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)
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
9,397 posts, read 13,646,370 times
Reputation: 6233

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
For starters, it's not actually a marriage. Since words have meanings, our literacy rate apparently takes a hit.

Seriously though...I have problem with any state allowing it--as long as my state doesn't have to recognize it.
The meanings of words change with history. Fittingly, the word 'gay' used to just mean 'happy.'

 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:42 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 9,104,557 times
Reputation: 4220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
Blah, blah, blah. It's not my fault you're incapable of distinguishing between my personal opinion [support ssm] and my disagreeing with some other supporters on a bunch of the legal issues. I'll beat my head against the wall again with an example of what I mean.

The 8th Circuit Appeals Court said this in upholding a ban against ssm ---


"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in “steering procreation into marriage... such laws “encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children... it is also based on a “responsible procreation” theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State’s justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."

I personally believe those benefits should extend to gay couples, many of whom raise children through procreation or adoption. The state interest Should be in child-raising more than than procreation. But I recognize that the state's argument has Legal validity as a legitimate state interest.

You'll consider the judges who wrote that decision and me as haters and bigots. Your problem, not mine.
Thenonly couples who have children bioligically should get the rights by your reasoning, because gays and couples who adopt children are the same. All the state supported marriages in the world does not stop divorce, nor remarriages.
why does the state recognized remarriages or sterile couples. No matter how you phrase it, gays are singled out and denied equal treatment under the law, besides, more married people are not raising children and senior citizens are not rasing children, yet they are allowed to marry. Explain that in a logical way.

Last edited by CaseyB; 12-05-2012 at 10:59 AM.. Reason: discuss the topic, not other posters
 
Old 12-05-2012, 09:48 AM
 
649 posts, read 1,083,784 times
Reputation: 379
Let's this conversation back on track, K?

If anyone wants to get a non partisan overview of the ten cases regarding marriage equality please read www.scotusblog.com. You can get overviews and legal opinions on all sides of the issues at this blog.

For example:

Court to consider same-sex marriage cases: In Plain English


In a year in which the Court has already weighed in on the constitutionality of both the Affordable Care Act and Arizona’s controversial immigration law, heard oral arguments in a challenge to the use of affirmative action by public universities, and announced that it will soon consider the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires states with a history of discrimination at the polls to obtain federal approval before changing their voting procedures, the Justices are now poised to add to their plate yet another hot-button issue: same-sex marriage. At their private Conference tomorrow, the Justices will consider ten petitions for review, involving three separate issues relating to same-sex marriages. Let’s talk about the issues and the cases in Plain English.



Eight of the ten petitions ask the Court to review the constitutionality of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Just to be clear, these cases are not about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Instead, the cases ask the Court to rule on whether Congress can pass a federal law that treats same-sex couples who are legally married under state law differently from married opposite-sex couples.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/co...plain-english/

This was dated 11/29/12. As some may know, the SC has not reached a decision yet as to what cases they will agree to hear. If you follow scotusblog you can keep up with the latest news from the US Supreme Court.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,903 posts, read 19,073,459 times
Reputation: 9106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
To find out what "legitimate interest" a state has in banning SSM, all you have to do is read any of the many cases involving the subject. Try in particular any of the cases that upheld ssm bans.
Why don't you do it and then post it here? I've taken the trouble to support my arguments, I need not do your homework too.

Quote:
I'm confident you'll find those decisions 'blatantly misapplied case law,'
Potentially, but we'll see.

Quote:
As for Romer, the bigots and haters on the 8th Circuit Appeals Court said ---

"We likewise reject the district court’s conclusion that the Colorado enactment at issue in Romer is indistinguishable from § 29. The Colorado enactment repealed all existing and barred all future preferential policies based on "orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships.” The Supreme Court struck it down based upon this "unprecedented" scope."
What case is that quote from?
 
Old 12-05-2012, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,903 posts, read 19,073,459 times
Reputation: 9106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
My preference is to scrap all civic marriage benefits, but since that's not happening...

The Nevada judge cited Justice O'Connor from Lawrence v. Texas ---

"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review.Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted state interest in this case--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

I think Slate simplified the judge's reasoning. Anyway, there are more cases that offer other state legitimate interests that passed constitutional muster.
Bolded the relevant part. The judge right there is admitting that the state has an interest in promoting marriage. Ok, fine. So as a means to those ends, he upheld a law that prohibits a portion of the population from getting married.

Anyone see the failure in logic there?

As for the argument that allowing SSM would make heterosexuals less willing to get married? Pure horse****, and I don't see the judge quoting any thing like published, peer reviewed studies to support his assertion. He literally just pulled that one out of his ass.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 10:43 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,132,503 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Why don't you do it and then post it here? I've taken the trouble to support my arguments, I need not do your homework too.
I'll post a little. Here's the banning gays from marriage is a legitimate government interest rationale used by the Judge in Nevada:

“Should that institution (civil marriage) be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.”
 
Old 12-05-2012, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Murika
2,526 posts, read 2,592,090 times
Reputation: 1919
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I'll post a little. Here's the banning gays from marriage is a legitimate government interest rationale used by the Judge in Nevada:

“Should that institution (civil marriage) be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.”
Good thing they decided that interracial marriage didn't have the same effect.

Seriously, what kind of BS argument is that? No matter who gets married, it would never affect the way I feel about my own marriage. It doesn't if two black people marry, it doesn't if two fat people marry, it doesn't when two short people marry, it doesn't when two (insert demographic of your choice here) marry. Oh, but two males or two females - now, that is a whole different ballgame....Surely, this would defile marriage and make people turn away from it because they don't want to be associated with it. Yeah, right.

One of the more ridiculous statements I have read in a while.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 11:07 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 9,104,557 times
Reputation: 4220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
You are as dense as I thought. It is N-O-T my reasoning. It I-S the reasoning given by various states and adopted by bigoted and hateful judges. If you have a disability that prevents you from understanding the difference between a personal opinion vs. a legal position, I apologize for saying you're dense.
I am not dense, so please refrain from that judgement. I am just sick and tired of the reasoning being that straights can reproduce when that is no longer the sole reason for people marrying. But many people vote for laws banning gays from adopting, fostering or marrying. You often resort to terms that put gays in positions of inferiority, that is rude. I do on the other hand appreciate that you feel we do deserve equal rights when it comes to our relationships. I have no disablities to stop me from thinking things out logically and sensibly, but there are many people who cannot think for themselves without having their pastor or bible do it for them. The United States was and is supposed to be a land of freedom and equality, but as long as it singles out gay people to discriminate against, we are not a free country, but an oppressive country that chooses which citizens get full equality. There is no reason to deny us rights that equate the rights offered to straight people who choose to marry each other. I can reproduce if I wanted to, but I chose not to put a straight woman through the unfair torture of a false marriage for the sake of appeasing society. Give me and my gay brothers and sisters the same equal marriage rights and I will shut up, but keep denying me my full equality and I will keep protesting and so will the rest of us gays and lesbians. WE are concerned with secular law, not biblical bull forced on us by the majority. I grew up thinking that I would have the sam opportunities as my fellow American people, but when I got tired of lying to myself and my friends and family about my true sexual orientation and came out, I did not think that it would designate me as second class with second class rights. How would you feel if your belief in the bible would make you second class and society treated you as thus?
 
Old 12-05-2012, 11:15 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 9,104,557 times
Reputation: 4220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Bolded the relevant part. The judge right there is admitting that the state has an interest in promoting marriage. Ok, fine. So as a means to those ends, he upheld a law that prohibits a portion of the population from getting married.

Anyone see the failure in logic there?

As for the argument that allowing SSM would make heterosexuals less willing to get married? Pure horse****, and I don't see the judge quoting any thing like published, peer reviewed studies to support his assertion. He literally just pulled that one out of his ass.
States that ban gay marriage seem to forget that the amount of money paid for marriage licenses and ceremonies is phenomenal. The amoung of money paid for marriage licenses by gays in California in the brief time it was legal was $1,445,000 dollars, if it had remained legal the amount would have been nearly triple that. It seems to me that in the best interest of the states, gay marriage and its income for the state should outweigh the opposition to it. There is so much money that the states can bring in from just marriage licenses and the ceremonies that would be performed would be a tremendous boost to their economies. There is no room for religious persecution in secular law.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 11:16 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,132,503 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos View Post
Good thing they decided that interracial marriage didn't have the same effect.

Seriously, what kind of BS argument is that? No matter who gets married, it would never affect the way I feel about my own marriage. It doesn't if two black people marry, it doesn't if two fat people marry, it doesn't when two short people marry, it doesn't when two (insert demographic of your choice here) marry. Oh, but two males or two females - now, that is a whole different ballgame....Surely, this would defile marriage and make people turn away from it because they don't want to be associated with it. Yeah, right.

One of the more ridiculous statements I have read in a while.
Especially when we have mountains of evidence from places where gays are allowed to contract civil marriages (various US states, a number of other countries) that what this Judge finds "conceivable" in fact does not happen.

This rationale is the kind of biased reasoning you'd expect from, say, a Bishop in the Mormon Church, not a judge. Oh wait, this judge is a Bishop in the Mormon Church.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:30 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top