Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8105 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-01-2014 3:48 AM
156 online now:
lasthero, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, rbp, Tangle (5 members, 151 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,670 Year: 19,511/28,606 Month: 9/2,773 Week: 424/563 Day: 9/70 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031323334
35
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
subbie
Member
Posts: 3344
Joined: 02-26-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 511 of 519 (474860)
07-11-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 1:52 PM


Logic, reason and authority
quote:
Grammar Police - the last ploy, when one has nothing left to say, other than attempt to further attack the opposition.

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:
when you cant reason or have a lack of logic to think about a specific issue, then just slander and vilify your opponet to show how much you care and they dont.

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:
The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

* Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
* Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest. Note that in past decisions "sex" generally has meant gender.
* Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.


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:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 1:52 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 512 of 519 (474866)
07-11-2008 6:33 PM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by lyx2no, posted 07-11-2008 11:30 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 515 by subbie, posted 07-11-2008 11:59 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 519 by subbie, posted 07-12-2008 12:47 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1098 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 513 of 519 (474889)
07-11-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 6:33 PM


All the States
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.

牛持ちでない方は、男です。


This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 6:33 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Catholic Scientist, posted 07-11-2008 11:50 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 9299
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 514 of 519 (474891)
07-11-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by lyx2no
07-11-2008 11:30 PM


Re: All the States
quote:
Nope, all the states. Those that joined the Union after it's {the 14th amendment} passage had to adopt it as a condition of becoming a state.

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 :p


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:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by lyx2no, posted 07-11-2008 11:30 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

subbie
Member
Posts: 3344
Joined: 02-26-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 515 of 519 (474892)
07-11-2008 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 6:33 PM


quote:
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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 6:33 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Catholic Scientist, posted 07-12-2008 12:08 AM subbie has responded

Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 9299
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 516 of 519 (474894)
07-12-2008 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by subbie
07-11-2008 11:59 PM


quote:
Do you have any substantive response?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by subbie, posted 07-11-2008 11:59 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by subbie, posted 07-12-2008 12:16 AM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

subbie
Member
Posts: 3344
Joined: 02-26-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 517 of 519 (474895)
07-12-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 516 by Catholic Scientist
07-12-2008 12:08 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Catholic Scientist, posted 07-12-2008 12:08 AM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3554
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 518 of 519 (474896)
07-12-2008 12:24 AM


Everyone should have had an ample chance to speak there position
Going to close this one down sometime in the near future.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.


  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3344
Joined: 02-26-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 519 of 519 (474898)
07-12-2008 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 6:33 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 6:33 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
3031323334
35
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014