|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Then perhaps you can be the first person to bring forth of an example of someone who has changed his sexual orientation because all the people who have been looking for this person have been unable to find him. Exodus would love to be able to find this person because so far, all of their poster children from their founders to their literal poster boy keep on having their sexuality rebel against the "cure" they're peddling. We're back to the questions you didn't answer the last time you tried to make this claim: What sort of man turns you on? Since you're the one claiming that your sexuality can change, then surely you have a type. Is it the big, hairy bears or do you go for the twinks? What kind of man gets you hard and aching to bend over and let him do things to you that you'd never admit to anybody else? What is your temptation that would make you abandon women and start pleasuring a man over and over, that you would want him to do the same to you, and that would have you consider spending the rest of your life with him? Time to put your money where your mouth is. What would it take to turn you gay? Be specific.
quote: Ah, yes...because we can't find a specific word, then clearly there is no actual meaning there. One wonders why there is even a court system because laws are self-explanatory. Your assessment is not shared by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court.
Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, and 20-54 and 1-14 which, [388 U.S. 1, 5] respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes. [388 U.S. 1, 6] Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that [388 U.S. 1, 7] the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage. In their decision, they pointed out the justification cited by the Virginia Appleas Court:
In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. When even the Virginia court system thinks that their statutes were about defining marriage on the basis of race, what justification do you provide to show that they were wrong and clearly didn't understand their own laws? Are you saying they were wrong? Of course, there's the simple fact that you clearly haven't read the Virginia statute in question (Section 20-59 of the Virigina Code):
Section 20-58: Leaving State to evade law. If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage. Section 20-59: Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years. This idea that you have that marriage wasn't defined by race in the Virginia Code is laughable at best. The fact that law did not string the specific words of "Marriage is defined as between people of the same race" in that particular order doesn't mean that the law didn't do exactly that. But more specifically, is your argument that Loving v. Virginia was incorrectly decided? I have asked you this question multiple times and you duck it every single time. I do not ask it for my health. I truly want to hear your answer: Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided? Scalia thinks so, so let's hear your answer.
quote: And you couldn't have interracial couples married with the then definition of marriage. So has the Supreme Court been routinely getting it wrong in their multiple declarations of marriage being a fundamental right? It isn't just Loving v. Virginia, you know. There are plenty of cases where the Supreme Court has pointed out that marriage cannot be denied to citizens from those precious "immutable" characteristics of yours to the disdained "chosen" ones you denigrate. Zablocki v. Redhail said even those who haven't paid child support can't be denied marriage, for example. So please, do explain why it is that in a world where marriage is considered a fundamental right up and down the governmental system and there is a Constitutional mandate that all citizens are to be granted equal treatment under the law, somehow there is any question about the rights of gay people to be able marry? How many times do we have to be taught the same lesson before it finally sinks in? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Do you claim that an unconstitutional law is valid? What on earth do you think is the point of going to court? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: And the various DOMAs around the country make it illegal for people of one sex to marry someone of the same sex. So how is that not also clearly discriminatory? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Incorrect. As the courts so eloquently put it, this argument holds no water. We went through this when the IN RE case was decided. The Court specifically rejected this argument.
In Perez, Loving, and a number of other decisions (see, e.g., McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) 379 U.S. 184, 192), courts have recognized that a statute that treats a couple differently based upon whether the couple consists of persons of the same race or of different races generally reflects a policy disapproving of the integration or close relationship of individuals of different races in the setting in question, and as such properly is viewed as embodying an instance of racial discrimination with respect to the interracial couple and both of its members. And it seems you haven't actually read the Loving case because the decision clearly and directly addresses your very argument:
Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [388 U.S. 1, 8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. ... Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, [388 U.S. 1, 9] Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race. So if it isn't a valid argument when applied to race and all the courts agree that this is so, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? The court clearly stated that it doesn't:
In arguing that the marriage statutes do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, defendants rely upon the circumstance that these statutes, on their face, do not refer explicitly to sexual orientation and do not prohibit gay individuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Defendants contend that under these circumstances, the marriage statutes should not be viewed as directly classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation but at most should be viewed as having a disparate impact on gay persons. In our view, the statutory provisions restricting marriage to a man and a woman cannot be understood as having merely a disparate impact on gay persons, but instead properly must be viewed as directly classifying and prescribing distinct treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the marriage statutes, realistically viewed, operate clearly and directly to impose different treatment on gay individuals because of their sexual orientation. By definition, gay individuals are persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex and thus, if inclined to enter into a marriage relationship, would choose to marry a person of their own sex or gender. A statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage outside the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person’s sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation. (Accord, Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 517, 533, 541, fn. 7.) The classic example from judicial studies is the claim that laws that prevent sleeping under a bridge are not discriminatory as they apply to the wealthy and the poor alike as if there is not a very clear distinction between the wealthy and the poor that might affect whether or not they would be in a position to be sleeping under a bridge.
