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 ... 11

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
: May 06, 2013, 06:10:37 PM

for supporting gay marriage? If the 14th amendment does not support the right to marriage equality, what part of the Constitution does? The floor is yours, counselor?


TheAman

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2492
Offline
#1 : May 06, 2013, 08:00:41 PM

The 14th amendment DOES support the right of marriage equality, the courts ruled that in Loving v. Virginia.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom....classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

You can say that it only applied to race, but when it comes to it, based on past legal rulings, there is no reason that gays should be denied the basic civil rights of marriage.  Unless you believe that gays are not actual human beings, then they deserve equal fundamental rights.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19434
Online
#2 : May 06, 2013, 08:43:33 PM

The 14th amendment DOES support the right of marriage equality, the courts ruled that in Loving v. Virginia.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom....classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

You can say that it only applied to race, but when it comes to it, based on past legal rulings, there is no reason that gays should be denied the basic civil rights of marriage.  Unless you believe that gays are not actual human beings, then they deserve equal fundamental rights.

CBW is just trying to recover from his gaffe in the other thread (lol) ......, but you're right on marriage.  However, the legal problem for homosexuals with the Loving case is not technically that it applied to race but rather that it dealt with a protected class.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#3 : May 07, 2013, 12:32:09 AM

The 14th amendment DOES support the right of marriage equality, the courts ruled that in Loving v. Virginia.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom....classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

You can say that it only applied to race, but when it comes to it, based on past legal rulings, there is no reason that gays should be denied the basic civil rights of marriage.  Unless you believe that gays are not actual human beings, then they deserve equal fundamental rights.

CBW is just trying to recover from his gaffe in the other thread (lol) ......, but you're right on marriage. 

He's right on marriage equallity being a civil right, but I am not? You are a freaking joke who would rather openly contradict yourself than simply admit that you were just too stupid to be able to navigate spartan's "trap".

However, the legal problem for homosexuals with the Loving case is not technically that it applied to race but rather that it dealt with a protected class.

What you see here, TheAman, is Vince being what Andy Dufresne would call "deliberatley obtuse" so as not to have to own the fact that I am right. The legal argument from those opposing marriage equality has traditionally been that gays and lesbians are not members of a protected class, however, any Constitutional scholar worth a squirrel fart can tell you that the 14th Amendment makes no reference to any specific class or classes being protected.

In fact, the only qualification for being granted the privileges and immunities expressed in article 4 section 2 of the Constitution and equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment is being an American citizen. Unless an amendment was passed that stripped gays and lesbians of their legal status as American citizens, then the 14th Amendment protects their right to marriage equality, the very right articulated by the SCOTUS in the Loving decision. Vince knows this. Had you asked him directly, he would have said it is correct. But since he has to try to preserve some semblance of one-upsmanship on me, and since he has to try and mask the fact that he was too stupid to be able to make this connection himself even though he's a freaking lawyer, he won't admit it.
: May 07, 2013, 01:02:55 AM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19434
Online
#4 : May 07, 2013, 06:46:32 AM

Weird how hard you try.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19434
Online
#5 : May 07, 2013, 07:29:24 AM

Discrimination For Dummies:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
: May 07, 2013, 07:34:12 AM VinBucFan


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#6 : May 07, 2013, 04:05:52 PM

Discrimination For Dummies:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Protected classes apply to anti-discrimination laws, where a specific group of people need to be identified. The reason is because these laws don't affect the discriminatee, they affect the discriminator. For example, you as a lawyer are not allowed to deny counsel to a member of a protected class just because they are a member of sed class. This affects your right as lawyer to deny counsel, therefor it is necessary to identify exactly who you can or cannot deny counsel to and why in order for the law to be clear, concise, and enforceable.

Marriage equality does not work the same way, because gay marriage bans specifically affect one segment of the American people, and the state or federal government is the discriminator, not another private citizen. Therefor, the challenge is not for the legal system to balance the rights of two opposing private citizens, it is to decide if the government has the right to arbitrarily deny rights to two consenting private citizens that are not denied to others.

Being a member of a specified protected class is irrelevant in such cases, because all that is required for this to be deemed unconstitutional is the fact that a law was passed by the state that denies rights to specific citizens without due process. The fact that they are gay, lesbian, carnival workers, HIV positive, hot air balloon pilots, or whatever is irrelevant. The government arbitrarily denying rights to certain citizens that are enjoyed by others is in blatant violation of the 14th Amendment's expressed right to due process and equal protection.

Let me put it to you like this, if a law was passed in California that stated that it was illegal for strippers, porn stars, or adult escorts to be legally married, would that be Constitutional? How about a law that stated that if you've ever been divorced, you cannot legally be remarried? Sex workers and divorcees are not members of a protected class, but they are American citizens. How would that play out in the court of law, counselor?
: May 07, 2013, 04:55:48 PM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19434
Online
#7 : May 07, 2013, 07:01:11 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?
: May 07, 2013, 07:03:50 PM VinBucFan


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7034
Online
#8 : May 07, 2013, 11:16:59 PM

I find it funny that you guys have to fight even when you agree.

I will make it easier for you both. My point is that if you have to define finitely what is and what is not something, i.e. marriage, then it is a privilege or a benefit not a right. If all you have to do is legislate the consequence of exercising an action, then it is a right. Both of you are smart enough to come up with a "yea but what if .." so I say what I say in the hope you will at least understand the point. If not, then, whatever :)

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. Bit like defining a hooker. If you pay someone $50 she is a whore, pay $500 and she is a " call girl. You guys disagree with me, but c'est la vie. It is what it is. That is my opinion.

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.

You can ask why should I "impose" my religious beliefs on you? Well, I am and I am not. I could bounce back and say if I keep silent you are imposing your beliefs on me. It really doesn't matter if they are religious, political or whatever, they are beliefs that I do no agree with. But, my argument is that my judgement is influenced by my religious beliefs, therefore I vote and I choose accordingly. Someone who says this is what I believe in but I will not impose my beliefs on anyone else is not only a liar, but has no moral integrity. At best they are an opportunist, worst case ........

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19434
Online
#9 : May 08, 2013, 06:43:27 AM

We are not fighting. CBW is just trying to distract from his mistake in being trapped by your question.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19434
Online
#10 : May 08, 2013, 06:46:57 AM

I find it funny that you guys have to fight even when you agree.

I will make it easier for you both. My point is that if you have to define finitely what is and what is not something, i.e. marriage, then it is a privilege or a benefit not a right. If all you have to do is legislate the consequence of exercising an action, then it is a right. Both of you are smart enough to come up with a "yea but what if .." so I say what I say in the hope you will at least understand the point. If not, then, whatever :)

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. Bit like defining a hooker. If you pay someone $50 she is a whore, pay $500 and she is a " call girl. You guys disagree with me, but c'est la vie. It is what it is. That is my opinion.

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.

You can ask why should I "impose" my religious beliefs on you? Well, I am and I am not. I could bounce back and say if I keep silent you are imposing your beliefs on me. It really doesn't matter if they are religious, political or whatever, they are beliefs that I do no agree with. But, my argument is that my judgement is influenced by my religious beliefs, therefore I vote and I choose accordingly. Someone who says this is what I believe in but I will not impose my beliefs on anyone else is not only a liar, but has no moral integrity. At best they are an opportunist, worst case ........

You misunderstand my position, but no big deal. I also agree that "marriage" is a status conferred mostly by churches. In that regard, I am not for gay "marriage" I am for equal protection under the law with respect to the benefits society provides to married couples


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7034
Online
#11 : May 08, 2013, 10:18:39 AM


You misunderstand my position, but no big deal. I also agree that "marriage" is a status conferred mostly by churches. In that regard, I am not for gay "marriage" I am for equal protection under the law with respect to the benefits society provides to married couples

I have no problem with, and never had, bestowing legal rights etc by means of some kind of civil union.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#12 : May 08, 2013, 11:14:59 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.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16886
Online
#13 : May 08, 2013, 04:44:38 PM



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

What did he do this time ??

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

           

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16886
Online
#14 : May 08, 2013, 04:56:07 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.

Spot on .


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

           
Page: 1 2 3 ... 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