LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[Seawytch]

Utah disagrees. Utah's position is that if you want the privelege of marriage, you have to earn it by having sex with a reproductive partner who at least has the potential or represents the icon of the desired pairing that will produce blood kin offspring.

Then Utah’s position is wrong, and it will lose based on the fact that marriage is not a ‘privilege’ but a right, where the state may not seek to deny that right predicated on whether a couple – same- or opposite-sex – has the capacity to procreate:

situated in their inability to have children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A fallacy combined with a red herring! Perfect liberal post.

Marriage is a privilege. That's why you get a license. Anything that is a right does not require a permit or license.
No one has said marriage is predicated on the ability to have children. The reason the state favors heterosexual marriage is because such marriages tend in the majority to produce children. Homosexual "marriages" do not.

Wrong. It is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that cannot be denied convicted murderers on death row.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wrong. It is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that cannot be denied convicted murderers on death row.

You have to get a license to have a gun, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong. It is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that cannot be denied convicted murderers on death row.

You have to get a license to have a gun, right?

And if you commit a felony, it can be taken away. Hmmm, marriage can't be but guns and the right to vote can be. Interesting...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. It is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that cannot be denied convicted murderers on death row.

You have to get a license to have a gun, right?

Not necessarily. I have 3 firearms and no license and there is nothing illegal about it.


Now I might have to get a permit to carry those firearms in a concealed manner outside my home in the public square.



>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Then Utah’s position is wrong, and it will lose based on the fact that marriage is not a ‘privilege’ but a right, where the state may not seek to deny that right predicated on whether a couple – same- or opposite-sex – has the capacity to procreate:

situated in their inability to have children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A fallacy combined with a red herring! Perfect liberal post.

Marriage is a privilege. That's why you get a license. Anything that is a right does not require a permit or license.
No one has said marriage is predicated on the ability to have children. The reason the state favors heterosexual marriage is because such marriages tend in the majority to produce children. Homosexual "marriages" do not.

Wrong. It is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that cannot be denied convicted murderers on death row.

Wrong. Fundamental rights do not require licenses.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong. It is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that cannot be denied convicted murderers on death row.

You have to get a license to have a gun, right?

Nope. Some states may impose that but there is no federal license for a gun.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong. It is a fundamental right. A fundamental right that cannot be denied convicted murderers on death row.

You have to get a license to have a gun, right?

And if you commit a felony, it can be taken away. Hmmm, marriage can't be but guns and the right to vote can be. Interesting...

If you marry someone falsely, e.g. you're already married to someone else, your marriage license will be taken away.
If you commit securities fraud, your securities license will be taken away. Is dealing in securities a right? No, it is a privilege. Like marriage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not necessarily. I have 3 firearms and no license and there is nothing illegal about it.


Now I might have to get a permit to carry those firearms in a concealed manner outside my home in the public square.



>>>>

Yeah, different states are different.

There is no right to carry arms. People who claim the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are people who don't know what the 2A is all about. Many people will also ignore the clear evidence that it is the right to be in the militia, not to carry arms around.

The right to own a weapon is actually there in the 2A, however it can be infringed by due process, as can life, liberty etc.

However some states do require guns to be licensed, they can't refuse to license, just as with marriage, how many states say "sorry, we don't want you to marry" if it is in a normal situation where neither are already married or brother and sister etc?

 

[Silhouette]

Utah disagrees. Utah's position is that if you want the privelege of marriage, you have to earn it by having sex with a reproductive partner who at least has the potential or represents the icon of the desired pairing that will produce blood kin offspring. Those are the types of offspring most likely to receive the best chance at life with two married parents. So Utah cares who you sleep with when it comes to marriage. They want blood kin children out of the deal. They may not always get that with a barren couple who adopt. But at least that barren hetero couple doesn't muddy the legal description of who may marry.

The point is, as you know but are playing dumb at, is that gays will scream foul at this and will want to blanket themselves with the Constitution and the 14th to dismantle Utah's wishes for itself. And so we discuss what "gay" is and how their sexuality isn't innate. And we do this because being a behavior changes everything at the level of the 14th.

Please stop playing dumb that the question of innate vs behavioral is at the hub of all this.

Okay, so I ask again, is Utah going to ask those who want to get married if they can have children, if they want children and are they going to stop women who have gone through the menopause from getting married?

If not, then Utah doesn't actually care who straight people sleep with, they care who gay people sleep with, and you have to ask what sort of pervert does that.

No. I'm not playing dumb. Utah is trying to make get what it wants but knows the constitution doesn't allow it. So they're being creative.

This whole "it's about the children" nonsense it complete rubbish.
Why?

We have too many people on this planet. The US is currently seeing a natural increase of 1.4 million people a year. There is no reason to increase the population, in fact we should be looking to decrease it before war does us that favor in the future.

There is no issue about producing more children.

The ONLY reason they want to ban gay marriage is because they are filled with religious claptrap.

Ah but Frig...it will be partly about the children...our children.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children. There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

~ Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

Just think of those poor children of Warren Jeffs' too. Should they be deprived of a good polygamist upbringing? Think of the embarassment and shame those kids will feel from their parents marriages not being legitimized.

You had one shot to milk sympathy from the Justices using kids. You blew it by promoting Harvey Milk to a postage stamp...all 60+ LGBT groups from the US, Mexico and Canada. You cannot simultaneously be "about the kids" and be promoting a teen drug raper.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not necessarily. I have 3 firearms and no license and there is nothing illegal about it.


Now I might have to get a permit to carry those firearms in a concealed manner outside my home in the public square.



>>>>

Yeah, different states are different.

There is no right to carry arms. People who claim the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are people who don't know what the 2A is all about. Many people will also ignore the clear evidence that it is the right to be in the militia, not to carry arms around.

The right to own a weapon is actually there in the 2A, however it can be infringed by due process, as can life, liberty etc.

However some states do require guns to be licensed, they can't refuse to license, just as with marriage, how many states say "sorry, we don't want you to marry" if it is in a normal situation where neither are already married or brother and sister etc?

It is a right to "keep and bear arms." That means carry. Several court cases have come down this way already. We'll see where the parameters end up.
Some states do say "sorry we dont want to issue a marriage license." Those cases include polygamous, consanguinous, and same sex marriages.

 

[Silhouette]

Some states do say "sorry we dont want to issue a marriage license." Those cases include polygamous, consanguinous, and same sex marriages.

Yes but if you put it that way, the way it really is, members of the church of LGBT can't cry foul that they are being "singled out" for a "ban on gay marriage". No such ban exists in any state as far as I know. All that does exist is a description of who may legally marry. And that excludes quite a lot of people, not just the faithful of the church of LGBT.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some states do say "sorry we dont want to issue a marriage license." Those cases include polygamous, consanguinous, and same sex marriages.

Yes but if you put it that way, the way it really is, members of the church of LGBT can't cry foul that they are being "singled out" for a "ban on gay marriage". No such ban exists in any state as far as I know. All that does exist is a description of who may legally marry. And that excludes quite a lot of people, not just the faithful of the church of LGBT.

Yes that is one fallacy--that somehow there is a ban on gay marriage. I have yet to see any gays hauled off to jail because they committed a wedding ceremony.
The other is that if somene gets something, everyone else deserves the same thing. Farmers, people who solar heat their homes, and people whose incomes come from royalty payments all get tax breaks I don't get. Wahhh! Unfair!!

 

[Seawytch]

Some states do say "sorry we dont want to issue a marriage license." Those cases include polygamous, consanguinous, and same sex marriages.

Yes but if you put it that way, the way it really is, members of the church of LGBT can't cry foul that they are being "singled out" for a "ban on gay marriage". No such ban exists in any state as far as I know. All that does exist is a description of who may legally marry. And that excludes quite a lot of people, not just the faithful of the church of LGBT.

Yes that is one fallacy--that somehow there is a ban on gay marriage. I have yet to see any gays hauled off to jail because they committed a wedding ceremony.

The other is that if somene gets something, everyone else deserves the same thing. Farmers, people who solar heat their homes, and people whose incomes come from royalty payments all get tax breaks I don't get. Wahhh! Unfair!!

And yet in Wisconsin it is illegal for gay couples to marry elsewhere.

The law imposes a penalty for those who enter into a marriage that's prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin of up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.

http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/wisconsin/29412299.html

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes but if you put it that way, the way it really is, members of the church of LGBT can't cry foul that they are being "singled out" for a "ban on gay marriage". No such ban exists in any state as far as I know. All that does exist is a description of who may legally marry. And that excludes quite a lot of people, not just the faithful of the church of LGBT.

Yes that is one fallacy--that somehow there is a ban on gay marriage. I have yet to see any gays hauled off to jail because they committed a wedding ceremony.

The other is that if somene gets something, everyone else deserves the same thing. Farmers, people who solar heat their homes, and people whose incomes come from royalty payments all get tax breaks I don't get. Wahhh! Unfair!!

And yet in Wisconsin it is illegal for gay couples to marry elsewhere.

The law imposes a penalty for those who enter into a marriage that's prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin of up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.

Wisconsin gay couples who marry outside state could face penalty

It is illegal in WI to serve beer in an establishment that lacks a soup pot.
Again, I have yet to see anyone hauled off to jail because they had a gay wedding ceremony. Even in WI.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes but if you put it that way, the way it really is, members of the church of LGBT can't cry foul that they are being "singled out" for a "ban on gay marriage". No such ban exists in any state as far as I know. All that does exist is a description of who may legally marry. And that excludes quite a lot of people, not just the faithful of the church of LGBT.

Kind of like saying "only whites may use this toilet", doesn't say anything about black people can use it, but they can't.

So it's fair and legal, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes but if you put it that way, the way it really is, members of the church of LGBT can't cry foul that they are being "singled out" for a "ban on gay marriage". No such ban exists in any state as far as I know. All that does exist is a description of who may legally marry. And that excludes quite a lot of people, not just the faithful of the church of LGBT.

Kind of like saying "only whites may use this toilet", doesn't say anything about black people can use it, but they can't.

So it's fair and legal, right?

No, it's nothing like that.
It sounds like they two are very similar. If you're drunk.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes but if you put it that way, the way it really is, members of the church of LGBT can't cry foul that they are being "singled out" for a "ban on gay marriage". No such ban exists in any state as far as I know. All that does exist is a description of who may legally marry. And that excludes quite a lot of people, not just the faithful of the church of LGBT.

Kind of like saying "only whites may use this toilet", doesn't say anything about black people can use it, but they can't.

So it's fair and legal, right?

No, it's nothing like that.
It sounds like they two are very similar. If you're drunk.

Black is something you're born as. Gay is something you pick up along the way.

That's the yardstick that the 14th will be tested with.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Black is something you're born as. Gay is something you pick up along the way.

That's the yardstick that the 14th will be tested with.

A) you haven't proven this. B) that's not what the US govt says. C) it makes no difference, the 14A isn't just about what you're born with. Religion is protected, you're not born with it.

The theory of human rights disagrees with you massively.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes that is one fallacy--that somehow there is a ban on gay marriage. I have yet to see any gays hauled off to jail because they committed a wedding ceremony.

The other is that if somene gets something, everyone else deserves the same thing. Farmers, people who solar heat their homes, and people whose incomes come from royalty payments all get tax breaks I don't get. Wahhh! Unfair!!

And yet in Wisconsin it is illegal for gay couples to marry elsewhere.

The law imposes a penalty for those who enter into a marriage that's prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin of up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.

Wisconsin gay couples who marry outside state could face penalty

It is illegal in WI to serve beer in an establishment that lacks a soup pot.
Again, I have yet to see anyone hauled off to jail because they had a gay wedding ceremony. Even in WI.

Comparing a current 21st century law to an 18th or 19th century one goes beyond apples and oranges. The FACT is that, like interracial marriage, some states have decided to criminalize marriage for gays and lesbians. Just because nobody has been charged yet doesn't mean they won't be...and Wisconsin isn't the only state with such a law. In Delaware it's $100 fine and up to 30 days in prison.

 

[Seawytch]

You have to get a license to have a gun, right?

And if you commit a felony, it can be taken away. Hmmm, marriage can't be but guns and the right to vote can be. Interesting...

If you marry someone falsely, e.g. you're already married to someone else, your marriage license will be taken away.
If you commit securities fraud, your securities license will be taken away. Is dealing in securities a right? No, it is a privilege. Like marriage.

Again the fact remains...If you commit a felony you lose your right to vote and to bear arms and yet a Supreme Court decision said you can't take marriage rights away from those same criminals. Why is that, Rabbi?