Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (biased, supporters, voting)

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

You bigots are fighting having sexual orientation as a protected class, same as you all fought interracial marriage from being law.

The fact of the matter is ANY and EVERY conceivable group is protected by the 14th Amendment. The question is whether a particular group is considered a suspect or quasi-suspect class, which takes them from rational review to either intermediate (for quasi-suspect classes) or strict (for suspect classes) scrutiny.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

If the last clause is your argument, the counter of how it does not violate this is, Heterosexual persons are also not allowed to marry the same sex, hence the law is being applied equally to Homosexual persons who are also denied the same. I.e, A Heterosexual person has no more choice in who they can marry than a Homosexual person, both are equally restrained by the same age and sex requirements of who can be the spouse. Since this is applied equally to both (the 14th Amendment does not state it has to be liked in the manner, just that it has to be equal) these laws do not violate the 14th Amendment. Now if a state made differing requirements for Hetero and Homo sexual relationships, it would in fact violate equal protection.

is that simple enough for you to understand?

Man you are stubborn and thick headed. In Loving verses Virginia the same excuse was used. Why would a gay person want to marry a straight person? Virginia said that since they applied the law equally to both black people and white people that the law was fair. They lost, you lose too.. Same sex marriage bans do too violate the 14th, why do you think all these bans are falling, it is because of the 14th

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

You bigots are fighting having sexual orientation as a protected class, same as you all fought interracial marriage from being law. And the supreme court is striking down all of those illegal bans, what do you think has been happening?

we can't have a debate about difference of opinions without insults? I guess not!

who is fighting?....the Supreme Court will rule this either way, I'm fine with it......you wont see me protesting or marching or blowing things up if the majority in the SC have a different opinion than the minority.


Relax!

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

If the last clause is your argument, the counter of how it does not violate this is, Heterosexual persons are also not allowed to marry the same sex, hence the law is being applied equally to Homosexual persons who are also denied the same. I.e, A Heterosexual person has no more choice in who they can marry than a Homosexual person, both are equally restrained by the same age and sex requirements of who can be the spouse. Since this is applied equally to both (the 14th Amendment does not state it has to be liked in the manner, just that it has to be equal) these laws do not violate the 14th Amendment. Now if a state made differing requirements for Hetero and Homo sexual relationships, it would in fact violate equal protection.

is that simple enough for you to understand?

Sounds a lot like:

"the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."


But if you want to be hypertechnical, then same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause on the basis of sex. Such laws let men marry women, but they don't let women marry women. That's unequal, discriminatory treatment on the basis of sex, and as such gay marriage bans are unconstitutional under even a hypertechnical reading.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

Man you are stubborn and thick headed. In Loving verses Virginia the same excuse was used. Why would a gay person want to marry a straight person? Virginia said that since they applied the law equally to both black people and white people that the law was fair. They lost, you lose too.. Same sex marriage bans do too violate the 14th, why do you think all these bans are falling, it is because of the 14th

you can't applied segregation based on race on anything public.....how did I lose the case? LMAO!!!

why?
Judicial activism is judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.

It only takes 1 federal judge to strike a state law.....you make it sound that is cut and dry.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

you can't applied segregation based on race on anything public.....how did I lose the case? LMAO!!!

why?
Judicial activism is judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.

It only takes 1 federal judge to strike a state law.....you make it sound that is cut and dry.

It is always judicial activism when it does not suit the desires of those wishing to discriminate. Not one single state had bans on same sex marriage in their constitutions, they were added. These judges are striking down same sex marriage bans because they are unconstitutional and violate the 14th. Is that simple to understand. We have all tried to point this out to you, but you refuse to see it. All those state laws violated the rights of homosexuals to equal representation and protection by the government. Now, that is how you have lost.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Sounds a lot like:

"the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."


But if you want to be hypertechnical, then same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause on the basis of sex. Such laws let men marry women, but they don't let women marry women. That's unequal, discriminatory treatment on the basis of sex, and as such gay marriage bans are unconstitutional under even a hypertechnical reading.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

of course is not equal. Men and women can Procreate...Gays can't......the state as a interest in our existence and survival. The 14th amendment doesn't mean we are all the same and everything is equal.

by your argument, Polygamists based on religion or personal preference can sue the states for marriages licenses and every worker can sue his employer for equal pay.....lol

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.]

fundamental to our very existence and survival as a species.......HMMMM.....is it because only a man and a woman can procreate?.....the fundamental to our very existence and survival in this planet?


is that simple for you to understand?

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

It is always judicial activism when it does not suit the desires of those wishing to discriminate. Not one single state had bans on same sex marriage in their constitutions, they were added. These judges are striking down same sex marriage bans because they are unconstitutional and violate the 14th. Is that simple to understand. We have all tried to point this out to you, but you refuse to see it. All those state laws violated the rights of homosexuals to equal representation and protection by the government. Now, that is how you have lost.

I have lost? LMAO!!!! is this how you view arguments, winning and losing? instead of listening to the other side and letting it work on your tiny brain.

that's the opinion of a few judges not all, when the SC decides this it won't be cut and dry, it will be 5-4 voting either way........you accused me of the same thing you are doing yourself. Refusing in seeing the opposition and calling BIGOTS anybody that disagrees with your conclusion and the law.

Grow up, this is not about winning or losing arguments................9 Supreme Court Justice will decide this and it won't be a cut and dry win for either side since it will be split 5 to 4.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

of course is not equal. Men and women can Procreate...Gays can't......the state as a interest in our existence and survival. The 14th amendment doesn't mean we are all the same and everything is equal.

by your argument, Polygamists based on religion or personal preference can sue the states for marriages licenses and every worker can sue his employer for equal pay.....lol





fundamental to our very existence and survival as a species.......HMMMM.....is it because only a man and a woman can procreate?.....the fundamental to our very existence and survival in this planet?


is that simple for you to understand?

My argument??? What are you talking about?

I've only addressed and corrected your false statements: that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state laws - that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to marriage laws - and that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to sexual orientation.

I have not made an argument about the merits of whether gay marriage bans in particular violate the 14th Amendment on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination.* I find it very strange you're attacking an argument I've yet to make.

*The only argument I made was a non-serious, hypertechinal argument that they violate it on the basis of sex discrimination to counter your hypertechnial argument.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

My argument??? What are you talking about?

I've only addressed and corrected your false statements: that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state laws - that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to marriage laws - and that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to sexual orientation.

I have not made an argument about the merits of whether gay marriage bans in particular violate the 14th Amendment (well, other than my non-serious hypertechinal argument that they violate it on the basis of sex discrimination). I find it very strange you're attacking an argument I've yet to make.

if my statements are "false", Why will this be decided in the SC and it will be decided 5 to 4 either way?........if its false why are judges divided from states to federal?


who's attacking your argument?