quote: Incorrect. It would be discriminatory. The courts have clearly said so on multiple occasions. Are you saying they are all wrong? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Well, no. No, she didn't become a lesbian. If we were to talk to her about her feelings, she'd make the same point. It's called "bisexuality." Now, whether or not she's come to terms with her sexuality is another matter. There's a reason that the "reparative therapy" groups don't actually keep statistics regarding the outcomes of their patients: It doesn't work. But you have avoided the direct question yet again. Let's try it one more time, shall we? What sort of man turns you on? Since you're the one claiming that your sexuality can change, then surely you have a type. Is it the big, hairy bears or do you go for the twinks? What kind of man gets you hard and aching to bend over and let him do things to you that you'd never admit to anybody else? What is your temptation that would make you abandon women and start pleasuring a man over and over, that you would want him to do the same to you, and that would have you consider spending the rest of your life with him? Time to put your money where your mouth is. What would it take to turn you gay? Be specific.
quote: And all the courts disagree. What do they know that you don't?
quote: Except it doesn't. Have you done any research into this question at all? All the courts disagree with your interpretation. What do they know that you don't? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Just what is it you think that DOMA does?
quote: Now, that's not exactly an honest statement, now is it? Do you really want me to go back to your previous posts and quote what you have said? Here's a simple question: If you had lived in California, would you have voted for or against Prop 8?
quote: No, she didn't. If we were to ask her, she'd point it out that her feelings didn't go away.
quote: And yet, the people who have actually studied human sexuality have been unable to find anybody who has changed sexual orientation. What do they know that you don't? Surely you aren't trying to claim that your anecdote is truly evidence? That you put in sufficient controls to make full observations? Did you interview her? Nobody is denying your description of her sexual history. The question is how it is you know what her sexual orientation is.
quote: Those who are of differing religions. You did read the Loving v. Virginia decision, yes? It specifically addresses your very argument and found it flawed. You mean you didn't actually do any research on this subject before pontificating about the jurisprudence?
quote: And how does a law that only allows for heterosexual marriage, defining it as a relationship that only heterosexuals can achieve, not discriminate against those who aren't heterosexual?
quote: Incorrect. Everyone was free to marry. Have you bothered to read the Loving v. Virginia decision? So how is a law that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship not discriminatory against those who aren't heterosexual? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Strange...we managed to survive for over 200 years without this federal definition. Marriage is something that states regulate. The feds simply accepted the contract. How is it that those 1013 federal laws managed to be accounted for when there was no federal definition?
quote: Yes, and rich and poor people alike aren't allowed to sleep under bridges and yet you never hear about a rich person trying to. Straight people don't marry people of the same sex. Gay people do. As the court specifically stated, that makes the law discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. You did actually do some reserarch on this subject before you started pontification on the jurisprudence, yes? You mean you didn't? Then what on earth makes you think you have anything of any usefulness to say?
quote: Incorrect. The court specifically denied this rationale. You did actually research this topic before you joined in, yes? What do they know that you don't? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Just what do you think DOMA says? You made a reference to it. Did you bother reading it first?
quote: Indeed, let's not. But also let's not go down the road of claiming that anecdote is evidence or that you have any real understanding of her sexual orientation.
quote: But would you marry him? Would you be willing to go through all the trouble of actually getting married, having people assume that the two of you are having sex, having to go through the trouble of having your marriage annuled when you decide to have it dissolved and having to prove that you didn't have sex? It's a nice hypothetical, but please don't pretend that you're being sincere.
quote: You pretend that heterosexuals don't do that right now. We went through all this the last time. There isn't a single reason that a same-sex couple has to get married that hasn't already been used by a mixed-sex couple. So if we don't complain when the straights do it, why on earth should there be any complaint when the gays do it?
quote: Um, you do realize that I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was a piece of fiction, yes? That it wasn't real, yes? Will there be marriages of convenience? Of course. Straight people do it all the time. So why would it be problematic for gay people to do it?
quote: Indeed. That's because marriage is about legitimizing a sexual relationship. If there is failure to consummate the relationship, a marriage can be annuled. No, not divorce, annulment. That means the marriage never existed in the first place. Divorce recognizes that the marriage contract was legitimate and then breaks it. Annulment says that the contract was not valid and thus there was no marriage. Of course, to do that, you have to prove you didn't have sex which means people are going to be looking into your sex life. That's why straight people of the same sex don't marry each other: They don't have sex with each other. This is also why various states that have domestic partnership laws make a separate distinction for elderly couples, especially those who are blood relatives. At that age, it is beneficial for couples to pool resources. It provides them with many of the legal benefits of marriage without having to go through all the sexual aspects that marriage assumes. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: What makes you so special? If you are so certain that it can happen, then you are no different than any other human. So what would it take? What sort of man turns you on? What kind of man makes you want to bend over and have him take you in ways you've only dreamed about? And clearly you have been dreaming about it because you are so certain that sexual orientation can change.
quote: Except you haven't. We've been through this before: What you saw had no controls, you didn't interview her, you have absolutely no idea what was going through this woman's mind, and for you to claim that you have any idea what happened is disingenuous at best. There are people who have spent years trying to find these so-called "ex-gays." They have actually taken the time to interview those who are highly motivated to change their sexual orientation. And in every single case, they couldn't find anybody who had managed to do it. Surely you aren't saying that we've had the spectacular result of watching a coin flip 85 heads in a row, are you? Bonus points if you catch the reference. That in all the history of the entire "ex-gay" movement, they have only managed to attract people who couldn't change their orientation?
quote: Nor do I have to. I go with the Supreme Court's declaration. Are you saying they were incompetent? That Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? How many times must I ask you that directly before you answer?
quote: Incorrect. I quoted the law to you. Did you fail to read it? You have previously admitted that you don't actually read my posts. Why should I expect this time is any different when it comes to your ability to keep up with the conversation?
quote: And how is that not regulating marriage based upon race? How is restricting the marriage of a white person only to other white people not "have to be of the same race"? And if trying to "preseve whiteness" is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage, why is trying to "preseve heterosexuality" suddenly fair dinkum? If it's a crap argument when it applies to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:quote: And yet, they didn't define "marriage" though they felt they could say that it shouldn't be denied on the basis of race. They recognized that "marriage" was a legal contract that was carried out by the States and thus, that contract had different rights and responsibilities in each State. Louisiana has the Napoleonic Code and thus has very different rules regarding the status of property with regard to a married couple compared to the rest of the States. For the Supreme Court to define "marriage" the way you are requesting would be a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Instead, the SCOTUS pointed out that if a State is going to have marriage, it cannot be restricted on the basis of race. A State cannot make a regulation regarding the race of the participants. So if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Irrelevant. As the decision directly said, these claims that there were marriages available to people who wished to get married does not change the fact that the State is restricting marriage on the basis of race and doing so unconstitutionally. The SCOTUS pointed out that this claim of yours ("But it was only preventing whites!") made the actions of the State even more "invidious" (their word). Your defense is actually making the situation worse. You did read the decision before you responded, yes? I've quoted it to you. Ah, but I forget: You don't actually read posts before responding.
quote: And when the ones making the rules are all white and consider the "lesser races" to be, essentially, a morass of putrefaction waiting to infect their pristine society, how is that not a racial question? If it's crap to "preserve whiteness" through marriage, how does it suddenly become legitimate to "preserve heterosexuality" through marriage?
quote: No, they're not. The SCOTUS decision dealt precisely with that argument of yours. You did read the Loving v. Virginia decision before you decided to respond, yes? Ah, I forget: You don't actually read anything first. You've admitted that you go out of your way to avoid learning about a subject before posting. How many times must you fail in precisely the same way before you learn to do your homework first?
quote: But the SCOTUS specifically and repeatedly rejected that argument when it came to race. You did read the decision before you responded, yes? Why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Even Scalia has said that those decisions necessarily require protection for same-sex marriage. What does he know that you don't? Have you read the decision?
quote: Since the Supreme Court considered that a crap argument when it came to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when it comes to sexual orientation?
