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.
False. The Court made their ruling on the basis of there being no governmental interest that is strong enough to justify denying a marriage license on the basis of a protected class. Race is a protected class. But so is sex. The Court has no compelling reason to ban marriages on the basis of a spouse's sex.
It's perfectly applicable to Loving's ruling. In fact, I can take the court's opinion, change only a single word, and it will make perfect sense in the context of SSM.
Get over it. Bigots like yourself are a dying breed. Either deal with it, or move to a country that condones your level of hate.
People who disagree with you on a legal issue are bigots and haters ?
If Loving is such a clear-cut precedent, we wouldn't have so many courts Upholding bans against ssm. Oh wait. Those judges are bigots and haters
People who disagree with you on a legal issue are bigots and haters ?
If Loving is such a clear-cut precedent, we wouldn't have so many courts Upholding bans against ssm. Oh wait. Those judges are bigots and haters
In the early 1960's 16 states still had bans on the mixing of races and those bans were instituted by those state courts, were they right or wrong in banning interracial marriage? And yes, those judges are bigots and haters, they are promoting their beliefs and not using law as their judge. If a judge cannot separate his or her self from their bible when they make a judgement, then they are not representative of the people they are supposed to be impraticle about. Like the judge a few years back that refused a mixed race couple a marriage license because he thought it was detrimental to any children that couple may produce. He was and is a bigot and was encouraged to resign and did. Same as with the bans against interracial marriage that were stopped because of discrimination, so will the unfair and discriminatory bans against gay people. As long as we are denied the same exact equal rights and privilages we are being treated as less than equal, second class citizens in fact. I think that RWNJ's should be denied their full rights so that they can feel what is is like to be treated as second class. Try it on for size and see how if feels.
In the early 1960's 16 states still had bans on the mixing of races and those bans were instituted by those state courts, were they right or wrong in banning interracial marriage? And yes, those judges are bigots and haters, they are promoting their beliefs and not using law as their judge. If a judge cannot separate his or her self from their bible when they make a judgement, then they are not representative of the people they are supposed to be impraticle about. Like the judge a few years back that refused a mixed race couple a marriage license because he thought it was detrimental to any children that couple may produce. He was and is a bigot and was encouraged to resign and did. Same as with the bans against interracial marriage that were stopped because of discrimination, so will the unfair and discriminatory bans against gay people.As long as we are denied the same exact equal rights and privilages we are being treated as less than equal, second class citizens in fact. I think that RWNJ's should be denied their full rights so that they can feel what is is like to be treated as second class. Try it on for size and see how if feels.
I was going to respond to your legal reasoning, and I use the word 'reasoning' to be kind, until reaching the bolded part. You make the dumb assumption that because I don't agree 100% with the legal arguments of ssm advocates, I'm personally against ssm, a hater, a bigot. Dumb.
full faith and credit clause of the United states constitution... essentially some states won't have to give out same sex marriage licenses but they will have to recognize other states. The problem is when a married gay couple is transferred by their job to another state, essentially their marriage is null and void.. doma is what allows this to happen. if doma is ruled unconstitutional (which it is) then the country should get use to gays being married because whether your state give them out or not, the neighboring state might and your state will have to recognize it if it wants to be a part of the Union.
First (again), it kinda is. In a nutshell, the 14th Amendment says laws can't arbitrarily discriminate. A law banning homosexuals from accessing and enjoying the legal rights or privileges of civil marriage law is a violation of the 14th Amendment, unless you can show that such a ban serves a legitimate government interest (i.e. that it prevents a harm to the people). Since allowing gay marriage "doesn't effect anyone else," discriminatorily banning it is arbitrary and hence a violation of the 14th Amendment.
But Marriage between man and woamn is somethig they have always seen as a benfit. No different than they don't see something meant to benefit single mother as needig to be extended to single or even boyfriend/girlfriend. They even see grant money has being aimed at lower income verus higher income as benefit the antion. The list goes on and on.
But Marriage between man and woamn is somethig they have always seen as a benfit. No different than they don't see something meant to benefit single mother as needig to be extended to single or even boyfriend/girlfriend. They even see grant money has being aimed at lower income verus higher income as benefit the antion. The list goes on and on.
I don't really get what you're arguing here. How does anything you say here counter my post?
Are you reading a different conversation here? I clearly stated that the legal reasoning used in the Loving case is applicable to gay marriage and can be used to set that precedent.
Homosexuality is not a race. A different, separate and non applicable issue entirely. Homosexuality involves attraction to the same sex, a behavior, not by any stretch of the imagination a race or racial issue. The court did NOT rule, infer, comment, imply or mention as to whether marriage was appropriate, about or even applicable to homosexual behavior or same sex partnerships whereas Loving v. Virginia did establish and affirm heterosexual marriage between races.
Last edited by JobZombie; 12-02-2012 at 10:15 PM..
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.
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.
