is your definition for fundamental. They may be fundamental, "things", but they are not, by themselves, enough to define fundamental.
    I'm going by the actual defintiion of fundamental in Constitutional law. And your counterargument makes absolutely no sense.

    How obtuse of you? Seriously? Life is a fundamental right, liberty is a fundamental right, property, well maybe not so much a fundamental right - they do not define fundamental in any legal context. Not even close!
    All right. Provide me with Constitutional law's definitoin of fundamental. Not wikipedias or some dictionaries, but the actual definition that courts will consider.

  6. #156
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But rights are individual things. It's not a right of "couples." It's a right of an individual person to marry.

    Are you saying, though, that sexual attraction to each other is a necessary part of marriage?
    And isn't that what was argued in court, the right of the individual to marry his/her same sex partner?

    Regarding your second question, I would answer with one of my own. Why would someone get married to a partner that he/she was not sexually attracted to nowadays? Do you know of such examples personally? And given that it's a possibility, would those be healthy marriages, you think?

  7. #157
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and not providing stable homes for children?
    This is one result from marriage, but not a gaurante. So what comes first, CT, the marriage or the children? You pick..

    I'm going by the actual defintiion of fundamental in Constitutional law. And your counterargument makes absolutely no sense.
    Oh, right I forgot. And that definition again is, what?

    All right. Provide me with Constitutional law's definitoin of fundamental. Not wikipedias or some dictionaries, but the actual definition that courts will consider
    Wait, I thought you knew? At least I provided you a link, you, thus far, have not extended the courtesy. Why don't you show me where fundamental is defined and charactrized in US law as pertaining to life, liberty, and property?

    I'm waiting... Tic... Tic...Tic...



    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

  8. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    If I were against gay marriage, I would do everything in my power to keep this from going to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty much a guarantee that Prop 8 would be struck down given the nature of this case. Literally, the 14th Amendment states:

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

    There is no way to twist the meaning of that section. No state can enforce any law which abridges the privileges of U.S citizens, and since most gay marriage opponents believe marriage to be a privilege and not a right, then there you have it.

    Seems pretty open and shut to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Where in the Constitution does it specifically state gay marriage as a privilege?
    /me points up

  9. #159
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    /me points up
    I already pointed out how that says nothing about marriage, sexuality, and redefining something to mean what it isn't. Homosexual unions being recognized as marriag is not a constitutional right.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #160
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    This is one result from marriage, but not a gaurante. So what comes first, CT, the marriage or the children? You pick..
    Well given that I have seen children adopted in wonderful homes by married couples both gay and straight, and I've also seen some birth parents who neglect, abuse, and abandon their chldren, I don't really put the same value on procreation that you seem to. In fact, I don't even understand the value you put on procreation.

    Oh, right I forgot. And that definition again is, what?

    Wait, I thought you knew? At least I provided you a link, you, thus far, have not extended the courtesy. Why don't you show me where fundamental is defined and charactrized in US law as pertaining to life, liberty, and property?

    I'm waiting... Tic... Tic...Tic...
    Sure thing. I guess you can't be bothered to go look in a legal dictionary yourself.

    Fundamental right

    "In constitutional law, certain rights protected by the due process or equal protection clause that cannot be regulated unless the regulating law passes a rigorous set of criteria (strict scrutiny). Fundamental rights, as defined by the Supreme Court, include various rights of privacy (such as marriage and contraception), the right to interstate travel, and the right to vote."

    -Nolo's Plain English Law Dicationary

    fundamental right definition - Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

    Fundamental right

    "a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference."

    -Webster's New World Law Dictionary

    fundamental right - Legal Definition
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 09-08-10 at 01:19 AM.

Page 16 of 35 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •