Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What is Vince's legal justification... « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#15 : May 08, 2013, 05:02:45 PM

CBW, I understand you're trying but that very long post is just simply wrong. That's not the reason homosexuals have a problem finding protection under the 14th Am. It's much simpler than that.

Btw, almost like Buggsy you called me stupid in your prior post while also saying something completely wrong. Lol.

All if this because you made a simple mistake in the other thread? You really can't admit mistake?

CBWx2: Marriage is a right per Loving V. Virginia.

Vinny: You're wrong.

TheAman: Marriage is a right per Loving V. Virginia.

Vinny: You're right on marriage.

LOL, oh the buffoonery...


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17662
Online
#16 : May 08, 2013, 07:51:42 PM



CBW is just trying to recover from his gaffe in the other thread (lol) ......

What did he do this time ??

He fell in Spartans trap. I pointed it out. He tried to play it off, got the thread locked while building the black hole so he just transferred the black hole to this thread. The guy goes the extra 1000 miles to avoid admitting error.

Since making the error he has been pulling "a Buggsy" - calling me stupid while posting erroneous info.

Lmao

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#17 : May 08, 2013, 08:22:12 PM

For example both of you agree that gay marriage is a right, however I am willing to bet that neither one of you support someones "right" to marry 550 women, a dog, a camel and a 12 year old boy.  Therefore the argument is not if marriage is a right, but where do we draw the line of the privilege.

I actually do support the right to plural marriage. There is no reason that people should be denied that right. I don't agree with it in practice, but I also don't think that just because I don't agree with it that it should be deemed illegal as long as all involved are consenting adults. It should be their choice, not mine or the government's.

As far as dogs, camels, and 12 year old's go, you can't enter into any contract with any of the above, because they cannot be consenting partners. It's a moot point.

For both of your benefit, my opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with legal rights, civil unions or however you want to phrase it. For me, as a church going Catholic I consider Marriage as one the 7 holy sacraments.

Holy matrimony is the religious sacrament of marriage, and a wedding is the ceremony in which people are married, which may or may not be religious. Marriage by definition is simply a legal union of two persons entailing legal obligations of each person to the other. My wedding wasn't a religious one, yet legally, I am still married. If you aren't calling for my marriage to be revoked, then I fail to see the justification for denying it to same sex couples.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#18 : May 08, 2013, 08:42:17 PM

Marriage is NOT a right. Marriage is a contract which the states have imbued with certain implicit rigts such as custody of children, asset survivorship, medical decisions, etc.

No one has a right to enter a contract. But we do have the right to not be denied contract entry due to certain circumstances (race, religion, gender, etc.) So a ban can not deny someone a mortgage contract because they are female, but they can deny them a contract because they have bad credit, no job, no collateral, etc.

The right being denied in a gay marriage ban is the right to not be denied contract entry due to gender. A marriage contract is 2 parties. If party A is male, and the contract is denied by the state because party B is also male, that is gender discrimination and a denial of 14th amendment rights.

This is a good argument, and probably a solid way to get around the "protected class" argument, but the Loving decision, which was a unanimous vote, does affirm that marriage is a "basic civil right of man". The decision on Loving wasn't made solely because it discriminated against a certain race, it was made because it also violated the Due Process Clause, which protects individuals from arbitrary government restraints without proper objective.

Taking your contract example into account, denying someone a mortgage because they have bad credit is a poor example, because it is one of the two parties involved in the contract negotiation that is denying the contract, not the government denying the entrance into a contract between two consenting parties. Denying a mortgage due to bad credit is also not an arbitrary denial and has a proper objective.

While you can certainly argue that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment due to it being gender discrimination, you can also argue that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment because it is denying a civil liberty without just cause for doing so. The government cannot just deny you the right to do something. There must be a reason for them denying it that stands up to judicial scrutiny. The state cannot pass a law that says it is illegal to own pugs just because a group of lawmakers think pugs are ugly. They must have a reason for banning pug ownership, otherwise it is an unjust law, and you need not be a member of a protected class for it to be considered such.
: May 08, 2013, 09:12:00 PM CBWx2


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21188
Online
#19 : May 08, 2013, 09:35:55 PM

Marriage is NOT a right. Marriage is a contract which the states have imbued with certain implicit rigts such as custody of children, asset survivorship, medical decisions, etc.

No one has a right to enter a contract. But we do have the right to not be denied contract entry due to certain circumstances (race, religion, gender, etc.) So a ban can not deny someone a mortgage contract because they are female, but they can deny them a contract because they have bad credit, no job, no collateral, etc.

The right being denied in a gay marriage ban is the right to not be denied contract entry due to gender. A marriage contract is 2 parties. If party A is male, and the contract is denied by the state because party B is also male, that is gender discrimination and a denial of 14th amendment rights.

You and spartan are ruining the true beauty of this thread .....

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#20 : May 08, 2013, 09:42:32 PM



CBW is just trying to recover from his gaffe in the other thread (lol) ......

What did he do this time ??

He fell in Spartans trap. I pointed it out. He tried to play it off, got the thread locked while building the black hole so he just transferred the black hole to this thread. The guy goes the extra 1000 miles to avoid admitting error.

Since making the error he has been pulling "a Buggsy" - calling me stupid while posting erroneous info.

Lmao

Quote
Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

...

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

    The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

...

While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right. Lower courts, even when relying on disparate state-level constitutional language, have consistently acknowledged the right to marry. Legal arguments for excepting same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage as a civil right have rested, instead, on the argument that the state has a compelling interest in restricting same-sex marriage that justifies limiting the right to marry (an argument that was also used to justify restrictions on interracial marriage), and/or that laws permitting civil unions provide a substantially equivalent standard to marriage that satisfies equal protection standards.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

Not only are you a hypocritical buffoon, you are also a sh*tty lawyer.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17662
Online
#21 : May 09, 2013, 12:55:52 AM

lol -- spin spin spin

"During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples."We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

This is the question presented to the US Supreme Court:

"(1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman"
: May 09, 2013, 12:58:35 AM VinBucFan

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17662
Online
#22 : May 09, 2013, 01:00:59 AM

This is a good argument, and probably a solid way to get around the "protected class" argument, but the Loving decision, which was a unanimous vote, does affirm that marriage is a "basic civil right of man". The decision on Loving wasn't made solely because it discriminated against a certain race, it was made because it also violated the Due Process Clause, which protects individuals from arbitrary government restraints without proper objective.

Taking your contract example into account, denying someone a mortgage because they have bad credit is a poor example, because it is one of the two parties involved in the contract negotiation that is denying the contract, not the government denying the entrance into a contract between two consenting parties. Denying a mortgage due to bad credit is also not an arbitrary denial and has a proper objective.

While you can certainly argue that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment due to it being gender discrimination, you can also argue that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment because it is denying a civil liberty without just cause for doing so. The government cannot just deny you the right to do something. There must be a reason for them denying it that stands up to judicial scrutiny. The state cannot pass a law that says it is illegal to own pugs just because a group of lawmakers think pugs are ugly. They must have a reason for banning pug ownership, otherwise it is an unjust law, and you need not be a member of a protected class for it to be considered such.

O-M-G . ..  the madness . . .  hard to count all the errors in that

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#23 : May 09, 2013, 01:20:44 AM

lol -- spin spin spin

"During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples."We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

This is the question presented to the US Supreme Court:

"(1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman"

So you are presenting an oral argument by Scalia on a case that hasn't yet been decided as proof that marriage is not a right? The sh*tty lawyer thing was somewhat tongue and cheek, but now I'm beginning to wonder.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17662
Online
#24 : May 09, 2013, 01:29:47 AM

lol -- spin spin spin

"During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples."We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

This is the question presented to the US Supreme Court:

"(1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman"

So you are presenting an oral argument by Scalia on a case that hasn't yet been decided as proof that marriage is not a right? The sh*tty lawyer thing was somewhat tongue and cheek, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

You really should take the time to read. . .  carefully . . . and think . . . not just cut and paste. The numerous errors you have posted in this thread show that you dont even have a wikipedia level understanding of the topic.  Here you go, let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
: May 09, 2013, 01:36:15 AM VinBucFan

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17662
Online
#25 : May 09, 2013, 01:40:39 AM

Marriage is NOT a right. Marriage is a contract which the states have imbued with certain implicit rigts such as custody of children, asset survivorship, medical decisions, etc.

No one has a right to enter a contract. But we do have the right to not be denied contract entry due to certain circumstances (race, religion, gender, etc.) So a ban can not deny someone a mortgage contract because they are female, but they can deny them a contract because they have bad credit, no job, no collateral, etc.

