That is your false premise that I have to show harm. Who do we go to if, say in 20 years, we can document the harm that has already been done? What do you pledge to fix what you have wrought upon the rest of us? What would be your remedy then? All liberals folks supporting SSM immediately leave the country they have, perhaps irreparably, damaged...leaving all their possessions in payment for the harm they have inflicted upon the rest of our society?
No, you will go merrily along finding other ways to create crevices from tiny cracks singing la la la la la when people warn of the dangers.
See, the idea of legitimate state interest is NOT the 14th Amendment... the idea of legitimate state interest was a kind of clever artifice, just a rather blunt tool, an instrument created/utilized to resolve specific issues. Like a certain sized wrench, it doesn't fit all repairs. Like a gun, it can be used for good and it can be used for bad. Being that we cannot stop it from existing, we do need to stop the folks who would use it for ill conceived purposes as best we can.Cool. We are on the same page. My 14th amendment right to equal protection under the laws should not be up for a popular vote. Given that Supreme Court precedent in Loving v. Virginia found under the 14th amendment that a state had to demonstrate how a legitimate state interest is advanced before it could regulate marriage in a way that would violate my right to equal protection under the law, I look forward to hearing your argument as to what state interest is advanced.
Nah, I don't have to make such promises, you are free to go ahead and eat cow balls [ cows don't have balls you do realize, don't you...would be bull, like what you are trying to promote here ].Tell you what.
If you promise not to get Gay married, I promise not to Eat cow balls.
That way we both get to avoid things we don't like.
Sound good?
We cannot do anything about what harm, in a free society, people may legally do to others... such as these SS families you speak in such high regard. There are also hetero couples who should not have children and we cannot prevent that either, in such a free society.This has absolutely nothing to do with SSM. These families exist now and will continue to do so. THey have done so in the face of public abuse and legal discrimination. Gay families HAVE BEEN and will continue to be part of American society. They arent going anywhere.
However you CHOOSE to deny them the same benefits and legal protections that are accorded to straight couples and families. And can prove zero harm why you believe that's acceptable? blech, you make me ashamed to be a Christian. Many of these protections extend to their children.
Or...Nothing good ever comes out of ohio i swear....Yet this appeal may result in scotus taking the case so that even shanties in alabama will be forced to allow gay weddings.
That is your false premise that I have to show harm. Who do we go to if, say in 20 years, we can document the harm that has already been done? What do you pledge to fix what you have wrought upon the rest of us? What would be your remedy then? All liberals folks supporting SSM immediately leave the country they have, perhaps irreparably, damaged...leaving all their possessions in payment for the harm they have inflicted upon the rest of our society?
No, you will go merrily along finding other ways to create crevices from tiny cracks singing la la la la la when people warn of the dangers.
Actual states allowance for this travesty is a rather recent occurence... or hadn't you noticed. It was BJ Clinton, democrat and liberal, that signed both DADT and DOMA, correct? What was the boob's position [ I know, I know, that could be either Barack or Joe ] on SSM in 2008...2009...2010...ummm 2011?
Or...
The decision just may, as it should, go the other way, remove all doubt and allow all good people to maintain those stable, traditional institutions handed down to us which have allowed us to reap the abundant bounty which surrounds us all, even those lowly termites who work to destroy it.eace :2wave:
One cannot retrieve already spilled milk. There will always be the outliers in any system, we do not have to encourage that, promote that... and we have no imperative to do so. You do not solve a problem by compounding it.
You ignore the premise...on purpose no doubt, in and effort to make your feeble argument appear stronger. It is not equating gays to pedos, et al, it is because we have no reason to tear down the strong edifice of the institution of traditional marriage, open the floodgates in which the once solid institution will then be trampled further upon by these others to which we also have no desire to allow marriage. Capiche now, do ya?
When the door has been opened in an effort to make justifiable allowances for past inequities... it is not then to be shoved, pushed further open to allow anybody and everybody, those not justifiable to go through that same door. Sorry, if the law allows/promotes that, it needs fixed. The legitimate state interest test is a farce... almost anything, especially with a further degrading of standards in our society, could eventually pass that test.
So? No single judge is not the premise. You have liberal termites gnawing away at our foundations and one termite judge finally does break through, and then you have precedent, which is hard, almost impossible if we listen to your side on such things, to walk that back. Ha ha ha....see You need to read OUR history, get a better handle on how such slippage occurs, how the damage is then solidified so more and more damage can be done.
Of course the courts have their place... they do not, however, supersede the will of the people on fundamental cultural constructs. They can tinker at the edges, at least until they become a roadblock to the will of the people. They, because of their position, do not become the new kings who make the people's will inferior.
I would say all those laws you indicated that we would still have, and in some cases still have, did not have the majority supporting them when they were pushed to the side. There are lines to be drawn, red lines that folks do want adhered to, not the boobama style red lines. And even with all that history of injustice, that does not mean your side is right because we overcame injustice, real injustice, in the past. This is merely silliness, me me me-ness, that will fade as rapidly as it came up.
Just because you are in the minority does not in any way mean you get to make the decisions for the rest of us... that is foolishness. The Constitution, nor the courts, were meant to do that, they were meant to protect your individual rights and allow you the freedom to say what you want, not to just do anything you want. That is simply an absurd analysis of our governing framework.
One person's morals are not necessarily equivalent to another's. Newbie smarts rarely equates to the wisdom of the ages.
Counting your turkeys way before they are hatched.
As those younger currently thinking SSM is okay become adults they start thinking more clearly, like adults. They generally become more conservative. Especially after they realize the line of bull they have been force fed in school, in media and now by government... and should that not happen, wow, what a wonderfully mixed up and predictably war torn world this is soon to become. Once family stability breaks down here completely, once nobody cares much about anything worth caring about anymore, once the weakness that your side's termites are constantly eating away at our foundations to create becomes apparent to the predators out there in the world... and they are out there, waiting... well, we will see if you get to keep your cherished SSM then.
Once you have chased all the strong away, nursed the rest into being namby pambies, the nation will be ripe for the picking. Yes, no doubt in your lifetime... if the quickening pace that is apparent in just this lifetime does not slow down. That would be unfortunate, yet poetic justice.
That is simply an absurd and pretty naive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework for governing.
While I appreciate your efforts, why don't you give me a list of the protected classes and where exactly those protected classes are listed as protected (specifically) in the Constitution.
Similarly, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you either. Their not having it also does not affect you.
What would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing a 40 year old to marry a 7 year old? Besides your prejudices regarding age, what would be the legitimate state interest? If I wanted to marry a tree, what would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing that? What if I wanted to marry an adult chicken, or a rooster for that matter, what would be the legitimate state interest there? I can marry a woman, you want to allow me to marry a man, why cannot I marry a horse? Why not all three? What is the legitimate state interest? Matter of fact, I want to marry 73 other people all at the same time, two of them my siblings, one my parent, what would be the legitimate state interest in stopping me?
Oh, I understand what you are saying, but you see, as a society we, many of us, don't want that kind of nothing matters above anything else sort of world. Some things aren't equal, are not meant to be equal, some things just should not be. Maybe we, as a nation, will at some point agree to allow this outrage, but not while we have the strength to support a strong nation.
Not while I can help it.eace
Yeah, that is just flat-assed silly. That is why a court system with precedent eventually must break down, it no longer stands for anything but the sublimely bizarre, a template for the circus you folks are turning this country into.
One could laugh if it weren't so sad. And you think you are doing good, what an irony.
Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis
1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):
A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental
2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy
3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens. (See "Should the Rational Basis Test Have Bite?")
How about we give it the time for many of them to actually get older before we pronounce, eh? Good lord.
Or...
The decision just may, as it should, go the other way, remove all doubt and allow all good people to maintain those stable, traditional institutions handed down to us which have allowed us to reap the abundant bounty which surrounds us all, even those lowly termites who work to destroy it.eace :2wave:
So wrong, wow, lol...
And truly, if you don't like my posts [yet you seem addicted ] just ignore them, most assuredly will not hurt my feelings...but to be so asinine as to attempt to tell me what I should do, well, shows a level of maturity that is probably a bit less than sufficient, would you not agree? If its getting to you that much that you cannot win, that you are just not that convincing, or persuasive, give it a rest.
I certainly understand you have the harder task, an uphill battle, being on the wrong side of the issue and having to defend it.
Actual states allowance for this travesty is a rather recent occurence... or hadn't you noticed. It was BJ Clinton, democrat and liberal, that signed both DADT and DOMA, correct? What was the boob's position [ I know, I know, that could be either Barack or Joe ] on SSM in 2008...2009...2010...ummm 2011?
See, the idea of legitimate state interest is NOT the 14th Amendment... the idea of legitimate state interest was a kind of clever artifice, just a rather blunt tool, an instrument created/utilized to resolve specific issues. Like a certain sized wrench, it doesn't fit all repairs. Like a gun, it can be used for good and it can be used for bad. Being that we cannot stop it from existing, we do need to stop the folks who would use it for ill conceived purposes as best we can.
See, the idea of legitimate state interest is NOT the 14th Amendment... the idea of legitimate state interest was a kind of clever artifice, just a rather blunt tool, an instrument created/utilized to resolve specific issues. Like a certain sized wrench, it doesn't fit all repairs. Like a gun, it can be used for good and it can be used for bad. Being that we cannot stop it from existing, we do need to stop the folks who would use it for ill conceived purposes as best we can.
One cannot provide proof of harm that has yet to come... If one were to look at whether cigarette smoking created harm before long term studies... not just snap shots in the short term... well, if we relied on JUST speculation without the data, the proof before that, it would seem smoking presented no proof of long term harm, right? So, based on your premise, cigarette smoking presents no long term harm?You haven't warned us of any dangers.
Yes, a pretty stark shift towards tolerance in a short time, wouldn't you say? Going from nationwide voting for constitutional amendments to a majority in favor of equality in just a decade. Equality won every vote in 2012.
You're right though. You don't have to prove any harm, any interest in denying same-sex marriage. You can keep your belief for any reason, or no reason at all. The state, however, has this burden. And it's a test they haven't been able to meet even once since Windsor. Even the head of NOM admits now that equality is coming. "There's 5 votes on the supreme court for same-sex marriage." The people who do this for a living couldn't provide an argument to defend same-sex marriage bans. The people who do this for a living realize they've lost. But you? You're confident in victory.
Or, at least, you pretend to be. :lamo
Wow, I cannot be held responsible for repairing an apparent failure of the educational system in however many years one may have attended... and if one is not listening or tuned into what is going on, well that is the fault of the individual, cannot lay blame on the system then...Comparing people to insects. Yeah, no disturbing historical connotations there. Earlier, you said several times "we" should have never "offered" tolerance. (as if that's what you've actually done.) What do you mean by that? What change do you think should not have been made?
Don't know if you have taken the time to observe this but
Race and gender are dissimilar, not the exact same, just as the decisions are dissimilar. So your exactness argument relies upon a complete misunderstanding of the differences between race and gender.
Re: gender not mattering---- That is your opinion and you are surely welcome to harbor it. I certainly cannot seem to disabuse you of such false notions.
You truly know very very very little about me and my circumstances... so while all people can have their own opinions about such, you can apply the rule about everybody having opinions here. So to speak of what is beneficial or not to me, when you haven't the first clue, well...
and...We are not guaranteed outcomes, blarg, equality under the law, however we chose ultimately to construe that, will be our destiny or our fate. Not everybody is going to be happy with the outcome, and the fight will no doubt continue.
As for the last of your facile attempts, see above.
People like me? People like me said nothing of the sort, thought nothing of the sort. It was people like you were sitting on the sidelines and waiting for the outcome and then jumped on the bandwagon after all the work had been done.People like you said this about interracial marriage. How's that damage going for you?
I often wonder just where "the state" got the authority to sanction marriage in the first place. But, I'll tell you a little story, My wife and I celebrated our 25th last summer with friends and family. When we were first married, we went to the Catholic priest to get married in the church. As this was my 2nd marriage, and the first was to a Lutheran woman, and done in a Lutheran church. The Catholic priest would not marry us. We ended up getting married by a JoP at the court house, and this is one of the reasons that I, or my wife have not been "Catholic's" since, even though both of us were raised Catholic.
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?