21
   

Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 11:43 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Under the statute in question, everyone was allowed to get married to someone of the opposite sex and no one was allowed to get married to someone of the same sex. This is not a case of granting people different privileges. The mere fact that the court made the decision doesn't automatically mean that it's correct.

But the courts rejected that argument Brandon. If you had read it, you would understand why they rejected it.
In order for you to undermine the courts opinion you will have to argue that
1. homosexuals don't exist.
2. homosexuals have never been discriminated against
or
3. homosexuality is based solely on personal choice.

When you can make a valid argument for any of those 3 points then you could discuss whether the courts ruling is correct or not.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 01:13 pm
@Brandon9000,
Ignore my comments about you? Disregard all you like, but it is relevant. You can't have a correct conclusion built on false premises.

You refuse to argue based on the actual ruling or within the actual domain of how law works. How can you even be taken seriously?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 01:33 pm
the TIDAL WAVE is running in from the east :

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us/05marriage.html?_r=1&ref=global-home&pagewanted=print

Quote:
April 5, 2009
A Push Is On for Same-Sex Marriage Rights Across New England
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
BOSTON " The Iowa Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage on Friday gave advocates an important first victory in the nation’s heartland, thwarting the notion that only the Northeast will accept it.

But for now, New England remains the nucleus of the same-sex marriage movement, with a campaign under way to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians in all six of the region’s states by 2012.

Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and Connecticut began allowing it last fall. The Vermont Legislature just voted to let same-sex couples marry, and supporters hope to gather enough votes to override a veto promised by Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican.

New Hampshire is not far behind; its House of Representatives approved a same-sex marriage bill last month. The legislatures in Maine and Rhode Island are considering their own versions, though they are not as far along in the process.

Across New England, advocacy groups have been raising money, training volunteers and lobbying voters and lawmakers as part of a campaign they call “Six by Twelve,” led by the legal advocacy group that persuaded the Supreme Courts in Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow same-sex marriage in 2003 and 2008.


get out of the way or go under !
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 01:38 pm
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__7RJpmgwG50/Sdgq2O6kCMI/AAAAAAAAAjc/KvN3ysTIfiw/s320/large_iowa

This is a photograph of an actual family that resides in the State of Iowa. Uniform state regulation of families with respect to rights and responsibilities promotes societal stability. The State regulates familial rights and responsibilities through the civil institution of marriage. The Iowa Supreme Court held, under an equal protection clause analysis, that the State cannot justify excluding this family from participating in the existing civil institution that regulates familial rights and responsibilities. Thus, the law that discriminates against this family by limiting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 02:04 pm
@Debra Law,
Deborah,

In that picture... they almost seem human.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 02:28 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Deborah,

In that picture... they almost seem human.


Very few families in these modern times fit the picture of the "traditional family" that serves as the alleged "ideal." And that is a substantial point that is willfully ignored by bigoted citizens who race to the voting booth to oppress existing families and to brand them unworthy of equal protection under the law.

0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 02:37 pm
One has to wonder why this family:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/797/Thanksgiving_Day.JPG

is considered by some to be more deserving of constitutional protection for their familial security than other families.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 02:49 pm
@Debra Law,
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__7RJpmgwG50/Sdgq2O6kCMI/AAAAAAAAAjc/KvN3ysTIfiw/s320/large_iowa

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/803/leaveb83d_1.jpg

I don't see any difference between the real life family and the depiction of an "ideal" family. They both consist of two loving and committed partners who are raising two children. The real life family is similarly situated to other families and is entitled to equal protection under the law.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 09:22 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Now, go get educated.


Brandon, take a crash course from Ican on constitutional law/the law in general. and you'll bury these guys.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2009 12:00 am
@Debra Law,
Quote:
I don't see any difference between the real life family and the depiction of an "ideal" family. They both consist of two loving and committed partners who are raising two children.


Now that's all fine and dandy in theory, Debra, but the two children in the top photo shouldn't be shielded from the fact that they are the products of a lesser relationship. It's unfair for them to go through life thinking that they are somehow equal to the kids found in normal families.

By trying to ensure that their parents remain second class citizens, those stalwart conservative folk are simply protecting the kids from growing up with unrealistic fantasies.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2009 05:30 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
I don't see any difference between the real life family and the depiction of an "ideal" family. They both consist of two loving and committed partners who are raising two children.


Now that's all fine and dandy in theory, Debra, but the two children in the top photo shouldn't be shielded from the fact that they are the products of a lesser relationship. It's unfair for them to go through life thinking that they are somehow equal to the kids found in normal families.

By trying to ensure that their parents remain second class citizens, those stalwart conservative folk are simply protecting the kids from growing up with unrealistic fantasies.