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. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. You have read the decision, haven't you? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas which even Scalia says necessarily requires same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right? Have you read the decision?
quote: Bullshit. The fact that you are repeatedly parroting justifications that the SCOTUS has already shot down shows that you do know for sure. You even said so in the previous sentence: "I don't agree that it must happen because we're currently being unconstitutional." You do think that the SCOTUS shouldn't follow the same logic they did before, that the very justifications that were made previously and found to be a load of excrement are perfectly legitimate when applies to sexual orientation. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: And? RIA defined marriage based upon race. And the Supreme Court shot it down. You have read the decision, yes? You did bother to do your homework before responding, yes? Have you bothered to read the Virginia Code? Surely your argument isn't based upon the presence or the absence of the word "define," is it? Have you read the decision? The SCOTUS shot down your argument. So if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Even Scalia points out that this requires same-sex marriage be recognized as a protected right. What do they know that you don't?
quote: But you just said you didn't think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. So which is it? Was it correctly decided or do you disagree with their view? Scalia thinks it was wrongly decided. And you can certainly disagree all you want, but you aren't the one who gets to make the decision about what the law actually means. Did you bother to compare the state of the California Supreme Court to that of the US Supreme Court? Did you notice that their reasoning was identical?
California Supreme Court writes: the statutory provisions restricting marriage to a man and a woman cannot be understood as having merely a disparate impact on gay persons, but instead properly must be viewed as directly classifying and prescribing distinct treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. US Supreme Court writes: There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." "Distict treatment on the basis of sexual orientation" "Distinctions drawn according to race" If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: But your argument was already shot down. You did read the decision, didn't you?
we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations When are you going to sit down and read the decision? It isn't very long...only a few pages. Take the 15 minutes and do your homework.
quote: But you aren't the one who makes the decisions, now are you? You're trying to have it both ways. You're currently saying that "under current law, there is no way to have same-sex marriage because it's 'defined' as being between mixed-sex couples." And yet, when the courts come along and call that bogus, you're trying to say that they don't get to actually have any effect upon what the law says. If the Supreme Court says that that's what the law says, then that is what the law says. At any rate, you once again have shown that you haven't bothered to read the decision because the US Supreme Court specifically and directly tossed your claim out as bogus:
The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. You did read the decision before responding, yes? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. You did read the decision before responding, yes? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: That's because you're a bigot. There's already a term for those who cannot handle the concept of equality under the law: "Holy matrimony." Thus, gays and those straights who understand what the Constitution demands can have the legal contract of "marriage" while everybody else, gay and straight, can engage in a purely personal ceremony with no legal enforcement of their own choice. The Supreme Court disagrees with your claim:
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. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. What do they know that you don't? You have read the decision, yes?
quote: That's because you don't actually read posts before responding. Thus, I will continue to ask the same questions over and over again until you bother to do your homework, pay attention, and start showing some integrity and honesty in your statements. You long ago admitted that you don't actually read the posts to which you respond. Thus, it doesn't really matter if we wait for you to do so or not. You won't actually address direct questions asked of you. You don't actually read the posts to which you respond. As you put it, "You really junk up the boards and make this a worse place to read."
quote: In other words, you would have voted for Prop 8. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot?
quote: No, those who have differing religions would be discriminated against. You did read the decision, yes?
We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to religion? Especially in light of the First Amendment? "Equal application" is not legitimate when you're not supposed to be applying anything in the first place. There is no justification for any sort of racial test of any kind no matter how clever one thinks one can be with the wording. And if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Even Scalia thinks that this requires same-sex marriage to be declared a fundamental right. What does he know that you don't? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
