Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[MrFun]

Gay people who brought the case should have sought to change the opinion of their fellow citizens on the matter or in a perfect Non-Doma world should have moved to a state that recognized their sinful union. This case is absurd on several levels IMO:

I suppose instead of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against anti-miscegenation laws, they should have abstained from ruling, and wait until majority of opinion would have changed into favor.

So what is your opinion? Should the U.S. Supreme Court have left anti-miscegenation laws to the states?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Do you believe your claim wrt the polling trends on the issue or not?

It's not my claim. Look at poll data.

[DinoDoc]

So what is your opinion? Should the U.S. Supreme Court have left anti-miscegenation laws to the states?

The government regards laws that effect ******s (MtG the totally non-bigoted ex-pat has made racism funny ) with higher scrutiny than than they do laws that effect you fags.

[DinoDoc]

It's not my claim. Look at poll data.

Do you believe the data or not?

[MrFun]

The government regards laws that effect ******s (MtG the totally non-bigoted ex-pat has made racism funny ) with higher scrutiny than than they do laws that effect gay people.

The government needs to consider all Americans equally. And can you stop using the anti-gay slur? Thanks.

Now, can you give me a serious answer? Did the U.S. Supreme Court have any business ruling against anti-miscegenation laws?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Seems credible, but then I don't go out and poll people on what they think about the Evil Sodomite Agenda^TM It's irrelevant to the legal issue. In many states it's also irrelevant to the legal status, since so many of the zealots were afraid of the inevitable moral decay, er, um, evolving sensibilities of the electorate, that they pursued state constitutional amendments to put the defilement of the institution of marriage beyond majority vote.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The government regards laws that effect ******s (MtG the totally non-bigoted ex-pat has made racism funny ) with higher scrutiny than than they do laws that effect you fags.

Ex ex-pat. And we're running low on people to discriminate against. First the uppity women for 150 years, then the uppity ******s for a little over a hundred. Now the whiny fairies? Who next to disciminate against? Or will we be stuck with just hating furriners? Especially ones with funny names.

[DinoDoc]

Now, can you give me a serious answer? Did the U.S. Supreme Court have any business ruling against anti-miscegenation laws?

Legally the issues aren't similar. Hence the different levels of scrutiny applied to both classes by the Court which means your question isn't relevant.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Legally the issues aren't similar. Hence the different levels of scrutiny applied to both classes by the Court which means your question isn't relevant.

State regulation of marriage vs equal protection? The affected class of persons isn't similar, but that's the only real distinction.

Believe me, growing up in various parts of TX, LA, MS, TN and NC, "**********er" was at least as pejorative as "******"

[MrFun]

Legally the issues aren't similar. Hence the different levels of scrutiny applied to both classes by the Court which means your question isn't relevant.

I disagree; I still think the question I asked is relevant.

How are the issues not similar? They both deal with the question of legal marriage status.

[DinoDoc]

State regulation of marriage vs equal protection? The affected class of persons isn't similar, but that's the only real distinction.

I'm not sure this is an equal protection issue though. Despite your elegantly repeating that it is ad nauseum.

Believe me, growing up in various parts of TX, LA, MS, TN and NC, "**********er" was at least as pejorative as "******"

Is that why the sentiments (which you clearly don't feel) flow from your mouth like water from a faucet?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I disagree; I still think the question I asked is relevant.

How are the issues not similar? They both deal with the question of legal marriage status.

Tecnically, that's not the right approach to the question. The right approach is what is the state interest in regulating who can marry in that regard, and what is the basis for federal intrusion/oversight in such state policies? (depending on one's point of view). Marriage underpins the factual basis, but not the core legal issue.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm not sure this is an equal protection issue though. Despite your elegantly repeating that it is ad nauseum.

Which is why it's before the court. Ten years ago, I didn't think it was an equal protection issue. But I can't find a real, rational public policy reason for the state to prevent two consenting adults, unrelated within a prohibited degree, from getting married. The fact that a bunch of people think it's icky or sinful isn't really relevant in my book.

Is that why the sentiments (which you clearly don't feel) flow from your mouth like water from a faucet?

Having seen and heard these scentiments oft-stated, I'm not a big fan of whitewashing. Whitewash it, and it becomes an abstract issue. In reality, it's driven by a lot of loathing at worst to reluctant and limited acceptance of their almost usefulness for stuff we didn't want to do. Back in the day, for the most part, we didn't really segregate "negroes" out of concern for their "proper development." We did it because we didn't want 'em in our neighborhoods, unless they were our maids, caddies, chefs or workmen. For the most part, we did it because we didn't like 'em. For you, it's more of an abstract, historical thing because you were born in a different world. I saw the tail end of it, but I was also an early political junkie in a very political family.

I've read a lot of my great great uncle's private writings on the subject, and he was one of those old-school segregationists (a lot like Abe Lincoln) who didnt have any animosity toward blacks, but he didn't believe the races could mingle and coexist without "trouble." so the appropriate solution was segregation to promote "social harmony." Lucky for Thurgood Marshall, Uncle Fred died when he did.

[Berzerker]

What benefit does the state derive from it?

treating people equally garners respect

[Kidlicious]

I thought you said marriage was *awful*. Shouldn't you be encouraging me to marry?

Why? Jesus said it's better not to get married, but if you can't accept that teaching then you will get married. Heterosexual married couples do what is bad for them by getting married, so do gay couples (or they want to). But you only judge the gays. Why?