Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Syriusly]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

And under the Republic law makers derive their power from the will of the people. And the will of the people in most states is that marriage is between one man and one woman.

And the will of the people in most states was that marriage was supposed to be between a man and woman of the same race.

And still felt that way 30 years after the Supreme Court found that the will of the people was unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

No one has argued that homosexuals are really blacks. That is a patently absurd claim.

And same gender couples are winning in the courts- that is when you folks keep arguing "Its up to the majority' or my favorite 'black robed fascists'

 

[Syriusly]

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

Grossly offensive to whom? To you? Not to Mildred Loving

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court
case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so
many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the
freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.


Here is what you claimed earlier

And under the Republic law makers derive their power from the will of the people. And the will of the people in most states is that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Does that apply to everyone- or only when its laws against homosexuals?

Because the bans against mixed race marriages were 'the will of the people' and were unconstitutional.

The Lovings went to court to argue that the laws were unconstitutional- just like gay couples have gone to the courts.

 

[Syriusly]

[
You keep whining about discrimination, but the reality is I want to end it and you just want to move the line.

The reality is that you only inject yourself in the argument when homosexuals want equal access to legal marriage.

You want to end legal marriage? Go for it.

But you arguing against extending equal rights to gay couples because you are against legal marriage is just an argument for discrimination.

 

[Syriusly]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

They use the same argument. And it is grossly offensive. They are in no ways similar. It is a failed argument.

How is it different? Explain that to us.

For gays to assume the mantle of a civil rights struggle where many blacks literally took their lives in their hands is unbeliveably presumptuous and offensive. It would be as bad as labelling it a "gay holocaust".

Offensive to whom exactly? You? Because of your deep sense of connection with Black Civil rights?

Who is it not offensive to?

Loving for All By Mildred Loving*
Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007, The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married. We didn't get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family.

You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person.

Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: ""Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile. We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love. Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," a "basic civil right." 2

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life.

I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Why do you find it offensive, when Mildred Loving does not?

 

[Skylar]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution.

Equal protection under the law is part of the constitution. As it a 5th amendment guarantee of liberty. Either of which is sufficient to ensure that gays and lesbians have the same access to marriage as anyone else.

The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners.

A similar argument was used with interracial marriage bans. As whites couldn't marry blacks and blacks couldn't marry whites. So it was 'equal'. This reasoning breaks on the requirement that the restriction itself must meet constitutional muster, having a rational reason and a compelling state interest.

Gay marriage bans have neither.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you find it offensive, when Mildred Loving does not?

Its convenient to his argument?

 

[Skylar]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

In most states...36 now...you also have that right.

Argument 2.
Imagine that.

And 'argument 2' stumps you just as thoroughly as 'argument 1'.

If you had a rational retort to either, you'd offer it. Instead, you simply number the arguments that send you running.

Shrugs...its not like the courts are going to ignore either argument.

 

[Skylar]

Argument 1.
Imagine that.

And 'argument 1' sends you running just as thoroughly as 'argument 2'.

You can't refute or factually dispute either argument.

Keep running.

 

[Seawytch]

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Gosh, but wouldn't it be great? We'd raise taxes on the rich. Have universal background checks AND a public option.

 

[Skylar]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

More accurately, gays are challenging the restrictions placed on marriage as a violation of the 14th and 5th amendments. As the restrictions themselves must be constitutionally valid. They must serve a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Romer v. Evans reiterated this explicitly in reference to laws targeting gays.

And gay marriage bans can't meet either standard.

 

[Silhouette]

More accurately, gays are challenging the restrictions placed on marriage as a violation of the 14th and 5th amendments. As the restrictions themselves must be constitutionally valid. They must serve a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Romer v. Evans reiterated this explicitly in reference to laws targeting gays.

And gay marriage bans can't meet either standard.

..While the most important demographic to the marriage contract (who cannot vote) must challenge for their civil right to their best formative environment (mother and father as role models)...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

 

[Seawytch]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.

Gays have the same argument blacks had on marriage.

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus...which is why their arguments are losing in court.

My view is a legal one, there is no basis for the courts to rule, they have no legitimate power to make life fair. You can go to the legislature and do it legitimately. But as for you versus the morality crowd, let's examine your arguments.

Them) Men and women can procreate, there is an interest the people, government and society share to perpetuate the species.

You) You cry yourself to sleep every night that the collective isn't patting you on the back and validating who you sleep with and backing it up with $$$ and other perks.

They have a better argument. However, my response to them is there is a better solution than government marriage to achieve their objective, flat taxes, eliminate the death tax, recognize paternity on genes not paper, ... Then we get government out of the discrimination business.

You keep whining about discrimination, but the reality is I want to end it and you just want to move the line.

Actually, the reality is that judges are finding that anti gay laws are based solely on animus and violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

That is reality. Your Libertarian fantasy ain't gonna happen. (And it's not because the gays get what you HAVE)

 

[Syriusly]

More accurately, gays are challenging the restrictions placed on marriage as a violation of the 14th and 5th amendments. As the restrictions themselves must be constitutionally valid. They must serve a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Romer v. Evans reiterated this explicitly in reference to laws targeting gays.

And gay marriage bans can't meet either standard.

..While the most important demographic to the marriage contract (who cannot vote) must challenge for their civil right to their best formative environment (mother and father as role models)...

Actually their parents are the ones challenging for their children's civil rights

As Justice Kennedy pointed out:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Seawytch]

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

States not recognizing legal, civil marriages performed in another state do "fit that description".

 

[Syriusly]

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

'unless their is a grievous breech'- who decides what is a grievous breech? I mean other than the courts?

You? Me? the KKK?

Among the various laws that have been overturned by the courts:

• laws preventing the use of contraceptives
• laws criminalizing sex between consenting adults
• laws preventing gun ownership
• laws preventing mixed race marriages
• laws preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
• State laws preventing corporations from making political contributions.

Minorities don't go to court and overturn whatever law they don't like- most complaints fail- the courts exist in part to ensure that minorities can have a forum when the majority wishes to discriminate against them.

 

[Skylar]

..While the most important demographic to the marriage contract (who cannot vote) must challenge for their civil right to their best formative environment (mother and father as role models)...

Oh, the problems with that analysis.

First, its nonsense. Denying marriage to the same sex parents of children doesn't mean that those children suddenly get a mother and father. It only means their parents can't be married. Which benefits those children in no way.

Second, your 'best formative environment' claim is nonsense. Study after study (more than a dozen in total) demonstrate that same sex parents raise children that are as healthy emotionally and physically as straight parents. You simply ignore any study that indicates as much......for no particular reason.

Third, the courts have already clearly determined that the lack of marriage for the same sex parents of children harms those children.

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor v. US

While you can ignore the court, its highly unlikely the court is going to ignore itself.

 

[Skylar]

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.