View Poll Results: Read OP:

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 16.00%
  • No

    21 84.00%
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 88

Thread: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

  1. #31
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,031
    Blog Entries
    3

    States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Ok, post the facts then. Please show where in the constitution YOUR definition of marriage is enshrined. Your religious beliefs do not trump the rights of others.
    According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christís grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. "1623 Catechism of the Catholic Church"

    You cannot prove that marriage is not a sacrament, nor will you be able to redefine marriage!
    The question is more important than the answer!

  2. #32
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,634

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It should be obvious that the bans on gay marriage, whether enacted by voting or legislation, singled out homosexuals. Though supporters of these bans have claimed that gays should have settled for "civil union", the reality is that some of these amendments also banned civil unions with gays in them. That said, people have claimed that the recent Obergefell ruling was unconstitutional. Which leads me to present this question:

    Does the constitution give states the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

    I have provided two answers to this:

    A) Yes.
    B) No.

    The reason for this is clear. If you believe that these bans were constitutional, then states do have the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you don't believe they were, then it's clear that states don't. There are no maybe's and others in most of my polls. They assume you understand the topic enough to make a decision based on what you know.
    The real answer to your question is "It depends on the circumstances"

    The constitution does not allow the govt to grant benefits, priviliges (or punishments, fines, etc) to groups or individuals it favors (or disfavors). However, the govt is allowed to do so if doing so promotes (or discourages) something that is considered a legitimate interest of government. So whether or not a policy that discriminates based on sexual orientation is allowed depends on whether that policy promotes a legitimate interest.

    Having said that, I can't think of any such policy that would promote a legitimate interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #33
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    6,243

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. "1623 Catechism of the Catholic Church"

    You cannot prove that marriage is not a sacrament, nor will you be able to redefine marriage!
    Umm, I think you missed the point. Look at the question:

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Ok, post the facts then. Please show where in the constitution YOUR definition of marriage is enshrined. Your religious beliefs do not trump the rights of others.
    So, quoting a "catholic catechism" is not a valid response, ya think?
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  4. #34
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    54,607

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It should be obvious that the bans on gay marriage, whether enacted by voting or legislation, singled out homosexuals
    A point worth making: I think that you are lumping together "statutes that define marriage as one man and one woman" with "bans on gay marriage". That is an oversimplification - such legislation would be equally hindering to those who sought polygamous marriages, or child-adult marriages, or marriages to anything other than an adult member of the opposite sex. Thus, I don't think you can state that they did "single out" homosexuals, homosexuals were merely the instance that resulted in the law being refined.

    If a law did read "no gay marriages", then that would be a ban that singled out homosexual unions, which could indirectly be held to be singling out homosexual individuals.

    Though supporters of these bans have claimed that gays should have settled for "civil union", the reality is that some of these amendments also banned civil unions with gays in them. That said, people have claimed that the recent Obergefell ruling was unconstitutional. Which leads me to present this question:

    Does the constitution give states the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

    I have provided two answers to this:

    A) Yes.
    B) No.

    The reason for this is clear. If you believe that these bans were constitutional, then states do have the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you don't believe they were, then it's clear that states don't. There are no maybe's and others in most of my polls. They assume you understand the topic enough to make a decision based on what you know.
    The ruling did not add sexual orientation to the "protected classes".
    Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.

  5. #35
    Sage
    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    You know what I find so telling is during this whole issue leading up to the Supreme Court's NARROW decision in declaring SSM lawful in all states, across the pond in Ireland they had a national vote where the people decided if SSM would be recognized. Yes the people, not 5 justices politically appointed made the decision.

    I ask you this, who is more free, those living in Ireland where they were allowed to vote and have that vote recognized or the citizens in the U.S. where one unelected justice by the name of Kennedy, redefined marriage for over 340 million people overturning the votes of millions.

    We got a problem in this country and that is at the moment as soon as the Supreme Court declares something unconstitutional, it’s over. It does not matter what Congress, the president, and 50 state governors think. This is not right. One way to stop it is for Congress to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts including the Supreme Court. Congress has done this before. See Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. Congress can simply take away jurisdiction from federal courts all issues concerning gay marriage. Even with the Obergefell decision in place, a state could reinstate its marriage laws and a federal court could not interfere.
    Last edited by vesper; 07-11-15 at 12:11 PM.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,006

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It should be obvious that the bans on gay marriage, whether enacted by voting or legislation, singled out homosexuals. Though supporters of these bans have claimed that gays should have settled for "civil union", the reality is that some of these amendments also banned civil unions with gays in them. That said, people have claimed that the recent Obergefell ruling was unconstitutional. Which leads me to present this question:

    Does the constitution give states the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

    I have provided two answers to this:

    A) Yes.
    B) No.