The right being denied in a gay marriage ban is the right to not be denied contract entry due to gender. A marriage contract is 2 parties. If party A is male, and the contract is denied by the state because party B is also male, that is gender discrimination and a denial of 14th amendment rights.

This is a good argument, and probably a solid way to get around the "protected class" argument,

That statement in bold makes no sense because the example provided by JG still implicates what you call the "protected class argument"  lol.. 

You didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, more like a Motel 6

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#26 : May 09, 2013, 02:14:36 AM

lol -- spin spin spin

"During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples."We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

This is the question presented to the US Supreme Court:

"(1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman"

Here's something that is even more evidence of what a freaking sheister you are. The rest of the Scalia exchange:

Quote
Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.

The two went back and forth, with Scalia repeatedly questioning when, specifically, it became unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marrying. Olson argued back, but ended up conceding that there was no specific date.

"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-prop-8-case-supreme-court-2013-3#ixzz2Sm0RjMmB


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#27 : May 09, 2013, 02:17:07 AM

lol -- spin spin spin

"During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples."We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

This is the question presented to the US Supreme Court:

"(1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman"

So you are presenting an oral argument by Scalia on a case that hasn't yet been decided as proof that marriage is not a right? The sh*tty lawyer thing was somewhat tongue and cheek, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

You really should take the time to read. . .  carefully . . . and think . . . not just cut and paste. The numerous errors you have posted in this thread show that you dont even have a wikipedia level understanding of the topic.  Here you go, let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

Is marriage a right as decided by the Supreme Court in Loving V. Virginia, or is it not the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, Vince?


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#28 : May 09, 2013, 02:51:44 AM

Marriage is NOT a right. Marriage is a contract which the states have imbued with certain implicit rigts such as custody of children, asset survivorship, medical decisions, etc.

No one has a right to enter a contract. But we do have the right to not be denied contract entry due to certain circumstances (race, religion, gender, etc.) So a ban can not deny someone a mortgage contract because they are female, but they can deny them a contract because they have bad credit, no job, no collateral, etc.

The right being denied in a gay marriage ban is the right to not be denied contract entry due to gender. A marriage contract is 2 parties. If party A is male, and the contract is denied by the state because party B is also male, that is gender discrimination and a denial of 14th amendment rights.

This is a good argument, and probably a solid way to get around the "protected class" argument,

That statement in bold makes no sense because the example provided by JG still implicates what you call the "protected class argument"  lol.. 

You didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, more like a Motel 6

Oh for the love of god...

I wasn't suggesting that the debate doesn't involve the protected class argument. I was simply suggesting that it doesn't have to. Protected classes are arbitrary anyway. All that is required for gays and lesbians to be declared a protected class is that they be declared a protected class, just as they already are in a number of states. It can be argued that the very notion that it is illegal to discriminate against gays in Washington State, yet perfectly legal to do so in Texas is in and of itself contradictory to the spirit of Article 4, section 2 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which was specifically written to ensure that the exact same thing was not happening to African Americans based on their geographic location.

My argument is that while the equal protection clause is often invoked, the Loving decision also invoked the Due Process clause, which suggested that interracial marriage bans denied citizens of liberty without due process of law. Arbitrary laws do not meet the Constitutional threshold, which is why it is the burden of the states to provide a legitimate purpose for imposing same sex marriage bans. The problem is, there is no legitimate purpose. "Because lots of people think it's icky", or "because it is against some people's religious beliefs" are not legitimate purposes, which is why lesser courts have systematically rejected these laws.
: May 09, 2013, 03:08:29 AM CBWx2


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31373
Offline
#29 : May 09, 2013, 09:04:03 AM

As far as dogs, camels, and 12 year old's go, you can't enter into any contract with any of the above, because they cannot be consenting partners. It's a moot point.

So how do you enter a contract in which to the party don't meet the requirements of said contract?  Marriage = Man & Woman. 

Like has been said many times, the easy fix to this issue is the government getting out of the "Marriage" business.  They don't need to change the definition of marriage, they need to give out Civil Union or Domestic Partnership licenses.



Not only are you a hypocritical buffoon, you are also a sh*tty lawyer.

Excellent description of the PeanutButterCheeseBoy.

You have to give him credit though.  He does make up a pretty good false narrative. 

Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What is Vince's legal justification... « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools