Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

Thread: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

  1. #61
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Boy you really have a reading problem don't you? Turn off the blinders for a moment, Deuce? He is saying that the preferential treatment means granting their request against the peoples will over other requests that by and large the people would have full authority to otherwise be in their right to deny.


    Tim-
    We have a constitution to ensure that you don't have that authority. You don't get to squash the rights of the minority just because you have enough votes.
    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.

  2. #62
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Yes, it is good for a laugh to see someone with your knowledge of the law mocking Justice Scalia. I don't need to explain anything for him--read the case.
    Scalia is a partisan hack and even he admits that Lawrence requires us to legalize same-sex marriage.
    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. #63
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Maybe the most biting thing Justice Scalia said in his dissenting opinion in Romer was this:


    "Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."
    Funny, I say that about many of Scalia's writings. Scalia is the sort of person to say "this court has no authority to overturn legislation" when the day before he had just voted to overturn legislation! (edit: well, just released the decisions, anyway)

    United States vs. Windsor

    "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."
    The day before, in Shelby County, Albama v. Holder he votes to overturn section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.


    I've already dispensed with the "connecting children to biological parents" reasoning. Give another legitimate purpose. I'll destroy it. And maybe if you really want a debate here, you'll do it without the personal attacks.
    Last edited by Deuce; 09-05-14 at 07:42 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.

  4. #64
    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
    Again, the burden is not on proponents of same-sex marriage to justify a ban on polygamy. If there is no legitimate reason to ban polygamy, there's no legitimate reason to ban polygamy. This has no bearing on same-sex marriage any more than interracial marriage did. But fine, let's go with your slippery slope. Because you are unable to identify why your brand of marriage is different than same-sex marriage, we have to legalize same-sex marriage.
    But the people have said that traditional marriage is superior to homosexual marriage, and they are correct! It is also superior to any other kind of alternative marriage. You keep including race as tantamount to the plight of gays, and that has been repeatedly refuted as complete and utter nonsense, but I understand that this is your and narrative and that of the gay rights crowd, and you all continue to do it, BUT clear thinking American's with their own minds and sense of common sense reject that argument on its 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

  5. #65
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    But the people have said that traditional marriage is superior to homosexual marriage, and they are correct! It is also superior to any other kind of alternative marriage. You keep including race as tantamount to the plight of gays, and that has been repeatedly refuted as complete and utter nonsense, but I understand that this is your and narrative and that of the gay rights crowd, and you all continue to do it, BUT clear thinking American's with their own minds and sense of common sense reject that argument on its face..


    Tim-
    "The people said so" does not satisfy the rational basis test. That's just a rewording of "it was enacted, therefore it is legitimate."

    If that satisfies the test, rational basis isn't a test. This idea has already been dismissed by the courts.

    Even accepting the sketchy premise that rational basis is the correct level of scrutiny, you still haven't met it.
    Last edited by Deuce; 09-05-14 at 08:33 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.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    As Louisiana goes, so goes...Mississippi? Alabama? Nobody?
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  7. #67
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,483

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    The legal question here is one of discrimination and that is why arguments supporting same-sex marriage bans almost invariably fail in the courtroom and will ultimately fail in the Supreme Court. The State can undermine virtually any constitutional right it wants to so long as it can demonstrate a compelling State interest AND applies such a limitation equally. That last part is why the State of Texas lost the Lawrence v. Texas case and why same-sex marriage bans will be struck down by the Supreme Court. Even if a State were to demonstrate a compelling interest, which has yet to happen, none of the States apply it equally across all marriage license applicants.

  8. #68
    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
    "The people said so" does not satisfy the rational basis test. That's just a rewording of "it was enacted, therefore it is legitimate."

    If that satisfies the test, rational basis isn't a test. This idea has already been dismissed by the courts.

    Even accepting the sketchy premise that rational basis is the correct level of scrutiny, you still haven't met it.
    Nice strawman.. The people through their representative legislative body do have the duty to provide for the most stable society they believe is possible. Legislative bodies are important for many reasons, and in this matter, through rigorous debate, even though hotly contested on a matter not settled in the foray of public opinion, or science for that matter, the duty of the citizenry is to decide these matters, and unless it becomes unambiguously clear and evident that denying SS couples the privilege of state sanctioned marriage - along with the reasonable assumption that by doing so you open the door to any other alternative marriage, then society should err with caution. It is reasonable for a civilized society to want to not do that, and to demand that their representatives echo their wants and desires. This process is rational. It is for you, like it is with the plaintiffs in the case at bar, to answer how their brand of marriage would not create a precedence for other types of marriage, to which they admitted they could not, nor could they say why their brand of marriage was superior or necessary for society to adopt over all the other possible alternatives - further, admission that endless types of marriages would be deleterious to the institution of marriage, but more importantly to society, they impeach the very idea they bring to the bench.


    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

  9. #69
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Nice strawman.. The people through their representative legislative body do have the duty to provide for the most stable society they believe is possible. Legislative bodies are important for many reasons, and in this matter, through rigorous debate, even though hotly contested on a matter not settled in the foray of public opinion, or science for that matter, the duty of the citizenry is to decide these matters, and unless it becomes unambiguously clear and evident that denying SS couples the privilege of state sanctioned marriage - along with the reasonable assumption that by doing so you open the door to any other alternative marriage, then society should err with caution. It is reasonable for a civilized society to want to not do that, and to demand that their representatives echo their wants and desires. This process is rational. It is for you, like it is with the plaintiffs in the case at bar, to answer how their brand of marriage would not create a precedence for other types of marriage, to which they admitted they could not, nor could they say why their brand of marriage was superior or necessary for society to adopt over all the other possible alternatives - further, admission that endless types of marriages would be deleterious to the institution of marriage, but more importantly to society, they impeach the very idea they bring to the bench.


    Tim-
    No, you are literally just restating "because this was legislated, it passes the rational basis test."

    That isn't how the 14th amendment works. That isn't how any level of constitutional scrutiny works. Banning redheads from marrying blondes would pass constitutional scrutiny using your line of reasoning, because the people elected the representatives who made that law. It's ridiculous.

    "I want it" is not a rational basis. Unless you're six years old, anyway. And honestly, I have no idea what to say to someone who thinks that someone has to justify same-sex marriage by proving it wont lead to other types of marriage. Why don't you justify heterosexual marriage by proving it doesn't lead to marrying animals or furniture?
    Last edited by Deuce; 09-05-14 at 11:07 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.

  10. #70
    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 Napoleon View Post
    The State can undermine virtually any constitutional right it wants to so long as it can demonstrate a compelling State interest AND applies such a limitation equally.
    Demonstrating a compelling interest is the language of strict scrutiny. In due process and equal protection challenges, that level of scrutiny applies only to laws that involve a fundamental right or create a suspect classification. Contrary to what you're claiming, it is very hard for a state to show that a challenged law is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, as it has to do for the law to survive strict scrutiny. But everything in the Supreme Court's decisions in this area--Romer and Lawrence in particular--suggests the Court will want to stay far away from using heightened scrutiny if it ever evaluates the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage law.

    That last part is why the State of Texas lost the Lawrence v. Texas case
    I don't read Lawrence that way. What it turned on was the majority's decree that promoting the views of the majority on sexual morality is no longer even a legitimate interest of a state government. Evidently the fact the Supreme Court had never even hinted at such a thing, and the fact every state in the country had from the beginning taken for granted that regulating sexual morals was a legitimate government interest meant little or nothing to Justice Kennedy et al.

    What Kennedy was picking up on was an idea expressed by Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion seventeen years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick, a decision that upheld a Georgia sodomy law and that the Lawrence majority claimed to be overruling. I say "claimed" because the opinion is very careful to leave in place the central holding of Bowers: that there is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy. The majority's reasoning in Lawrence was that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional not because it infringed some protected constitutional right, but because advancing the majority of Texans' moral disapproval of homosexual sodomy was not a legitimate government interest. Completely unprecedented in our laws, and it puts laws against things like bestiality, adult incest, bigamy, prostitution, etc. on very shaky ground.

    none of the States apply it equally across all marriage license applicants.
    I don't know what you are trying to say. No state marriage law treats all would-be marriage partners equally, or ever has. They all discriminate against prospective partners when one or both is younger than a certain age. They all discriminate against prospective partners when one or both is already married. They all discriminate against partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree. They all discriminate against plural partners. Where is the equal protection of the laws, that all this flagrant discrimination is tolerated?
    Last edited by matchlight; 09-05-14 at 11:19 PM.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •