Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by martybegan, Oct 8, 2014.

  1. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,120
    Thanks Received:
    1,307
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +1,985

    1, *SIGH* They did hear the case. A Writ of Certiorari was submitted to the SCOTUS and they accepted the case. They determined that there were two questions to be answered. The first was on standing, the second on the merits of Prop 8. They answered the first question and determined that proponents didn't have standing, the second question was not addressed. But the court did issue an opinion.

    2. Never said that Hollingsworth v. Perry was a decision on the constitutionality of SSCM. It didn't, but the court did issue an opinion and that was linked for you. You should scroll past the syllabus to the section entitled "Opinion of the Court".

    3. To the person that thinks that Constitutional Amendments are passed by 2/3rd's of the States based on state ballots, you really should take a basic civics class and try to understand judicial process of the SCOTUS and how the Constitutional amendment process works.


    >>>>
     
  2. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,120
    Thanks Received:
    1,307
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +1,985
    In the Hollingsworth v. Perry case the SCOTUS overturned the 9th's ruling as being void since they shouldn't have accepted the proponents as having standing. They could have also vacated the District Court Judges ruling (leaving Prop 8 as active), they choose not to do that. Instead they allowed the District Courts ruling to stand that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

    They result? SSCM's resumed in California.


    >>>>
     
  3. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    4,561
    Thanks Received:
    426
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,437
    Really? I didn't know there was any other alternative. Either a ruling is upheld - meaning it stays in place - or it's overruled - meaning it goes away. It didn't go away, so guess what that means? You see, a ruling that is not overruled is, by default, and definition, upheld.
     
  4. Inevitable
    Offline

    Inevitable Deist.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,809
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +236
    Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.

    More liberty is more than less liberty.

    It's really simple.

    I could be either a vegetarian or an omnivore right? That is my choice. How is declaring that you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex any different than the state declaring you can only serve vegetarian cuisine in a restaurant?
     
  5. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,191
    Thanks Received:
    2,684
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,761
    No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
     
  6. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,191
    Thanks Received:
    2,684
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,761
    Because it is akin to saying that flying a rocket ship is the same as driving a car... then declaring you have a right to blow down the highway on a rocket because you have a driver's license and your rocket is a car. In your restaurant analogy, it's like saying that you have the right to serve food made of plastic instead of real food, but you call the plastic food real because it looks real to you.

    Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years. The union of same sex couples is just the union of same sex couples... not marriage. Now, I have no problem with you having a "wedding" and calling it a "marriage" ...just like I have no problem with you setting your table with plastic food and pretending you are eating dinner. I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law.

    I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will. Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people. I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?
     
  7. Inevitable
    Offline

    Inevitable Deist.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,809
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +236
    Incorrect, flying a rocket down a road built for automobiles is dangerous, as with your cockimamie restaurant analogy.

    Same sex marriage risks nothing. My analogies were apt. You just don't like them because they point out that your position is irrational.

    Because of your fallacious appeal to tradition? The government should not really be concerned with your false propriety claim on any word. And it seems it isn't.

    Ironic.

    That is the court's duty. Not to be swayed by popular opinion.

    Much much more.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    42,413
    Thanks Received:
    9,155
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +25,159
    BOSS SAID:

    “Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years.”

    As a fact of law this is irrelevant.

    That something is perceived to be 'traditional' or 'historic' is not justification to deny citizens their civil rights.
     
  9. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,120
    Thanks Received:
    1,307
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +1,985
    You have proposed Civil Unions for everyone and that the government recognize those under the law and that "marriage" not be used by the government.

    That is government recognition (or in your term - sanctioning). So your "idea" really doesn't change anything as the government would still recognize their "activity".

    Actually I'm onboard with the idea that the government recognize only Civil Unions and do so irregardless of the gender of the couple. I could give a rats ass what the government calls the legal family relationship between my wife and I, our marriage is based on the commitment we made 27 years ago and not government terminology.

    However, the largest push-pack you will have from such an idea will be from different-sex couples that insist on government recognition of their marriage and not wanting to call it a "Civil Union" instead.


    >>>>
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,191
    Thanks Received:
    2,684
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,761
    THEY can call it whatever they want to, so can gay couples, so can churches. No one has proposed that "marriage" would no longer exist or that "marriages" would no longer be performed. The only aspect changed is the governmental recognition of domestic relationships period.

    Most of the "traditionalists" are right-wing small government conservatives who want government out of our lives. Well... there you are! *POOF* The government is out of your life! No more government sanctioning what you can or can't call a "marriage!"
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

stop gay marriage

,

stop gay marriage in the us