Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[JBeukema]

what say you of the hernandez quote?

1)
Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2)
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[antagon]

What do dependents have to do with marriage be it heterosexual or homosexual?
You can deduct dependents without ever being married.
Two parents can claim tax breaks assosciated with a child and do not have to be married.

no, that's age discrimination, gadawg. how far will it go?

can they file jointly, man? there has to be something to the hubbub over state blessing of marriage. can they get a permanent visa because their spouse is a citizen?

How in the hell is that age discrimination?

speed up will ya buddy. there's age discrimination in our tax code, for example where age limits on dependency are concerned. there's some which precludes homosexual unions from marriage.

i mean to ask, to what extent is purging discrimination from our society warranted? can any distinctions beyond the grasp of popular, majority demand be tolerated in america?

 

[JBeukema]

We could just get the State out of marriage altogether...

 

[Luissa]

LOL... What color is the sky in your world?

Now just to be nice, let me ask you what you're basing this upon? And please... BE specific...

Blue, how many of your brain cells are scrambled? Kagan is not nearly as Liberal as Stevens. Just looking at what statements Kagan has made and the sides of decisions that Stevens has been on shows this.

Stevens was never a liberal, he was old school conservative, it is kind of like people thinking Goldwater would have been a liberal.

 

[Middleman]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.

 

[Luissa]

They should have the right to a civil union in every state, and states who do not allow civil unions for same sex couples are denying them a constitutional right.

 

[Luissa]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.

Dogs are not protected by the constitution, and if you want to marry 10 women, you should be able to.

 

[rikules]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.

and how is that your business?

I mean......really....
what the fuk do you care if some guy marries his dog
or 10 women

if 10 women would happily marry one guy then what the fuk is it to you?

why do YOU feel you have to tell everyone else how to live?

why don't you just take care of your own life and stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone else...? hmmmm?

 

[antagon]

what say you of the hernandez quote?

1)
Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2)
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fail: your ad antiquitatum and ad populum characterizations are non-sequitur. the appeal court isn't saying that gay marriage is not right because of tradition or popular opinion. the argument is that applying loving v VA fails because the intent of marriage definitions is not to discriminate maliciously, if at all, based on a presumption of the original motive. they didnt feel an onus to prove that was the case, but just didn't feel they could judge those motives as ignorant or bigoted.

3)Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well, your history lesson imperils the appeal courts generalization about all the traditions of marriage over history, but does that history overturn the conclusion that its presumptuous to deem the heterosexual definition of marriage bigoted?

 

[Middleman]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.

and how is that your business?

I mean......really....
what the fuk do you care if some guy marries his dog
or 10 women

if 10 women would happily marry one guy then what the fuk is it to you?

why do YOU feel you have to tell everyone else how to live?

why don't you just take care of your own life and stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone else...? hmmmm?

LOL, then the 10 wives would all get social security benefits, right? and the dog would be entitled to full spousal rights?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

ROFL...

Really? So you feel that the license which entitles one man and one woman to be incorporate their Union as one legal entity, a social legal device which is designed to encourage sound families on which to build and sustain a nation; wherein the traits common to both genders will be passed along to their prodigy; that this somehow prevents people who do not fall into the scope prescribed for that Union from the right to their life and the liberty to pursue happiness?

I'd sure love to hear how that works...

And Please.... BE SPECIFIC!

 

[JBeukema]

well, your history lesson imperils the appeal courts generalization about all the traditions of marriage over history, but does that history overturn the conclusion that its presumptuous to deem the heterosexual definition of marriage bigoted?

Yes.


Marriage as recognized by the State in this nation is a legal contract between two persons. As such, it is unconstitutional to discriminate in the recognition of that contract based on the sex, gender, or sexual presentation of the either or both of the parties involved just as it is to do so based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, et cetera. The motivations put forth in favour of such discrimination come down always to religion and personal bigotry and it is malicious not only for its motivations and root causes but also in its effect, including providing a major roadblock to caring securing the same rights and protections as a couple of the same race [Loving v. Virginia], religion, national origin, etc , including but not limited to guardianship of a partner's child, adoption of a child, power of attorney, and other legal rights, protections, and effects of union that are recognized when the couple is of the 'preferred type'.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

and more.... Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

What if you wanted to marry your dog, or marry 10 women? You have a right to pursue happiness after all.

and how is that your business?

I mean......really....
what the fuk do you care if some guy marries his dog
or 10 women

if 10 women would happily marry one guy then what the fuk is it to you?

why do YOU feel you have to tell everyone else how to live?

why don't you just take care of your own life and stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone else...? hmmmm?

LOL... Oh A free thinker... One of my faves...

So the argument is that people of like mind do not have a right to set standards of behavior for their community. BUT individuals can engage in whatever behavior which flitters through their head...

Golly that seems to represent a bit of a conflict doesn't it?

How is it that an individual has a right to do anything they want, except to establish standards of behavior for the community in which they invest their lives?

Perhaps the answer rests within the composition of Rights... the origins...

Let me ask ya friend, what are these rights? Specifically?

Where do they come from?

Do they come with any responsibilities?

Of course at this point it's only fair that I point out that you're free to concede that your point is moot and your point of view specious nonsense and that because of your lack of understanding of the issue, you'd be better served to do more reading and less asserting.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Kagan's wrong (surprise surprise)...it's in the right to contract.

 

[antagon]

well, your history lesson imperils the appeal courts generalization about all the traditions of marriage over history, but does that history overturn the conclusion that its presumptuous to deem the heterosexual definition of marriage bigoted?

Yes.


Marriage as recognized by the State in this nation is a legal contract between two persons. As such, it is unconstitutional to discriminate in the recognition of that contract based on the sex, gender, or sexual presentation of the either or both of the parties involved just as it is to do so based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, et cetera. The motivations put forth in favour of such discrimination come down always to religion and personal bigotry and it is malicious not only for its motivations and root causes but also in its effect, including providing a major roadblock to caring securing the same rights and protections as a couple of the same race [Loving v. Virginia], religion, national origin, etc , including but not limited to guardianship of a partner's child, adoption of a child, power of attorney, and other legal rights, protections, and effects of union that are recognized when the couple is of the 'preferred type'.

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

leave room for the those motivations presumed by the author of the hernandez decision:

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.

the hernandez argument was clearly an attempt to dodge the bullet of having to set precedent on a hot issue like gay marriage. what about the effect of the definition? if a judgment can't be made that the definition was motivated by hate, can the the effects stand alone? this begs a question with a known answer: can an individuals choice to run out in traffic justify a penalty against the motorist who strikes him down? should the law be pressed to accommodate a group who defines themselves outside its qualifications?

the real issue for the gay rights groups is that the standing to raise an objection is out of reach. the license insulates the government from answering to denial of the benefits enumerated in your link. there's no exposure to criminal consequence like loving v VA contested, after all...

file jointly and claim a return as a married couple, and the issue is that you dont have a license, not that you're gay. get denied a license because you dont put a male in the husband slot and a female in the wife spot on the application, you've filled out the application wrong, or don't qualify to apply, like a nine-year-old on a drivers license app.

benefits require qualification to obtain, and discrimination to designate to their target groups alone. tear that down?

the remedy is to reform the definitions at the state level by way of politics is it not?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Kagan's wrong (surprise surprise)...it's in the right to contract.

ROFL...

Nope... Any right to contract is limited to activity which is condoned by law.

Marriage is a contract which is legally exclusive to one male and one female.

The joke here is that the advocates of normalizing abnormailty claim that homosexuals are being excluded from engaging in these contracts; thus this represents 'discrimination'... Which is true and not true...

Homosexuals are being discriminated against... because homosexuality is a behavior which is being discouraged. And since Marriage serves the purpose of ENCOURAGING HETERO-SEXUAL UNIONS... Homosexuals are excluded ONLY WHERE THEY SEEK TO JOIN OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT CULTURAL ENCOURAGEMENT. Thus Homosexuals are not excluded, as long as they seek to contract within the legally defined scope; with a person of the necessary, legally defined gender.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

 

[JBeukema]

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.

Using that reasoning, not only must you deny same-sex couples the right to enter into a legal contract , but also any woman with a hysterectomy, people who use condoms, men with ED, anyone infertile or inverile, anyone too old to have a child...

Not to mention that the very concept of basing the right to enter into a legal contract [a contract that is already recognized as a standard form of contract] based on whether one can reproduce is unconstitutional and immoral from the outset.

if a judgment can't be made that the definition was motivated by hate, can the the effects stand alone?

Yes. Another precedent involving race was the Chinese Laundry Case [Yick Wo v. Hopkins] which that determined that law which is not discriminatory on its service can be unconstitutional if it is discriminatory in practice. It follows, then, that a law which is discretionary in practice is unconstitutional even if it was not so intended.

this begs a question with a known answer: can an individuals choice to run out in traffic justify a penalty against the motorist who strikes him down?

To compare entering a legal contract of marriage to risking one's life by running into a freeway is dishonest at best and warrants no so serious consideration. You've lost standing and credibility with comment.

should the law be pressed to accommodate a group who defines themselves outside its qualifications?

The only qualifications to enter into legal contract are

-to be of legal age to do so (or have the sponsorship of a guardian)

-to be of sound mind, understanding the nature of the contract and not being judged legally incompetent

get denied a license because you dont put a male in the husband slot and a female in the wife spot on the application, you've filled out the application wrong,

Which takes us right back to the unconstitutional discrimination in recognizing legal contracts entered into by free and competent persons based on race, sex, national origin, etc.

or don't qualify to apply, like a nine-year-old on a drivers license app.

You're comparing a 32-year-old woman entering into a contract with another 32-year-old woman to a nine-year-old child operating a deadly machine? I beleive the phrase is 'jumped the shark.

Twice now you have resulted to absurd non sequitur. I'm beginning to question whether you're capable of discussing this matter in a mature, intelligent, and honest manner.

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage is a contract which is legally exclusive to one male and one female.

-of the same race and religion

The joke here is that the advocates of normalizing abnormailty

Like ****** loving?

miscegenation are being discriminated against... because miscegenation is a behavior which is being discouraged.

We've heard it all from your ilk before.

And since Marriage serves the purpose of ENCOURAGING HETERO-SEXUAL UNIONS...

-between White Christians, right?

excluded ONLY WHERE THEY SEEK TO JOIN OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT CULTURAL ENCOURAGEMENT.

Virgina told Loving the same thing

 

[Luissa]

Kagan's wrong (surprise surprise)...it's in the right to contract.

ROFL...

Nope... Any right to contract is limited to activity which is condoned by law.

Marriage is a contract which is legally exclusive to one male and one female.

The joke here is that the advocates of normalizing abnormailty claim that homosexuals are being excluded from engaging in these contracts; thus this represents 'discrimination'... Which is true and not true...

Homosexuals are being discriminated against... because homosexuality is a behavior which is being discouraged. And since Marriage serves the purpose of ENCOURAGING HETERO-SEXUAL UNIONS... Homosexuals are excluded ONLY WHERE THEY SEEK TO JOIN OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT CULTURAL ENCOURAGEMENT. Thus Homosexuals are not excluded, as long as they seek to contract within the legally defined scope; with a person of the necessary, legally defined gender.

So you are alright with the federal government encouraging a certain way of life?