Jump to content

Wow.. Now I can Marry Him


Lucky Pierre

Recommended Posts

If you like to talk legal arguments, get out of the Crossfire thread and come over here, or start another one. Because I'm certainly going to talk about legal arguments here. I hate that thread - it's format promotes shallow discussion. Anyway, I'm settling in to the read the whole decision right now.

And if you think it's rude to piss on someone's rights to their face, that should tell you something.

Feel free to start another thread on the subject. At least you understand basic tenets of law. But I must say, it is an ominous start when you think the court does not take into account the will of the people. Try (re)reading Lawrence and Bowers before starting the thread. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA to DG: Anyone talking about "will of the people" doesn't have a working understanding of constitutional law, particularly the equal protection clause, designed, specifically to protect the minority when the "will of people" is against them. Please.

How strange, then, that Tempra said I was ignorant of how judges decide cases because I was saying that "the will of the people" shouldn't have bearing on it.

You have accused me once before of implying that Judge Walker's sexual orientation played a role in his decisions. I told you that I absolutely did not say or imply that his sexual orientation played a role in his decision. But here you are yet again accusing me of the same thing. Quote where I stated that his sexual orientation played any role in his decision or go away already. You have zero desire to have any discussion on the merits, but instead rely on making up shit to cover your deficiencies. Pathetic.

Ah, my mistake. You did post a link to an article by someone trying to make that case, in the early discussion on this in US Politics. But you have not advocated that position yourself. You merely flogged his neutrality because of his effort to televise the trial, and nattered on about the god damn WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. You can get off the Oppressed Conservative Martyr cross now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to start another thread on the subject. At least you understand basic tenets of law. But I must say, it is an ominous start when you think the court does not take into account the will of the people. Try (re)reading Lawrence and Bowers before starting the thread. Thanks.

Didn't we went over this already? The "will of the people" is a factor (something that you repeatedly pointed out), but not the most important factor and will not be taken into account if it infringe upon the equal rights of minority groups ......... as evident by SCOTUS decision on interracial marriage.

Is there any other legal argument that you could offer that hasn't been debunked already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we went over this already? The "will of the people" is a factor (something that you repeatedly pointed out), but not the most important factor and will not be taken into account if it infringe upon the equal rights of minority groups ......... as evident by SCOTUS decision on interracial marriage.

Is there any other legal argument that you could offer that hasn't been debunked already?

If we agree on my point, how can it be debunked? Anyways, i'm done posting in this thread. It appears Raidne is about to go off on something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tempra,

Anyways, my point is that there is no inherent contradiction when conservatives "get all constitutional" when it comes to gun rights because the second amendment explicitly guarantees at least SOME rights to bear arms. NOTHING in the constitution (explicitly) guarantees gay marriage.

My point is that there is an inherent contradiction when conservatives "get all constitutional" when it comes to gun rights because (as you yourself admit) the constitution allows SOME rights to bear arms, meaning that some restrictions are perfectly okay (perhaps a hand gun restriction, say?). Shouldn't "the will of the people" decide what exactly those restrictions should be? An activist court striking down popular restrictions seems to go against the grain of democracy, no?

Oh, and I believe there's something about equality rights in the constitution...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we agree on my point, how can it be debunked? Anyways, i'm done posting in this thread. It appears Raidne is about to go off on something...

Huh? You've consistently stressed the "will of the people" argument, but I can't recall any single post prior to now where you acknowledged that it won't matter if it infringed upon the equal rights of minority groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why everyone is so like "oh we can't talk about the legal issue of the ruling here!!"

I did send the thread over here, didn't I?

But whatev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I scanned the decision. Here it is for anyone who wants a look:

http://www.scribd.co...-8-Ruling-FINAL

It was struck down on both due process and equal protection grounds. Re equal protection, It's pretty amazing that proponents of proposition 8 couldn't even get past a rational basis standard. On due process: once you decide that the fundamental right to marry means a right to marry anyone regardless of gender, then it's a pretty easy opinion to write.

Looking at the factual record, it appears that proponents proffered tv pundit types you might see on Fox News as experts.

Btw, Judge Walker is gay. He was nominated by Ronald Reagan, twice, and was finally confirmed to the federal bench after being nominated for a third time by President H.W. Bush. His nomination was opposed by the usual suspects:

Wow, my cousin was Legislative Director (lobbying arm) at the HRC for 6 years. (Of course he's still heavily involved with them and in DC but now works in PA trying to get state health care system like MA up and running.)

Anyhoo, I was so happy when I read his Facebook status yesterday about this. And to think the organization he was and still is involved with tried to block this very judge from being appointed to a position that allowed for him to make such a ruling. How the wheels turn...

I have saved the PDF of the ruling as I intend to read it over the next week or so (as I have time considering I have two puppies to take care of!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood this particular issue I thought conservatives were all about a lack of government. Who has any right to an adult couple of legal age what to do in the privacy of their own home? Who gives a damn who you marry. Oh to live in a sane country where the conservatives couldn't care less about God, Gays and Guns.

What I never understood is how "conservatism" became associated with "lack of government" in the first place. Anarchy is about as radical as you can get. Now I don't like totalitarianism, but that's because, on the issue of personal liberties, I am a liberal. And therefore oppose regulating things done "in the privacy of their own home". While on the issue of public recognition of virtue and vice, I remain a conservative, and therefore naturally "give a damn who you marry".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's a totally fair point. I would argue that we need gov't control because we a are simple ape-like species. The Republicans and Democrats seem to selectively agree and disagree.

Exactly why this two party system is bullshit.

Losers vs. assholes. Take your pick as to which is which.

The mere fact that I have to say "for fiscal responsibility in government, strong (as long as efficient) military, and anti-nanny state, yet pro universal healthcare for all citizens (regardless of military or 'old' status) and equal rights for all regardless of race, religion, or sexuality (even though I'm a bit sour on religion") is ridiculous.

Even claiming independent puts me in an entirely amorphous demographic that I can't really relate to.

Maybe I'll start the Bones Party. Platform: Don't be a stupid asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly why this two party system is bullshit.

Losers vs. assholes. Take your pick as to which is which.

The mere fact that I have to say "for fiscal responsibility in government, strong (as long as efficient) military, and anti-nanny state, yet pro universal healthcare for all citizens (regardless of military or 'old' status) and equal rights for all regardless of race, religion, or sexuality (even though I'm a bit sour on religion") is ridiculous.

Even claiming independent puts me in an entirely amorphous demographic that I can't really relate to.

Maybe I'll start the Bones Party. Platform: Don't be a stupid asshole.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Feel free to start another thread on the subject. At least you understand basic tenets of law. But I must say, it is an ominous start when you think the court does not take into account the will of the people. Try (re)reading Lawrence and Bowers before starting the thread. Thanks.

Okay, I think we've established that this is the thread that is about the recent court decision, so I'm not going to uselessly start another one because you are, for whatever reason, seemingly afraid to continue posting here.

So, I'm confused about this. Bowers and Lawrence are not equal protection cases, and as far as I remember, there's no "will of the people" argument there either. So...I guess you were just suggesting that I just gain some basic familiarity with the case history? But not on equal protection, just on...the gays?

Tempra, that's not really how stare decisis works, you know? If I have a case about the illegal importing of tampons manufactured in a foreign country, I don't go to Westlaw and type in "tampons."

And thank you, I'm sure all taxpayers are happy that I at least understand basic legal tenants if I'm drafting decisions subject to immediate federal court review for a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Wow, guys, they have several pages devoted to the ruling in that thread. I'm going to import the part where Scott asks Tempra if prohibiting polygamy could not also be found to be unconstitutional under this ruling:

It is quite possible to put forth a compelling state interest against polygamy that could withstand even strict scrutiny. Namely, polygamous relationships are often abusive, incestuous, and coerced. The consent issue is a lot tricker with polygamous marriage than gay marriage because there is often very strong religious and familial pressure forcing girls to marry.

No, this is actually an easy Constitutional Law question on Equal Protection. So, we have the argument that making it illegal for gay people to get married violates equal protection. And so we want to say, gee, wouldn't this other thing violate equal protection. The very first thing you'd have to ask yourself is "what is the group being discriminated against." So what is it here? Polygamous people? Mormons? Let's take either. Is either group a protected class? Hmmm...no. Okay, next question - should they be? Let's find out. Is the characteristic that makes them members of this group immutable? Oh, guess not, huh?

I'm guessing that this "will of the people" thing comes from FLOW's argument that this ruling usurps legislative authority. I'm waiting for the post that's like, OMFG, I went and did an extensive survey and every Supreme Court SCOTUS ruling on the Equal Protection clause and it turns out every one of them violated the will of the people. How can that be??? He he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is either group a protected class? Hmmm...no. Okay, next question - should they be? Let's find out. Is the characteristic that makes them members of this group immutable? Oh, guess not, huh?

Neither sexual nor religious minorities are protected, then? Why would homosexuals be protected in that case?

I also thought that the case against polygamy was the legal nightmare it would create?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither sexual nor religious minorities are protected, then? Why would homosexuals be protected in that case?

I also thought that the case against polygamy was the legal nightmare it would create?

basically, it's a gender discrimnation issue. (since the gender of the person is the only difference between a man wanting to marry a woman and a woman wanting to marry the same woman)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...