Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 450 of 519 (474505)
07-08-2008 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Artemis Entreri
07-08-2008 9:02 PM


quote:
I wish they would just let us vote on this issue, instead of using the courts to make policy. Or at least define marriage, unfourtunately that is not how socialism works.
It's also not how our Constitution works. Certain types of classification and infringement of certain rights is unconstitutional, no matter how many people vote for it.
I'm not particularly surprised that someone from Virginia would like to see popular vote trump the Constitution, given Virginia's history of discriminatory treatment of the right to marriage.
quote:
It was pretty funny that you called somebody a bigot because their beliefs are different than yours, when that is what biggotry is.
Yup. I'm prejudiced against bigots. Of course, the difference is that I will defend your right to your opinion (but not your right to impose that opinion on others), even at the same time that you would try to deny gays their rights. How's that for ironic?

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 448 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-08-2008 9:02 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 458 of 519 (474571)
07-09-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by petrophysics1
07-09-2008 10:05 AM


Re: This is all about taxes
quote:
Only problem is how long do you think the Democrats will let this tax windfall go on and what will they do to stop it.
Wow.
So, all these so-called family value wingnuts who pander to the anti gay marriage crowd all the time are actually RINO democrats who oppose gay marriage for tax reasons.
*blink*
*blink*
Just . . . . wow.

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 457 by petrophysics1, posted 07-09-2008 10:05 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 463 of 519 (474622)
07-09-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Artemis Entreri
07-09-2008 5:17 PM


quote:
marrying black chicks is a basic human right!?!
roflmfao
Why shouldn't it be? And why do you laugh, nothing intelligent to say?

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 462 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-09-2008 5:17 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 8:58 AM subbie has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 465 of 519 (474625)
07-09-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Hyroglyphx
07-09-2008 6:14 PM


quote:
Seems the most democratic thing to do.
Ever heard of the Constitution?

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 464 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2008 6:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2008 9:42 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 468 of 519 (474645)
07-09-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Hyroglyphx
07-09-2008 9:42 PM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
I think I've heard something about that once or twice.
Well, if you'd actually read it and understood it, you'd know that there are some things that are not decided by democratic processes. And you'd know that the framers of the Constitution actually intended that that be the case; they purposefully chose to take some questions out of the hands of the people, and leave them up to the courts.

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 467 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2008 9:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 9:29 AM subbie has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 491 of 519 (474760)
07-10-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Artemis Entreri
07-10-2008 12:00 PM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
not in every case.
Yes, in every case. That's what the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means.
(Some stuff about Montana, that does raise some fascinating legal issues, off topic on this thread.)
quote:
people have the right of self determination in the form of local government, as it is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. if the federal government violates this then it is violating its own rules, and stripping itself of any validity.
No. The Declaration of Independence is of no legal effect, and guarantees nobody any rights against the federal government.
quote:
and it shouldn't in rules that are left up to the states, such as marriage.
So then I assume you would be against a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
However, even in this statement you are still wrong. This issue was decided 41 years ago in Loving v. Virginia. While the regulation of marriage is traditionally a matter for the states, they cannot have laws that run afoul of the Constitution.
quote:
only if they are ready to be the cause of the 2nd american civil war
I doubt it would come to that. After all, requiring the states to recognize gay marriage wouldn't change one single heterosexual marriage. I doubt that people would go to war over something that wouldn't demonstrably change their lives in any way.
quote:
yeah we are big fans of liberty and freedom.
I spent 7 years in Misery. You can have it.

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 484 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 12:00 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 11:11 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 494 of 519 (474811)
07-11-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Artemis Entreri
07-10-2008 11:11 PM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
i was typing WRT the supreme courts making state constitutions obsolete, sorry for the vagueness i will spell everything out for you in the future.
Oh, silly me. I thought you were saying something relevant to the real world. My mistake. The Supreme Court is no more likely to make state constitutions obsolete than you are to learn correct capitalization.

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 492 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 11:11 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


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 replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2008 12:08 AM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 517 of 519 (474895)
07-12-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 516 by New Cat's Eye
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 New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2008 12:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


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 replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024