There is other evidence about Obama and SSM beside Axelrod's book.
Do I really need to present it to you?
You really find it hard to believe seeing what you've seen these past 6 years?
Take it up with Zyph and Lursa ... they believe they're on to a winning argument.
Wait, what? The rules of marriage were applied equally to all when it came to race and interracial marriage bans according to your logic since all persons were allowed to marry someone of the same race. Everyone treated equally under those laws, according to the same logic that would say everyone is treated equally by the laws if they are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I believe it's an important state's interest because it can reduce costs custody hearings, child support questions, adoptions, inheritance, foster care (for ex. currently if not married, only one person in the couple can be the legal adoptor. If the couple breaks up, the other person has no legal right to the child). In general it saves overall because if the couple is legally married, all the questions resolving these issues, and more, are settled.
It also serve to further protect the children of gay couples which I also believe is in the state's and children's best interests.
There is no such thing in the Constitution.
It does not separate people by sex. All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
I've known what your argument has been but if no one has been arguing against SSM bans using your gender argument, why do you think that is?
And you claim that I haven't given a reason why your argument is wrong while at the same time dismissing its' resulting slippery slope byproduct kind of ties my hands a bit, don't you think?
I've known what your argument has been but if no one has been arguing against SSM bans using your gender argument, why do you think that is?
And you claim that I haven't given a reason why your argument is wrong while at the same time dismissing its' resulting slippery slope byproduct kind of ties my hands a bit, don't you think?
To that you'd say "The slippery slope is not a legal argument" and to that I'd say "When you think about it, the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom."
But the courts disagreed about a different question: whether the state anti-gay marriage laws discriminate based on sex. The New Mexico Supreme Court and the federal court in Oklahoma both ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not discriminate based on sex, while the federal court in Utah held that it did
My logic is that marriage complies with the Constitution because all are treated equally as far as marriage is concerned. Thus, bans based on race were not Constitutional. But I just said that in my prior post. Your assertion that race based marriage is included in this is false, and is not Constitutional.
I realize that you need to equate race with SSM, but anyone being honest with themselves know that they are not the same.
"Homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being offered the same protections as heterosexual marriages!"
Insert either polygamy/incest in place of homosexual. Now I do agree that they haven't been examined as much, and part of that lies in the fact that so long as there is a state that bans SSM, then we're not ever going to examines these instances. It's like trying to legalize cocaine before everyone has a chance to see that legalizing marijuana won't make the sky fall. In truth, I think it all should be legal as long as the same caveats that are in place for straight couples apply.
Now that I think of it, the same reasons for maintaining a SSM ban are the same as would be for incest/polygamy, i.e. it's disgusting or think of the kids sort of stuff.
"Homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being offered the same protections as heterosexual marriages!"
Insert either polygamy/incest in place of homosexual. Now I do agree that they haven't been examined as much, and part of that lies in the fact that so long as there is a state that bans SSM, then we're not ever going to examines these instances. It's like trying to legalize cocaine before everyone has a chance to see that legalizing marijuana won't make the sky fall. In truth, I think it all should be legal as long as the same caveats that are in place for straight couples apply.
Now that I think of it, the same reasons for maintaining a SSM ban are the same as would be for incest/polygamy, i.e. it's disgusting or think of the kids sort of stuff.
Okay ... lemme say this one more time.Trying to scavenge for what a career politician really believes is rather pointless
What matters is there is *no way* obama could afford, at the time, to nominate a SCOTUS judge solely based on their position on SSM. That he has never pushed for a bill in the legislature, even when the vast majority of voters believes he should, indicates it's not a priority. I mean hell, he won't even push for ENDA, which passed the senate but not the house and is arguably a much bigger deal for gay rights
5 years after his most recent nominee, 36 states at minimum have legal SSM before SCOTUS even takes up the case. You're crediting/blaming the wrong person, whether axelrod is correct or not
It would not only fail, but we hardly need to detract from the real issue, which is it's about gay rights, not gender rights.
This idea that a hetero man is deprived of the right to marry another hetero man, or for 2 hetero females to marry, not only undermines the struggle of gay couples but is obviously absurd. Heterosexuals being unable to marry the same sex, where is the harm done? How would they even be granted standing in a court?
i didn't care to read their epic long legalise that dehumanizes the orientation aspect that is central to both the opposition and movement the past 20 years
I could tell from your own replies the gist of what they were saying so i replied to you instead
god forbid i make known to u i agree with something, or that others might see it
Boy, epic is right.
It's like some people can't accept that you understand what they're saying but that you simply don't agree because you see it as an end-around play run to provide deniability about the obvious.
But who the hell knows...in the end they could win the decision with it.
No, that's what I'm saying. SSM is an issue, must like drugs incidentally, that the nation has been softening on for about a decade. And there are serious legal issues raises when you try to extend the 14th amendment to protect legal agreements (which is really what SSM is all about). It opens up the doors for all sorts of other issues like incest and polygamy. I'm not saying that loving someone of the same sex is a choice, but to enter into a legal agreement that says such is. See the difference?
My logic is that marriage complies with the Constitution because all are treated equally as far as marriage is concerned. Thus, bans based on race were not Constitutional. But I just said that in my prior post. Your assertion that race based marriage is included in this is false, and is not Constitutional.
I realize that you need to equate race with SSM, but anyone being honest with themselves know that they are not the same.
I explained my thoughts on this in the very post you quoted. If you don't bother to read my posts why should I bother to retype what I've already stated.
1. You haven't actually stated the "slippery slope byproduct". Perhaps if you actually made an argument as to what you think MIGHT occur then I could actually address the substance of what you're saying, as a slippery slope in and of itself is not an automatic disqualification of an argument that has additional factors surrounding it. The problem is that you've actually given zero argument. The ONLY thing you've offered is a slippery slope "Think of what it could lead to" statement without ANY actual argument or explanation of what the hell you're talking about. When you don't actually provide any useful information beyond the slippery slope it's hard to address anything BUT the slippery slope.
2. The slippery slope isn't, in and of itself, an argument against the constitutionality of something. Someone stating we must allow the KKK to protest because of freedom of speech isn't countered on a constitutional basis by going "But if we let them speak, think of what that could lead to!". That is all you're doing.Pointing out your slippery slope doesn't tie your hands from actually offering up a counter to my point regarding the constitutionality of my argument; all it does is tie your hands from attempting to counter it simply by going "But think what could happen....!" and offering up no other intelligent argument
You mean you can't envision any examples without my help? Would any example matter to you if you could?
I get to ask some questions too so, again, is this true or not ... "the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom." .
And if it's not true, give me examples.
There is nothing in the constitution stating that seperate but equal is equal treatment either.
There is no possible way to adjudicate on a law that attempts to treat citizens as "seperate but equal" with a 100% literalistic interpritation of the constitution because the constitution gives zero definitions for what "equal means". That kind of thing is part of the reason that the constitution established the court systems.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. It does not define "equal". Therefore there must be some arbiter to determine whether or not something is actually equal.
This arbiter has been established as the court system, which has since defined "equal" in such a way that seperate laws allowing for SIMILAR, but not the same, actions by various groups is not actually "equal".
Since you're seemingly desiring to ignorantly go with an absolute 100% literalistic reading of the constitution....please highlight to me where in the constitution it defines what "equal" is regarding the law.
Saying "All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" and claiming that is "equal" is akin to saying "All persons are allowed to eat at a resturant designated for their race" and claiming THAT is "equal". They are inherently NOT equal, they are seperate and similar, but they are not EQUAL under the law.
There is no way you can get around the fact that a Man, under the law, can marry a woman. And under the law, a woman is not allowed to do that. That is fact. It is absolutely impossible to suggest otherwise, lest you can provide me some evidenec of the law allowing a woman to marry a woman.
It can win on gay rights alone, but it is still gender discrimination being used to restrict marriage when it comes to same sex marriage bans, hence the "sex" part. This restriction however affects homosexuals mainly because they are the ones most likely to enter into a same sex marriage.
It is the same as with interracial marriage bans going down. Very few people, even today (although the amount are slowly increasing), exercise their right to enter into an interracial marriage, but everyone has the legal right to do so and everyone was restricted from doing so based on their race, not their attractions in the past. Now, everyone is restricted from entering into a same sex marriage, not just homosexuals. Homosexuals are just the most likely to do so. Homosexuals enter into opposite sex marriages all time, many as cover or for money (such as in the military to gain benefits). Removing restrictions on same sex marriages removes them for all, not just homosexuals.
Logically, the argument that same sex marriage restrictions are gender discrimination is absolutely sound. The problem is that people don't want to admit that marriages take place for reasons other than love or some fairy tale belief. Even our courts try this. In reality though, sexuality should not really matter when it comes to standing, what should matter is that if two people of the same sex are prevented from marrying each other when they want to make each other their legal spouses, it shouldn't matter what each of their sexualities are. If my divorced mother and her best friend (a recently widowed woman she has known for about 20 years) decided that getting married would benefit them, what difference is that from my grandmother and grandfather who were divorced and considering getting remarried only because it would benefit them (not because they were actually in love)?
Rogue, I'm just looking for a decision based on merits, an honest focus on the real issue.It is more like people don't want to hear anything past "marry for love". That is not reality. Marriage occurs even in the US for many reasons.
That what Laws do.Slippery slope is an argument that says that, without regard to any other arguments, if one thing happens, it means this similar thing must also happen, even if there are some other, bigger differences in these things from a legal standpoint.Slippery slope isn't how our system works though.
It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare
Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.
What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting
Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"
Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties
It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare
Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.
What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting
Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"
Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties
That what Laws do.
As a Country we start with the Constitution that guarantees personal freedom and then begin to place limitations on that personal freedom for reasons that should be obvious.
Don't call it slippery slope if you don't want to, but that's what Laws are intended to guard against.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?