32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, rights are a human invention, they exist only because we exist.

However they're also the basis for law in the US. Laws are a human invention, they exist only because we exist "Cute.... and fictional."

You don't want laws?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, rights are a human invention, they exist only because we exist.

However they're also the basis for law in the US. Laws are a human invention, they exist only because we exist "Cute.... and fictional."

You don't want laws?

Yes, penal and civil code already governs behaviors. What you want is a fascist state where some minority behaviors can dictate their repugnant subculture to the majority. Gay sex does not equal race. Not literally, nor legally.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, penal and civil code already governs behaviors. What you want is a fascist state where some minority behaviors can dictate their repugnant subculture to the majority. Gay sex does not equal race. Not literally, nor legally.

So now gays having the same rights as everyone else....is fascism? I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Clearly you've never heard of the 'tyranny of the majority. The majority can't vote away the rights of the minority. And often the body that protects the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority is the courts.

That you feel homosexuality is 'repugnant' is completely irrelevant to their right to marry. As their rights aren't based on your feelings. Nor should they be.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, penal and civil code already governs behaviors. What you want is a fascist state where some minority behaviors can dictate their repugnant subculture to the majority. Gay sex does not equal race. Not literally, nor legally.

So you're against Human Rights then?

No, being gay does not equal a race.

But why should someone be protected if they're black but not if they're gay? Makes no sense.

 

[Seawytch]

Hmmmm, I don't see the words "gay marriage" Could you highlight them for us?

Gays do not need the word 'marriage' in order to have equal protection of the laws. Note the word "protection". How would a gay marriage provide more protection than a civil union?

I don't see "interracial marriage" in the 14th Amendment. How did the SCOTUS manage to rule on Loving if marriage isn't in there, Fishy?

You've already been provided the data on how civil unions do not offer the same protections as civil marriage. Now, if you want to change the name of civil marriage to civil unions for all Americans, you would negate that issue. You need to hurry up and get on it though, we almost at the 50% level with gays having equal access to civil marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Idaho, Latta v. Otter


Nevada, Sevick v. Sandoval


Hawaii, Jackson v. Abercrombie



For anyone interested, here are the three cases recently heard before the 9th Circuit Court. It appeared that the arguments by the States were viewed with a fairly skeptical eye and it appears that the 10th Circuit, 7th Circruit, and 4th Circruit will be joined by the 9th Circuit in their rulings.


NOTE: Hawaii wasn't really arguments on SSCM itself as Hawaii already has SSCM. The case is about whether to rule a current legal action challenging the Legislatures ability to pass SSCM can be continued or is actually moot.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

For anyone interested, here are the three cases recently heard before the 9th Circuit Court. It appeared that the arguments by the States were viewed with a fairly skeptical eye and it appears that the 10th Circuit, 7th Circruit, and 4th Circruit will be joined by the 9th Circuit in their rulings.

Perhaps because the arguments of the State just don't work?

 

[Seawytch]

Perhaps because the arguments of the State just don't work?

Gee, ya think? Most of their arguments are ridiculous and are called out as such by judges..."Tradition" and "procreation" being two of them that have gone down in flames.

 

[Skylar]

Perhaps because the arguments of the State just don't work?

Gee, ya think? Most of their arguments are ridiculous and are called out as such by judges..."Tradition" and "procreation" being two of them that have gone down in flames.

If procreation were a requirement of marriage, procreation would be a requirement of marriage.

As for tradition, its another circular argument: We want to discriminate because we've discriminated.

Even conservative justices with no proclivity toward judicial activism are calling bullshit.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes, rights are a human invention, they exist only because we exist.
However they're also the basis for law in the US. Laws are a human invention, they exist only because we exist "Cute.... and fictional."
You don't want laws?

I wouldnt agree with Carlin that they are "cute" I would say they are a noble idea, But, they are determined by us, WE THE PEOPLE and not by a bunch of judges.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, rights are a human invention, they exist only because we exist.
However they're also the basis for law in the US. Laws are a human invention, they exist only because we exist "Cute.... and fictional."
You don't want laws?

I wouldnt agree with Carlin that they are "cute" I would say they are a noble idea, But, they are determined by us, WE THE PEOPLE and not by a bunch of judges.

determined by us, and how well is it going when you have people who claim rights for things they want, and then dismiss rights for other people because they don't like it.

It's all become a bit of a joke, most people struggle with the fundamental principles of rights, and I'm even talking judges.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes, penal and civil code already governs behaviors. What you want is a fascist state where some minority behaviors can dictate their repugnant subculture to the majority. Gay sex does not equal race. Not literally, nor legally.

So now gays having the same rights as everyone else....is fascism? I don't think fascism means what you think it means.
Clearly you've never heard of the 'tyranny of the majority. The majority can't vote away the rights of the minority. And often the body that protects the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority is the courts.
That you feel homosexuality is 'repugnant' is completely irrelevant to their right to marry. As their rights aren't based on your feelings. Nor should they be.

John Adams said
"This influence of the Whigs he [Massachusettensis] calls a democracy or republic, and then a despotism: two ideas incompatible with each other. A democratical despotism is a contradiction in terms." [writing as NOVANGLUS]

I agree, the role of the courts is to try and determine what Wethepeople meant in certain situations.....it is NOT to "protect" from the "tyranny" of the majority.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes, rights are a human invention, they exist only because we exist.
However they're also the basis for law in the US. Laws are a human invention, they exist only because we exist "Cute.... and fictional."
You don't want laws?

I wouldnt agree with Carlin that they are "cute" I would say they are a noble idea, But, they are determined by us, WE THE PEOPLE and not by a bunch of judges.

determined by us, and how well is it going when you have people who claim rights for things they want, and then dismiss rights for other people because they don't like it.
It's all become a bit of a joke, most people struggle with the fundamental principles of rights, and I'm even talking judges.

people by nature are inconsistent....others can point that out in argument......and it is usually...if correct, a powerful argument......to be weighed in the court of public opinion.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, penal and civil code already governs behaviors. What you want is a fascist state where some minority behaviors can dictate their repugnant subculture to the majority. Gay sex does not equal race. Not literally, nor legally.

So now gays having the same rights as everyone else....is fascism? I don't think fascism means what you think it means.
Clearly you've never heard of the 'tyranny of the majority. The majority can't vote away the rights of the minority. And often the body that protects the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority is the courts.
That you feel homosexuality is 'repugnant' is completely irrelevant to their right to marry. As their rights aren't based on your feelings. Nor should they be.

John Adams said
"This influence of the Whigs he [Massachusettensis] calls a democracy or republic, and then a despotism: two ideas incompatible with each other. A democratical despotism is a contradiction in terms." [writing as NOVANGLUS?]

I agree, the role of the courts is to try and determine what Wethepeople meant in certain situations.....it is NOT to "protect" from the "tyranny" of the majority.

I disagree. The majority has many times stripped the minority of rights and freedoms. The courts have stepped in and protected the rights of minorities from the majority. And this is the balance in our system.

A straight up democracy where majority rules can be utterly tyrannical. As they can vote away the rights, property even lives of the minority. We balance this power by protecting individual rights and placing the abrogation of rights beyond the authority of the majority. And often, we do this through the courts.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, rights are a human invention, they exist only because we exist.
However they're also the basis for law in the US. Laws are a human invention, they exist only because we exist "Cute.... and fictional."
You don't want laws?

I wouldnt agree with Carlin that they are "cute" I would say they are a noble idea, But, they are determined by us, WE THE PEOPLE and not by a bunch of judges.

determined by us, and how well is it going when you have people who claim rights for things they want, and then dismiss rights for other people because they don't like it.

It's all become a bit of a joke, most people struggle with the fundamental principles of rights, and I'm even talking judges.

Rights are a system of arbitrary assumptions that we largely agree upon. Society to a large extent is similarly based. But being man made doesn't mean they don't exist. They're like....language. Language is just arbitrary noises coming out of our head holes. It has meaning when we agree it does. And once we've come to that agreement, we can start setting up rules for spelling and grammar and anything else we like.

Language is quite real. Rights are quite real. But they're made and protected by us.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes, penal and civil code already governs behaviors. What you want is a fascist state where some minority behaviors can dictate their repugnant subculture to the majority. Gay sex does not equal race. Not literally, nor legally.

So now gays having the same rights as everyone else....is fascism? I don't think fascism means what you think it means.
Clearly you've never heard of the 'tyranny of the majority. The majority can't vote away the rights of the minority. And often the body that protects the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority is the courts.
That you feel homosexuality is 'repugnant' is completely irrelevant to their right to marry. As their rights aren't based on your feelings. Nor should they be.

John Adams said
"This influence of the Whigs he [Massachusettensis] calls a democracy or republic, and then a despotism: two ideas incompatible with each other. A democratical despotism is a contradiction in terms." [writing as NOVANGLUS?]

I agree, the role of the courts is to try and determine what Wethepeople meant in certain situations.....it is NOT to "protect" from the "tyranny" of the majority.

I disagree. The majority has many times stripped the minority of rights and freedoms. The courts have stepped in and protected the rights of minorities from the majority. And this is the balance in our system.
A straight up democracy where majority rules can be utterly tyrannical. As they can vote away the rights, property even lives of the minority. We balance this power by protecting individual rights and placing the abrogation of rights beyond the authority of the majority. And often, we do this through the courts.

The history of the courts shows them upholding rules AGAINST minorities probably as much or more so then "stepping in" to protect. The "rights" in our Constitution were AMENDMENTS passed by THE MAJORITY. Courts have occasionally used this greater majority rule to overrule violations at the local level. But courts have often abused their power to protect powerful minorities also.....see my post on financial capture of the federal judiciary.
Capture of Federal Judiciary by finanacial interests shows need for reform US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Then you disagree wrongly. The history of the courts shows them upholding rules AGAINST minorities probably as much or more so then "stepping in" to protect.

Not as much anymore. In most cases in say, the last 3 generations or so....if protecting the rights of minorities is on deck, they abstain from ruling or rule in favor of the minority rights. Ruling against them is no where near as common.

And since the modern judiciary is what we'll be dealing with in a gay marriage ruling, I think that the protection of minority rights from the majority is a distinct, perhaps even probable outcome. It all depends on Kennedy. Who has a thing for protecting gays from discrimination from State laws and for protecting States rights. So it could go either way....though I think Kennedy will ultimately side with gays. Especially since the idea seems to be taking such root across the nation.

The "rights" in our Constitution were AMENDMENTS passed by THE MAJORITY.

True enough. But the interpretation of the constitution is largely left to the courts. And of course, the bill of rights simply articulated rights that the founders insisted we already had. It didn't create rights. It codified them. And as the 9th amendment makes clear there are far more rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights.

The courts are the body most commonly used in articulating these 'unemumerated' rights. Like...the right to privacy. Or the right to self defense with a fire arm.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rights are a system of arbitrary assumptions that we largely agree upon. Society to a large extent is similarly based. But being man made doesn't mean they don't exist. They're like....language. Language is just arbitrary noises coming out of our head holes. It has meaning when we agree it does. And once we've come to that agreement, we can start setting up rules for spelling and grammar and anything else we like.

Language is quite real. Rights are quite real. But they're made and protected by us.

Made and protected by us, broken by us, denied by us, everything like that, and there are people on here who are denying rights in order to prevent gay people being equal.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, penal and civil code already governs behaviors. What you want is a fascist state where some minority behaviors can dictate their repugnant subculture to the majority. Gay sex does not equal race. Not literally, nor legally.

So now gays having the same rights as everyone else....is fascism? I don't think fascism means what you think it means.

Clearly you've never heard of the 'tyranny of the majority. The majority can't vote away the rights of the minority. And often the body that protects the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority is the courts.

That you feel homosexuality is 'repugnant' is completely irrelevant to their right to marry. As their rights aren't based on your feelings. Nor should they be.

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

And of course all your false conclusions that follow your false premises.

 

[Skylar]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

Irrelevant. 'Do' gay or 'are' gay, their right to marry is the same. ANd if you're going to deny them rights, you need a good reason.

And you don't have one.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Speech is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. They're all rights. For gays and lesbians along with straights.

And of course all your false conclusions that follow your false premises.

My conclusion is that you have no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. You've offered a variety of fairly useless reasons. That you find it 'repugnant'. That they can't procreate. That behaviors can't be rights. But none of those hold up.

Your feelings don't define anyone's rights. No one is required to procreate or be able to procreate to get married. And behaviors can absolutely be rights. As speech, religion, and marriage demonstrate. So what else have you got?