Page 29 of 35 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 347

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

  1. #281
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It doesnt matter how many times your petulance forces you post this - the fact is that everyone suffers the same restrictions and enjoys the same privileges under the law, and thus, there is no disctimination.
    Everyone does not suffer the same restrictions. YOU can marry a woman. That is not the same restriction that I have since I can NOT marry a woman.


    EDIT: If we had a ban stating that no person can marry someone of another race, that would still violate the equal protection clause and due process. Even if it did apply to everyone. It would be racial discrimination.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 09-09-10 at 04:17 PM.

  2. #282
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

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

    If a state does not create the legal institution of marriage, then it doesnt exist. This necessarily precludes the notion of marriage being a right, as rights are not created or granted by states.
    If you were right, then a state could not repeal its marriage laws, eliminating the institution of marriage; that states can do this any time they want proves that you are wrong.
    First of all, marriage is a single institution, with aspects that are cultural, economic, and legal in nature.

    Secondly, the states can't do that constitutionally. They can reduce entitlements for future marriage contracts, but they can't even dissolve previously existing contracted entitlements, let alone the contract of marriage in its entirety. Its against a bunch of federal rulings and laws to dissolve contracts like that. I would imagine they wouldn't be allowed suspend the institution of marriage either, unless they allowed it to be privatized, but that's never happened, so it is speculative. But the none of the 50 states can outlaw marriages without violating the U.S. Constitution. Extricate themselves, sure, if they follow the established protocols, but they can't get rid of the institution anymore than they can get rid of religious institutions, partially because marriage is a function of those institutions.

    None of this changes or reduces anythnig I said - the issue is marriage as a legal institution as defined and recognized by the state.
    Being defined by the state doesn't make it a privilege. Rights are defined and recognized by the state as well.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 09-09-10 at 03:58 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  3. #283
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Riv, I see an awful lot of "because I said so" here, and you're arguing a position few take. You may disagree with the positions they do take, but they take them nonetheless. The judge ruled on discrimination against sexual orientation. He did.
    Discrimination against sexual orientation due to the discrimination based on gender. Were it not for the gender discrimination, there wouldn't BE any issue with the sexual orientation.

    Look, it's certainly fine to disagree with the prevailing winds, and it's certainly fine to make your own novel argument. But this notion of yours that not only is your argument the only possible one, and thus, everyone who is for same-sex marriage must hold that position, is just plain baffling and not what I have come to expect from you.
    LMFAO This is not a novel argument. It all comes down to gender. I'd love for you to explain how it does not come down to gender when homosexuals and bisexuals are not prevented from marrying.

  4. #284
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    First of all, marriage is a single institution, with aspects that are cultural, economic, and legal in nature.
    The only relevant portion of this is the legal institution.

    Secondly, the states can't do that constitutionally. They can reduce entitlements for future marriage contracts, but they can't even dissolve previously existing contracted entitlements,
    They proibably cannot eliminate current marriages, but they CAN repeal the laws that allow marraiges to be created in the state, they CAN eliminate the legal recongition of a marriage, and they can repeal the legal benefits provided by the state to those who are married.

    I would imagine they wouldn't be allowed suspend the institution of marriage either...
    Based on what? Nothing requires the states to provide befenfits to married couples, allow people to enjoy marriage as a legal institution or recognize that couples are married, and as such, nothing can prevent their repeal.

    Being defined by the state doesn't make it a privilege.
    Being CREATED and GRANTED by the state, does. Thus, privilege.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-09-10 at 05:08 PM.

  5. #285
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Everyone does not suffer the same restrictions.
    They do.
    None can marry the same gender. All can marry the opposite gender.
    Thus, same for everyone.

  6. #286
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    They do.
    None can marry the same gender. All can marry the opposite gender.
    Thus, same for everyone.
    Yeah, sure. No one being allowed to marry outside their own race wouldn't be discrimination or a violation of equal protection either, eh?

    Give me a ****ing break. It is not the same for everyone, no matter how many times you repeat it.

  7. #287
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Discrimination against sexual orientation due to the discrimination based on gender. Were it not for the gender discrimination, there wouldn't BE any issue with the sexual orientation.
    I'm sorry. That's just not what he said.



    LMFAO This is not a novel argument.
    It's novel in the sense that you're one of the few using at as your argument -- and your SOLE argument.


    It all comes down to gender. I'd love for you to explain how it does not come down to gender when homosexuals and bisexuals are not prevented from marrying.
    I can see many arguments in favor of any kind of social construct having absolutely nothing to do with gender, easily, no question. You can't?
    “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. #288
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Yeah, sure. No one being allowed to marry outside their own race wouldn't be discrimination or a violation of equal protection either, eh?
    Non sequitur. Try again.

  9. #289
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Non sequitur. Try again.
    Incorrect. Banning of interracial marriage would be a violation of equal protection even if it did apply to everyone. It would be racial discrimination. So, even if one were to buy your incessant mantra about all things are equal since no one can marry someone of the same gender, it is not so. It is still a violation of equal protection, and still discrimination.

    It logically follows. Feel free to show how it doesn't. Unless you think banning interracial marriage, or inter-faith marriages somehow wouldn't be discrimination and would be "equality".

  10. #290
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,751

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The only relevant portion of this is the legal institution.


    They proibably cannot eliminate current marriages, but they CAN repeal the laws that allow marraiges to be created in the state, they CAN eliminate the legal recongition of a marriage, and they can repeal the legal benefits provided by the state to those who are married.


    Based on what? Nothing requires the states to provide befenfits to married couples, allow people to enjoy marriage as a legal institution or recognize that couples are married, and as such, nothing can prevent their repeal.


    Being CREATED and GRANTED by the state, does. Thus, privilege.
    Marriage was never granted by the State. It was usurped by the State. Our forefathers, who wrote our Constitution, never had to get a license. they just got married.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 29 of 35 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... 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
  •