|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5791 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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: No. The Declaration of Independence is of no legal effect, and guarantees nobody any rights against the federal government.
quote: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Well, I'd made several substantive points in the thread, each of which you responded to with some kind of snarky remark. I thought I'd append one of my own, just so you didn't feel like you were acting inappropriately.
quote: Ah, so it's logic and reason you want, eh? Ok, here you go. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution. Among the provisions of the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment. One part of that Amendment is called the Equal Protection Clause. That Clause says, "no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal Protection jurisprudence is somewhat complex, but basically settled. There are three different levels of scrutiny that courts use in evaluating whether a challenged state action may stand; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Here is Wiki's brief and relatively accurate description of the three different levels of scrutiny:
quote: To put to rest the notion that the states are free to craft marriage laws regardless of the Constitution, one need look no further than Loving vs. Virginia, decided in 1967. There, a unanimous Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law because it relied on a racial classification in restricting who may marry whom. So much for the states' rights argument. Now, the Equal Protection analysis from Loving is not directly applicable to the question of gay marriage, because that involved a classification based on gender, not race, and the level of scrutiny is lower for gender-based classifications. Thus, we have to see how the analysis proceeds under intermediate scrutiny. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must be "'substantially related' to an 'important' government interest." Of course, this means that the first step is to identify the government interest. Probably the most frequently cited purpose behind gay marriage bans is to "protect" or "preserve" traditional marriage. The problem with this, as I see it, is that nobody has been able to explain exactly how allowing gay marriage would change traditional marriage in any way. Thus, even if we assume that protecting and preserving traditional marriage is an important government interest, I just can't see how a gay marriage ban is even slightly related to that interest, much less substantially related. If you'd care to articulate a different government interest, I'd be happy to discuss that. There was actually a second, independent basis for the Loving decision. In Part II of the opinion, the Court wrote, quote: Obviously, by not allowing homosexuals to marry the person of their choice, states are depriving them of freedom to marry. So, there you have it. A substantive presentation based on logic, reason, analysis and supporting authority, all without a trace of changing the topic, name calling, labeling, ad hominem attacks, or insults. I look forward to your reply in a like vein. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Gosh, thanks for the inspiration. Do you have any substantive response? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
As far as I can recall, this is what happened the last time a State tried to refuse to go along with a Supreme Court ruling.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
A few more ideas for you to chew on in this thread I started a while back.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024