View Poll Results: How will SCOTUS rule on SSM issue?

Voters
247. You may not vote on this poll
  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, but I'm against it.

    3 1.21%
  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, and I'm in favor of it too.

    151 61.13%
  • They'll rule against SSM, and I'm against it as well.

    26 10.53%
  • They'll rule against SSM, but I support SSM rights.

    16 6.48%
  • They won't actually rule on it. Some loop hole will prevent a true decision.

    38 15.38%
  • They'll wuss out and leave it to each state - which is total BS in my mind.

    20 8.10%
  • They'll leave it to each state, as it should be in my opinion.

    17 6.88%
  • other - please explain

    2 0.81%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 182

Thread: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

  1. #81
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    If that were true then most (if not all) gun control laws would be ruled unconstitutional. If SSM is made universal then how can a male only draft law stand? How can gender based differences in military "fitness" standards pass muster under equal protection?
    First those haven't been challenged. And the draft one might not stand, although the gender based fitness standards would because they are based on measuring individual fitness level as a measure of health for individual service members, and not a measure of ability to do any particular job or task the person must do for their particular field. It is the same reason there are also age differences (about every 5-10 years, I hit another this year) when it comes to those standards.

    Not sure what you are trying to say about gun control which is a completely separate issue as well.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #82
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I wonder what the immediate impact would then be on states such as California, who had their rights overturned by courts. Do they have to re-legislate?

    That's actually a very good question. There are multiple ways that the SCOTUS can rule either for or against such bans. Total national applicability for. Total national applicability upholding all bans. Targeted applicability crafting a ruling to uphold the ban applicable ONLY to the 4 states under the jurisdiction of the 6th Circuit - thereby leaving the rulings of the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuits in place. Targeted applicability crafting a ruling to overturn the ban applicable ONLY to the 4 states under the jurisdiction of the 6th Circuit - thereby leaving the rulings of the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuits in place.

    The target solution leaves then the 10 remaining states with a ban in place pending further legislative or judicial to address those individual states.



    >>>>

  3. #83
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    First those haven't been challenged. And the draft one might not stand, although the gender based fitness standards would because they are based on measuring individual fitness level as a measure of health for individual service members, and not a measure of ability to do any particular job or task the person must do for their particular field. It is the same reason there are also age differences (about every 5-10 years, I hit another this year) when it comes to those standards.

    Not sure what you are trying to say about gun control which is a completely separate issue as well.
    The use of Loving is not applicable because that decision prohibited disallowing some women (or men) from marrying some other men (or women) based on race - it did not say, or even imply, that gender restrictions were taboo. A law applying to all women (or all men) is not even close to a law based on mixing of the races. The same gender/age "variance" that is considered legal for military fitness standards (or PPACA) is obviously not equal yet you seem to defend it.

    What I am trying to say about gun control is that individual constitutional rights should never change when one crosses a state line - the same basic argument that is being used for SSM. If a constitutional right exists for an individual then that right should never be dependent upon a federal, state or local law - how can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime in TX?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #84
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The use of Loving is not applicable because that decision prohibited disallowing some women (or men) from marrying some other men (or women) based on race - it did not say, or even imply, that gender restrictions were taboo. A law applying to all women (or all men) is not even close to a law based on mixing of the races. The same gender/age "variance" that is considered legal for military fitness standards (or PPACA) is obviously not equal yet you seem to defend it.

    What I am trying to say about gun control is that individual constitutional rights should never change when one crosses a state line - the same basic argument that is being used for SSM. If a constitutional right exists for an individual then that right should never be dependent upon a federal, state or local law - how can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime in TX?
    You are wrong about gender. While the same level of scrutiny doesn't apply the same as race, sex/gender is still protected from being used to discriminate against people without the government being able to show an at least important state interest is furthered by that restriction, a bar that cannot be met be same sex marriage bans.

    You obviously do not understand them so try to use a simplified and failed argument against them. If we were talking about standards for doing a particular job, such as having to be able swim across a certain distance in a given time with certain gear on because that would be expected of you in your job description, then men and women, all ages should have the same requirements because it is not a measure of individual fitness but rather ability to do the job. However fitness tests that you are referring to are based on measuring individual fitness levels by comparing test results to an average reached for measuring how fit people are in various groups due to doctors/scientists recognizing that yes there are physiological differences between men and women and between people of different age groups. These facts are supported by scientific evidence, which is why no one has bothered challenging these differences, because of the basis for the restrictions and the reasons for the tests to begin with.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #85
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    ...how can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime in TX?

    To have a better analogy you would need to ask (assuming the laws were structured this way): "How can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime for TX for women to open carry but not illegal for men?"

    In your scenario AZ accepts open carry for ALL people (baring those who may not be able to own firearms) while TX is distinguishing the ability to carry along gender lines. That's more along the lines of what is happening with Civil Marriage, TX is only recognizing Civil Marriage based along the gender composition of the couple.


    >>>>

  6. #86
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    To have a better analogy you would need to ask (assuming the laws were structured this way): "How can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime for TX for women to open carry but not illegal for men?"

    In your scenario AZ accepts open carry for ALL people (baring those who may not be able to own firearms) while TX is distinguishing the ability to carry along gender lines. That's more along the lines of what is happening with Civil Marriage, TX is only recognizing Civil Marriage based along the gender composition of the couple.


    >>>>
    Nope - the analogy stands since it is legal to open carry a long gun but not a handgun in Texas. The 2A says the right of the people to keep and bear, not keep or bear. If a law can apply to some arms but not other arms that is like a marriage law that applies to some men but not other men. In other words, you can carry (bear) this arm but not that arm although you can own (keep) either.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 01-17-15 at 10:37 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #87
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,557

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    PLEASE don't derail this thread into a gun control/ 2A thread......PLEASE....
    Wastin' time, like it was free - Godsmack

    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.

  8. #88
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Nope - the analogy stands since it is legal to open carry a long gun but not a handgun in Texas. The 2A says the right of the people to keep and bear, not keep or bear.
    Then challenge it. Personally I oppose many gun laws that restrict people from owning and carrying firearms but that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic and does not discount how the 14th Amendment should and probably will be applied to same sex marriage bans. They have vastly different arguments that would be brought to the a Court.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #89
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Nope, no matter what the decision, the 36 states where it is currently legal would be completely unaffected. It could instantly legalize it in the remaining 14 states however.
    I do not think that is correct. If a state defining marriage for itself is found to be Constitutionally valid, then in those states where it is "currently legal" only because of a judicial finding that it was not, the decision is overturned.

  10. #90
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Ouch, thinking about it makes my brain hurt. Cali probably not, but most state cases go back to square one I think. Even Cali is possible. Really not sure how it would work, but then again it is late and I am full of cold medicine so not at my best (why I am not responding in other thread we are taking in, not up to the task tonight).
    Presumably that compromise ruling would overturn strictly the cases where the definition had been found to violate the U.S. (vice a state) Constitution. In Cali you could probably simply put it back to a vote and win this time. As much as everyone hated on the Mormons last time, it was the African Americans who came out in favor of traditional marriages - the President may have flipped enough of that demographic.

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •