|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Well, I'd made several substantive points in the thread, each of which you responded to with some kind of snarky remark. I thought I'd append one of my own, just so you didn't feel like you were acting inappropriately.
quote: Ah, so it's logic and reason you want, eh? Ok, here you go. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution. Among the provisions of the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment. One part of that Amendment is called the Equal Protection Clause. That Clause says, "no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal Protection jurisprudence is somewhat complex, but basically settled. There are three different levels of scrutiny that courts use in evaluating whether a challenged state action may stand; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Here is Wiki's brief and relatively accurate description of the three different levels of scrutiny:
quote: To put to rest the notion that the states are free to craft marriage laws regardless of the Constitution, one need look no further than Loving vs. Virginia, decided in 1967. There, a unanimous Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law because it relied on a racial classification in restricting who may marry whom. So much for the states' rights argument. Now, the Equal Protection analysis from Loving is not directly applicable to the question of gay marriage, because that involved a classification based on gender, not race, and the level of scrutiny is lower for gender-based classifications. Thus, we have to see how the analysis proceeds under intermediate scrutiny. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must be "'substantially related' to an 'important' government interest." Of course, this means that the first step is to identify the government interest. Probably the most frequently cited purpose behind gay marriage bans is to "protect" or "preserve" traditional marriage. The problem with this, as I see it, is that nobody has been able to explain exactly how allowing gay marriage would change traditional marriage in any way. Thus, even if we assume that protecting and preserving traditional marriage is an important government interest, I just can't see how a gay marriage ban is even slightly related to that interest, much less substantially related. If you'd care to articulate a different government interest, I'd be happy to discuss that. There was actually a second, independent basis for the Loving decision. In Part II of the opinion, the Court wrote, quote: Obviously, by not allowing homosexuals to marry the person of their choice, states are depriving them of freedom to marry. So, there you have it. A substantive presentation based on logic, reason, analysis and supporting authority, all without a trace of changing the topic, name calling, labeling, ad hominem attacks, or insults. I look forward to your reply in a like vein. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
This may now be the funniest thing I have ever read on this site. Seriously, Artemis, this is destined to become a classic. Wow!
it happens in almost every thread if you argue with a lefty. in another thread in the coffe house forum about obama and mccain, i referred to Mexico as a shitty ass 3rd world country. and i was called a racist for it by some liberal (Jazzns). Mexico is a country, not a race, and mexicans are a nationality. it makes no sense but that is how the liberal mind works.
They've pretty much turned "bigot" into a meaningless word. Well, it could just mean a person who disagrees with a liberal I dont think racist or homophobic means anything here either. these people dont even know the defintion of the words. the only bad part is they are doing this on purpose. they aren't doing it because they are ignorant of the word meanings, they are doing it for unethical and shady reasons, to push a propaganda. we want to discuss the definitions and legality, and they refuse to come to that table. they make up thier own definitions for marriage, bigot, racist, and homophobic; then want to abuse you for not accepting thier new definitions. its rather odd and amusing to me.
I can understand that in order to be tolerant, then you have to be intolerant of intolerance, but the libs are so quick to jump on people for having even a slight variance from their own status quo that they, themselves, are exemplifying the same behavior they oppose. I think there's a word for that....... hypocracy.
which is really sad and hilarious at the same time. sorta invalidates the claim of tolerance IMO.
Full Faith and Credit does not apply to essential freedoms. And the States themselves agreed to this when passing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
all the states as of 1868, maybe, but not ALL THE STATES. and it took until 2003 for all the states that were states in 1868 to accept it, which definately tells me its probably a shady amendment. The validity of the 14th Amendment has been challenged for a long time. It was ratified right after the Civil War, and the 13 Confederate States did not have thier Congressmen and Senators present. basically it was hastily pushed through before any disention could take place. In fact Confederate States were not allowed back into the Union unless they agree to ratify this amendment (wow lots of freemdom there!). the way this amendment was swindled into the constitution is complete BS.
The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution and what happends if they dont? the judical branch has no powers of enforcement. you think the executive branch (the president) is going to send the military to the 39 states that have preposed male/female marriage amendments. do you think because of DC v. Heller i can take my glock into DC now?
So, there you have it. A substantive presentation based on logic, reason, analysis and supporting authority, all without a trace of changing the topic, name calling, labeling, ad hominem attacks, or insults. I look forward to your reply in a like vein.
i commend you there's alot of well educated people on these boards, i was hoping the trollbait challenge of lack of logic and reasoning, would finally elicit this sort of response. im glad the logic took over. much appriciated, i hope the others on your side follow your lead. no problem here, i can go all day without ad hominem. it remains to be seen if those who disagree with me can.
Well, I'd made several substantive points in the thread, each of which you responded to with some kind of snarky remark. I thought I'd append one of my own, just so you didn't feel like you were acting inappropriately.
i appriciate it Edited by Artemis Entreri, : hit sumbit too soon Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
all the states as of 1868, maybe, but not ALL THE STATES. and it took until 2003 for all the states that were states in 1868 to accept it, which definately tells me its probably a shady amendment. Nope, all the states. Those that joined the Union after it's passage had to adopt it as a condition of becoming a state. You suck . Damn, couldn't controll the ad hominem. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Artemis Entreri writes: basically it was hastily pushed through before any disention could take place. In fact Confederate States were not allowed back into the Union unless they agree to ratify this amendment (wow lots of freemdom there!). the way this amendment was swindled into the constitution is complete BS. This would make a great new topic and is getting fairly off-topic for this thread... Some quotes from wiki on the 14th amendment:
It is perhaps the most significant structural change to the Constitution since the passage of the United States Bill of Rights. ... Bruce Ackerman claims that the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment violated Article V of the Constitution, because: * The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by a rump Congress that did not include representatives and senators from most of the former Confederate states, and, had those congressmen been present, the Amendment would never have passed.* Former Confederate states were counted for Article V purposes of ratification, but were not counted for Article I purposes of representation in the Congress. * The ratifications of the former Confederate states were not truly free, but were coerced. For instance, many former Confederate states had their readmittance to the Union conditioned on ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. Wow. That could be an interesting thread. Perhaps someone could propose a new topic on the 14th Amendment's ratification. Its too late for me to do it now. Besides, I don't shit about that shit and my OP would probably be shitty ABE: It does seem that the crux of Subbie's argument relies on the 14th amendment and the opposing argument suggests that State's rights could be violated come Federal legislation in a case like this one. Someone start a new thread... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : SEE ABE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Gosh, thanks for the inspiration. Do you have any substantive response? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Artemis Entreri writes: Full Faith and Credit does not apply to essential freedoms. And the States themselves agreed to this when passing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
all the states as of 1868, maybe, but not ALL THE STATES. and it took until 2003 for all the states that were states in 1868 to accept it, which definately tells me its probably a shady amendment. The validity of the 14th Amendment has been challenged for a long time. It was ratified right after the Civil War, and the 13 Confederate States did not have thier Congressmen and Senators present. basically it was hastily pushed through before any disention could take place. In fact Confederate States were not allowed back into the Union unless they agree to ratify this amendment (wow lots of freemdom there!). the way this amendment was swindled into the constitution is complete BS.
The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution and what happends if they dont? the judical branch has no powers of enforcement. you think the executive branch (the president) is going to send the military to the 39 states that have preposed male/female marriage amendments. do you think because of DC v. Heller i can take my glock into DC now? Pardon my ignorance, but what does happen if a State decides to not acknowledge a gay marriage in lieu of a SCOTUS decision that it is unconstitutional?..if the State thinks its rights are being violated through the 14th? Just a crap-load of lawsuits? Then somebody gets paid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
As far as I can recall, this is what happened the last time a State tried to refuse to go along with a Supreme Court ruling.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Going to close this one down sometime in the near future.
Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
A few more ideas for you to chew on in this thread I started a while back.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024