Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

And lucky for them they fit the actual physical structure of marriage which is man/woman, regardless of race. They still provided a mother and father to children. So they won their case.

The actual physical structure of marriage is whatever we say it is. As we invented marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Yet genetic issues such as race is wholly irrelevant to sexual behavior, which is entirely a function of CHOICE.

The Supreme Court has cited 4 different race based cases involving discrimination when describing why discrimination against gays is legally invalid. You say its irrelevant. The USSC disagrees.

I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one over you.

 

[Syriusly]

The face of homophobia

The people holding up those signs don't look angry or actually pumped up at all about their "cause". In fact, they look young, like millenial-young. Kind of dandy looking too

I wonder if they were making those signs for the LGBT crowd in order to drum up sympathy?

Like I said- they are your people.

Here are more- kids warped to hate by people like you.

 

[Syriusly]

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

The Constitution, and its added-on Bill of Rights, are a statement of the broad opinion of american citizens. That is the only thing that gives it legitimacy. Ask yourself if the 14th would have had even a single state pass it if it had been known that it would lead to gay" marriage". The obvious answer is no...To go back on that understanding of it now is to, in effect, break the terms of a Contract.

The Constitution- including the Bill of Rights- would not have passed if Slavery had been outlawed.

Yet the obvious 'answer' is that slavery is wrong.

I dont see the basis for that statement.......

did the courts solve the slavery problem?...no they didnt, and my understanding of the history is that they actually made matters worse..

So you don't think that slavery is wrong?

 

[dcraelin]

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

The Constitution, and its added-on Bill of Rights, are a statement of the broad opinion of american citizens. That is the only thing that gives it legitimacy. Ask yourself if the 14th would have had even a single state pass it if it had been known that it would lead to gay" marriage". The obvious answer is no...To go back on that understanding of it now is to, in effect, break the terms of a Contract.

The Constitution- including the Bill of Rights- would not have passed if Slavery had been outlawed.

Yet the obvious 'answer' is that slavery is wrong.

I dont see the basis for that statement.......

did the courts solve the slavery problem?...no they didnt, and my understanding of the history is that they actually made matters worse..

So you don't think that slavery is wrong?

Of course I do........DID the courts solve the slavery problem?

And what has that got to do with gay marriage anyway..........other than a play on emotions.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course I do........DID the courts solve the slavery problem?

And what has that got to do with gay marriage anyway..........other than a play on emotions.

...and...once again we return to the false premise problem... They think if they keep repeating "static race = fluid sexual behaviors" enough, the smoke and mirror effect will take over and the Court will become fatally mesmerized and give them the victory they're after. More on that victory: New LGBT Plan For Michigan Orphanages Give Us The Kids Or We ll Wreck The Place US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Montrovant]

Of course I do........DID the courts solve the slavery problem?

And what has that got to do with gay marriage anyway..........other than a play on emotions.

...and...once again we return to the false premise problem... They think if they keep repeating "static race = fluid sexual behaviors" enough, the smoke and mirror effect will take over and the Court will become fatally mesmerized and give them the victory they're after. More on that victory: New LGBT Plan For Michigan Orphanages Give Us The Kids Or We ll Wreck The Place US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Of course, no one is saying race is the same as sexual orientation. Instead, the comparison is made to show a particular group of people fighting for what they consider to be civil rights.

I wonder if you've ever been in a discussion on this board in which you didn't misrepresent someone else's words?

 

[Silhouette]

Of course, no one is saying race is the same as sexual orientation. Instead, the comparison is made to show a particular group of people fighting for what they consider to be civil rights.

I wonder if you've ever been in a discussion on this board in which you didn't misrepresent someone else's words?

Please define, if you can, what binds together that particular group of people Do it in a format that will impress the Court that this "group" knows itself well and presents a recognizable and enduring membership that sets it apart from others. See if you can do that for me, OK? If you need any help, one of its leaders has given you some tips here: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Of course I do........DID the courts solve the slavery problem?

And what has that got to do with gay marriage anyway..........other than a play on emotions.

...and...once again we return to the false premise problem... They think if they keep repeating "static race = fluid sexual behaviors" enough, the smoke and mirror effect will take over and the Court will become fatally mesmerized and give them the victory they're after.

You say that racial discrimination is irrelevant to discrimination against gays. The Court clearly disagrees, having cited 4 different racial discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays was invalid.

The Supreme Court vs. you on legal relevance has an easy answer. And its not you.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course, no one is saying race is the same as sexual orientation. Instead, the comparison is made to show a particular group of people fighting for what they consider to be civil rights.

I wonder if you've ever been in a discussion on this board in which you didn't misrepresent someone else's words?

Please define, if you can, what binds together that particular group of people Do it in a format that will impress the Court that this "group" knows itself well and presents a recognizable and enduring membership that sets it apart from others. See if you can do that for me, OK? If you need any help, one of its leaders has given you some tips here: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Are you seriously asking me what is different about gays? Are you asking what sexual orientation means? Are you asking if being attracted to members of your own gender sets someone apart from heterosexuals?

Have you been arguing that gays and gay marriage are going to lead to the collapse of civilization and you do not even know how to define the term?

 

[Skylar]

Of course, no one is saying race is the same as sexual orientation. Instead, the comparison is made to show a particular group of people fighting for what they consider to be civil rights.

I wonder if you've ever been in a discussion on this board in which you didn't misrepresent someone else's words?

Please define, if you can, what binds together that particular group of people Do it in a format that will impress the Court that this "group" knows itself well and presents a recognizable and enduring membership that sets it apart from others. See if you can do that for me, OK? If you need any help, one of its leaders has given you some tips here: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Are you seriously asking me what is different about gays? Are you asking what sexual orientation means? Are you asking if being attracted to members of your own gender sets someone apart from heterosexuals?

Have you been arguing that gays and gay marriage are going to lead to the collapse of civilization and you do not even know how to define the term?

He's lost on every major issue. So his last bastion is semantics. The 'depends on what the definition of 'is' is' argument.

Its irrelevant. As it has no bearing on the questions the court is considering:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

There's no significant legal question about what 'same sex' means. Sil is merely inventing yet another imaginary hoop that he insists gays must jump through.

When in reality, his imagination obligates no one to do anything.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“Please define, if you can, what binds together that particular group of people.”

Choice.

The fundamental right to decide for oneself matters both personal and private absent unwarranted interference by the state:

'In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v.Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.'

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

When gay Americans seek to enter into marriage as same-sex couples, pursuant to the protected liberty of choice as afforded them by the Constitution, where the states enact measures hostile to same-sex couples and their choice as individuals, those state measures violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, reflecting an attempt by the states to disadvantage same-sex couples predicated solely on who they are, and the choice they've made “central to personal dignity and autonomy.”

 

[Silhouette]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

When gay Americans seek to enter into marriage as same-sex couples, pursuant to the protected liberty of choice as afforded them by the Constitution, where the states enact measures hostile to same-sex couples and their choice as individuals, those state measures violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, reflecting an attempt by the states to disadvantage same-sex couples predicated solely on who they are, and the choice they've made “central to personal dignity and autonomy.”

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?.... Or addicted-Americans want needle dispensers provided in all private business' bathrooms?

The problem lies with your premise, Clayton. You can't draw conclusions off of a muddled, shifty or false premise. We're talking about waffling, incomplete and not fully understood deviant behaviors here.. Not a static and clearly-identifiable group: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Montrovant]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

When gay Americans seek to enter into marriage as same-sex couples, pursuant to the protected liberty of choice as afforded them by the Constitution, where the states enact measures hostile to same-sex couples and their choice as individuals, those state measures violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, reflecting an attempt by the states to disadvantage same-sex couples predicated solely on who they are, and the choice they've made “central to personal dignity and autonomy.”

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?.... Or addicted-Americans want needle dispensers provided in all private business' bathrooms?

The problem lies with your premise, Clayton. You can't draw conclusions off of a muddled, shifty or false premise. We're talking about waffling, incomplete and not fully understood deviant behaviors here.. Not a static and clearly-identifiable group: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

There you go, linking to your own thread as though it is evidence to make your point......a point which seems to be that gays are not clearly gays.....

 

[Skylar]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

When gay Americans seek to enter into marriage as same-sex couples, pursuant to the protected liberty of choice as afforded them by the Constitution, where the states enact measures hostile to same-sex couples and their choice as individuals, those state measures violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, reflecting an attempt by the states to disadvantage same-sex couples predicated solely on who they are, and the choice they've made “central to personal dignity and autonomy.”

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?.... Or addicted-Americans want needle dispensers provided in all private business' bathrooms?

The problem lies with your premise, Clayton. You can't draw conclusions off of a muddled, shifty or false premise.

You say the premise is false. Yet the Supreme Court had no difficulty determining which groups it was referring to in Romer v. Evans and other cases defending the rights of gays.

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause,

Romer v. Evans

Explicitly contradicting your claims. As you say this can't be done until we jump through all your imaginary, pseudo legal hoops. Yet the USSC was easily able to do it without any of your 'static class' gibberish....nearly 20 years ago.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[dcraelin]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

When gay Americans seek to enter into marriage as same-sex couples, pursuant to the protected liberty of choice as afforded them by the Constitution, where the states enact measures hostile to same-sex couples and their choice as individuals, those state measures violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, reflecting an attempt by the states to disadvantage same-sex couples predicated solely on who they are, and the choice they've made “central to personal dignity and autonomy.”

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?.... Or addicted-Americans want needle dispensers provided in all private business' bathrooms?

The problem lies with your premise, Clayton. You can't draw conclusions off of a muddled, shifty or false premise. We're talking about waffling, incomplete and not fully understood deviant behaviors here.. Not a static and clearly-identifiable group: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?..

LOL....funny as hell....but you've also got a point

 

[Silhouette]

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?..

LOL....funny as hell....but you've also got a point

A habitual behavior is a habitual behavior. In the interest of equality, when one of them gets the "rights" as "an oppressed minority" to dictate to the majority, where do we draw the line if we are a nation of equal rights? Don't all local civil & penal codes "oppress" individual behaviors in some way or another?

 

[Skylar]

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?..

LOL....funny as hell....but you've also got a point

A habitual behavior is a habitual behavior. In the interest of equality, when one of them gets the "rights" as "an oppressed minority" to dictate to the majority, where do we draw the line if we are a nation of equal rights? Don't all local civil & penal codes "oppress" individual behaviors in some way or another?

Behavior is still protected. Making the distinction irrelevant. If someone 'habitually' went to church for example....they're still protected from discrimination based on their religion.

Your distinction has no relevance to the law. Nor has the law or the courts ever had difficulty recognizing gays as a class.

 

[Silhouette]

What about when bulimic-Americans want vomit urns on restaurant tables?..

LOL....funny as hell....but you've also got a point

A habitual behavior is a habitual behavior. In the interest of equality, when one of them gets the "rights" as "an oppressed minority" to dictate to the majority, where do we draw the line if we are a nation of equal rights? Don't all local civil & penal codes "oppress" individual behaviors in some way or another?

Behavior is still protected. Making the distinction irrelevant. If someone 'habitually' went to church for example....they're still protected from discrimination based on their religion.

Your distinction has no relevance to the law. Nor has the law or the courts ever had difficulty recognizing gays as a class.

Besides religion, which behavior is protected? Specifically? And more importantly, if there are other behaviors besides religion covered in the Constitution as protected specially, how do we deny others? Would you deny others? And if so, based on what grounds? It certainly couldn't be on the grounds that they are "repugnant to the majority"...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Besides religion, which behavior is protected? Specifically?

Interracial civil marriage.

Wanting to marry someone of a different race is a behavior.


>>>>