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 5 ... 11

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7034
Offline
« #30 : May 09, 2013, 09:13:17 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.


Not it's not because it demonstrates that there are limits as to what marriage is, is not and who can and cannot get married. Now all we are arguing is where that limit is, which is based on peoples personal beliefs and opinions.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #31 : May 09, 2013, 09:31:25 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. 

You can't, but I would argue that this is an arbitrary litmus for entering into the contract of marriage. What purpose does it serve to limit the requirements of entering into a marriage contract to this definition? What, besides an arbitrary exclusion, prevents same sex couples from being able to meet the requirements of the contract? What imminent harm is being prevented by denying same sex couples this liberty that is not imminent when opposite sex couples enter into it? Those are some of the questions in front of the court right now. I'd be interested in seeing how some of the more conservative justices justify voting to uphold same sex marriage bans if they do so.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly.


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.

That he does, Biggs. That he does.
« : May 09, 2013, 09:53:39 AM CBWx2 »


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #32 : May 09, 2013, 09:52:42 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.


Not it's not because it demonstrates that there are limits as to what marriage is, is not and who can and cannot get married. Now all we are arguing is where that limit is, which is based on peoples personal beliefs and opinions.

The reason that you can't enter into marriage contracts with animals and children has nothing to do with any definition of what marriage is. It's based on the definitions of what animals and children are.
« : May 09, 2013, 10:19:13 AM CBWx2 »


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31573
Offline
« #33 : May 09, 2013, 10:45:36 AM »

What purpose does it serve to limit the requirements of entering into a marriage contract to this definition?

Because that what a marriage is.  I've never been a fan of shaping the definition of a word to suit you best.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19469
Online
« #34 : May 09, 2013, 11:09:33 AM »

All that is required for gays and lesbians to be declared a protected class is that they be declared a protected class,

LOL, so much backpedaling that you keep making it worse for yourself.  That comment ^^^^^^ is 100,000% WRONG . . . as I pointed out on page 1. 

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.

You could not be more wrong then and now  10 second Google search results:


"One fundamental question of constitutional law is the murky issue of a protected status for LGBT individuals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines sex, race, and ethnicity as specifically protected under law but leaves issues of sexuality vague (Civil Rights Act  1964). Laws affecting a suspect or protected class are subject to the highest level of scrutiny, labeled strict scrutiny, where they are deemed unconstitutional unless the government has compelling interest in discriminating against the protected class and the policy has been “narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights” (Baehr v. Lewin 1993). If a class is not given special protection, then a rational basis test is used; any reasonable rationale that the policy furthers state interests is sufficient to deem the law constitutional. The determination of a protected class relies, characteristically, on four principles: a history of discrimination against the class, whether the characteristics of the class affect its ability to contribute to society, whether distinguishing characteristics of the class are immutable, and the lack of political power of the class (Varnum v. Brien 2009). The question of immutability directly relates to whether one’s sexual orientation is a choice or is somehow preordained by one’s biology."


http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k78405&pageid=icb.page414413


"Most gay people will tell you that they have very little choice in the matter of who they are attracted to and who they love. But most also remember clearly the moment that they chose to call themselves gay or lesbian. What makes this distinction so important is that both sides in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial—which ended with closing arguments yesterday in San Francisco—agree that the plaintiffs’ case is stronger to the extent that it can be shown that gays and lesbians are a discrete group with distinctive traits on the basis of which California has restricted the right of marriage."

 
http://themonkeycage.org/2010/01/28/perry_v_schwarzenegger_guest_b_1/


And conversely, the idea that homosexuality is a choice, or a lifestyle, is a crucial element of the conservative argument that marriage equality is not a civil-rights issue.

The argument has specific legal significance as well. One of the four criteria for defining a classification such as sexual orientation as suspect—which in turn subjects laws targeting that class of people to the highest burden of proof—is that the group in question share an immutable characteristic.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/is-sexuality-immutable.html


Once again . .  you are just spewing words that you dont understand, but I know it will not stop you ----- spin, spin, spin
« : May 09, 2013, 11:19:14 AM VinBucFan »


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19469
Online
« #35 : May 09, 2013, 11:11:48 AM »

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.

