Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 124 (480869)
09-07-2008 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by subbie
09-06-2008 11:03 PM


Re: Getting on with the 21st century
So does that mean that you think states should have the right to ban interracial marriages?
If they wanted to. It would probably be in the best interests of the state to listen to its constituents.
But if you think it all should go federal, then the debate is over and has been for a number of years now. Per the United States federal government, gay marriage is officially illegal, unrecognized, cannot be usurped by state law, etc.
Is that what you really want?

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 09-06-2008 11:03 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 09-07-2008 10:52 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2008 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 124 (480870)
09-07-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2008 10:49 AM


Re: Getting on with the 21st century
No, what I really want is for everyone to understand that the Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from making certain types of distinctions based on gender. But that's probably off topic for this thread.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 10:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 11:08 AM subbie has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 124 (480873)
09-07-2008 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by subbie
09-07-2008 10:52 AM


Re: Getting on with the 21st century
No, what I really want is for everyone to understand that the Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from making certain types of distinctions based on gender.
Well, as it stands it is prohibited. And if it goes to the Supreme Court, you will lose, because I'm pretty sure that the majority of Justices do not interpret the Constitution applying to homosexual marriage. Furthermore, the proposition has come across their desks, and they said, this is a state issue, and they referred the problem to the states to deal for themselves. That should be a good thing for your cause, because the Constitution doesn't grant you the right to marry, the Federal government shouldn't deny or grant you the right to marry, and 8 people should not unilaterally decide the fate of thousands of people.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 09-07-2008 10:52 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2008 2:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 32 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2008 12:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 19 of 124 (480877)
09-07-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
08-31-2008 4:36 AM


When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
Taz, your article brings up the question of why the federal government should be in the business of marriage. Such a religious conflation of federal jurisdiction flies squarely in the face of the First Amendment:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people too peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As such, gay marriage might be sanctionable by a state, but not by the federal government. So why does it even matter if same-sex marriage was ever a Christian rite?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 08-31-2008 4:36 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 09-07-2008 1:28 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 20 of 124 (480891)
09-07-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fosdick
09-07-2008 11:52 AM


Hoot writes:
So why does it even matter if same-sex marriage was ever a Christian rite?
It doesn't, as I clearly stated in my previous post in this thread. I was just curious to see if there was ever such a thing as a gay marriage christian rite. Nothing to do with our current debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fosdick, posted 09-07-2008 11:52 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 21 of 124 (480893)
09-07-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2008 10:49 AM


Nemesis Juggernaut responds to subbie:
quote:
quote:
So does that mean that you think states should have the right to ban interracial marriages?
If they wanted to.
Really? A state has the right to violate the Constitution?
Despite the explicit direction of the Fourteenth Amendment that they don't?
quote:
But if you think it all should go federal
Huh? Who said anything about a federal marriage license? Nobody here did. Where did this come from? The question was whether or not you thought a state should be able to violate the Constitution.
quote:
Is that what you really want?
That's what the Supreme Court is for. As Scalia himself noted, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much declares that DOMA is unconstitutional.
The only thing that is needed now is to find someone with standing to challenge it. In order to do that, you need to find a married couple of the same sex. Since only states marry couples, that requires a state coming forward to let gay people get married.
Well, we have it now. It would seem that it will soon be before the SCOTUS and we'll see if Scalia can live up to his own declaration that Lawrence v. Texas requires the legalization of same-sex marriage and rules to overturn DOMA.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 10:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 2:58 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 22 of 124 (480895)
09-07-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2008 11:08 AM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
I'm pretty sure that the majority of Justices do not interpret the Constitution applying to homosexual marriage.
Have you not read a single Supreme Court decision ever? Go look at the commentary over Lawrence v. Texas. Scalia was falling all over himself to claim that it was a disaster to allow gay people the same rights as straight people because if we were to do so, then it would require that we allow gay people the right to marry.
So if Scalia thinks that the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas is to allow same-sex marriage, what makes you think that he'll violate his own understanding of the Constitution?
