View Poll Results: Read OP:

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

    4 16.00%
  • No

    21 84.00%
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 88

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

  1. #41
    Sage

    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,799

    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.
    Greetings, Vesper.

    It's probably because most people think that the SCOTUS is the final authority on the law, and don't realize their decisions can be overturned. I don't know if that's the best way to handle things, though, since that can be turned into something unfair if the political circumstances are right. Why do both parties hope that they're the ones that can appoint a new Justice when one retires? If our country wasn't so ideologically driven, it might be different. Obamacare is an example. Not one Republican voted for it, but it's now the law. When it was challenged, the SCOTUS found a way to explain their decision by using just one word, calling it a TAX. IMO, it's a penalty, because taxes are usually imposed on everyone equally, but that's the way it was decided so that's the way it is. Only when robots replace humans could it be different, but then we'd have the worry about who was programming the damn robots! It's true that the SCOTUS voted unanimously twice that BHO was over-reaching his authority, but he doesn't seem to care - his agenda is more important to him than what their opinion is on how he's handling things.

  2. #42
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    If that same state used its "free exercise of given power to regulate society" to ban YOU from getting married, would that be fine? Can they ban Christians from marrying or owning property? Marriage is a right of the citizens, not the state, and they do not have the power to deny it to minority groups they find icky. (See Supreme Court decision)
    Bad example. States don't have a constitutional grant to run afoul of the freedom of religion. And in fact states do often ban marriage for those closely related. Despite what the rogue SCOTUS decisions of the past have claimed, marriage is NOT a federal constitutional right (in some states it may be a state constitutional right). It is neither enumerated nor is it implied.
    Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,992

    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?
    I start by being reluctant to upset the balances the Constitution creates. I'm not even sure about Sen. Cruz' proposal for an amendment authorizing retention elections for Supreme Court justices. It's a difficult question, and anyone should carefully consider Hamilton's arguments about the advantages of an independent judiciary in Federalist No. 78 before leaping. I am not sure the checks already available are not adequate, but I am open to arguments that they are not.

    We already have some very strong medicine on the shelf. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached largely because an infuriated Jefferson believed he had abused his position as a Supreme Court justice to further a political agenda. I don't know why impeachment should be considered unthinkable today. Having read Justice Kennedy's unprincipled ramblings in Casey, Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell, I am convinced he has for a long time been doing just what Chase was accused of. Obergefell is as flagrantly lawless and unconstitutional as any Supreme Court decision I have ever seen, including Roe v. Wade. And at times Justice Ginsburg hardly bothers to deny she is twisting the Constitution to fit her personal views.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 08:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,019
    Blog Entries
    3

    States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    States and the people have the power to define marriage as a civil union between a man and a woman. Your question is biased because that is not discrimination, it is the free exercise of a state's given power to regulate society and the people's voice through the polls to define marriage. Now if a state actively prevents and refuses to recognize a civil union between same sex couples then yes that state discriminates.
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Umm, I think you missed the point. Look at the question:



    So, quoting a "catholic catechism" is not a valid response, ya think?
    Follow more than just the last responses and you can see the sophism and bias in the original question and the dismissal of an opposing argument.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  5. #45
    Engineer
    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,248

    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!
    LOL. You think America is based on Latin traditions? Marriage can be a sacrament to you, but it's not to me. Live and let live. Stop trying to force your beliefs on others and give freedom a chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Bad example. States don't have a constitutional grant to run afoul of the freedom of religion. And in fact states do often ban marriage for those closely related. Despite what the rogue SCOTUS decisions of the past have claimed, marriage is NOT a federal constitutional right (in some states it may be a state constitutional right). It is neither enumerated nor is it implied.
    Ok, interracial marriage. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to marry someone of another race. That was found unconstitutional for the same reason SSM was. And it wasn't just a few SCOTUS's, it was 13. Marriage is a fundamental human right and you don't have the right to force your definition on others. Live and let live.
    "If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger

  6. #46
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 08:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,019
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    LOL. You think America is based on Latin traditions? Marriage can be a sacrament to you, but it's not to me. Live and let live. Stop trying to force your beliefs on others and give freedom a chance.



    Ok, interracial marriage. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to marry someone of another race. That was found unconstitutional for the same reason SSM was. And it wasn't just a few SCOTUS's, it was 13. Marriage is a fundamental human right and you don't have the right to force your definition on others. Live and let live.
    Show me where I am forcing anything on you! Interracial marriage, between a man and a woman, was upheld a long time ago! What is it about that that has you upset today? It is a human right because of the need to procreate. A civil union maybe a marriage or it may not be, but a marriage is between a human man and a human woman!

    Living and let living is about tolerance, something the LGBT movement and anti-Christian's repeatedly fail to consider when discussing religious issues.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  7. #47
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Yes, both state and federal governments are allowed under the constitution to discriminate any way they like... provided it reaches various standards. That's why we have tests like rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. That's how we know exactly how much and for what purposes the state may discriminate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
    The answer is yes, that is not an opinion but a fact. In fact under the constitution the states have to power to discriminate against any group. However there are several federal laws that create protected classes.
    Contrary to the conservative obsession with protected classes, they don't actually matter that much. They're just recognition of issues that have been unjustly discriminated in the past. Something doesn't need to be a protected class to have constitutional protections to due process and equality under the law.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,992

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Ok, interracial marriage. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to marry someone of another race. That was found unconstitutional for the same reason SSM was.
    I think there must be a collectivist website somewhere that is recommending the argument by analogy to Loving v. Virgian to all the comrades. It is sheer nonsense, for reasons I have gone into in detail several times here on other threads. The Virginia miscegenation statutes that made it a felony for a white person and a colored person to marry each other had its origins in slavery laws and was designed to maintain white supremacy. The statutes did the very thing it was the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent.

    The notion that the people who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and ratified it in 1868 ever meant it to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry each other against infringement by the states, or that it had ever been understood after that to guarantee any such right, does not even pass the laugh test. Justice Scalia made the point concisely in his dissenting opinion:

    When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. (citing Town of Greece v. Galloway for that proposition; emphasis added)

    Marriage is a fundamental human right
    Nowhere had the Supreme Court ever suggested before Obergefell, in Loving, Skinner, Meyer, Reynolds, or in any other decision where it had affirmed marriage as a basic right, that it was referring to anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. The claim that the Court ever meant "marriage, period" leads to the absurd conclusion the Court meant to say there was not only a fundamental right to homosexual marriage, but also to child marriage, incestuous marriage, bigamy, and polygamy.

    and you don't have the right to force your definition on others.
    I agree. Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow philosopher-kings had no right to force their personal definition of marriage on the many tens of millions of Americans, a majority in seventy per cent of the states, who did not agree with it.

  9. #49
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,061

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.
    I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, I was out having a few drinks. It's Saturday, sue me . I perfectly understand where you're coming from. However, there are quite a list of bans/amendments which specifically singled out gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebraska
    Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.[2]
    Quote Originally Posted by Alabama
    (b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
    Quote Originally Posted by Georgia
    (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]
    Quote Originally Posted by Oklahoma
    (b.) A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mississippi
    Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.[2]
    Those that don't specifically mention gay marriage were adopted within the same political climate. Though your post doesn't deny that, I think it's pretty clear that the rest of the amendments/bans were adopted to fit that climate, and were also adopted with gays in mind. There simply was no wide scale movement to legalize other types of unions at the time. There still aren't. So while some efforts to ban gay marriage were pretty up front about their intentions, others simply used vague wording that would cover it. Don't you think?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #50
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,061

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    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.
    As I mentioned earlier, went out for a few drinks. A bit tipsy but nothing a few hours at DP won't heal. So I apologize for the tardy reply.

    At this point, it seems clear that these definitions aren't solely the responsibility of the state. That said, I think you can't marry your sister because inbreeding is probably a net negative for all parties involved both biologically speaking and even in accordance to studies done on the social dynamics of the matter. No such thing exists for homosexuals because their raisons d'être simply don't provide it. Sure, there are quite a few completely rejected articles by would-be scientists on the right who believe that these relationships have a negative impact, however it's not something supported by anybody considered mainstream whether they're left wing or right wing in as far as it regards their political beliefs. No?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 5 of 9 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
  •