Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Ben Kenobi]

You greasy little ********er, have the integrity for once to take ownership of your word games and not attribute them to others.

Sauce, Goose, Gander. So where's the secular evidence that this policy would be beneficial to the state?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Where? That is what SCOTUS has ruled...

Oh yeah, I forgot. There has only been one SCOTUS case ever on the Establishment Clause.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh yeah, I forgot. There has only been one SCOTUS case ever on the Establishment Clause.

Obviously there is at least one that you regard as substantive evidence in your favour. Hence my question as to, "where?"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sauce, Goose, Gander. So where's the secular evidence that this policy would be beneficial to the state?

It would likely encourage you to emigrate. That alone ought to be sufficient.

[Ben Kenobi]

It would likely encourage you to emigrate. That alone ought to be sufficient.

According to the state of Texas and to the Federal government I pay more in taxes than I recieve in benefits. Ergo - me leaving the state would be a net loss to the US.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

According to the state of Texas and to the Federal government I pay more in taxes than I recieve in benefits. Ergo - me leaving the state would be a net loss to the US.

You need to factor in the fact that you are the USA's 4th biggest cause of depression and alcoholism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The hairs I'm splitting are important hairs, though. Freedom of religion and exclusion of the establishment thereof means two things. You are free to believe whatever you want - politically, religiously, etc.; and the laws that govern our nation must be founded on secular principles. There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing for something you believe because your religion says so; but it's very important to our civil society that your arguments themselves be secular in nature. Of course many people will believe things due to their religious beliefs, and religious will convince people to argue for the things that are important to that religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's one of the foundational principles of our country - almost every group who came here initially came here because they wanted to live in a society that respected, and even followed, their religious principles.

The point, though, is that the political debate itself must not be religious, because then it is simply a matter of "my religion is better than yours; the government should reflect that." That is very, very much against the principles of this country. We do not make rules because one religion says that's the rule. We make rules because we agree, collectively, that those rules are the right rules. Certainly some of those rules mirror religion - as Ben happily points out, thou shalt not kill and all that. But is "thou shalt not kill" the reason we have laws against murder - because "God" said so? No. We have laws against murder because it is harmful to society, and because even most secular humanists agree it's morally and ethically wrong as well. If your support for anti-murder laws comes from religion, that's fine - but it's not why the law exists.

Thus the civil marriage debate must not consist of "The Bible defines marriage as..." arguments. That is invalid, prima facie. Arguing homosexual marriage is bad for society because a man-man couple cannot raise children as successfully as a man-woman couple is acceptable (incorrect, but acceptable). Arguing that it's morally wrong because it leads people into dangerous behavior that increases the public health costs is acceptable (same). Argue for whatever reasons you wish, including religion, but don't _mention_ religion while doing so. Doing so means you are arguing for a state religion, which is against all that America was founded on.

No, Imran is saying the law doesn't itself have religiously relevant results - ie, a higher minimum wage would give Catholics a higher wage increase than Methodists. Establishment clause has not generally been found to judge laws on the reasons they were passed (in general, I don't believe laws are ever judged on the reasons for them existing, unless it is a clue as to the thinking of Congress in understanding how to evaluate a particular clause). I'm not arguing that it is illegal to argue on this behalf, or that it would cause laws to be struck down. I'm arguing it's contrary to American principles.

Ah, ok; you are arguing on the spirit of American principles. I can see your argument and the rationale behind it (and the power checking behind it). I guess I was confusing it with legal argument reasons. I don't fully disagree, but I don't fully agree either... but where that line is for me, maybe its a case by case standard.

When there's a change of residency to get around the actual state of residency requirement, yes, and where required parental and/or judicial consent of minor marriage was not obtained, yes (i.e. runaway marriage). Are you saying in cases where parental and/or judicial consent was duly obtained and the minor was a bona fide resident of the state in which the marriage occurred? Runaway minors and residency issues present different issues, but I don't recall specifically case law where there was a bona fide minor marriage where all legal requirements were met in the state where the marriage occurred, and the marriage was invalidated. Family law makes my eyes glaze over, so I may have missed that.

Yeah, it was a legal marriage in another state, without duress. I remember the case in law school, because I was wondering at the time what all this hubbub was about gay marriages if, say, Alabama could simply refuse recognition due to public public.

[Ben Kenobi]

You need to factor in the fact that you are the USA's 4th biggest cause of depression and alcoholism.

Behind large capacity magazines? That's embarrassing.

[DinoDoc]

Equal Protection Clause has already been applied to the states for several decades, as has the Due Process clause.

