|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to Meddle:
quote:quote: Your argument has been that black people have suffered "real" discrimination while gays haven't. Thus, it is OK to discriminate against gays in the same way we used to discriminate against blacks. Of course, your argument falls apart on another level: The same laws that protect blacks, that were enacted because of the experience of blacks, also protect people who aren't black and never experienced slavery. You said that the Fourteenth Amendment is only about slavery. Surely those that were ratifying it weren't thinking about Hispanics or Asians. Somehow, we've never thought to restrict its protection to all races, not just those that experienced slavery.
quote: Obviously this isn't true or you wouldn't say that you've been "married" three times. If you don't want to be a part of it, then you are the one that needs to come up with a new name. You're the one with the problem. You're the one who needs to absent himself. If you want to talk about your "special friendships," then you go right ahead. The rest of the world, including the law, will continue to use the word that's been used for hundreds of years: Marriage. Nobody will be confused.
quote: How? Be specific. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Man responds to me:
quote:quote: And that's your reason for pissing on the Constitution? We're still waiting to hear what these "rights and interests" are that will be violated if the neighbors get married. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: There is no such contract. There can be only one contract as "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. It is silly to have to rewrite all the current laws to change the name. As soon as you start saying you were "garried" three times, then we'll know you're sincere. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Yes. Do you have evidence otherwise? I've been asking you for it for days now.
quote: Really? Where?
quote: More carefully than you. It's why I know when a person mentions a case (Lawrence v. Texas), refers to one of the justices (Scalia), and provides a phrase in quotation format, then it's a quote from the case. Summary statement: There is no reason not to provide full equality in all areas, including marriage, to those who aren't straight. No exceptions. Anything else is bigotry. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:quote: That's the point. Since you wouldn't abide by your own term, you clearly aren't sincere. You aren't actually upset because the term is the same. You're upset because gay people are being treated exactly the same as you are.
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Huh? How is "gay marriage" any different from "straight marriage"? It's the same contract.
quote: What makes you think that this belief of yours is a constitutional right? As the cliche goes: If you're against same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Are you saying that if same-sex marriage is legal, you would be forced to marry someone of the same sex? There are lots of things that are legal in this country that I'm sure you would like to see less of. Why is it you never seem to complain about those? Why is it you understand that the freedom and liberty that allows those things you despise to take place are also there to allow you to freely engage in behaviour that others find distasteful and wish there were less of? How does same-sex marriage affect you personally? Exactly how does your life change when the neighbors get married? Be specific.
quote: In other words, ya got nuthin'. Just a personal squick factor as if that were a reason to piss on the Constitution.
quote: All the gay people who can't get married.All the gay people who were kicked out of their own houses because their wills were overturned by the family since they weren't married. All the gay people who were denied visitation of their loved ones in the hospital because they weren't married. All the gay people who were unable to make decisions for their children because they weren't married to the biological parent. All the gay people who were unable to sponsor their loved ones into the country for citizenship because they weren't married. All the gay people who pay higher taxes because they cannot take advantage of the benefits of marriage. There are over 1000 federal rights that come with marriage along with, at least in California, over 1000 state rights. None of them are available to gays because they can't get married. Why does your squick factor trump their actual state of living?
quote: Right...because the CSC took 120 pages to not actually justify their decision but rather to recite dozens of recipes for baked goods. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Right...because denial of constitutional rights should be decided by popular vote. I mean, it isn't like the majority ever discriminates against the minority. Remember: When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population thought that interracial marriage should be outlawed. Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overtun the will of the people?
quote: Ahem. Let the Constitution limit the tyranny of the majority. That is, after all, how constitutions work. You seem to have forgotten that oh-so-quickly when that Constitution goes against you. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: Yes. That's why we have the Constitution: To prevent the tyrrany of the majority. Again, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the popualtion felt that interracial marriages should be outlawed and had voted to do just that. Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overturn the will of the people? Have you forgotten that when the SCOTUS ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, the Army had to be called out in order to escort children to school? Was the SCOTUS wrong to overturn the will of the people? Was the President wrong to enforce this violation of majority opinion? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: And I'm just as willing to bet my house against your shoes that the framers of this country's Constitution had not even the slightest concern over protecting interracial marriage when they framed it. And yet, that's exactly what the Constitution wound up doing. You seem to have forgotten about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Your homework is to look them up.
quote: Surely you aren't arguing "originalism" as a valid method of Constitutional interpretation, are you? Have you forgotten what the Ninth and Tenth Amendments say? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Indeed. Since the conclusion of the investigation into racial segregation was the much larger attitude that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, it is now your responsibility to explain why that fundamental principle is not to be applied with regard to sexual orientation.
quote: How, precisely, is this "plight" manifested? What, precisely, is the "threat"? How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Be specific.
quote: Since when? The gay-rights movement has always been supportive of the racial-rights movement, but the feeling has never been mutual.
quote: So justice is to be delayed because there are some people too scared to realize that there is nothing to be afraid of? Justice delayed is justice denied. Gay people got married in Massachusetts and the world did not end. That's why the attempts to amend the state Constitution to enshrine discrimination has steadily declined: People realized that there was nothing to fear. Their lives did not change. What, precisely, is the "plight" of Mr. and Mrs. Bigot? How does this "threat" manifest? How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Be specific.
quote: (*chuckle*) When we see the people claiming that the destruction of New Orleans was because of Mardi Gras rather than Southern Decadance), then we might have some legitimacy to the claim about the "plight" of the 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Right...because a tree is exactly the same thing as a human being. Why is it the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately makes you think of being sexually gratified by foliage? Why is it you never seem to think of this when the thought is of having sex with someone of the opposite sex? Just what is it about being gay that leads to sex with plants that being straight doesn't? Be specific.
quote: Indeed. And nobody will be confused by the statement that Jane and June are "married." Everybody understands that "marriage" is a description of a relationship, not a description of the genitalia of the participants.
quote: Morally correct. Refusal to accept bigotry is not bigotry. Refusal to accept intolerance is not intolerance. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. You need to read Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is defined as a fundamental right. Too, you need to read the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, please. I am not here to do your homework for you.
quote: No, "self-evident truths" are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The DoI is not a legal document with respect to the law of the land in the United States. The Constitution is. Ninth and Tenth Amendments, please. Go look them up.
quote: Loving v. Virginia, please. Go look it up.
quote: So when the SCOTUS overruled the states with regard to interracial marriage, they were wrong to do so?
quote:quote: That's not an answer. It's a very simple question: Was the SCOTUS wrong to decide that the will of the people and the law of the states were to be overturned because marriage is a fundamental right? At any rate, you're arguing the opposite of what is being discussed. The SCOTUS didn't overturn the miscegenation laws because the people didn't like it. They overturned the miscegenation laws despite the people not liking it.
quote: So why do you feel it appropriate to deny citizens their rights? Loving v. Virginia, please. Go look it up.
quote: Indeed. "We the People" have decided that the Constitution is the final arbiter of what we are all allowed to do. It doesn't matter if the majority of people want to enslave blacks. They are not allowed to do so because the Constitution says they're not. Why do you have such a problem with the Constitution? It seems you only want to abide by it when it suits you. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to bluescat48:
quote:quote: Huh? You were the one saying that there was a "threat" and a "plight." Are you now saying you can't even describe what that "threat" and "plight" are? Then how do you know it exists? And why do these phantom "threat" and "plight" get to deny citizens their rights?
quote: But what would be lost? You've gone on and on about this, but you have yet to come up with a single example of anything that would be lost. How does your neighbor's marriage affect you? Does your marginal tax rate go up? Are they then granted an easement? You now have to park on alternate sides of the street every other Thursday? You'll immediately be deported? Be specific.
quote: Right, because the majority have always respected the fundamental rights of the minority. If the majority would vote to protect the minority, then there wouldn't be any need for a vote because it would already be a reality. Rights aren't very useful if the only time you get them is when nobody is thinking of taking them away in the first place. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Taz responds to Nemesis Juggernaut:
quote: Indeed. In fact, the Loving v. Virginia decision specifically pointed this out as an invalid argument. Fundamental rights are not beholden to borders but follow you everywhere you go. Saying that they simply needed to move somewhere where their marriage wouldn't land them in jail is not a legitimate response. It seems NJ hasn't bothered to read the case law on the subject. But then again, he holds the Constitution is such contempt that it isn't surprising: The Constitution is only good when it supports him. When it denies him, it's just a piece of paper. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: No. The bigot says, "I can, but you can't." The morally correct person says, "If I can, so can you." Does the phrase "double standard" not mean anything to you? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are sitting on their front porch and feeling very distraught about their son's recent announcement that he's in love with someone outside the faith and wants to marry the next door neighbor's daughter. At any rate, this doesn't answer the question. Why are the rights of a person who has reached the age of majority and is an independent citizen dependent upon what the parents feel? Not on any actual change in their lives...simply their feelings that their child isn't the person they had envisioned? The child isn't different. The child hasn't changed. The only difference is that now they know something they didn't know before. So why does their squick factor get to trump his rights?
quote: Huh? Since when did recognizing bigotry in others require being a jerk to them?
quote: Multiple places. On a trivial level, the First Amendment allows me to speak my mind. Doing something about it is a different matter, of course. As I said, it's a trivial level. And it goes both ways. Just as I am perfectly free to point out her bigotry (though why on earth I would do so unbidden and in a completely obnoxious manner is only answerable by the deep recess of wherever it was you pulled this strawman), she is free to respond in kind. But again, doing something about it is another thing. The bigot says, "I can, but you can't." The morally correct person says, "If I can, so can you." Where do I get the right? Logic, compassion, empathy, etc. If the Mr. and Mrs. want it for themselves, then it is immoral for them to deny it to their children. I note the assumption you have made that I am gay. Is there a particular reason you have ascribed a sexual orientation to me? I know I haven't mentioned it. And note, I am still not mentioning it even now. Rest assured that you don't know me from Adam and such assumptions you make are simply that. Please respond to what I actually say and not what you wish I would have said. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one trying to say that straights deserve special rights. Since it is long-settled law that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, it is your burden to explain why, in the case of marriage, the majority gets to trample on the rights of the minority.
quote: Huh? You mean all those pages of court decisions I've transcribed were actually written by me? And here I thought I was quoting the justices of the California Supreme Court. You did read their decision, yes?
quote: Nice try, but that's my argument to you. As you will recall, I was the one quoting to you the Loving v. Virginia decision that marriage is a fundamental right. As you will recall, I was the one quoting to you the many California cases that had the courts declaring marriage to be a fundamental right. You're the one saying that there are citizens who are to be prevented from exercising this fundamental right. Simply because you get a funny feeling in your tummy.
quote: Why not? Nobody is confused when someone says that two people of the same sex have been "married." Marriage is a fundamental right. What is your justification for denying this fundamental right to certain citizens? Remember, neither the Loving v. Virginia case nor the Perez case established a right to "interracial marriage." After all, the definition of "marriage" specifically required the people to be of the same race. No, those cases indicated that the right of "marriage" is inherent to all. The Pledge ends, "liberty and justice for all." What part of "for all" are you having trouble with? And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Over 400 posts and you haven't put forward a single hint of this evidence you claim to have despite my repeated direct requests for you to do so: How does your neighbor's marriage affect you? Does your marginal tax rate go up? Are they then granted an easement? You now have to park on alternate sides of the street every other Thursday? You'll immediately be deported? Be specific. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024