twa Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Bang, I simply don't see the need for it but I'm fine with opening it up to everyone if it is so important to go beyond what it has been....wouldn't want to oppress any group why is this group more deserving than any other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Why are heterosexuals more deserving than any other? The lengths people will go to feel superior to other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Why are heterosexuals more deserving than any other?The lengths people will go to feel superior to other people. it was mainly to facilitate the family unit for the benefit of society from what I gather (a way to tie men down :evilg:) but maybe the advance of science and childbearing,as well as the breakdown of the family, has rendered that old fashioned stuff moot why are gays more deserving (superior) than polygamists or close family members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 ssm is about two people in love, presumably, wanting to marry polygamy could be a group of people in love, but it has been misused in the past close family members leads to sick children because the genetics are too close polygamy and family members are different topics where other issues enter the discussion. SSM is simply marriage but with same sex partners. It is its own separate issue and bringing up side issues is a BS tactic typically reserved as a scare tactic summarized as "where does it stop?" In other words, these side issues are slippery slope arguments, which is a logical fallacy, thus it does not apply to the conversation so quit bringing it up and stay on topic because its starting to come off as disparaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 how does equal under the law not apply in those cases vs same sex? http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/ the logical fallacy is claiming it can apply to SSM and not the others...unless it is simply a right granted by the state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 how does equal under the law not apply in those cases vs same sex?http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/ the logical fallacy is claiming it can apply to SSM and not the others...unless it is simply a right granted by the state Dude get off the polygamy. Polygamy is against the law today as are interfamily marriages; and no state not even Utah or West Virginia respectively have ever legalized either. Homosexual relations are not against the law, Homosexual marriage is perfectly legal in 9 states. That makes SSM entirely different than polygamy or inter family marriages under the law. If I'm committing a crime, I can't very well apply under the equal protection clause for protection from the penelties for committing that crime.. ---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 11:57 AM ---------- how does equal under the law not apply in those cases vs same sex?http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/ the logical fallacy is claiming it can apply to SSM and not the others...unless it is simply a right granted by the state Simple... SSM is legal by state law... the "others" you mentioned are against the law in all 50 states. So equality clause does not and never will apply unless you can (1) get the state to legalize the behavior... (2) get a state to recognize the marriage. Niether in the history of the united states has ever occurred. ---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 12:19 PM ---------- That's one way to see it.But marriage being a union of two people is as made up and arbitrary of an idea as is the notion that marriage must be between two people of different sexes. And discriminating against those who want to be in a polygamst marriage is still discrimination, even if we don't agree with their lifestyle. One is illegal behavior where marriage is also illegal. The other is legal behavior where marriage is also legal. Entirely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Dude get off the polygamy. Polygamy is against the law today as are interfamily marriages; .... One is illegal behavior where marriage is also illegal. The other is legal behavior where marriage is also legal. Entirely different. the other used to be illegal as well,as were interracial marriages. SSM is obviously still against the law in places....weak point. the crux is whether marriage is a right granted or inherent to individuals ,solve that then we just need to clarify who can grant it ....if decided thusly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 the crux is whether marriage is a right granted or inherent to individuals 1) No, it isn't. That's just the latest fallback position that the folks who want to legislate discrimination have fallen back to. "Oooh, the Constitution doesn't explicitly contain the words 'right to food', therefore the government has the power to make it illegal for gays to eat" Unfortunately, the principal behind this country isn't "The government can do anything it wants to, unless it absolutely specifically states that it can't, using the language that I demand it must use". It's that the government should leave people alone, unless there's a clear, compelling, reason why limiting freedom is necessary, to protect somebody else. 2) Another problem with the "the Constitution doesn't specifically specify 'freedom of marriage', therefore the government can be as discriminatory as it wants" "argument", is that the Constitution does specifically grant a right not to be discriminated against, by the government. That's the entire purpose of the 14th Amendment. To specify that neither the federal government, nor any lower jurisdiction, has the power to pass discriminatory laws. The people who wrote that amendment specifically intended for it to protect unliked minorities from being accorded second-class status. (Yes, they no doubt intended that Amendment to forbid racial discrimination. But the Amendment doesn't say "All races", it says "All persons") 3) And yes, the US Constitution does grant a right to marriage. The Supreme Court found it hidden, somewhere, when they ruled on Loving. So your attempt to argue that there is no right to marriage (as if that was somehow necessary or important) isn't even true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 the other used to be illegal as well,as were interracial marriages. Yes, "used to be" as in not today... So just as inter racial marriage used to be a crime and illegal... it's not today so interracial couples are protected under equal protections clause... So are SSM couples. Polygamy and inter family marriages are STILL ILLEGAL, and also not eligible for legal marriage. so the equal protections clause does not apply and in truth Polygamy and inter family marriages have never been legal in any state of the union so to even mention them is a RED HERRING. SSM is obviously still against the law in places....weak point. Homosexuality is not "against the law in some places" any longer.. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down the anti sodomy laws in 13 states making homosexuality none of a state governments business. and as such same sex couples are not criminals and are eligible for equal protection under the law. ( not a weak point... it's the law).. The fact they subsequently gained the right to marry in 9 states is key here.. Law abiding citizens, gain a legal right can not then have that right taken from them solely on the basis to discriminate against them. the crux is whether marriage is a right granted or inherent to individuals ,solve that then we just need to clarify who can grant it ....if decided thusly Marriage is a right granted to individuals by the state. That is not in question. What is in question is whether you can take away a right from a minority group that they already enjoy solely because you don't like them! That is the crux of the discussion. Not whether ssm couples can marry.. THEY CAN!... It's can you take that right away from them because you don't like SSM couples. Who can grants marriages doesn't change just because they allow folks somebody doesn't like to marry. States decide who can marry... and one state's decision apply to all states because all states passed laws recognizing the marriages in other states... And really think of the chaos if states did not recognize marriages from every other state!... No need to get a devource just move out of state.. That vacation home in Florida is not part of the property settlement, nor tax burden of the spouse. Think of the chaos if the federal government didn't recognize state marriages!!. It is the anti SSM folks here who are trying to create something new.. the SSM advocates are really playing by existing laws... Laws which mean different things now that 9 states allow SSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 JMS your choice of sex does not equal gender,Lawrence could be a factor but to do so opens to the other options you continue to insist other states laws apply to all despite it clearly not being so.(there is a civil law exception to full faith and credit and a remedy) I certainly agree states have the right to determine who can marry in their state,with that right comes the ability to deny it as well. Larry a right to SSM was clearly not decided in Loving, but perhaps the court will find it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 So your attempt to argue that there is no right to marriage (as if that was somehow necessary or important) isn't even true. SSM couples aren't claiming the right to marry because they think the US Constitution has that right embedded in it. They have the right because 9 states have voted for laws allowing it.. DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against law abiding citizens, who are legally married, for no good reason but to discriminate against them. States which have tried to change their constitutions to outlaw SSM are unconstitutional because you can't use a state constitution to take away a right from a minority group without a pretty good reason. The fact they have the right is key here.. if they didin't have the right then a constitutional amendment codifying the status quo would have a lower bar to pass over.. That's why Prop 8 in California was thrown out. The reason why the Prop 8 Federal Court finding broadly applys to all 50 states is because all 50 states recognize the marriages granted in each and every other state.. Thus the argument which applied in California; would seem to also apply to Virginia.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 SSM couples aren't claiming the right to marry because they think the US Constitution has that right embedded in it. They have the right because 9 states have voted for laws allowing it.. Well, in this particular case (there are others, on the 'SSM front"), the argument is that a federal definition of marriage is unconstitutional. And I strongly suspect that the plaintiffs will intend to point at several arguments supporting their assertion. From the fact that some states have explicitly legalized it, to the 10th, and the 14th, and the "full faith and credence clause", and Loving, and no doubt dozens of other reasons that only lawyers have ever heard of. (I base this on my theory that people who are filing paperwork with the USSC, asking for the court to grant landmark rights, probably believe in the theory of listing every single argument you can find that in any way might help your case, because you never know which argument will work with any particular Justice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 JMS your choice of sex does not equal gender, Lawrence could be a factor but to do so opens to the other options Look the law is simple... Gender vs Sex partner doesn't matter. All that matters is Law abiding citizens have a right granted to them by there state. That right can't subsequently be taken away solely because you don't like the law abiding minority. So says Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The court found their was no compelling reason for the state to take away SSM given it's a right these people already enjoy. you continue to insist other states laws apply to all despite it clearly not being so.(there is a civil law exception to full faith and credit and a remedy) No I don't "insist"... That is a legal argument I heard based upon the wording of Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision. It's not been tested yet in Federal court... So that's all it is. A legal argument based upon one interpretation of precedent set in the Federal district court decision and upheld by the court of appeals. I certainly agree states have the right to determine who can marry in their state,with that right comes the ability to deny it as well. I got married in Maryland... If I go to any state in the union they recognize my marriage. I have literally thousands of legal rights based upon their recognition of my marriage even though I've filled no paper work, nor done anything to merit these marriage rights other than being awarded a marriage certificate in Maryland. They simple convey. That's what we are talking about... If I had gotten married in California I would have the same married rights in all 50 states.... The fact SSM folks have a legal California marriage thus implies legal rights in all 50 states too; not because California gave me the marriage certificate; but because all 50 states have laws which recognize the marriages granted in each and every other state. Larry a right to SSM was clearly not decided in Loving, but perhaps the court will find it so. Findings are broader than race in that case. It doesn't matter if he's white and she's black, or visa versa... or he's Indian and she's Hawaian. What's important is he's a law abiding citizen, and so is she.. and being law abiding citizens who were legally married in one state; they can't be subsequently discriminated against by the laws of alternative state, solely for the purpose of discriminating against a minority. It certainly applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Larry a right to SSM was clearly not decided in Loving, but perhaps the court will find it so. I never said that Loving granted a right to SSM. I said that it granted a right to marriage. You know, the right that your post (which I quoted) was trying to say doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I got married in Maryland... If I go to any state in the union they recognize my marriage. I have literally thousands of legal rights based upon their recognition of my marriage even though I've filled no paper work, nor done anything to merit these marriage rights other than being awarded a marriage certificate in Maryland. They simple convey. That's what we are talking about... If I had gotten married in California I would have the same married rights in all 50 states.... The fact SSM folks have a legal California marriage thus implies legal rights in all 50 states too; not because California gave me the marriage certificate; but because all 50 states have laws which recognize the marriages granted in each and every other state. . Some also have state laws refusing recognition (mini-Domas and super-Domas}, just because one thing is done does not automatically enable another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Well, in this particular case (there are others, on the 'SSM front"), the argument is that a federal definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Right... SSM couples have the right to marry because the state gave them the right. The federal government has never defined marriage and thus it's a violation of the 10th Amendment today if they try. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And I strongly suspect that the plaintiffs will intend to point at several arguments supporting their assertion. From the fact that some states have explicitly legalized it, to the 10th, and the 14th, and the "full faith and credence clause", and Loving, and no doubt dozens of other reasons that only lawyers have ever heard of. Right... there are different arguments for different battles in the war for SSM rights. (1) An argument to keep the Federal government out of the Marriage Definition business aka DOMA ( 10th Amendment). (2) An argument to keep states who already passed SSM laws from repealing them by popular referendum, state constitutional amendments, or repealing the laws... ( such as Prop 8 in California; Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Equal Protection Clause). (3) An argument to keep states who have not passed SSM laws from persecuting or not recognizing legal marriages from states which have passed SSM laws ( Loving vs Virginia). (4) An argument to make all states to allow SSM weather they've passed a SSM law or not. ( broad interpretation of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger precedent which overturned prop 8 in California, based on Equal Protection Clause).. (I base this on my theory that people who are filing paperwork with the USSC, asking for the court to grant landmark rights, probably believe in the theory of listing every single argument you can find that in any way might help your case, because you never know which argument will work with any particular Justice.) Yeah you are right.. just against DOMA the lower courts have found 3 different justifications for ruling it unconstitutional over 4 cases in 9 findings. ---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 03:21 PM ---------- Some also have state laws refusing recognition (mini-Domas and super-Domas},just because one thing is done does not automatically enable another Yes but those were not on the books before California and or maybe Mass granted the first SSM right.... Using a law or state constitution to take away a right it seems is significantly different than codifying the status quo. So says Perry v. Schwarzenegger. ( if interpreted broadly)... Also so says Loving vs Virgina... Law abiding citizens legally married in one state, can't legally be discriminated against in another state on US Constitutional grounds of equal protection clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 https://twitter.com/BreakingNews Montana Supreme Court rejects requiring equal benefits for same-sex couples in 4-3 decision - @AP3:49 PM Ugh. I wonder what their explanation was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 https://twitter.com/BreakingNewsUgh. I wonder what their explanation was. EDIT- My assumption was wrong, and twa was the one to clear things up, true story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 https://twitter.com/BreakingNewsUgh. I wonder what their explanation was. All the judges there had one parent that had four legs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 https://twitter.com/BreakingNewsUgh. I wonder what their explanation was. That the case presented was a mess http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/montana-supreme-court_n_2317899.html The court wrote that the gay couples want the court to intervene "without identifying a specific statute or statutes that impose the discrimination they allege." But the high court also said the legal complaint can be changed and re-filed with the lower court if it specifically cites state laws that are unconstitutional. "It is this Court's opinion that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to amend the complaint and to refine and specify the general constitutional challenges they have proffered," Montana Supreme Court chief justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.