That he does, Biggs. That he does.

LOL - ^^^ From the guy whose knowledge of the law comes from staying the night at a Motel 6 . . .  and a guy who likely once got turned down for a job as a maintenance guy at Motel 6.

I doubt many expect you guys to know what youre talking about, but why call others stupid while making it clear you dont understand the subject?

Abbott and Costello got nothin on you two . . .
« : May 09, 2013, 11:15:24 AM VinBucFan »


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #36 : May 09, 2013, 11:18:55 AM »

All that is required for gays and lesbians to be declared a protected class is that they be declared a protected class,

LOL, so much backpedaling that you keep making it worse for yourself.  That comment ^^^^^^ is 100,000% WRONG . . . as I pointed out on page 1.  You could not be more wrong about that.  10 second Google search results:


"One fundamental question of constitutional law is the murky issue of a protected status for LGBT individuals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines sex, race, and ethnicity as specifically protected under law but leaves issues of sexuality vague (Civil Rights Act  1964). Laws affecting a suspect or protected class are subject to the highest level of scrutiny, labeled strict scrutiny, where they are deemed unconstitutional unless the government has compelling interest in discriminating against the protected class and the policy has been “narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights” (Baehr v. Lewin 1993). If a class is not given special protection, then a rational basis test is used; any reasonable rationale that the policy furthers state interests is sufficient to deem the law constitutional. The determination of a protected class relies, characteristically, on four principles: a history of discrimination against the class, whether the characteristics of the class affect its ability to contribute to society, whether distinguishing characteristics of the class are immutable, and the lack of political power of the class (Varnum v. Brien 2009). The question of immutability directly relates to whether one’s sexual orientation is a choice or is somehow preordained by one’s biology."


http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k78405&pageid=icb.page414413


"Most gay people will tell you that they have very little choice in the matter of who they are attracted to and who they love. But most also remember clearly the moment that they chose to call themselves gay or lesbian. What makes this distinction so important is that both sides in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial—which ended with closing arguments yesterday in San Francisco—agree that the plaintiffs’ case is stronger to the extent that it can be shown that gays and lesbians are a discrete group with distinctive traits on the basis of which California has restricted the right of marriage."

 
http://themonkeycage.org/2010/01/28/perry_v_schwarzenegger_guest_b_1/


And conversely, the idea that homosexuality is a choice, or a lifestyle, is a crucial element of the conservative argument that marriage equality is not a civil-rights issue.

The argument has specific legal significance as well. One of the four criteria for defining a classification such as sexual orientation as suspect—which in turn subjects laws targeting that class of people to the highest burden of proof—is that the group in question share an immutable characteristic.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/is-sexuality-immutable.html


Once again . .  you are just spewing words that you dont understand, but I know it will not stop you ----- spin, spin, spin

Vince, that comment isn't 100% wrong, it's 100% right. The criteria used to determine what class of individuals deserve special protections is subjective. The statements that you've just presented prove as much. Right now, there are several states that have concluded that gays and lesbians meet the criteria, and thus they receive special protections in those states, and several states that have decided that they do not, or have not yet decided. The states that provided equal protections to gays and lesbians came to that conclusion under the exact same set of circumstances as the ones that do not. How can you sit here and argue that it is not arbitrary in the face of that? Jeezus you are a freaking buffoon!


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #37 : May 09, 2013, 11:20:25 AM »

Marriage is not a right the same way that sofa is not a verb.

House is not a right. The ability to buy or rent a house without your race, religion, or gender being a factor is a right.

The Gettysburg Address is not a right. The freedom to publicly recite it is.

Marriage is not a right, the freedom to enter into one regardless of gender is the question. The courts have ruled that people have the right to not be discriminated based on gender in most but not all circumstances. Unlike race, with gender "separate but equal" is allowed (locker rooms, bathrooms, women's sports in public schools, etc.). Given this it seems to me that there might be a legal way to deny marriage to same sex couples as long as another contract/institution that gives the same benefits/protections is made available id est a domestic partnership. Now the problem is that the states that have gay marriage bans don't have or recognize such alternative agreements.
« : May 09, 2013, 11:22:12 AM John Galt? »


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19469
Online
« #38 : May 09, 2013, 11:25:40 AM »

Right now, there are several states that have concluded that gays and lesbians meet the criteria, and thus they receive special protections in those states, and several states that have decided that they do not, or have not yet decided. The states that provided equal protections to gays and lesbians came to that conclusion under the exact same set of circumstances as the ones that do not. How can you sit here and argue that it is not arbitrary in the face of that? Jeezus you are a freaking buffoon!

I realize I am wasting my time, but I highlighted something for you, let's see if you can figure it out -- remember, you are the one calling me a "bufoon" while continuallly proving yourself to be just that with your own mistakes.

By the way, the part in BLUE   . . . is again so WRONG it is just laughable. You clearly have no clue how the law works, which I wouldnt expect you too, but maybe you should learn that about yourself . .  especially if you're going to use your own mistatements as a platform to call other "bufoons."

Just a thought . . . 

oh, by the way . . . you  might want to look at the Prop 8 case -- and specifically what happened between the District Court ruling (made by a GAY judge) and the 9th Circuit . . .  again, another HUGE mistake you are making because you dont understand what you are talking about.

carry on . . .  spin, spin , spin


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #39 : May 09, 2013, 11:30:23 AM »

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.

That he does, Biggs. That he does.

LOL - ^^^ From the guy whose knowledge of the law comes from staying the night at a Motel 6 . . .  and a guy who likely once got turned down for a job as a maintenance guy at Motel 6.

I doubt many expect you guys to know what youre talking about, but why call others stupid while making it clear you dont understand the subject?

Abbott and Costello got nothin on you two . . .

Lets see, so far you've argued that:

A) Marriage is not a civil right even though it was defined as such by the SCOTUS, who's job it is to interpret the US Constitution.

B) Laws created that restrict individual liberties do not need a legitimate purpose to be deemed constitutional.

C) The 14th amendment only applies to protected classes, not to all US citizens, even though the 14th amendment specifically says that it does.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19469
Online
« #40 : May 09, 2013, 11:35:17 AM »

Marriage is not a right the same way that sofa is not a verb.

House is not a right. The ability to buy or rent a house without your race, religion, or gender being a factor is a right.

The Gettysburg Address is not a right. The freedom to publicly recite it is.

Marriage is not a right, the freedom to enter into one regardless of gender is the question. The courts have ruled that people have the right to not be discriminated based on gender in most but not all circumstances. Unlike race, with gender "separate but equal" is allowed (locker rooms, bathrooms, women's sports in public schools, etc.). Given this it seems to me that there might be a legal way to deny marriage to same sex couples as long as another contract/institution that gives the same benefits/protections is made available id est a domestic partnership. Now the problem is that the states that have gay marriage bans don't have or recognize such alternative agreements.

JG?  you are touching on the very point that CBW has been missing on repeatedly.  The reason that gender and race are treated different is because laws that are passed related to the two are given a very different level of scrutiny in a constitutionality test.  This is the problem that homosexuals face.  Questions of constituitonality often come down to the srutiny level. Because of a long history of race issues, including slavery etc, race-based laws are review under "strict scrutiny."  Gender laws are based on a lower level of scrutiny because gender is only a quasi-special classiification.

The reason this matters for the issue of gay marriage is that homosexuals are not a protected class and the one big hurdle for homosexuals getting that status is the argument that protected classes are groups with an IMMUTABLE trait.  What is the immutable trait for homosexuals absent PROOF that homosexuality is NOT a choice?

I support the right of homosexuals to have equal treatemnt under the law (i.e. to have access to the benefits associated with marriage in this country), but it is a very tough road on Equal protection grounds and that is why -- as just one example -- many courts that have dealt with the issue have tried to side-step the 14th Amendment (notable exception being a GAY judge in CA)


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19469
Online
« #41 : May 09, 2013, 11:40:34 AM »

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.

That he does, Biggs. That he does.

LOL - ^^^ From the guy whose knowledge of the law comes from staying the night at a Motel 6 . . .  and a guy who likely once got turned down for a job as a maintenance guy at Motel 6.

I doubt many expect you guys to know what youre talking about, but why call others stupid while making it clear you dont understand the subject?

Abbott and Costello got nothin on you two . . .

Lets see, so far you've argued that:

A) Marriage is not a civil right even though it was defined as such by the SCOTUS, who's job it is to interpret the US Constitution.

B) Laws created that restrict individual liberties do not need a legitimate purpose to be deemed constitutional.

C) The 14th amendment only applies to protected classes, not to all US citizens, even though the 14th amendment specifically says that it does.


the strawman spin is one of my favorites . . . .  spin, spin, spin

now, what about that comment that all homosexuals need to get protected class status is to say that are a protected class? . . .  you know the WRONG comment you made

All that is required for gays and lesbians to be declared a protected class is that they be declared a protected class,


that you are now trying to ignore with your strawmen . . . LMAO
« : May 09, 2013, 11:42:39 AM VinBucFan »


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #42 : May 09, 2013, 11:56:21 AM »

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.


Yes there is.

Marriage by definition is simply a legal union of two persons entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

and you gave it.

A legal union is a contract. A contract can and often does specify the number of parties involved. For instance, you can't sell a house to 3 different (unrelated) buyers. The law (UBC in this case plus state RE laws) says a real estate contract can only be between 2 parties. And before you bring it up, yes, one of the parties can be a corporation or partnership with multiple individuals being treated as a single entity, but the nature of marriage contracts would preclude this.



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.

Exactly. You can't sell a car to a dog, you can't sell a house to a camel, and you can't get a mortgage from a 12 year old. (the lender gets the mortgage, the lendee gets the loan)

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.

This discussion is pretty much moot. The Catholic Church doesn't have to recognize a marriage between a same sex couple the same way that they don't recognize a marriage between previously divorced persons.

The question is should our governments recognize gay marriage in regards to sharing of benefits, property distribution, medical decision making, immigration, etc.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19469
Online
« #43 : May 09, 2013, 12:04:13 PM »

The question is should our governments recognize gay marriage in regards to sharing of benefits, property distribution, medical decision making, immigration, etc.

Correct and the reason the issue is propertly framed as one of equal rights under the law as opposed to the right to "marriage."


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #44 : May 09, 2013, 12:06:30 PM »

Right now, there are several states that have concluded that gays and lesbians meet the criteria, and thus they receive special protections in those states, and several states that have decided that they do not, or have not yet decided. The states that provided equal protections to gays and lesbians came to that conclusion under the exact same set of circumstances as the ones that do not. How can you sit here and argue that it is not arbitrary in the face of that? Jeezus you are a freaking buffoon!

By the way, the part in BLUE   . . . is again so WRONG it is just laughable. You clearly have no clue how the law works, which I wouldnt expect you too, but maybe you should learn that about yourself . .  especially if you're going to use your own mistatements as a platform to call other "bufoons."

How is the part in blue wrong, Vince? From you:

The determination of a protected class relies, characteristically, on four principles: a history of discrimination against the class, whether the characteristics of the class affect its ability to contribute to society, whether distinguishing characteristics of the class are immutable, and the lack of political power of the class (Varnum v. Brien 2009). The question of immutability directly relates to whether one’s sexual orientation is a choice or is somehow preordained by one’s biology."

Each state that has either decided to grant gays and lesbians equal protections or to deny them equal protections have answered these questions, and have come to two seperate conclusions. So you tell me, genius, how is that not subjective?

oh, by the way . . . you  might want to look at the Prop 8 case -- and specifically what happened between the District Court ruling (made by a GAY judge) and the 9th Circuit . . .  again, another HUGE mistake you are making because you dont understand what you are talking about.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Perry v. Brown:

Quote
Prior to November 4th, 2008, the California Constitution allowed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have enacted...

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

  Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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