My statement would tend to point toward me not believing that there are Equal protection much less Due Process issues that are in play here. Seriously, MtG if we're to take your claim about the tide of public opinion changing on the issue seriously what purpose is there in having the Court step in and ****** public debate on the issue as they did with Roe?

[Ming]

I believe that's your job. On average families with a married mother and father do better than all the other arrangements. So there is a compelling interest in the state to promote these relationships over others via marriage.

Studies have shown that children from rich families do better than those from poor families. So are you arguing that there is a compelling interest in the the state to promote these kind of relationships over others via marriage... and that poor people shouldn't be allowed to marry because their kids will have it worse than rich people kids?

[MichaeltheGreat]

My statement would tend to point toward me not believing that there are Equal protection much less Due Process issues that are in play here. Seriously, MtG if we're to take your claim about the tide of public opinion changing on the issue seriously what purpose is there in having the Court step in and ****** public debate on the issue as they did with Roe?

Due Process Clause issues don't apply in these cases - I was just pointing out that that element of the Fourteenth Amendment had been applied to the states as well, so it's really a non-starter that the federal judiciary has no say in the matter.

You could argue the same thing about women's suffrage. Maybe waiting 70 years isn't sufficient in some people's case. For that matter, why litigate Marbury v. Madison? The same arguments were made 80 to 40 years ago about ******'s rights. Not painting you with that tar brush and bag of feathers, but it's always been those who want to preserve the status quo, whatever it may be, who want to keep the judicial branch out of it. It's not just the right, either. The right was banging down the courthouse doors to go after the New Deal and Obamacare, while the left took the opposite tack. Do you really think it's going to move the needle? "Oh, I was opposed to sodomite desecration of marriage, but they waited patiently and didn't use the court system, so I guess I'm ok with it now?" Litigating the issue isn't going to change public opinion much at all, but both sides will milk whatever the results may be to rally their supporters and pry some cash from the gullible.

I believe in access to the courts. SCOTUS may not be comfortable adjudicating the issue, but then again, they could have denied cert on either case. The practical reasons in the DOMA case are huge - DOMA has billions of dollars of annual economic impact on gay couples and on multi-state businesses which have to administer separate tax, benefit and pension policies, as well as the various non-economic impacts (visitation, decision-making, etc.) The practical reasons in the Prop. 8 case? Ask the appellants who didn't like Judge Walker's ruling. Or should the silly queers who brought the case initially have just realized that "it wasn't their time" and that they "needed cultivating and time to develop" and that "society has not decided the time is ripe" for their kind?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Studies have shown that children from rich families do better than those from poor families. So are you arguing that there is a compelling interest in the the state to promote these kind of relationships over others via marriage... and that poor people shouldn't be allowed to marry because their kids will have it worse than rich people kids?

And don't forget, think of children from other kinds of relationships who don't do as well? We have to do something for them. So should it be seize the kids and put them in more advantageous relationships? Or should the law require chastity belts until a woman's wedding night, and once she conceives, then divorce is made illegal? After all, it's for the children. :doitnow!"

[DinoDoc]

The same arguments were made 80 to 40 years ago about ******'s rights. Not painting you with that tar brush and bag of feathers

Of course not. This is usually the sign a person making a liberal argument has ceased having anything useful to say in a debate.

Or should the silly queers who brought the case initially have just realized that "it wasn't their time" and that they "needed cultivating and time to develop" and that "society has not decided the time is ripe" for their kind?

The fags 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:

The fact that the Supreme Court may be about to pass judgment on the age-old definition of marriage is the reductio ad absurdum of American constitutional jurisprudence. That we have reached this point tells us that the Supreme Court has taken some terribly wrong turns.

The fact that, until very recently, marriage has universally been deemed to require an opposite sex component doesn’t mean that this component must be required forevermore. But a decent appreciation of democracy, human history, and the fallibility of the individual means that nine glorified lawyers shouldn’t be the ones who make the change. Nor should they be in a position where they might make it.

Moving out of California to a freer state might not be a bad idea anyway.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Of course not. This is usually the sign a person making a liberal argument has ceased having anything useful to say in a debate.

Actually, it's a sign of an old fart who grew up in the south and heard this ****.

The fags 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.

Sinful union, lol. QED, it's a civil rights matter. In a perfect non-DOMA world, why the **** should citizens have to move anywhere, and give up the economic and social advantages of their location and their customary residence, to secure basic rights denied them by bigots? ******s don't like Jim Crow, move up north. Tyranny of the majority, indeed.

Moving out of California to a freer state might not be a bad idea anyway.

[/quote]

People want to go, they're welcome.

[DinoDoc]

Tyranny of the majority, indeed.

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