Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 76

Thread: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

  1. #41
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I have literally no doubt at all in my mind that this ruling won't stand. There was bound to be such a ruling eventually, and it doesn't surprise me at all that it came from a confederate state. Perhaps we'll need a national ruling after all. Either way, this ruling hinges on protected classes, which is a pretty shoddy argument. It relies on the idea that one must be a protected class in order to have equal rights. Again, there is no way that such a poorly supported decision can stand.
    Wow if that's the decision then the judge needs to take a constitution 101 class. That is just beyond stupidity

  2. #42
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Your last sentence only makes it more clear that you don't know enough about standards of review in due process and equal protection challenges to make an informed judgment about whether the applicable standard was met. It wasn't Judge Feldman who needed a legitimate reason, but the state of Louisiana.
    Nitpicking phrasing. Pathetic. Their legitimate reason was pure bull****. But the judge accepted it because he's inserting his personal dislike of same-sex marriage into the ruling.

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that in rational basis review, the court's job is not to decide whether it thinks the law under review was a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate government purpose. The court's job is rather to decide if it's conceivable that the legislators who made the law could have thought it was a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate government purpose.
    Great! So perhaps you'd like to tell me how it's reasonable for someone to have believed that banning same-sex marriage results in fewer children being taken from heterosexual parents. You see, it's not enough that they "could have believed it." They "could have" believed banning same-sex marriage would prevent the moon from falling out of the sky. There's that "reasonable" standard you mentioned.

    I'm waiting.

    The law is presumed rational, and courts usually defer strongly to the legislature's decision that it is. The law does not need to be best law that could have been written to achieve the legislative goal. In fact it doesn't need to go very far toward a conceivable legislative goal--courts will uphold a law that takes a "first step" toward a legitimate legislative goal, even if the court thinks the law is ill-advised.

    I don't have a Supreme Court decision discussing this in front of me, but if anyone wants to read the Court's explanation of how rational basis review works, I'm sure I can find one.
    And this particular goal isn't even remotely furthered by a same-sex marriage ban. It is outright absurd to suggest that connecting children with their biological parents is somehow furthered by banning two people of the same gender from marrying.

    There is nothing remotely reasonable or legitimate furthered by a same-sex marriage ban. Every single argument made in favor of same-sex marriage bans are blown out of the water. There's a reason no anti-equality person has ever identified a specific, measurable degree of harm caused by same-sex marriage. There isn't one. If there was a legitimate purpose, someone would have mentioned it by now. Instead, all we get is "tradition," or "state's rights," or "moral fabric." If you think you have other legitimate reasons, name them. I'll gladly shoot them down. You don't get to hide behind "well the burden isn't on the state." The state might not have to prove the interests, but they still have to name them when challenged. Otherwise the standard is "disprove a literally infinite number of possible reasons."


    And this is all just accepting rational basis as the correct standard, which I believe is incorrect. Numerous courts agree with me, including the 2nd circuit's decision in Windsor which the Supreme Court affirmed.
    Last edited by Deuce; 09-04-14 at 11:37 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    First, as your unsourced quote (presumably it is from a SCOTUS case) points out
    I cited the source for that quote right at the end of it.

    Starting with Romer v. Evans the court began to recognize that laws that target homosexuals were unconstitional not even surviving a rational basis examination.
    I would put it this way: starting with Romer, the justices who have signed on to the homosexual agenda, led by Anthony Kennedy, began to swing into high gear. The majority decision in Romer is a good example of the Supreme Court exceeding its constitutional authority and riding roughshod over the rights of the people of a state. That amendment to the Colorado constitution did not unfairly restrict the rights of homosexuals, nor was there evidence it was inspired by animosity. It was simply an attempt by the people of Colorado to prevent municipal governments from making ordinances that granted homosexuals, but not other people, rights in excess of those available under the state's laws--as several of them had done.

    Sure as hell does not comport with the extremely deferential rules the Court itself has established for rational basis review, as set out in the passage I quoted. There is a very good reason for that deference, by the way, which that passage alludes to when it mentions that the Court has no authority to "sit as a superlegislature." And that is respect for the separation of powers, a feature designed into the Constitution as one of a the main checks on abuse of government power. I think Justice Scalia hit it right on the head in his dissenting opinion in Romer:

    The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "'bare ... desire to harm' " homosexuals, ante, at 634, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion's heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court . . . Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive
    sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment.

    Then of course they could use rational basis and point out that the law doesn't even meet that standard.
    Going by Kennedy's opinions in Romer and Lawrence, particularly, I'd say that if the Supreme Court ever declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's most likely that would be its rationale.

  4. #44
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I cited the source for that quote right at the end of it.

    Sorry about that, when I read it I thought it was part of the quote.

    That's why when quoting a decision I tend cite the case, then indent, then provide and active link - makes it easier for fellow posters to read and then review the source for context.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Going by Kennedy's opinions in Romer and Lawrence, particularly, I'd say that if the Supreme Court ever declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's most likely that would be its rationale.
    Kennedy may have been the primary author of Romer and Lawrence, but the majority opinion was approved by 6 of 9 Justices in both cases who also had input as to the wording of the decision. A single Justice does not write an opinion in a vacuum.




    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 09-05-14 at 12:54 AM.

