Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2011, 05:17 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,111,836 times
Reputation: 3240

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
I still haven't seen the case you're talking about - the one that specifically goes to the issue of marriage as a right. You see, all the cases you have cited didn't address that question at all.
Loving IS the case. You seen unable (or unwilling) to grasp this.

Quote:
Well then, they should all have the same minimum age for marriage, for instance.
Age isn't a protected class under the 14th. Sex is. Fail.

Quote:
Well, I didn't see it that way. In fact, the question is never raised. It is very telling and disturbing that you can't come up with a case and continue to pull up these tangential quotes that really had nothing to do with the case you cited.
The legal conclusion is made. BECAUSE it is a fundamental right of man, it has to be analyzed under equal protection and due process.

Fail again.

Loving is the case, and it says your wrong, plain as day.


Quote:
Well, that "right" is spelled out, clear as a bell. No need to speculate and argue about it.
So is due process and equal protection, clear as a bell. Cases interpreting the constitution spell out what your rights are in particular factual and legal circumstances. Loving is no different in its HOLDING that marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.

Fail again.

Quote:
I think not, but I do agree we can continue to go round and round.
No, we won't. You lost this argument pages ago when you tried to claim Loving doesn't mean exactly what it says.

Failsauce.

Quote:
The gays could have equality if they wanted it - through civil unions, which most people don't oppose. But no, usurping "marriage" for their own political agenda is what they want.
Which they have the right to do under the First Amendment. Fail once more. It also doesn't affect your rights or your marriage at all (another question you won't answer).

Quote:
And look where it has gotten them - in every single state, when put to the voters, it has been defeated, as it should be, even in states like CA and MD.
Civil rights are not the subject of majority whim, short of amending the Constitution. Civics 101. I passed that class. Did you?

Quote:
You really have to ask? VA was using race in determining whether or not 2 people could marry, NOT whether marriage was a right. Never asked or addressed the question.
No I don't have to ask, I know. And this nonsense argument has been shot to pieces already. It has been explained so clearly that even you can understand it.

In fact you DO understand it, but you simply refuse to admit it out of stubborn intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:
Oh, I think not.Oh, I think not.
It doesn't matter what you think. Your inability to defend your position is obvious to all.

 
Old 03-18-2011, 05:18 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,111,836 times
Reputation: 3240
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Well then, I suggest you re-read, because it seems you missed it.
At no time did you answer the question.

So here it is again.

Why do YOU think marriage should NOT be a right?
 
Old 03-18-2011, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,874,903 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Loving IS the case. You seen unable (or unwilling) to grasp this.

Loving had nothing to do with the question of marriage as a right, it had to do with how the state of VA was administering the contract based on race.

Fail...again.



Age isn't a protected class under the 14th. Sex is. Fail.

I was referring to how the various states set age criteria for legal marriage.

Fail..again.




The legal conclusion is made. BECAUSE it is a fundamental right of man, it has to be analyzed under equal protection and due process.

Fail again.

Loving is the case, and it says your wrong, plain as day.

Fail..again. Marriage as a right was not the issue. When you find a case that asks and answers that narrow question, send it to me.




So is due process and equal protection, clear as a bell. Cases interpreting the constitution spell out what your rights are in particular factual and legal circumstances. Loving is no different in its HOLDING that marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.

Fail again.

Fail..see above.



No, we won't. You lost this argument pages ago when you tried to claim Loving doesn't mean exactly what it says.

Failsauce.

Failhotsauce...again. The question put before the court in the Loving case was not about marriage as a right. Says it right there in the text.



Which they have the right to do under the First Amendment. Fail once more. It also doesn't affect your rights or your marriage at all (another question you won't answer).

Marriage is between a man and a woman, so gay militants trying to usurp the "word" for their own twisted agenda affects me. They get this and the next thing is preschool/middle school classes on gay as an alternative lifestyle.



Civil rights are not the subject of majority whim, short of amending the Constitution. Civics 101. I passed that class. Did you?





No I don't have to ask, I know. And this nonsense argument has been shot to pieces already. It has been explained so clearly that even you can understand it.

In fact you DO understand it, but you simply refuse to admit it out of stubborn intellectual dishonesty.



It doesn't matter what you think. Your inability to defend your position is obvious to all.
Well, obviously it matters, as you've been begging for me to explain. Um...I been here all along...haven't gone anywhere.

Here's the question before the court;

Quote:
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
It's funny how you interpret a "comment" by a judge in a ruling that has nothing to do with that comment, as LAW, yet you're perfectly fine with obama ignoring and determining a law, DOMA, will not be defended. Seems you're willing to make excuses for this unprecedented behavior...as long as it falls on your side.

Please, find me a case that addresses the question directly. If it's so cut and dried there must be at least one out there.
 
Old 03-18-2011, 11:16 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,111,836 times
Reputation: 3240
Is Marriage a Civil Right? - Why Marriage is a Civil Right
"Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right."

Guess which case they cite?

U.S. District Court Decision: Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Pay special attention to this language on page 135, the HOLDING of the CASE.

"constitutional obligation to provide marriage on an equal basis"

Gee, sanrene, how could that possibly be, if marriage is NOT A RIGHT?

LOL

Let's do another snippet, from page 109.

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

I suppose you are going to tell me that the above Conclusion of Law (because that's what it is), has nothing to do with marriage being a right?

You are downright Orwellian in your doublespeak on this issue. It's beyond ridiculous.

And here is some more, from the following pages:

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”).
The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental.


Pay close attention to that last sentence, sanrene. Even the lawyers for your side aren't crazy or intellectually dishonest enough to make the absolutely ludicrous argument you are making.

In fact, your own lawyers agree with me. Not only is it a conclusion of law, it is an undisputed conclusion of law.

Are we done now?

We should be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:09 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top