Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

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

  1. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,734
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,976
    NONSENSE! If this were the case, we could just pass a law that I can blow your ass away just for looking at me wrong in public and I can say that's my "right" because you threatened my right to life and pursuit of happiness.

    We don't arbitrarily CHANGE what things mean so they fit our agenda! I can't just up and SAY that "marriage" means I should have the right to marry a 12-year-old! Now, there is actually a better argument for THAT since it wasn't that long ago it was perfectly legal to marry 12-year-olds! But the point is, we can't just up and say something is "marriage" because we want to do it!
     
  2. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    5,555
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...
     
  3. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,734
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,976
    Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.
     
  4. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    5,555
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    I'm not the one who keeps trying to change how the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts work. The rulings of the District Courts apply to all the states in that circuit; not only the state that specifically passed the law that is being considered by the court - it is called a circuit court for a reason - and the ruling does not apply to all 50 states - it is called a circuit court for a reason.

    Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction.
     
  5. Seawytch
    Offline

    Seawytch Information isnt Advocacy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    32,398
    Thanks Received:
    4,494
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    Peaking out from the redwoods
    Ratings:
    +9,118
    Isn't it more accurate to say "Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction"...when the SCOTUS chose not to hear the cases?
     
  6. toxicmedia
    Offline

    toxicmedia Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    5,569
    Thanks Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Northern California
    Ratings:
    +2,450
    His view is superior to yours, and your view is intellectually repulsive.

    PS, I'm still calling it marriage equality
     
  7. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    5,555
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    Welll...that's true. The SCOTUS could haven chosen to vacate the ruling, if they felt that the court over-stepped its jurisdiction. It chose not to.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,734
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,976
    The ruling applies to a law in the State of California only. The case was not about anything other than a law in the State of California. I'm not changing anything about the court's jurisdiction. Had they been ruling on laws in all those states, then their ruling would apply to all those states. They were not. They ruled on a law in the State of California.
     
  9. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,734
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,976
    No. Because again, the case in question was about a law passed in the State of California, not any other state or law passed in any other state. The ruling only applies to the case brought before the court, which was regarding the law passed in California. If another state passed a similar law and someone brought that case before the court, they may use Hollingsworth v Perry as a precedent, or they may find there isn't enough similarity to justify that. It's up to the court to decide at that time. They did not rule on constitutionality of gay marriage, only on a law passed in the State of California.
     
  10. Boss
    Online

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,544
    Thanks Received:
    2,734
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +9,976
    BREAKING NEWS:
    US Circuit Court: There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage


    US Circuit Court There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage LibertyNEWS.com

    Today’s decision helpfully explained why these laws are constitutional, why it is reasonable for citizens to support such laws, and why arguments for court-imposed redefinition of marriage do not succeed. It also sets the stage for marriage to return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    As the 6th Circuit decision helpfully notes, at issue in these cases is “whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit” to redefine marriage. The court ruled that the democratic process should continue:

    Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the 32 million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

    In a similar fashion to a ruling last month from a federal judge in Puerto Rico, the 6th Circuit today noted that no Supreme Court precedent requires the judicial redefinition of marriage—and that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case supports the authority of states to make marriage policy.


    ..........RUH ROH!
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

stop gay marriage in the us