  5. #45
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I am against changing the name of marriage......What part of that do you not understand?
    But NP was A-OK with changing it when it was changed to fit his marriage. Wanna talk about hypocrisy?
    <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>

  6. #46
    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: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Your last sentence only makes it more clear that you don't know enough about standards of review in due process and equal protection challenges to make an informed judgment about whether the applicable standard was met. It wasn't Judge Feldman who needed a legitimate reason, but the state of Louisiana.

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that in rational basis review, the court's job is not to decide whether it thinks the law under review was a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate government purpose. The court's job is rather to decide if it's conceivable that the legislators who made the law could have thought it was a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate government purpose.

    The law is presumed rational, and courts usually defer strongly to the legislature's decision that it is. The law does not need to be best law that could have been written to achieve the legislative goal. In fact it doesn't need to go very far toward a conceivable legislative goal--courts will uphold a law that takes a "first step" toward a legitimate legislative goal, even if the court thinks the law is ill-advised.

    I don't have a Supreme Court decision discussing this in front of me, but if anyone wants to read the Court's explanation of how rational basis review works, I'm sure I can find one.

    No, you actually nailed it. I've been saying for years, ever since MA's ban was struck down by a single judge. The standard of rationale basis is on its face rationale because of the due process and rigorous debate within the legislative body. The judge here said that yes, this is a highly contentious issue, there are a myriad of opinions on either side, but the courts do not tread and should always tread lightly on legislative measures that, in there essence, come down to a matter of opinion. SS couples were seeking a new right NOT historically recognized as a right before them. Marriage in and of itself is a right, BUT only legally a right for one man and one woman. No fundamental right exists or existed for homosexuals. He also said that the social science isn't anywhere near settled on the matter, and rightfully (I believe rightfully) or wrongly, he brought up the infinite possible alternative marriage arrangements, to which the plaintiffs admitted would be deleterious to society, BUT not their alternative marriage.

    In short, by their own admission, allowing gay marriage would also set precedence for all the other alternative marriages, and that insodoing would create a complete mess of the tradition and institution as such to the detriment of society that government and the people would have to get out of the regulating marriage business altogether. Marriage law would be reduced to strict contract law. Ultimately I believe the judge here, Feldman, rightly anticipated the likely outcome to society, and made clear that the people have a right to decide through their legislative process whether they ultimately want to remove traditional recognition of marriage by the people, even if in doing so they exclude other and all brands of alternative marriages.


    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

  7. #47
    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: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    There is nothing remotely reasonable or legitimate furthered by a same-sex marriage ban. Every single argument made in favor of same-sex marriage bans are blown out of the water. There's a reason no anti-equality person has ever identified a specific, measurable degree of harm caused by same-sex marriage. There isn't one.
    Actually you did not read it did you? The plaintiffs here admitted what harm would come from SSM, even though they argued that "their" particular brand of marriage by itself was not harmful, the judge asked well by what measure would the court decide on other brands of marriage, aunts uncles, nieces, nephews, brother, sister, multiple partner marriages etc.. etc.. Would you agree that those brands would be deleterious? If you do, which any rational person would, then how can you make the claim above with a straight face?


    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. #48
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,209

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Actually there was another single judge in a confederate state recently, which NP made a thread about (i swear this is deja vu), that ruled the same. He's just spamming f5 on fox news site hoping for any anti gay news and comes running here to post, blissfully ignoring every indication that SSM will be legal even in louisiana swamps within a year, thanks to scotus.

    If i can shrug off the pro SSM rulings from dozens of states lately, because they're being appealed and scotus will decide it in the end, NP can do the same with these kind of "activist judge" rulings. He chooses not to because he's that damn spiteful.
    This is a federal district judge. The TN one was a circuit judge.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  9. #49
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Actually you did not read it did you? The plaintiffs here admitted what harm would come from SSM, even though they argued that "their" particular brand of marriage by itself was not harmful, the judge asked well by what measure would the court decide on other brands of marriage, aunts uncles, nieces, nephews, brother, sister, multiple partner marriages etc.. etc.. Would you agree that those brands would be deleterious? If you do, which any rational person would, then how can you make the claim above with a straight face?


    Tim-
    Post the quote you're talking about.

    The burden to justify a ban on polygamy does not ****ing fall onto proponents of same sex marriage. If you want to ban polygamy, you ****ing say why.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #50
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    No, you actually nailed it. I've been saying for years, ever since MA's ban was struck down by a single judge. The standard of rationale basis is on its face rationale because of the due process and rigorous debate within the legislative body.
    This is just plain stupid. If "it was enacted" inherently satisfies the rational basis test, then rational basis isnt a test at all. and the courts have recognized the stupidity of this notion and explicitly rejected the idea that passing a legislator is enough,

    In short, by their own admission, allowing gay marriage would also set precedence for all the other alternative marriages, and that insodoing would create a complete mess of the tradition and institution as such to the detriment of society that government and the people would have to get out of the regulating marriage business altogether. Marriage law would be reduced to strict contract law.
    Slippery slope fallacy is still a fallacy in the legal world. We can't let interracial couples marry, because then we have to let people marry children!




    Ultimately I believe the judge here, Feldman, rightly anticipated the likely outcome to society, and made clear that the people have a right to decide through their legislative process whether they ultimately want to remove traditional recognition of marriage by the people, even if in doing so they exclude other and all brands of alternative marriages.
    Redress against tyranny of the majority is part of the court's job. "Will of the people" and "tradition" dont satisfy the rational basis test.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •