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 6 ... 11

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#45 : May 09, 2013, 12:12:36 PM

CBW, posting a quote from the 9th circuit case only shows you look at the quote, it doesnt show that you understand the huge mistake you're making.

On the part above, you  must not understand why I put several of your words in bold.


Is there any point where you ever say "oops, I did not actually understand that . . "? Unfortunately, the answer is "no"  --- even with pages full of mistakes --so I will move on now CBW and let you spin, spin, spin.


maybe you and Bam Bam Buggsy can go back to the Motel 6 and come up with another way to call me a "buffoon" . . . .lol
: May 09, 2013, 12:19:45 PM VinBucFan

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#46 : May 09, 2013, 12:13:38 PM

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)


It seems to me that the pro-gay marriage crowd should go after the banning states and demand a "separate but equal" alternative on the basis of gender discrimination. Title IX springs to mind, in that schools are allowed to have separate programs (sports mostly) that are gender specific, but they must offer and fund equally programs for both genders. So if a state bans same sex marriage, then they must provide an alternative contract that provides the same benefits and protections. IOW if a state defines "marriage" as between a man and a women, then they must have another partnership agreement with alternative definitions.

I have yet to see this done, and have not heard of any legal challenges following this line. It seems to me that the pro-gay marriage crowd is too hung up on the word "marriage" and is not yet ready to accept a "separate but equal" compromise.
: May 09, 2013, 12:16:10 PM John Galt?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#47 : May 09, 2013, 12:17:21 PM

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)


It seems to me that the pro-gay marriage crowd should go after the banning states and demand a "separate but equal" alternative on the basis of gender discrimination. Title IX springs to mind, in that schools are allowed to have separate programs (sports mostly) that are gender specific, but they must offer and fund equally programs for both genders. So if a state bans same sex marriage, then they must provide an alternative contract that provides the same benefits and protections. IOW if a state defines "marriage" as between a man and a women, then they must have another partnership agreement with alternative definitions.

you may be right about that and I have certainly seen that issue discussed.  I have also seen the response be a version of "we don't want Plessy we want Brown" meaning that "separate but equal" is something less than equal treatment under the law.  Maybe some overreaching in that view, who knows?

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
#48 : May 09, 2013, 12:38:16 PM


It seems to me that the pro-gay marriage crowd should go after the banning states and demand a "separate but equal" alternative on the basis of gender discrimination. Title IX springs to mind, in that schools are allowed to have separate programs (sports mostly) that are gender specific, but they must offer and fund equally programs for both genders. So if a state bans same sex marriage, then they must provide an alternative contract that provides the same benefits and protections. IOW if a state defines "marriage" as between a man and a women, then they must have another partnership agreement with alternative definitions.

I have yet to see this done, and have not heard of any legal challenges following this line. It seems to me that the pro-gay marriage crowd is too hung up on the word "marriage" and is not yet ready to accept a "separate but equal" compromise.

Ding ding, we have a winner!!

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
#49 : May 09, 2013, 12:40:20 PM


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.

Can you translate this into English?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#50 : May 09, 2013, 12:41:26 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.


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.

Actually, you can sell a home to 3 different buyers as long as each buyer gives consent. Timeshares immediately come to mind. Most standard marriage contracts or licenses I've seen don't state that you cannot enter into a marriage with another person. Anti-bigamy laws are a separate entity from the actual contract of marriage. Unless exclusivity is specified, which in most standard marriage contracts it is not, then I fail to see how that definition means anything from a legal standpoint.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#51 : May 09, 2013, 12:58:53 PM

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)


It seems to me that the pro-gay marriage crowd should go after the banning states and demand a "separate but equal" alternative on the basis of gender discrimination. Title IX springs to mind, in that schools are allowed to have separate programs (sports mostly) that are gender specific, but they must offer and fund equally programs for both genders. So if a state bans same sex marriage, then they must provide an alternative contract that provides the same benefits and protections. IOW if a state defines "marriage" as between a man and a women, then they must have another partnership agreement with alternative definitions.

I have yet to see this done, and have not heard of any legal challenges following this line. It seems to me that the pro-gay marriage crowd is too hung up on the word "marriage" and is not yet ready to accept a "separate but equal" compromise.

This is because as ruled on by the SCOTUS in Brown v. Board, separate is inherently unequal. By calling marriage "marriage" for one class of people and calling it something else that is perceived as inferior for another, you are legislating inequality.

In regards to the gender argument for separate bathrooms, sports programs, etc., there are privacy and safety issues that can be presented that grant a legitimate purpose for separate institutions existing. What is the legitimate purpose for the denying of marriage to same sex couples? Laws cannot be enacted that deny liberties to individuals arbitrarily. There must be a reason for it that gives it legitimacy.
: May 09, 2013, 01:03:36 PM CBWx2


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#52 : May 09, 2013, 01:18:59 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.


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.

Actually, you can sell a home to 3 different buyers as long as each buyer gives consent. Timeshares immediately come to mind.

I typed "house" not "home", a house implies the building and the land. A condo is the purchase of a space in a building but NOT the land and a timeshare is a condo. In a condo, the land is always deeded to a single entity, usually the developer/sales co. then transferred over to a "Condo Association" or owners group or management comp. which is always a single entity. Also in many states, timeshares are long term ( sometimes in perpetuity) leases, not true ownership. (NC, Ca, NJ 

Most standard marriage contracts or licenses I've seen don't state that you cannot enter into a marriage with another person.

The contract may not state that but try to get a marriage license recorded at the Clerks office with 3 or more names on it. You can write up a contract any way your fingers can type, but that doesn't mean the courts or govt. will recognize it. The issue is the acceptance and recognition of gay marriage by the courts and govt., not whether a document can be typed.

Anti-bigamy laws are a separate entity from the actual contract of marriage. Unless exclusivity is specified, which in most standard marriage contracts it is not, then I fail to see how that definition means anything from a legal standpoint.

Anti bigamy laws involve entering multiple contracts with separate unrelated parties. That is entirely different than a single contract with multiple parties. Some contracts are exclusive. If I sign a Representative contract with Raymond James, I can not in any way work for, sell for, represent any other Broker-Dealer or Financial services company in any way shape or form. As a Rep of Raymond James, I can enter into a Financial Adviser contract with ABC Corp. (a single entity) and all of its employees (multiple other entities). Those are 2 different kinds of contracts, one is exclusive (by both statute and form) and one is not. Federal and state laws (and FINRA) state you can not enter into an employment contract with one broker dealer until you have dissolved any previous employment contracts with other BDs. These laws and rules are separate from the actual employment contract.

Similarly, bigamy laws say you can't enter a marriage contract until you have dissolved all previous marriages. 


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#53 : May 09, 2013, 01:38:09 PM


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.

Can you translate this into English?

Do you really need me to explain to you why you cannot enter into a marriage contract with an animal or a child? Okay, here goes.

You cannot have a legally binding contract with an animal because they do not have the cognitive ability to understand and agree to a contract. You cannot have a legally binding contract with a child because they do not have fully developed cognition, therefor their ability to understand and agree to contracts is deemed below what is required to make the contract enforceable.

Unless you are questioning the cognitive abilities of adult homosexual couples, then I fail to see how comparing their unions to a union with an animal or a child is pertinent. And I won't even get into the blatantly offensive nature of such a comparison from a moral standpoint.
: May 09, 2013, 01:40:35 PM CBWx2


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#54 : May 09, 2013, 01:47:22 PM

Laws cannot be enacted that deny liberties to individuals arbitrarily. There must be a reason for it that gives it legitimacy.


Sure the can.

Ever been drafted?? An arbitrary number is used (like DoB or Last 4 of SS#) and if your arbitrary number is called you are in the military which involves all kinds of lost liberties.

How about alcohol and tobacco laws? If you were born before this arbitrary date, you can buy it, if not you can't.

If you want to open a bar, you need to get a liquor license, and those licenses are limited to a certain number per year and recipients are drawn by lottery. Whether you can sell booze is therefore strictly arbitrary.

If you want to stage a protest in the city park, you get a permit and that permit states the maximum number of people that can attend which is usually first come, first served- which is arbitrary. IOW your right to free assembly can be denied because you arbitrarily weren't one of the first 500 to arrive.

In Cape Coral you can't paint your house bright purple, isn't that arbitrarily removing my right of expression?

And I'd say the vast majority of the IRS codes are arbitrary.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#55 : May 09, 2013, 01:59:22 PM

Laws cannot be enacted that deny liberties to individuals arbitrarily. There must be a reason for it that gives it legitimacy.


Sure the can.

Ever been drafted?? An arbitrary number is used (like DoB or Last 4 of SS#) and if your arbitrary number is called you are in the military which involves all kinds of lost liberties.

How about alcohol and tobacco laws? If you were born before this arbitrary date, you can buy it, if not you can't.

If you want to open a bar, you need to get a liquor license, and those licenses are limited to a certain number per year and recipients are drawn by lottery. Whether you can sell booze is therefore strictly arbitrary.

If you want to stage a protest in the city park, you get a permit and that permit states the maximum number of people that can attend which is usually first come, first served- which is arbitrary. IOW your right to free assembly can be denied because you arbitrarily weren't one of the first 500 to arrive.

In Cape Coral you can't paint your house bright purple, isn't that arbitrarily removing my right of expression?

And I'd say the vast majority of the IRS codes are arbitrary.

It depends on the subject of the law, that is why CBW's claim that "there must be a reaosn that gives it legitmacy" is wrong, or maybe better said "incomplete".  In terms of constitutionality there are a number of tests/scrutiny levels.  Many of the things you mention fall under "police power"

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
#56 : May 09, 2013, 04:18:32 PM

You cannot have a legally binding contract with a child because they do not have fully developed cognition, therefor their ability to understand and agree to contracts is deemed below what is required to make the contract enforceable.


Course you can. How do you think they get Saturday jobs?

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15397
Offline
#57 : May 09, 2013, 05:02:04 PM

Laws cannot be enacted that deny liberties to individuals arbitrarily. There must be a reason for it that gives it legitimacy.

In a libertarian country this might be true , not in the one we live in .





By the way , CBW , you are arguing this from the wrong point of view with all this contract jargon and haggling over legal technicalities.

The winning argument is much more simple : ANY pair/group of consenting adults getting married of thier own free will does not effect you in any way . It doesn't harm you , it doesn't infringe on you .....SO LET THEM GET MARRIED . WHO CARES . Period.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Offline
#58 : May 10, 2013, 12:44:27 PM


By the way , CBW , you are arguing this from the wrong point of view with all this contract jargon and haggling over legal technicalities.

The winning argument is much more simple : ANY pair/group of consenting adults getting married of thier own free will does not effect you in any way . It doesn't harm you , it doesn't infringe on you .....SO LET THEM GET MARRIED . WHO CARES . Period.

I notice that supporters adhere to the principle that marriage is between TWO persons. This demonstrates that they are willing to discriminate (i.e. against bigamists which, like gay marriage, would harm no-one) but only against the people they disapprove of.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15397
Offline
#59 : May 10, 2013, 12:50:15 PM


By the way , CBW , you are arguing this from the wrong point of view with all this contract jargon and haggling over legal technicalities.

The winning argument is much more simple : ANY pair/group of consenting adults getting married of thier own free will does not effect you in any way . It doesn't harm you , it doesn't infringe on you .....SO LET THEM GET MARRIED . WHO CARES . Period.

I notice that supporters adhere to the principle that marriage is between TWO persons. This demonstrates that they are willing to discriminate (i.e. against bigamists which, like gay marriage, would harm no-one) but only against the people they disapprove of.

Not me . That's why I said "pair/group" . Marry 20 women for all I care , so long as they are all consenting adults.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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