- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Wait....you're saying that support of SSM is an insane position?
A person might favor same-sex marriage in his own state, and yet defend the right of people in other states not to allow it. I am not particularly concerned whether my own state authorizes same-sex marriage, or whether some other state does, or not. My concern is their right to decide the issue for themselves, and not to have a Supreme Court decision cook up a new constitutional "right" and force it on the whole country. The Court did that forty years ago in Roe v. Wade, which every constitutional scholar in the U.S. knows is one of the most arbitrary, irrational, result-oriented decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.
I disagree with you on this, then.Yes, I am.
The Court also did so with Loving, yet few if any say Loving was the SCOTUS cooking up a new "right" and forcing it on the whole country, which at this point in time is fewer people than when it was the Loving decision.
What are you claiming the Court did in Loving v. Virginia? No one claims the Court was cooking up a new right in that case, for the simple reason that it was not doing anything of the kind.
The Lovings had gone to D.C. to get married and then returned to live in Virginia as man and wife. They were then convicted under state laws that made what they had done a crime. The Court held Virginia's antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional because it found they were specifically designed to enforce white supremacy--which placed it right in the bulls-eye of the state actions the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to target.
Loving was not a very difficult decision. The Court had recognized in earlier cases that the right of one man and one woman to marry is fundamental, and any law that made that act a crime solely because of the race of the actor was obviously unconstitutional.
The proponents of the homosexual agenda are trying to ride on the coattails of the black civil rights movement, apparently hoping that no one understands the Constitution well enough to see how nonsensical their claims are. The Fourteenth Amendment was no more meant to make homosexuals a specially protected class than it was to do that with seniors, the poor, or the left-handed.
But the SCOTUS did not simply overturn their conviction and only strike down criminal laws against interracial marriage. They struck down civil bans of interracial marriage as well.
The fourteenth amendment covers all citizens, including homosexuals
and it most definitely covers sex/gender, which is the determining factor used to restrict people and how they are treated unequally under the law.
That's correct. If you think that affects the constitutional issue in some way, you haven't said what it is.
It covers persons who are first cousins, too. But that doesn't mean a state's marriage law violates equal protection or substantive due process by not allowing those persons to marry each other. Same with polygamy. The Fourteenth Amendment covers a man and the three women he would like to marry at the same time, too, and yet it is not violated by a state law prohibiting that marriage.
I'm aware that some of the lower federal courts have bought the argument that marriage laws that exclude partners of the same sex call for the intermediate review standard the Supreme Court has applied to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. I think that argument is very weak, and I think the Supreme Court does too. It has never even implied in its "gay" decisions that it was prepared to use any heightened standard of review.
A person might favor same-sex marriage in his own state, and yet defend the right of people in other states not to allow it. I am not particularly concerned whether my own state authorizes same-sex marriage, or whether some other state does, or not. My concern is their right to decide the issue for themselves, and not to have a Supreme Court decision cook up a new constitutional "right" and force it on the whole country. The Court did that forty years ago in Roe v. Wade, which every constitutional scholar in the U.S. knows is one of the most arbitrary, irrational, result-oriented decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.
What about Brown v Board 1954? Do you think that should have been left up to the states?
Personally, I don't give a crap, either way. Make it legal, keep it illegal, whatever, just make a decision so I know what to expect.
I can see how the depriving/extending of rights for an entire group should revolve around the impatience of someone who "doesn't give a crap" and isn't even a part of said group
/s
Thanks for the thoughtful contribution, but i sincerely don't give a crap what you want in this regard
(insert something about how centrism and compromise re: civil rights always fails)
Are you sure you want to enter the ****-storm?Can I not give a crap that you don't give a crap about his not giving a crap? Please?
Can I not give a crap that you don't give a crap about his not giving a crap? Please?
Are you sure you want to enter the ****-storm?
I don't give a crap about he *wants*, which is to resolve it so he doesn't have to hear of it, which must be an unbearable burden indeed, extreme selfishness notwithstanding
But go ahead, misconstrue what i said and don't give a crap, and i promise not to give a crap in turn
Because it shows that the SCOTUS was not just referring to restrictions that brought on criminal penalties, and that they in fact affect the laws of recognition of marriage, that equal protection applies to such laws that only deal with marriage recognition by a state.
And although I believe first cousins will be the next major battle we see when it comes to marriage, I do see the "reasoning" given for restricting marriage for first cousins and closer as possibly being related to a government interest, which would be not encouraging relationships that are most likely to come from undue influence and to prevent the births of children when there is an absolute known increase (particularly for relations as close as parent/child or siblings) of risk of children born with genetic defects known to be true for just their blood relation. I honestly could care less if these restrictions are maintained or not, but I doubt anyone pushing for these things are likely to make a good argument for them like is made for same sex marriage.
Limiting the number of spouses a person can have to only one is easily shown to further a government interest in the economy, in avoiding conflictions when it comes to medical decisions or recogntiion of legal next of kin, and some other areas.
I doubt the SCOTUS will not strike down same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional under the 14th. They have already established the precedence for doing so, reaffirming that it is likely with their latest decision to not grant cert against decisions that struck down same sex marriage bans in so many states.
Just as you did before, and as I have seen other people do many times, you are grasping at anything you think might justify continuing to deny these other people the rights you insist it unconstitutional to deny to homosexuals. It's easier to sell people on the notion that there is some constitutional right to same-sex marriage, if you can convince them the constitutional right would only extend to homosexuals--and no further. But it would not stop there.
The supporters of incestuous marriages--especially between same-sex partners--would have a strong argument. What conceivable legitimate government interest would be served, for example, by a law that allowed two people of the same sex to marry each other if they were second cousins, but not if they were first cousins? What basis would there be for the argument about preventing genetic defects in offspring, when the incestuous marriage partners were the same sex?
I don't see any reasonable basis for thinking marriages between first cousins, for example, are likely to be the result of some earlier undue influence. In most cases, they would not even have been raised in the same household. And even if people--siblings, for example--are raised in the same household, no undue influence would need to be involved to make them want to marry each other at some point. Here's one of many possible hypotheticals.
Each of two sisters might have had some homosexual inclinations without any incestuous contact of any kind ever taking place in their home. One of both might then have experimented independently with lesbian sex after leaving home without ever telling the other. Hardly unheard of. One or both might very well have put that aside and gone on to get married or have exclusive relationships with men. Hardly unheard of either.
Now, say in their fifties, the sisters find themselves divorced or unattached, their paths cross, and as they spend time together talking intimately, they for the first time develop a romantic attraction to each other. This grows until they eventually want to marry each other. No undue influence at all would ever have occurred in their case, and yet you would deny them the marriage they want because it might occur in some cases.
People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry.
Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?
Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?
I know you think homosexuality is synonymous with child rape but you're pretty much the only person who thinks that. Keep hating.
RabidAlpaca: "People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry."
what does child rape have to do with equal rights?
Your original fulmination was:
"People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry."
So, are you a supporter of (minority) pedophilia rights or not?
If you are then you code of morality is bankrupt.
If you aren't then that falsies your statement above.
So which is it? Answer the question?
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?