Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76

Thread: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

  1. #71
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight 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.



    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 governmet in
    i
    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?
    Expressing a moral disapproval of homosexual sodomy isn't a legitimate state interest.
    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. #72
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,482

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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.
    The Supreme Court defined marriage as a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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.
    I never claimed that demonstrating a compelling interest is easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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.
    The issue of whether or not the State's judgement of morality constituted a compelling interest played only a minor role in the decision. The cornerstone of the decision, in my view, rested on the Supreme Court's disagreement with the State on the constitutionality of how the law was applied. The State admitted that it was only applying the law to homosexuals, that heterosexuals were free to engage in sodomy, and argued that this was Constitutional. The Court strongly disagreed.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 09-05-14 at 11:41 PM.

  3. #73
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    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."

    The same could be said of the God-awful, completely unprincipled opinions Justice Kennedy wrote in Casey, Lawrence, and Windsor. He grew up in Sacramento, and as a high school student once got to shake the hand of his hero, the then-Governor of California Earl Warren. Sometimes I think Kennedy imagines he's the reincarnation of Chief Justice Warren, arrogating to the Supreme Court the authority to right all sorts of social wrongs, something the Warren Court became famous (or infamous) for doing.
    So you call the majority opinion in Lawrence unprincipled while defending the completely mind numbing populist garbage by Scalia: "Many americans don't want homosexuals as neighbors" to justify his vote, just after lamenting that the court "ought not to get involved in the culture war." What a two faced piece of ****.

    From wiki: "In a 5–4 decision issued on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court found Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7) to be unconstitutional,[1][2][3][42] "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment".[5]:25[43] The Court held that the Constitution prevented the federal government from treating state-sanctioned heterosexual marriages differently than state-sanctioned same-sex marriages,"

    Scalia (and yourself it seems) can stop lying that there was no intent to find constitutional basis for Windsor. Anyone not completely enslaved to the religious right can see that "DOMA" violated equal protection. This is a worthless complaint from scalia anyway, since where the hell does the constitution say "we don't want you as neighbors so you don't get the same rights"?

    Just be grateful the next feud with your neighbor doesn't result in yourself being unable to marry or choose your sex partner, though i sometimes think a taste of such 2nd class status is the only way people like you could comprehend how hateful these 'causes' are.

  4. #74
    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 chromium View Post
    So you call the majority opinion in Lawrence unprincipled while defending the completely mind numbing populist garbage by Scalia: "Many americans don't want homosexuals as neighbors" to justify his vote, just after lamenting that the court "ought not to get involved in the culture war."
    It's clear Justice Scalia's words sometimes reach numb minds, but I don't blame Scalia for making them numb. I have no doubt that many Americans do not want homosexuals as neighbors--or their business partners, or their children's teachers. What of it? There's no law that says anyone has to approve of homosexuality, or like homosexuals.

    I agree with him completely that the Supreme Court exceeds its authority in decisions like Lawrence. It is a fundamentally undemocratic process.

    What a two faced piece of ****.
    Are you addressing that to Scalia, or to me? It's not at all clear from the context.

    Scalia (and yourself it seems) can stop lying
    It seems? You are calling me a liar. If you think the civility standards on these forums allow that, keep it up, and we will find out very quickly.

    that there was no intent to find constitutional basis for Windsor.
    I don't give a damn if there was an intent to find a constitutional basis for a decision. What counts is whether there is one that it rational and intelligible. As Justice Scalia noted, the majority decision is so garbled it's not possible to say for sure just what the constitutional basis for it is. The decisions Justice Kennedy authored in Casey, Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor should be used in con law classes as examples of the Supreme Court cooking up gobbledygook to justify the result the majority wanted.

    Anyone not completely enslaved to the religious right
    What book did you get that catchy bit of doggerel from?

    can see that "DOMA" violated equal protection.
    Is that what you think Kennedy's opinion said? I'm with Scalia--it's so confused and garbled I'm really sure if it's based on equal protection of something else. But with your knowledge of constitutional law--which seems to be far beyond even Scalia's--apparently it's clear to you.

    where the hell does the constitution say "we don't want you as neighbors so you don't get the same rights"?
    More to the point, what is the basis for making homosexuals a protected class under the Fourteenth Amendment? I guess you know that amendment was directed at blacks.

    Just be grateful the next feud with your neighbor doesn't result in yourself being unable to marry or choose your sex partner, though i sometimes think a taste of such 2nd class status is the only way people like you could comprehend how hateful these 'causes' are.
    People like me? What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is the third time in a single post you have made a personally insulting remark. If you say anything like that to me again, I will report you for it. I came to this site for civil, intelligent debate--I can hear offensive nonsense from any dope on a bar stool.
    Last edited by matchlight; 09-10-14 at 12:33 PM.

  5. #75
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    It's clear Justice Scalia's words sometimes reach numb minds, but I don't blame Scalia for making them numb. I have no doubt that many Americans do not want homosexuals as neighbors--or their business partners, or their children's teachers. What of it? There's no law that says anyone has to approve of homosexuality, or like homosexuals.

    I agree with him completely that the Supreme Court exceeds its authority in decisions like Lawrence. It is a fundamentally undemocratic process.
    It's interesting that someone like Scalia can declare the court exceeds its authority in overturning democratically enacted legislation while simultaneously voting to overturn democratically enacted legislation. Yeah, no wonder you like Scalia. Because then you get to twist the constitution into whatever belief you like.
    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. #76
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Is that what you think Kennedy's opinion said? I'm with Scalia--it's so confused and garbled I'm really sure if it's based on equal protection of something else. But with your knowledge of constitutional law--which seems to be far beyond even Scalia's--apparently it's clear to you.
    Scalia doesn't give a damn what the constitution says either. He oppresses particular groups using nothing but his personal hatred as justification. He's a walking caricature of the religious right.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    More to the point, what is the basis for making homosexuals a protected class under the Fourteenth Amendment? I guess you know that amendment was directed at blacks.
    Windsor referred to the 5th amendment, but there is no mention of race in the 14th. It was crafted to address race inequality, but while they were at it, added language to ensure *no one* would be deprived of equal protection. It covers everyone, period, and it's a damn good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    People like me? What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is the third time in a single post you have made a personally insulting remark. If you say anything like that to me again, I will report you for it. I came to this site for civil, intelligent debate--I can hear offensive nonsense from any dope on a bar stool.
    Everything you've said has been personally insulting to homosexuals, so you don't deserve civility. I'm done with you, rest assured.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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