boyst Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Ah, just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean "his opinion has nothing to do with the actual Constitution." That's your opinion, it's not fact. Very few matters are expressly stated in the constitution. That's why we have courts, and judges of all stripes use their brains to determine what they believe is right. The document was written by humans, and to be interpreted by humans. Otherwise, we would just use a computer to search terms. Where did I say I disagree with the outcome?! The outcome I do not disagree with, just the means. Jesus you are dense. K, pookie, I am going to stop reading your bull **** now. Sleep tight, babe.
Max Fischer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Where did I say I disagree with the outcome?! The outcome I do not disagree with, just the means. Jesus you are dense. K, pookie, I am going to stop reading your bull **** now. Sleep tight, babe. Sorry about. Change "outcome" to "means" and it's the same. I see you get frustrated when challenged with facts.
TH3 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Not often has a ruling given so many so much with absolutely no cost....get over yourselves and try to be bigger...
boyst Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Sorry about. Change "outcome" to "means" and it's the same. I see you get frustrated when challenged with facts. I lied. No, I get frustrated with ignorance. I am just the only one stupid enough to feed a troll. Notice Tom bowed out and notice that no one else will respond to you. You're not worth it.
Max Fischer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I lied. No, I get frustrated with ignorance. I am just the only one stupid enough to feed a troll. Notice Tom bowed out and notice that no one else will respond to you. You're not worth it. Typical bull **** from a message board coward who can't make a logical argument. It's not my fault you two can't stand up to a challenge.
boyst Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 What the hell, its Saturday night, lets have some fun... Typical bull **** from a message board coward who can't make a logical argument. It's not my fault you two can't stand up to a challenge. Yup. You are twice the man I am, even IRL. I bet you'd kick my butt from here to the Pacific, too. Big, smart, tough, handsome...you're the best kind of man there is. I bow to your excellence.
Max Fischer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 What the hell, its Saturday night, lets have some fun... Yup. You are twice the man I am, even IRL. I bet you'd kick my butt from here to the Pacific, too. Big, smart, tough, handsome...you're the best kind of man there is. I bow to your excellence. Now you're talking.
B-Man Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 more mass hysteria........................ Just feel the tolerance.......... Mommy, why are those mean white folks aggressively taunting that respectable black man? Because the belief on the Left is.................We just want others to treat us with respect, but we don't want to be respectful of others. .
unbillievable Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I do wonder what would happen if states were to start eliminating marriages altogether; leaving it to the federal government. Can states be forced to hand out licenses? Will the federal government have to open new offices? Will it be called an escalation against the "War on Women"? I can see some states (Texas) bowing out of the marriage business, and leaving it exclusively to churches.
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The right to marry is in the 14th amendment. Undue burdens are a basic legal definition. You seem smart enough to not employ 2nd grade arguments. No, it's not. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to equate the Equal Protection clause to marriage. The problem is, that doesn't guarantee marriage to everyone. And now you're arguing that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't present an "undue burden?" Undue burden on who? Do you think first cousins in Florida are unduly burdened by not being able to get married?
boyst Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 No, it's not. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to equate the Equal Protection clause to marriage. The problem is, that doesn't guarantee marriage to everyone. And now you're arguing that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't present an "undue burden?" Undue burden on who? Do you think first cousins in Florida are unduly burdened by not being able to get married? They can in Jersey, as well as father/daughter, etc. So, in Jersey they can apply for rights but when they move to Florida they'll scream "muh freedoms." In this guys eyes, incestuous relationships should also be legal. He's a moron.
Max Fischer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 No, it's not. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to equate the Equal Protection clause to marriage. The problem is, that doesn't guarantee marriage to everyone. And now you're arguing that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't present an "undue burden?" Undue burden on who? Do you think first cousins in Florida are unduly burdened by not being able to get married? Read the opinions. Not agreeing with it is your opinion but fact is, it's the 14th is the basis for the new law of the land.
B-Man Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Texas Supreme Court Justice Willett rejects “the Lochner bogeyman” Writes David Bernstein: As I pointed out earlier, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent today ignores the last thirty years of scholarship and uses Lochner as a bogeyman to reject a due process challenge to states’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriage. Roberts’s description of Lochner is embarrassingly ahistorical. By contrast, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett’s concurring opinion today (joined by two other Justices) in Patel v. Texas Dept. of Licensing, blogged in detail by Eugene below, explicitly rejects what he calls “the Lochner bogeyman.” In a footnote, he proceeds to provide a scholarly, accurate account of Lochnerand economic liberty in historical context, making Roberts’s opinion look even worse by contrast–especially because Willett’s opinion refutes several of Roberts’s claims. Read Justice Willett’s learned footnote here. HOW REPUBLICS DIE: “When we ignore and sidestep the Constitutional and legal process to achieve a desired end, the bedrock starts to turn to sand,” Rand Simberg writes. 27
Max Fischer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) No, it's not. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to equate the Equal Protection clause to marriage. The problem is, that doesn't guarantee marriage to everyone. And now you're arguing that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't present an "undue burden?" Undue burden on who? Do you think first cousins in Florida are unduly burdened by not being able to get married? Do you always set up straw men? How is a fee discriminatory if it not considered an undue burden? Whether you like or not, common sense is used by all judges to make the determination. For example, there was plenty of evidence to demonstrate poll tax and other methods were used to specifically prevent ceRtain people from voting. I assume you have read the history. As for cousins, what is the argument against marriage? Is it science based or do we just think it's wrong? They can in Jersey, as well as father/daughter, etc. So, in Jersey they can apply for rights but when they move to Florida they'll scream "muh freedoms." In this guys eyes, incestuous relationships should also be legal. He's a moron. Did you two go to school to set up straw men to make an argument? I never said incestuous relationships we're ok and never addressed father/daughter. Just stop. He asked about first cousins but I don't know the arguments in those cases. Do you? Edited June 28, 2015 by Max Fischer
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Do you always set up straw men? How is a fee discriminatory if it not considered an undue burden? Whether you like or not, common sense is used by all judges to make the determination. For example, there was plenty of evidence to demonstrate poll tax and other methods were used to specifically prevent ceRtain people from voting. I assume you have read the history. As for cousins, what is the argument against marriage? Is it science based or do we just think it's wrong? It's not a straw man. I gave you a concrete example where fees are called discriminatory. I gave you another one where the requirement for photo ID is called discriminatory. Explain why such are considered discriminatory when applied to a fundamental right such as voting, but not when applied to a fundamental right such as marriage. As for cousins...ask the right question: what's the argument for West Virginia discriminating against first cousins, but Florida granting them the fundamental right to marriage? Explain how that isn't a violation of the Equal Protection clause the same way that Indiana discriminating against gays, but Massachusetts granting them the fundamental right to marriage, is. Read the opinions. Not agreeing with it is your opinion but fact is, it's the 14th is the basis for the new law of the land. The fact is, the 14th was never violated to begin with in this case.
Max Fischer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 It's not a straw man. I gave you a concrete example where fees are called discriminatory. I gave you another one where the requirement for photo ID is called discriminatory. Explain why such are considered discriminatory when applied to a fundamental right such as voting, but not when applied to a fundamental right such as marriage. As for cousins...ask the right question: what's the argument for West Virginia discriminating against first cousins, but Florida granting them the fundamental right to marriage? Explain how that isn't a violation of the Equal Protection clause the same way that Indiana discriminating against gays, but Massachusetts granting them the fundamental right to marriage, is. The fact is, the 14th was never violated to begin with in this case. Are the fees discriminatory? Are they an undue burden? You'd need to look at the facts to determine if the fees are an unreasonable impetiment to a basic right. Are there examples of marriage fees that people cannot afford? I don't know, this is your example but I've never heard anyone express concerns about the fees. Unlike, say, the poll taxes and ID requirements, and of course, the question as to whether non-first cousin consenting adults can marry. Cousins - this is your question. I don't know the laws in those states, I don't know why certain classes of cousins are not allowed to marry, but I assume it's science based, right? However, I'm pretty sure that in most of the world is much more accepting of the practice. Why I don't know. If arguments against are not science based (ie possible harm to child), then I'd guess that a couple could have a case based on equal protection. Note to those who may set up a straw man attack re: incest, I have only addressed the cousin question. As for "never a 14th question" - the SCOTUS majority disagreed with your opinion.
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Are the fees discriminatory? Are they an undue burden? You'd need to look at the facts to determine if the fees are an unreasonable impetiment to a basic right. Are there examples of marriage fees that people cannot afford? I don't know, this is your example but I've never heard anyone express concerns about the fees. Unlike, say, the poll taxes and ID requirements, and of course, the question as to whether non-first cousin consenting adults can marry. So discrimination is okay as long as no one complains? That's your position? Cousins - this is your question. I don't know the laws in those states, I don't know why certain classes of cousins are not allowed to marry, but I assume it's science based, right? However, I'm pretty sure that in most of the world is much more accepting of the practice. Why I don't know. If arguments against are not science based (ie possible harm to child), then I'd guess that a couple could have a case based on equal protection. I told you the laws in those states. And if those laws are "science-based," why are they different? I'll state the question even more simply for you: why should a couple be granted the benefits of marriage by Florida but denied them by West Virginia? As for "never a 14th question" - the SCOTUS majority disagreed with your opinion. Which is why I keep harping on it. Where was equal protection ever violated before? What's the basis for assuming so? What's the basis for continuing it in other situations not involving homosexuality (see above)?
Max Fischer Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 So discrimination is okay as long as no one complains? That's your position? I told you the laws in those states. And if those laws are "science-based," why are they different? I'll state the question even more simply for you: why should a couple be granted the benefits of marriage by Florida but denied them by West Virginia? Which is why I keep harping on it. Where was equal protection ever violated before? What's the basis for assuming so? What's the basis for continuing it in other situations not involving homosexuality (see above)? Man you really like the straw man approach. Seek professional help. I am clearly saying that there has to be a complaint - an injury - before there can be a remedy. Your example is without facts. Please provide an example whereby a marriage license fee is blocking a couple from marriage? Is ther ONE legal example? However, if for example, there is fee that could be a clear and unreasonable impetiment to marriage, then yes, it would unconstitutional. So far, I am not aware that has happened recently. If you say there is no clear scientific basis to bar cousins from marriage, then they should be allowed to marry anywhere. From what I understand, the science is not clear but I don't know that for sure. I assume the other reason it's banned is "we think it's creepy." Again - I have not addressed nor been asked about incest.
unbillievable Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Let's be honest. There is no legal reason for the Supreme Court's decision. The justices voted for the outcome they wanted. Even Kennedy states that it was an emotional decision. He admitted to bypassing the text of the Constitution to correct a cultural (in his opinion) grievance. The Supreme Court did what Congress was unwilling (or unable) to do. Next up: Legalize illegal immigrants:Denying the rights of citizens to non-citizens is discriminatory.
Recommended Posts