    The reason for this is clear. If you believe that these bans were constitutional, then states do have the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you don't believe they were, then it's clear that states don't. There are no maybe's and others in most of my polls. They assume you understand the topic enough to make a decision based on what you know.
    The states have broad inherent powers as sovereigns. The Constitution doesn't give them any powers. It was the states and their people who ceded certain of their powers to the United States in the Constitution, denied several powers to themselves, and reserved all the rest to themselves in the Tenth Amendment.

    Also, when you talk about discrimination and protected classes, you are using the language of equal protection. But Obergefell was a straight up substantive due process decision.The fact Anthony Kennedy, grasping at straws to support an insupportable, arbitrary decree, tacked on an incoherent equal protection analysis does not make that any less true. As the Chief Justice noted, it violated the Court's own rules even to address the equal protection claim, because the majority had already disposed of the issue on due process grounds.

  7. #37
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,006

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    You know what I find so telling is during this whole issue leading up to the Supreme Court's NARROW decision in declaring SSM lawful in all states, across the pond in Ireland they had a national vote where the people decided if SSM would be recognized. Yes the people, not 5 justices politically appointed made the decision.

    I ask you this, who is more free, those living in Ireland where they were allowed to vote and have that vote recognized or the citizens in the U.S. where one unelected justice by the name of Kennedy, redefined marriage for over 340 million people overturning the votes of millions.

    We got a problem in this country and that is at the moment as soon as the Supreme Court declares something unconstitutional, it’s over. It does not matter what Congress, the president, and 50 state governors think. This is not right. One way to stop it is for Congress to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts including the Supreme Court. Congress has done this before. See Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. Congress can simply take away jurisdiction from federal courts all issues concerning gay marriage. Even with the Obergefell decision in place, a state could reinstate its marriage laws and a federal court could not interfere.
    Limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts is just one of several methods the other two branches can use to check the Supreme Court, but their will to use them is lacking. The most extreme example of Congress limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction that I know of is Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869).

    The states also play a role, as Justice Scalia pointedly noted in the last paragraph of his dissent in Obergefell. If more than a few states were determined to nullify a Supreme Court decision, no president could prevent them and hope to stay in office. This is a government of the people, and we should never forget that we are the ones who have the final say--in everything.

  8. #38
    Sage
    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,923

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts is just one of several methods the other two branches can use to check the Supreme Court, but their will to use them is lacking. The most extreme example of Congress limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction that I know of is Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869).

    The states also play a role, as Justice Scalia pointedly noted in the last paragraph of his dissent in Obergefell. If more than a few states were determined to nullify a Supreme Court decision, no president could prevent them and hope to stay in office. This is a government of the people, and we should never forget that we are the ones who have the final say--in everything.
    I agree. You know the Constitution requires Congress to have a super majority rule to overturn a President's veto. What do you think about new law requiring a super majority in the Supreme Court to overturn state laws?

  9. #39
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,027

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I agree. You know the Constitution requires Congress to have a super majority rule to overturn a President's veto. What do you think about new law requiring a super majority in the Supreme Court to overturn state laws?

    My opinion is, "Watch what you ask for, you might not like the results."

    I don't want to have to have a super majority of the SCOTUS to overturn a State law that restricts my right to keep and bear arms.


    >>>>

  10. #40
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,548

    Re: States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It should be obvious that the bans on gay marriage, whether enacted by voting or legislation, singled out homosexuals. Though supporters of these bans have claimed that gays should have settled for "civil union", the reality is that some of these amendments also banned civil unions with gays in them. That said, people have claimed that the recent Obergefell ruling was unconstitutional. Which leads me to present this question:

    Does the constitution give states the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

    I have provided two answers to this:

    A) Yes.
    B) No.

    The reason for this is clear. If you believe that these bans were constitutional, then states do have the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you don't believe they were, then it's clear that states don't. There are no maybe's and others in most of my polls. They assume you understand the topic enough to make a decision based on what you know.
    Since the Constitution is silent about sexual orientation and does not define marriage, those are issues that should clearly be left to the states to decide. What is and is not a legal marriage has to be defined by someone. For instance, marriage is limited to two people. Why? And who decides? Certainly not the Constitution. I cannot marry my sister. Why not? And who decides? What is and is not a marriage strikes me as exactly the type of issue that should be decided by the people and not unelected judges. Banning gay relationships or gay behavior would be a rights violation, but no one is suggesting doing that.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •