Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (abuse, firearms, status)

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

Loving verses the state of Virginia was about marriage, dude. Segregation was a different issue that was dealt with separately. The bans on same sex marriage are about marriage, the arguments for both situations from the opposition have been virtually identical.

Marriage equality will be legal in all 50 states, the inequality of marriage will soon be history and you will be on the wrong side of history as many were with interracial marriage bans. If Alabama could, they would reenact interracial marriage bans, but they cannot.

you said that like 4 times already....anything new you want to add because I'm not arguing this anymore.



by the way, if Loving verses Virginia was about marriage and not segregation why did the Chief Justice of the court ruled:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy.


again, Loving could have been about employment, housing, education or any public transportation and the SC would have struck it down based on racial segregation......it had nothing to do about gay marriage or sexual orientation.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

you said that like 4 times already....anything new you want to add because I'm not arguing this anymore.



by the way, if Loving verses Virginia was about marriage and not segregation why did the Chief Justice of the court ruled:



The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy.


again, Loving could have been about employment, housing, education or any public transportation and the SC would have struck it down based on racial segregation......it had nothing to do about gay marriage or sexual orientation.

It was about "Marriage being a basic Civil Right of Man". Marriage IS a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights are more than just race related.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

So you won't address legitimate and simple questions related to comments you made regarding the law because it's not you, but rather the Supreme Court, that has the final say?

Why did you make the comments in the first place then? Why are you here arguing at all if what you think and say doesn't matter?

(it's crystal clear why you won't attempt to answer my questions - they've called out and speak right to the heart of your nonsense, and you have no good answer for them).

BINGO!!!! it doesn't matter what you or I think.....what matters is what 5 of the 9 Justices think, that's the final say, it doesn't matter if you agree or not.


its clear that I don't want to argue with you on something nobody knows how the 9 SC Justice will rule or what reasons they will give their opinion if GAY MARRIAGE should be legal in all 50 states.


why am I here???? the same reason you are here....to give opinions.


just bring your smart a$$ back here when the SC court rules to see if my nonsense is right or wrong.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

why am I here???? the same reason you are here....to give your opinions.

You stated in this thread many times that, in your opinion, the 14th Amendment doesn't cover sexual orientation.

I'd like to know why, in your opinion, the 14th Amendment doesn't cover sexual orientation. Could you please provide a list of what groups, in your opinion, the 14th Amendment covers and what groups, in your opinion, it doesn't cover? Perhaps you could explain to me, based on the text of the 14th Amendment, why your opinion is what it is.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

You stated in this thread many times that, in your opinion, the 14th Amendment doesn't cover sexual orientation.

I'd like to know why, in your opinion, the 14th Amendment doesn't cover sexual orientation. Could you please provide a list of what groups, in your opinion, the 14th Amendment covers and what groups, in your opinion, it doesn't cover? Perhaps you could explain to me, based on the text of the 14th Amendment, why your opinion is what it is.

the same reason polygamy and bisexual marriages which fall under sexual orientation is not cover under the 14th amendment.

If your argument for the legal standard for equal protection of the law as to marriage became “love” and consenting adults, without regard to gender, there would be no rational basis upon which to limit the number to two.


that's my opinion.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

the same reason polygamy and bisexual marriages which fall under sexual orientation is not cover under the 14th amendment.

If your argument for the legal standard for equal protection of the law as to marriage became “love” and consenting adults, without regard to gender, there would be no rational basis upon which to limit the number to two.


that's my opinion.

Your answer doesn't address my question - and the way you answered it shows you fundamentally misunderstand the 14th Amendment.

The fact of the matter is ANY and EVERY conceivable group is protected by the 14th Amendment. Look at the text: "nor shall any State deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The 14th Amendment covers and provides the right to the equal protection of the laws of and to "any person" - and any law that discriminates between 2 groups on ANY basis therefore comes under 14th Amendment scrutiny.

It covers race, it covers whether your company advertises on billboards or buses (yes, there's an actual Supreme Court 14th Amendment case about that), it covers sex, it covers whether you prefer apples or pears, it covers gender, it covers whether you wear boxers or briefs, it covers sexual orientation, it covers religion, etc, etc, etc.

And again, just because it covers you, doesn't mean you win the case (you seem to think that it does). That's just the threshold to get in the door - it's not the analysis. 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. The analysis revolves around what group is being discriminated against, why the government is discriminating against that group, and how the way the government is in fact discriminating fits or matches up with the reason the government is doing it.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Your answer doesn't address my question - and the way you answered it shows you fundamentally misunderstand the 14th Amendment.

The fact of the matter is ANY and EVERY conceivable group is protected by the 14th Amendment. Look at the text: "nor shall any State deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The 14th Amendment covers and provides the right to the equal protection of the laws of and to "any person" - and any law that discriminates between 2 groups on ANY basis therefore comes under 14th Amendment scrutiny.

It covers race, it covers whether your company advertises on billboards or buses (yes, there's an actual Supreme Court 14th Amendment case about that), it covers sex, it covers whether you prefer apples or pears, it covers gender, it covers whether you wear boxers or briefs, it covers sexual orientation, it covers religion, etc, etc, etc.

And again, just because it covers you, doesn't mean you win the case (you seem to think that it does). That's just the threshold to get in the door - it's not the analysis. 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. The analysis revolves around what group is being discriminated against, why the government is discriminating against that group, and how the way the government is in fact discriminating fits or matches up with the reason the government is doing it.

the "fact" is by your argument then POLYGAMY is protected under the 14th amendment and should be accepted in all 50 states.


again, I will let the 5 SC justices explain it and decide this..........I gave my opinion.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

the "fact" is by your argument then POLYGAMY is protected under the 14th amendment and should be accepted in all 50 states.

No, that's not the case at all - and you thinking it is shows you fundamentally misunderstand the 14th Amendment. Certainly, laws that treat people different based their being a polygamist or not fall under 14th Amendment scrutiny. Let me say that again: polygamists - like all people - ARE protected under the 14th Amendment.

But that doesn't mean they win if they sue. That just means they get in the door and can sue. If that lawsuit were filed, the Court would first determine the level of review appropriate - rational, intermediate, or strict. To do that, the Court would look at the nature of polygamists - is it an innate characteristic? is there a history of discrimination against polygamists? do polygamists have political power?

The court would then evaluate the government interest in discriminating against polygamists - in other words, the court would determine whether such discrimination serves a purpose. Does the regulation protect people? Does the regulation prevent a harm? The court would then look at how the regulation fits the purpose. It's a very complex analysis. You seem to think the Court does no analysis - that if polygamy is covered, then they win whenever they sue. That's just a false understanding of the law.

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

the "fact" is by your argument then POLYGAMY is protected under the 14th amendment and should be accepted in all 50 states.


again, I will let the 5 SC justices explain it and decide this..........I gave my opinion.

There's a great old classic movie, ''Cool Hand Luke''

Interestingly, the evil, cruel old Boss of the Chain gang tells Luke, (Paul Newman)

''Some people you jes can't reason with.''


Even the mean old Boss KNEW that Fact !!!

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by MMM05

There's a great old classic movie, ''Cool Hand Luke''

Interestingly, the evil, cruel old Boss of the Chain gang tells Luke, (Paul Newman)

''Some people you jes can't reason with.''


Even the mean old Boss KNEW that Fact !!!

ok! thanks for your movie review Siskel and Ebert.