I see. Everything is clear now. This explains why conservatives mount their high horses, wave the flag, and claim to be the champions of freedom and individual rights.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2009 09:28 am
Congrats Vermont! Only 46 to go.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2009 12:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
NOT SO FAST>>>>>>>>>

CNN) -- The Vermont House on Thursday passed a same-sex marriage bill by 95-52, which is not enough of a margin to override a veto promised by the governor.
Republican Gov. Jim Douglas has said he does not support the sam-sex marriage bill.

Republican Gov. Jim Douglas has said he does not support the sam-sex marriage bill.

The vote came late in the day after five hours of debate before a crowded chamber, said the group Vermont Freedom To Marry, in a posting on its Web site.

"It's a testament to the power of telling our stories," said Beth Robinson, a spokeswoman for the group. "We know we've got more work to do in the run-up to the override vote."

Last week, the bill passed the Senate 26-4.

A final House vote is slated for Friday, when the bill is to be sent back to the Senate for approval of changes in the legislation sought by the House, and then to the desk of Gov. James Douglas, whose threatened veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote.

That override vote could take place as soon as Tuesday, Robinson said.

Douglas, a Republican, has left little doubt about where he stands. "I believe our civil-union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions," he said last week in a written statement.

"But, like President Obama and other leaders on both sides of the aisle, I believe that marriage should remain between a man and woman."

Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, the main sponsor of the bill, has described Douglas' decision as "cowardly."

"You cannot veto love and commitment between two people," the Democrat said. "This is a civil-rights issue. It is time for the governor to show some courage."

Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only states that have passed same-sex marriage laws.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/02/vermont.samesex.marriage/index.html
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2009 12:17 pm
@Woiyo9,
The legislature over-rode the veto today, Woiyo, by one vote.

Better luck next time! Yay rights for everyone!

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2009 12:28 pm
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
The Vermont House on Thursday passed a same-sex marriage bill by 95-52, which is not enough of a margin to override a veto promised by the governor.

Last week, the bill passed the Senate 26-4.


95 to 52, 26 to 4, what of the democratic process?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2009 04:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The legislature over-rode the veto today, Woiyo, by one vote.

Better luck next time! Yay rights for everyone!

Cycloptichorn

Amazing.

Also, Columbia, Missouri now grants civil partnerships. Missouri still has a ban up against gay marriage.

T
K
O
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2009 04:53 pm
@Diest TKO,
And good news from Vermont:

Quote:
MONTPELIER, Vt. " The Vermont Legislature on Tuesday overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry, mustering one more vote than needed to preserve the measure.


The step makes Vermont the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

Approval had been expected in the Senate, where the vote was 23 to 5.

But the outcome in the House of Representatives was not clear until the final moments of a long roll call, when Rep. Jeff Young, a Democrat who voted against the bill last week, reversed his position. In the end the vote was 100 to 49, just slightly more than the required two-thirds majority of members present.

After the final tally, cheers erupted in both legislative chambers of the State House and in the hallways outside, and several lawmakers on both sides of the debate looked stunned.

“It’s a great day for equality,” said State Representative Margaret Cheney, a Democrat from Norwich. “People saw this as an equality issue, and we’re proud that Vermont has led the way without a court order to provide equal benefits.”

The override came days after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that not permitting gay marriage there was unconstitutional. Vermont, which in 2000 became the first state to adopt civil unions for gay couples, now brings the number of states allowing same-sex marriage to four; the others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.

The battle over the issue has largely been centered in the Northeast. Massachusetts became the first state in the country to make same-sex marriage a reality in 2004 when its supreme court ruled that it was required under the state’s Constitution, which contains an equal-protection clause. Connecticut followed in October 2008. ............



Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Apr, 2009 06:04 am
Quote:
Your side is simply using a trick to thwart the will of the majority of citizens by pretending that equal protection under the law means something which it doesn't mean. You know that you cannot get your agenda past your fellow citizens, so you do it that way instead.


The will of majority does not always trump all. If it did blacks still might have to ride in the back of the bus ECT. From what I can gather from these arguments is fairly simple. They are saying unless a law forbids something, it is assumed to be legal. In order to make is illegal for gays to marry they have to deny them the right to be married which would not be fair or just in a country where we do not base our laws on religion or other moral beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Apr, 2009 06:11 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Rights? For who?

What you are seeing is the slow degeneration of the fundamental principals that once made this Nation great.

Look at your Home State of Calif. for evidence. The cancer is now spreading.

Happy?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Apr, 2009 06:12 am
@Debra Law,
It is considered by THE VAST MAJORITY of Americans to be the stable foundation of this Nation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:36:57