Michigan's gay marriage ban struck down

[The Rabbi]

What was the basis of discimination in anti-miscegenation statutes? On the basis of race. What is the basis of discrimination on gay marriage?

Last I checked such laws in the past were written based on the racial composition of the couple. These laws are written in terms of the gender composition of the couple (i.e. one man and one woman).


Race is a biological factor, gender is a biological factor.


The basis of discrimination, technically as a function of law, is gender.
>>>>

Wrong.
Women can get married
Men can get married.
Ergo no discrimination whatsoever.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, those of us who have read the opinion understand it correctly, whereas you do not understand it correctly.

The Loving Court held that the 14th Amendment compels the state to allow all citizens access to its laws, including marriage law, where the state lacks the authority to deny citizens their individual rights:



And that same jurisprudence is being correctly and appropriately applied by Federal judges today, in accordance with the fact that the state may not deny American citizens access to marriage law solely due to sexual orientation, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end. As the Supreme Court held in Romer, concerning a measure such as the Michigan amendment, “t is a status based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. '[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .' Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24.”

Loving dealt with discrimination on the basis of race.
On what basis is there discrimination in same sex marriage?

Equality before the law, in this case that of two unmarried consenting adults. Since there's no requirement for them to produce children, there's no requirement to have them drop their pants before being granted a state-issued license.

There is no unmarried consenting adult who does not have the ability to get married. Rights are individual, not group.
Fail.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What was the basis of discimination in anti-miscegenation statutes? On the basis of race. What is the basis of discrimination on gay marriage?

Last I checked such laws in the past were written based on the racial composition of the couple. These laws are written in terms of the gender composition of the couple (i.e. one man and one woman).


Race is a biological factor, gender is a biological factor.


The basis of discrimination, technically as a function of law, is gender.
>>>>

Wrong.
Women can get married
Men can get married.
Ergo no discrimination whatsoever.

Wrong.

That logic was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Blacks could marry, Whites could marry, ergo no discrimination "whatsoever") and the SCOTUS soundly rejected it.

The treatment examined in Loving was based on the treatment of the couple, not based on the individual.

I hope you are not trying to say that the law is not written in terms of gender (i.e. one man and one woman).


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Last I checked such laws in the past were written based on the racial composition of the couple. These laws are written in terms of the gender composition of the couple (i.e. one man and one woman).


Race is a biological factor, gender is a biological factor.


The basis of discrimination, technically as a function of law, is gender.
>>>>

Wrong.
Women can get married
Men can get married.
Ergo no discrimination whatsoever.

Wrong.

That logic was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Blacks could marry, Whites could marry, ergo no discrimination "whatsoever") and the SCOTUS soundly rejected it.

The treatment examined in Loving was based on the treatment of the couple, not based on the individual.

I hope you are not trying to say that the law is not written in terms of gender (i.e. one man and one woman).


>>>>

Wrong. A black man did not have the same rights as a white man.
But a gay man has the same rights as a straight man.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rights are individual, not group.
Fail.

So rights weren't being violated under interracial bans because blacks could marry, just not whites.


Is that what you are saying?


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Rights are individual, not group.
Fail.

So rights weren't being violated under interracial bans because blacks could marry, just not whites.


Is that what you are saying?


>>>>

NO, idiot. That isn't what I am saying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. A black man did not have the same rights as a white man.
But a gay man has the same rights as a straight man.

A black man could marry a black woman, a white man could not marry a black woman. The white man and the black man did not have the same rights.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rights are individual, not group.
Fail.

So rights weren't being violated under interracial bans because blacks could marry, just not whites.


Is that what you are saying?


>>>>

NO, idiot. That isn't what I am saying.

Sure looks like it. YOU are the idiot making the claim that the legal examination under the law is ONLY based on the individual, which was wrong. The Loving case involved how the COUPLE was treated.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong. A black man did not have the same rights as a white man.
But a gay man has the same rights as a straight man.

A black man could marry a black woman, a white man could not marry a black woman. The white man and the black man did not have the same rights.



>>>>

That's correct. They did not have the same rights. There was discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal per the Constitution.
On what basis is there discrimination in marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

So rights weren't being violated under interracial bans because blacks could marry, just not whites.


Is that what you are saying?


>>>>

NO, idiot. That isn't what I am saying.

Sure looks like it. YOU are the idiot making the claim that the legal examination under the law is ONLY based on the individual, which was wrong. The Loving case involved how the COUPLE was treated.


>>>>

That is incorrect. Rights accrue to individuals, not groups.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. A black man did not have the same rights as a white man.
But a gay man has the same rights as a straight man.

A black man could marry a black woman, a white man could not marry a black woman. The white man and the black man did not have the same rights.



>>>>

That's correct. They did not have the same rights. There was discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal per the Constitution.
On what basis is there discrimination in marriage?

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

NO, idiot. That isn't what I am saying.

Sure looks like it. YOU are the idiot making the claim that the legal examination under the law is ONLY based on the individual, which was wrong. The Loving case involved how the COUPLE was treated.


>>>>

That is incorrect. Rights accrue to individuals, not groups.

Then you should write a letter to the United States Supreme Court and tell them they got it wrong in the Loving decision.

Good luck with that.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

A black man could marry a black woman, a white man could not marry a black woman. The white man and the black man did not have the same rights.



>>>>

That's correct. They did not have the same rights. There was discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal per the Constitution.
On what basis is there discrimination in marriage?

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

No discrimination on gender. All women can marry. All men can marry. There is no right that men have that women do not have and vice versa.

 

[bodecea]

What was the basis of discimination in anti-miscegenation statutes? On the basis of race. What is the basis of discrimination on gay marriage?

Last I checked such laws in the past were written based on the racial composition of the couple. These laws are written in terms of the gender composition of the couple (i.e. one man and one woman).


Race is a biological factor, gender is a biological factor.


The basis of discrimination, technically as a function of law, is gender.
>>>>

Wrong.
Women can get married
Men can get married.
Ergo no discrimination whatsoever.

Gender discrimination as to who one can marry.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure looks like it. YOU are the idiot making the claim that the legal examination under the law is ONLY based on the individual, which was wrong. The Loving case involved how the COUPLE was treated.


>>>>

That is incorrect. Rights accrue to individuals, not groups.

Then you should write a letter to the United States Supreme Court and tell them they got it wrong in the Loving decision.

Good luck with that.


>>>>

You should read the Loving decision and some other landmarks and you then go kill yourself in shame.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Loving dealt with discrimination on the basis of race.
On what basis is there discrimination in same sex marriage?

Equality before the law, in this case that of two unmarried consenting adults. Since there's no requirement for them to produce children, there's no requirement to have them drop their pants before being granted a state-issued license.

There is no unmarried consenting adult who does not have the ability to get married. Rights are individual, not group.
Fail.

That's cute but your forgot to tell us why one has to be one sex and one the other?

 

[The Rabbi]

Last I checked such laws in the past were written based on the racial composition of the couple. These laws are written in terms of the gender composition of the couple (i.e. one man and one woman).


Race is a biological factor, gender is a biological factor.


The basis of discrimination, technically as a function of law, is gender.
>>>>

Wrong.
Women can get married
Men can get married.
Ergo no discrimination whatsoever.

Gender discrimination as to who one can marry.

Nope. That is not discrimination.

 

[Plasmaball]

That's correct. They did not have the same rights. There was discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal per the Constitution.
On what basis is there discrimination in marriage?

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

No discrimination on gender. All women can marry. All men can marry. There is no right that men have that women do not have and vice versa.

Its fun watching you try to beat people into thinking you are right by constantly repeating the samethings over. Where as if this was a court room you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

 

[Pop23]

A black man could marry a black woman, a white man could not marry a black woman. The white man and the black man did not have the same rights.



>>>>

That's correct. They did not have the same rights. There was discrimination on the basis of race, which is illegal per the Constitution.
On what basis is there discrimination in marriage?

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

Just curious. You brought fertility into this twice.

Would not Roe V. Wade prohibit this as a basis due to reproductive privacy rights?

Not arguing, simply curious

 

[The Rabbi]

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

No discrimination on gender. All women can marry. All men can marry. There is no right that men have that women do not have and vice versa.

Its fun watching you try to beat people into thinking you are right by constantly repeating the samethings over. Where as if this was a court room you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

This is a messageboard.
And you've been laughed out of a messageboard. How stupid is that?