Hmmm..."judicial activism," perhaps?
quote:
Furthermore, the proposition has come across their desks
No, it hasn't. There has not been any challenge to DOMA. The only challenges have been to state-level DOMAs and so far, every single case that has gone to a state court regarding such restrictions have been overturned.
quote:
they said, this is a state issue
So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with a "state issue," was wrongly decided.
Is that what you're saying?
quote:
That should be a good thing for your cause, because the Constitution doesn't grant you the right to marry
Except that the Constitution does provide the right to marry. Let's not be disingenuous and claim that because the word "marry" doesn't exist in the Constitution, that menas there is no fundamental right to marry.
Again, have you read Loving v. Virginia? It declares that marriage is a fundamental right. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
And then there is the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal treatment under the law to all citizens. Are you saying gay people aren't citizens?
So if marriage is a fundamental right to all citizens and gay people are citizens, then how can one possibly justify the denial of the fundamental right to a citizen?
Was Lawrence v. Texas wrongly decided?
quote:
the Federal government shouldn't deny or grant you the right to marry
So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided when it did just that?
quote:
and 8 people should not unilaterally decide the fate of thousands of people.
So the Supreme Court should be abolished?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 11:08 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 3:32 PM Rrhain has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 23 of 124 (480896)
09-07-2008 2:04 PM


The problem going back in time is you have two streams of texts from which the bible versions of today collate from.
The majority texts support the akjv version that God never has validated same sex marriages.
The minority texts going back in time support the NIV which masquerades as a Christian bible.
P.S. Christians like Jerry Falwell who used the akjv simply warned its congregations not to judge (do other like abominations, etc...) but also not to be partakers of this particular lifestyle. akjv Romans 1:32-2:2 & akjv revelation 22:11.
I suspect people of same sex marriage mindset feel the need to be validated by the Christian mindset? If you side for same sex marriages are you not judging and Romans 2:2 is that we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
akjv Romans 2:2 akjv Romans 2:7-8 akjv revelation 22:11
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What Do the NIV, Satan, and Gay Sex Have in Common?
In a word...everything!
Did you know that Zondervan publishers (who publish the New international Version of the Bible) is owned by Harper Collins? Harper Collins also publishes The Joy of Gay Sex and The Satanic Bible. Tragically, many professed Christians know this yet continue to use their corrupted NIV bible. Oh how apostate America has become when even it's professed Christians are using corrupted Bibles that blasphemy and dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ.
What Do the NIV, Satan, and Gay Sex Have in Common?
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 124 (480902)
09-07-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rrhain
09-07-2008 1:57 PM


Soveriegnty
A state has the right to violate the Constitution?
It is not a Constitutional question according to the SCOTUS. There is a reason why it has never been decided in this highest court of the land, and that is because they don't want to take the cases. It is not for lack of effort, it's because they have decided that states should decide for themselves.
Huh? Who said anything about a federal marriage license? Nobody here did. Where did this come from?
I was referring to DOMA not federal marriage licenses.
That's what the Supreme Court is for. As Scalia himself noted, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much declares that DOMA is unconstitutional.
I agree, which is why it should be left up to the state's decide for themselves, which is what I've said numerous times now.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2008 1:57 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2008 5:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 124 (480903)
09-07-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rrhain
09-07-2008 2:04 PM


Interpretations
Scalia was falling all over himself to claim that it was a disaster to allow gay people the same rights as straight people because if we were to do so, then it would require that we allow gay people the right to marry.
The bulk of the argument in favor of Lawrence vs Texas had almost nothing to do with homosexuality, except for Texas' defense. What Lawrence v Texas boiled down to was a question of the right to privacy in one's own home, something that is unambiguously protected by the Constitution.
It is therefore irrelevant to the current discussion. The fact that the accused were homosexual was merely incidental to the question of privacy.
So if Scalia thinks that the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas is to allow same-sex marriage, what makes you think that he'll violate his own understanding of the Constitution?
I don't know. I'm not Scalia, nor have I read his dissent on the case.
There has not been any challenge to DOMA. The only challenges have been to state-level DOMAs and so far, every single case that has gone to a state court regarding such restrictions have been overturned.
In lieu of the SCOTUS' denial to take such cases. This is how it works. A case goes to a county court. County court decides. Another appeal is made, it goes to a District Court. Another appeal is made, it goes to Supreme Court of that State. Another appeal is made, it goes to either the District Court of the United States or to the SCOTUS.
So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with a "state issue," was wrongly decided.
Is that what you're saying?
If there is a fundamental question about Constitutional law, which is only what the SCOTUS deals with, that is what basis they have for taking a case. Again, an appeal is made, if the SCOTUS decides there is a legitimate basis for taking a case, on the pretense that some Constitutional rights might be violated, then and only then do they take the case. Otherwise, it is for the states to decide for themselves.
With Loving v. Virginia, they obviously felt there was some looming question concerning the Constitutionality of the case.
My stance is that the federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences. Laws regulating marriage should be left to the states, precisely where the Constitution places the issue.
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions ought to be made by each state rather than imposed as a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government. Any federal laws that prevent states from determining their own standards for marriage should be repealed; the federal government should not define marriage, whether by statute or constitutional amendment.
In this way, every state would remain free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and would not be forced to adopt a contrary determination legislated by another state.
Again, have you read Loving v. Virginia? It declares that marriage is a fundamental right. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
I too believe marriage is a fundamental right. What constitutes a marriage is an entirely different question, and one that has to have careful consideration, otherwise it opens the door to bizarre interpretations. Only in the regard that it attempted to define marriage do I find DOMA agreeable.
If the restriction of freedom is in itself unconstitutional, then prisoners guilty of a crime are being treated unconstitutionally. Or more likely, using the blanket terminology of "freedom" needs to be understood in context.
All that really concerns me is that marriage be clearly defined to keep aberrations of it out of society, and for the government to stick its nose out of the affairs of the states. But if it goes to the Supreme Court, and they decide that homosexual marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, then so be it.
At least then we can get on with life.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2008 2:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2008 6:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 124 (480906)
09-07-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2008 2:58 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
quote:
A state has the right to violate the Constitution?
It is not a Constitutional question according to the SCOTUS.
So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? Laws that prevented marriage on the basis of the race of the participants truly was a state matter, the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply, and Loving v. Virginia actually stated that Virginia was within its rights to criminalize the Loving's marriage?
Have we wandered into Opposite Land?
quote:
There is a reason why it has never been decided in this highest court of the land
Because you have to have standing in order to sue. Since there haven't been any marriages of same-sex couples until recently, there has never been any standing.
It's why the case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance was never decided: The response was that Nedow, not being the custodial parent, didn't have any standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. No decision was made regarding the constitutionality of having a direct religious invocation in the Pledge. The whole thing got dropped (well, let's be honest...they were avoiding the question because they knew the answer but didn't want to say it out loud) on a technicality of standing.
quote:
It is not for lack of effort, it's because they have decided that states should decide for themselves.
Incorrect. It is because there hasn't been a case for them to rule on. Despite what Republicans might say, judges cannot actually make law. They can only rule on cases that appear before them. If there is no case, there is no ruling. And without any married couple of the same sex, there is no case.
Let us not forget, Congress passed DOMA even though there was no same-sex marriage to be found anywhere in the country. They could see the writing on the wall, however: Clearly there was no way to deny fundamental rights (Loving v. Virginia) to citizens of the United States.
Or are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
quote:
I was referring to DOMA not federal marriage licenses.
And how are those two things not connected? Let us look back at what you said in Message 16:
quote:
But if you think it all should go federal, then the debate is over and has been for a number of years now.
What did you mean by "it all should go federal"? What was the point in suggesting a federalization of marriage?
Loving v. Virginia didn't create a federal marriage license. It simply invalidated laws against interracial marriage in the states as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? States should have the right to violate the Constitution?
quote:
quote:
That's what the Supreme Court is for. As Scalia himself noted, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much declares that DOMA is unconstitutional.
I agree, which is why it should be left up to the state's decide for themselves, which is what I've said numerous times now.
Unless you're saying that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided, you do realize that those two statements contradict each other, yes? You cannot advocate equal treatment under the law for all citizens and then have it be "left up to the states" to decide if they're going to deny fundamental rights to citizens.
Are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 2:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 124 (480926)
09-07-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2008 3:32 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
The bulk of the argument in favor of Lawrence vs Texas had almost nothing to do with homosexuality, except for Texas' defense.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Did you not read Scalia's dissent? Did you not read the actual decision? The ruling statement:
The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.
The very first paragraph of the justification for that rule:
Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement-“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy . ,” 478 U.S., at 190-discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.
When are you going to do your homework and actually read the cases you are purporting to comment upon?
quote:
What Lawrence v Texas boiled down to was a question of the right to privacy in one's own home, something that is unambiguously protected by the Constitution.
Incorrect. The specific statement of the ruling is that sexual activity between people of the same sex is not a crime.
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3”18.
What part of this are you having trouble with? Yes, the right to privacy within one's own home is part of that justification, but that is only ancillary to the point: Having sex with someone of the same sex is not a crime. The very first sentence of the ruling opinion:
The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
What part of this are you having trouble with?
quote:
It is therefore irrelevant to the current discussion. The fact that the accused were homosexual was merely incidental to the question of privacy.
Incorrect. It is clear that you haven't actually read the opinion. When are you going to do your homework? You are arguing as if the claim was that yes, same-sex behaviour is criminal but that the State had no right to enter a private home to go looking for it, akin to the need to get a warrant before searching a residence. That because there was no probable cause, anything found in the search of the home should have been excluded.
That has no connection to the ruling at all. The grant of certiorari states that three questions were to be answered:
“1. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law-which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples-violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?
“2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
“3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?” Pet. for Cert. i.
Question 2 is what you are referring to, but it is clear that Question 2 lives or dies on the resolution of Questions 1 and 3. If it is found that sexual activity between people of the same sex is not a crime, then Question 2 becomes nonsensical: How can there be criminal convictions for something that is not a crime?
And what's the first thing they do? They go to Question 3 and resolve whether or not Bowers v. Hardwick was correctly decided and conclude that it wasn't:
We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court’s holding in Bowers.
Lest you try to claim that Bowers v. Hardwick had nothing to do with sexual activity, I ask that you actually read the decision:
The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.
As the Lawrence v. Texas decision immediately responds to that claim:
That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.
When are you going to do your homework? Here's where you can show us that you have: Where in the Lawrence v. Texas decision do we see the ruling talk about Question 2?
Be specific. Full quotes in complete context. Privacy concerns are brought up in the decision, but the ones you reference must be in regard to the sanctity of the home and not regarding sexual activity. Again, if Bowers v. Hardwick was wrongly decided and if same-sex sexual activity is not a crime, what is the point of Question 2? I've been pulling from Kennedy's opinion, but perhaps you can show us something from O'Connors' concurrence. She spends a lot of time talking about morals, conduct, and persons. The final statement of her concurrence:
I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment that Texas’ sodomy law banning “deviate sexual intercourse” between consenting adults of the same sex, but not between consenting adults of different sexes, is unconstitutional.
Where do you find a claim regarding the privacy of the home? Even Scalia's dissent regards the ridiculousness:
I do not know what “acting in private” means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by “acting in private” is “on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered,” it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain the proposition that consensual sodomy on private premises with the doors closed and windows covered was regarded as a “fundamental right,” even though all other consensual sodomy was criminalized.
So it appears that even Scalia isn't buying your claim. Instead, he goes off on a rant equating being gay with "bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestality, and obscenity." He can't get over the fact that he thinks gay sex is icky and thus his entire response is about how it ought to be criminalized.
He even tries to do the "All men are prohibited from sleeping under bridges, therefore the law does not discriminate against rich and poor" routine:
On its face 21.06(a) applies equally to all persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. To be sure, 21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex.
Since straight people don't have sex with people of the same sex, we have only to turn to Scalia's own statement regarding the difficulty of finding a straight person in violation of this law and the ridiculousness of having that be a standard. Criminalizing an act that only certain members of the citizenry engage in is not merely criminalizing the act. It is criminalizing the class of people who engage in it.
Rich people don't sleep under bridges. Straight people don't engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex.
He then starts to blather about the "homosexual agenda." Interesting that a great deal of his previous argument up to this point was that respect for the integrity and personhood of gay people isn't historical and therefore there can be no legal support for such respect, and yet now here is complaining that people are respecting the integrity and personhood of gay people and therefore expecting there to be legal support for such respect. He can't have it both ways.
And Thomas? His dissent basically says that he's not interested and the case should never have been taken up. Ironically, the very case he uses to justify his position, Griswold v. Connecticut, expressly denies his response. It is precisely because the law is "uncommonly silly" that he is required to act in his capacity as a judge. He admits that were he a member of the Texas Legislature, he would vote to repeal it. Well, the people convicted have no ability to do that. Their convictions are on the record. They were then to be listed as registered sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Exactly how does Thomas expect to have that silliness revoked except through the courts? Only the courts can vacate a conviction.
But back to your claim that Lawrence v. Texas wasn't about sex but was about the privacy of the home. Where in any of the opinions in the case do you find any statement addressing that?
quote:
I'm not Scalia, nor have I read his dissent on the case.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You presumed to comment about a decision you didn't even read? You think you are capable of determining what the point of a decision was, what its content said, what the points it made were, all without even bothering to read it?
And you wonder why you keep getting tripped up on your own arguments.
Are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?
quote:
quote:
There has not been any challenge to DOMA. The only challenges have been to state-level DOMAs and so far, every single case that has gone to a state court regarding such restrictions have been overturned.
In lieu of the SCOTUS' denial to take such cases.
Incorrect. In fact because there is no standing. The feds don't offer marriage licenses. Only states do. The only way to challenge DOMA would be for a married, same-sex couple to file claim for rights offered to married couples (such as a tax return filed jointly), have it denied, and then go to court.
But you can't do that until you get a married, same-sex couple. Such a beast did not exist until just now. And that required court battles not at the federal level, since marriage licenses are not given out by the feds, but rather at the state level. That's the reason why we've had all these state cases: Marriage licenses are given out by the state. DOMA only affects federal rights granted to couples that are licensed by the state. You can't challenge the denial of those rights to certain classes of married couples until you have a second class of married couple to deny such rights.
quote:
This is how it works. A case goes to a county court. County court decides. Another appeal is made, it goes to a District Court. Another appeal is made, it goes to Supreme Court of that State. Another appeal is made, it goes to either the District Court of the United States or to the SCOTUS.
Incorrect. Jurisdiction and standing must apply. That was the point behind Baehr v. Miike in Hawaii that started it all off: The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court could not be appealed to the SCOTUS because marriage is not licensed by the feds but rather by the state. If the HSC decided that marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples (which it did decide but was rendered moot by the constitutional amendment that was passed between the time the case was presented and then decided), then there was nothing the feds could do about it. The federal government cannot criminalize or delegitimize same-sex marriage. All it can do is deny the federal rights that come along with marriage once a state has decided to license a couple as married.
Federal DOMA can only be challenged in federal court because it is a federal law. However, there is no way to challenge DOMA until you have a married, same-sex couple. That requires state-level action.
quote:
quote:
So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with a "state issue," was wrongly decided.
Is that what you're saying?
If there is a fundamental question about Constitutional law, which is only what the SCOTUS deals with, that is what basis they have for taking a case. Again, an appeal is made, if the SCOTUS decides there is a legitimate basis for taking a case, on the pretense that some Constitutional rights might be violated, then and only then do they take the case.
That isn't an answer. Let's try again, shall we?
So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with a "state issue," was wrongly decided. Is that what you're saying?
quote:
With Loving v. Virginia, they obviously felt there was some looming question concerning the Constitutionality of the case.
So if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? States have the right to violate the Constitution?
quote:
My stance is that the federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences. Laws regulating marriage should be left to the states, precisely where the Constitution places the issue.
So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with the "state issue" of marriage, was wrongly decided. Is that what you're saying?
quote:
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions ought to be made by each state rather than imposed as a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government.
So Loving v. Virginia, which had the federal government passel out a one-size-fits-all mandate, was wrongly decided? Is that what you're saying?
quote:
Any federal laws that prevent states from determining their own standards for marriage should be repealed; the federal government should not define marriage, whether by statute or constitutional amendment.
So Loving v. Virginia, which resulted in the feds preventing states from determining their own standards for marriage, was wrongly decided. Is that what you're saying?
Are you saying Loving v. Virginia defined marriage? What in the decision can be interpreted so? The decision merely said that if a state is going to provide marriage, then it cannot deny it to people based upon the race of the participants. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia "redefined" marriage? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
In this way, every state would remain free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and would not be forced to adopt a contrary determination legislated by another state.
So states are free to violate the Constitution, including Article IV, Section 1?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
States have the right to violate the Constitution? Is that what you're saying?
quote:
quote:
Again, have you read Loving v. Virginia? It declares that marriage is a fundamental right. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
I too believe marriage is a fundamental right.
So if marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia) and if gay people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans), then how does one come to the conclusion that a fundamental right can be denied to citizens of the United States? Are gay people not citizens? Is that what you're saying?
quote:
What constitutes a marriage is an entirely different question, and one that has to have careful consideration, otherwise it opens the door to bizarre interpretations.
And what "bizarre interpretations" does same-sex marriage lead to that mixed-sex marriage does not?
Be specific.
quote:
Only in the regard that it attempted to define marriage do I find DOMA agreeable.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes?
My stance is that the federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences. Laws regulating marriage should be left to the states, precisely where the Constitution places the issue.
How do you reconcile this demand of yours that the feds never define marriage with your latest statement that you agree with the feds defining marriage via DOMA?
quote:
If the restriction of freedom is in itself unconstitutional, then prisoners guilty of a crime are being treated unconstitutionally.
So being gay is a crime? Does the phrase "due process" mean nothing to you?
quote:
Or more likely, using the blanket terminology of "freedom" needs to be understood in context.
So if you knew you were making a nonsense statement, why did you make it? Do you think we're stupid?
quote:
All that really concerns me is that marriage be clearly defined to keep aberrations of it out of society
So being gay is an "aberration"? Just like being an interracial couple is an "aberration"? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? What "aberrations" does same-sex marriage lead to that mixed-sex marriage does not?
Be specific.
quote:
and for the government to stick its nose out of the affairs of the states.
So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. Is that what you're trying to say?
quote:
But if it goes to the Supreme Court, and they decide that homosexual marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, then so be it.
At least then we can get on with life.
Why don't I believe that?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2008 3:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2008 4:25 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 124 (481030)
09-08-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
09-07-2008 6:45 PM


Where do you come up with this nonsense?
quote:
I'm not Scalia, nor have I read his dissent on the case.
You did not just say that, did you? You presumed to comment about a decision you didn't even read? You think you are capable of determining what the point of a decision was, what its content said, what the points it made were, all without even bothering to read it?
I can't get in to the full debate at the present time, but I wanted to touch on this. What in God's name does Scalia's dissent have to do with the case if it came to nothing? Remember, Texan law was found unconstitutional by the rest of the Justices. We all know that Scalia is not a fan of gay marriage. Uh... But what does your erroneous citation of Texas v Lawrence have to do with gay marriage? What does his opinion have to do with it? He has no bearing on it. So when I saw that I didn't read it, and you have an aneurysm as if you had some kind of epiphany, check your facts as it is not in any way relevant to the current discussion.
So my comment still stands. Texas v Lawrence is less about homosexuality than it is about privacy, which makes me wonder why anyone uses this case as some sort of blanket defense for homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with it!
Two guys were having consensual sex in the privacy of their own home, and some Texan cops illegally entered that home to arrest the men for sodomy. That is what the case is about. The only part where homosexuality comes in to play is that the witnessing of homosexual acts was used as probable cause to enter the home.
So please tell me how Scalia's dissenting opinion, an opinion that ultimately lost the case altogether, factor in to a case about privacy? What in the hell does that have to do with marriage, let alone gay marriage????

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2008 6:45 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2008 1:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 29 of 124 (481073)
09-08-2008 11:10 PM


Dubba trubbu
Guys, um, i hate to be the party pooper but isn't this getting a tad off topic? The subject in question is whether there where ancient christian rites of gay marraige or not (which according to the main article posted, seems not to have been authenticated yet), not whether gay marraige is constitutional or not (a good subject for another thread).
BTW: Whether or not this line of questioning is wrong or okay for this thread, Why argue whether gay marraige is constitutional or not? Your arguing over a document that was written in a time when such a thing as gay marraige was either unthinkable, laughable, dangerous or all three combined; of course the founding fathers would not have accepted gay marraige. It has been said that George Washington kicked a guy out of his army for being gay. And consistency? The constitution talked about freedom yet slaves were still kept by the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. How could one interpret a document like the constitution without acknowledging its historical/cultural/social setting?
Dont get me wrong; we have made good progress since it was written (Freedom from slavery, the right for Blacks and women to vote, etc), but it seems kinda wierd to interpret an old document like the constitution while ignoring its historical background.
I would love to hear both liberals and conservatives answer that question.
Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 124 (481081)
09-09-2008 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
09-08-2008 4:25 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
What in God's name does Scalia's dissent have to do with the case if it came to nothing?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? The pronouncements of the judges, even the dissents, are important when examining the law. When are you going to do your homework? The reason Brown v. Board of Education was decided the way it was is in part due to the DISSENT that was written in Plessy v. Ferguson by Harlan.
If there were no point to a dissent, then the dissenting justices would not bother writing them. But there is a point to them. Cases get revisited. When they do, it is helpful to find out what the dissenting justices thought of the case when it was brought up the first time.
quote:
Remember, Texan law was found unconstitutional by the rest of the Justices. We all know that Scalia is not a fan of gay marriage.
But shouldn't he, as a judge that is not swayed by "activism," be able to put that aside and read the Constitution for what it says, regardless of his personal feelings?
Actually, when you define "activism" as "overturning law," then Scalia is actually the most "activist" judge on the court: He is the most likely to vote to strike down laws. So when DOMA comes before the court, shouldn't the advocates for its overturning point out that Scalia's own argument is that DOMA is unconstitutional in the light of Lawrence v. Texas?
quote:
Uh... But what does your erroneous citation of Texas v Lawrence have to do with gay marriage?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Have you still not bothered to read the decision? It isn't that long.
There are broad statements of the substantive reach of liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
In Griswold the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of drugs or devices of contraception and counseling or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives. The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. Id., at 485.
After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. The case was decided under the Equal Protection Clause, id., at 454; but with respect to unmarried persons, the Court went on to state the fundamental proposition that the law impaired the exercise of their personal rights, ibid. It quoted from the statement of the Court of Appeals finding the law to be in conflict with fundamental human rights, and it followed with this statement of its own:
“It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship . . If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id., at 453.
Do you not see the pattern? If Lawrence v. Texas follows from a line of reasoning regarding the ability of the state to regulate intimate relations between persons, then surely that applies to the legal recognition of those relationships, too. That's why Scalia made the point that he did: If it is unconstitutional to deny the sexual activity of gay people, then it certainly is unconstitutional to deny the marriage of gay people.
quote:
What does his opinion have to do with it?
Because when DOMA comes before the court, it will be used as an argument: When a justice has declared that decision X requires decision Y, then the affirmation of X is an argument for the affirmation of Y.
quote:
He has no bearing on it.
Then why did he write it? Dissents are not binding precedent, no, but they are legal arguments. Should the question be revisited, the dissent from the last time the case was before the court is going to be examined. If it has no point, why bother writing one?
quote:
So when I saw that I didn't read it, and you have an aneurysm as if you had some kind of epiphany, check your facts as it is not in any way relevant to the current discussion.
Which only goes to show that you still haven't done your homework. You are still pontificating about things you have not bothered to educate yourself upon first.
quote:
So my comment still stands.
As demolished as ever and as based upon ignorance as before.
You still haven't bothered to read the opinion, have you?
quote:
Texas v Lawrence is less about homosexuality than it is about privacy
I asked you where in Kennedy's opinion or O'Connor's concurrence you found any mention of privacy.
I asked you to be specific.
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3”18.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement-“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy . ,” 478 U.S., at 190-discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court’s holding in Bowers.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: “The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” Id., at 190. That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment that Texas’ sodomy law banning “deviate sexual intercourse” between consenting adults of the same sex, but not between consenting adults of different sexes, is unconstitutional.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
I do not know what “acting in private” means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by “acting in private” is “on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered,” it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain the proposition that consensual sodomy on private premises with the doors closed and windows covered was regarded as a “fundamental right,” even though all other consensual sodomy was criminalized.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
On its face 21.06(a) applies equally to all persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. To be sure, 21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex.
Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
Time to show you've done your homework: Full quotations in complete context, please. Where in the Lawrence v. Texas decision to you find justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
Be specific.
which makes me wonder why anyone uses this case as some sort of blanket defense for homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with it!
So Scalia was wrong when he wrote:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
I mean, it's only a dissent, right? So why did he write it? When DOMA comes before the court, do you seriously think one of the arguments that will be made when Scalia decides to try and be clever will not be that his own statement regarding the precedent of Lawrence v. Texas means that DOMA is inherently unconstitutional?
quote:
Two guys were having consensual sex in the privacy of their own home, and some Texan cops illegally entered that home to arrest the men for sodomy. That is what the case is about.
Incorrect. You clearly haven't read the decision. It directly and specifically states that such is not what the case is about.
First, the cops were in the home legally. You would know that if you had read the decision, but you didn't, did you?
A police officer, [I][B]whose right to enter seems not to have been in question[/I][/b], observed Hardwick, in his own bedroom, engaging in intimate sexual conduct with another adult male.
Emphasis added.
Now, why do you not know this if you have done your homework and read the opinion before making a statement about the facts of the case?
It's because you haven't actually read the decision.
quote:
The only part where homosexuality comes in to play is that the witnessing of homosexual acts was used as probable cause to enter the home.
Incorrect. They were not in the house to arrest the men for sodomy. They were in the house as part of a search and in the process of doing so, discovered the defendants engaged in sex. You would know that if you had read the decision, but you didn't, did you?
The very first sentence of the summary:
[I][B]Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment[/I][/b] and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act.
Emphasis added.
Now, why do you not know this if you have done your homework and read the opinion before making a statement about the facts of the case?
It's because you haven't actually read the decision.
quote:
So please tell me how Scalia's dissenting opinion, an opinion that ultimately lost the case altogether, factor in to a case about privacy?
Because the case isn't about privacy. Nothing in the decision discusses privacy. It is all about the criminalization of sexual activity. The statement that literally is the decision:
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3”18.
Where in there do you find any mention of privacy?
quote:
What in the hell does that have to do with marriage, let alone gay marriage????
Read the decision and find out.
The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the [I][B]marriage relation[/i][/b] and the protected space of the marital bedroom. Id., at 485.
To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a [I][B]married couple[/i][/b] were it to be said [I][B]marriage[/i][/b] is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.
The Casey decision again confirmed that [I][B]our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage[/i][/b], procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851.
Second, individual decisions by [I][B]married[/i][/b] persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gee...for a case that has no connection to marriage at all, they sure do bring it up a lot.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2008 4:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024