Gay Marriage

quote:

---

Grammar Police - the last ploy, when one has nothing left to say, other than attempt to further attack the opposition.

---

Well, I'd made several substantive points in the thread, each of which you responded to with some kind of snarky remark. I thought I'd append one of my own, just so you didn't feel like you were acting inappropriately.

quote:

---

when you cant reason or have a lack of logic to think about a specific issue, then just slander and vilify your opponet to show how much you care and they dont.

---

Ah, so it's logic and reason you want, eh? Ok, here you go.The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution.Among the provisions of the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment. One part of that Amendment is called the Equal Protection Clause. That Clause says, "no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Equal Protection jurisprudence is somewhat complex, but basically settled. There are three different levels of scrutiny that courts use in evaluating whether a challenged state action may stand; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.Here is Wiki's brief and relatively accurate description of the three different levels of scrutiny:

quote:

---

The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

​

* Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
* Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest. Note that in past decisions "sex" generally has meant gender.
* Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

---

To put to rest the notion that the states are free to craft marriage laws regardless of the Constitution, one need look no further than Loving vs. Virginia, decided in 1967. There, a unanimous Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law because it relied on a racial classification in restricting who may marry whom. So much for the states' rights argument.Now, the Equal Protection analysis from Loving is not directly applicable to the question of gay marriage, because that involved a classification based on gender, not race, and the level of scrutiny is lower for gender-based classifications. Thus, we have to see how the analysis proceeds under intermediate scrutiny.To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must be "'substantially related' to an 'important' government interest." Of course, this means that the first step is to identify the government interest. Probably the most frequently cited purpose behind gay marriage bans is to "protect" or "preserve" traditional marriage. The problem with this, as I see it, is that nobody has been able to explain exactly how allowing gay marriage would change traditional marriage in any way. Thus, even if we assume that protecting and preserving traditional marriage is an important government interest, I just can't see how a gay marriage ban is even slightly related to that interest, much less substantially related. If you'd care to articulate a different government interest, I'd be happy to discuss that.There was actually a second, independent basis for the Loving decision. In Part II of the opinion, the Court wrote,

quote:

---

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

---

Obviously, by not allowing homosexuals to marry the person of their choice, states are depriving them of freedom to marry.So, there you have it. A substantive presentation based on logic, reason, analysis and supporting authority, all without a trace of changing the topic, name calling, labeling, ad hominem attacks, or insults. I look forward to your reply in a like vein.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

it happens in almost every thread if you argue with a lefty. in another thread in the coffe house forum about obama and mccain, i referred to Mexico as a shitty ass 3rd world country. and i was called a racist for it by some liberal (Jazzns). Mexico is a country, not a race, and mexicans are a nationality. it makes no sense but that is how the liberal mind works. I dont think racist or homophobic means anything here either. these people dont even know the defintion of the words. the only bad part is they are doing this on purpose. they aren't doing it because they are ignorant of the word meanings, they are doing it for unethical and shady reasons, to push a propaganda. we want to discuss the definitions and legality, and they refuse to come to that table. they make up thier own definitions for marriage, bigot, racist, and homophobic; then want to abuse you for not accepting thier new definitions. its rather odd and amusing to me. which is really sad and hilarious at the same time. sorta invalidates the claim of tolerance IMO. all the states as of 1868, maybe, but not ALL THE STATES. and it took until 2003 for all the states that were states in 1868 to accept it, which definately tells me its probably a shady amendment.The validity of the 14th Amendment has been challenged for a long time. It was ratified right after the Civil War, and the 13 Confederate States did not have thier Congressmen and Senators present. basically it was hastily pushed through before any disention could take place. In fact Confederate States were not allowed back into the Union unless they agree to ratify this amendment (wow lots of freemdom there!). the way this amendment was swindled into the constitution is complete BS. and what happends if they dont? the judical branch has no powers of enforcement. you think the executive branch (the president) is going to send the military to the 39 states that have preposed male/female marriage amendments. do you think because of DC v. Heller i can take my glock into DC now? i commend youthere's alot of well educated people on these boards, i was hoping the trollbait challenge of lack of logic and reasoning, would finally elicit this sort of response. im glad the logic took over.much appriciated, i hope the others on your side follow your lead.no problem here, i can go all day without ad hominem. it remains to be seen if those who disagree with me can. i appriciate it Edited by Artemis Entreri, : hit sumbit too soonEdited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Nope, all the states. Those that joined the Union after it's passage had to adopt it as a condition of becoming a state.You suck . Damn, couldn't controll the ad hominem.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

quote:

---

Nope, all the states. Those that joined the Union after it's {the 14th amendment} passage had to adopt it as a condition of becoming a state.

---

This would make a great new topic and is getting fairly off-topic for this thread...Some quotes from wiki on the 14th amendment: Wow. That could be an interesting thread.Perhaps someone could propose a new topic on the 14th Amendment's ratification. Its too late for me to do it now. Besides, I don't shit about that shit and my OP would probably be shitty

---

ABE:It does seem that the crux of Subbie's argument relies on the 14th amendment and the opposing argument suggests that State's rights could be violated come Federal legislation in a case like this one.Someone start a new thread...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : SEE ABE:

quote:

---

i was hoping the trollbait challenge of lack of logic and reasoning, would finally elicit this sort of response. im glad the logic took over.

---

Gosh, thanks for the inspiration.Do you have any substantive response?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Do you have any substantive response?

---

Pardon my ignorance, but what does happen if a State decides to not acknowledge a gay marriage in lieu of a SCOTUS decision that it is unconstitutional?..if the State thinks its rights are being violated through the 14th?Just a crap-load of lawsuits? Then somebody gets paid?

As far as I can recall, this is what happened the last time a State tried to refuse to go along with a Supreme Court ruling.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Going to close this one down sometime in the near future.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.

A few more ideas for you to chew on in this thread I started a while back.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat