0
   

Full US Marriage Equality Betting Pool

 
 
jcboy
 
  3  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 10:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
Here you go cracker, explain this one too if you can.

Quote:
"The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Lawrence v. Texas

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 11:22 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

And what does that quotation mean to you?

Nothing in that quotation states that the Constitution contains any provision regarding marriage. It also doesn't state that judges are free to prohibit laws that are contrary to their personal politics on the pretext that the Constitution forbids things which in reality it never mentions. Now why don't I give you a wholly irrelevant quotation and insist that you summarize it for me?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 11:35 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

Here you go cracker, explain this one too if you can.

Quote:
"The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Lawrence v. Texas

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102


It states that a court can make a decision contrary to tradition. However, I never denied that. What I actually did say is that the Constitution doesn't forbid laws upholding the traditional interpretation of marriage for the simple reason that it never mentions marriage at all. Therefore, any finding that a law upholding the traditional view of marriage is unconstitutional is baloney, because the Constitution never mentions the subject. I also said that courts need to rule on what the law actually says and not use it as a pretext for forcing their personal politics on the populace. The electorate should determine their own laws unless such laws contradict something that the Constitution actually says.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 11:36 pm
@jcboy,
If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto.

U have my congratulations and good will
in regard to marriage equality and to divorce equality
.



jcboy wrote:
Here we go again, you can answer it now.


Quote:
The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power.
Yes. Libertarians and authoritarians have been passionate
in debate concerning the definition of what constitutes abuse.


Quote:
The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.
That is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!




Quote:
Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections.
I agree. There is much debate as to the definition of "justice"; that 's not well defined.
I have posted -- at length-- for equal protection of the law
obviating the need of licensure qua fundamental rights,
e.g. marriage and freedom of self defense.
No citizen needs permission of government to exercise his fundamental rights.


Quote:
Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts.
Yes. Judges get paid to do that.


Quote:
Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.
I think that this argument
implicitly relies upon "equal protection of the laws." (14th Amendment)
It might need to be proven that legislation
enabling homosexual marriage is "protection",
if the 14th Amendment 's "equal protection of the laws" clause
is being relied upon for support. A challenge to that notion
is to ask: protection from WHAT ?

I agree with the essence of the quote,
but it was written in vague language.
I believe that is the reason
that Brandon had so much difficulty in responding to it.

If I were the judge of the proper Constitutional result on this issue,
I 'd have difficulty in figuring out an accurate analysis hereof,
but my philosophy is: WHEN IN DOUBT, FAVOR LIBERTY and hedonism.
When in doubt, disfavor government interference.





David
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 11:41 pm
@jespah,
Quote:
Place your bets here, ladies and gentlemen, with your predictions of when marriage equality will be the law of all fifty states, whether by referendum, Supreme Court ruling, alien fiat, or whatever.


what a sloppy post....what IS "marriage equality"? Is that when I can marry any animal ( or several) , or thing, for instance maybe my cell phone?? I should be able to marry for instance my daughter, because all choices are equal, right?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 11:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
Place your bets here, ladies and gentlemen, with your predictions of when marriage equality will be the law of all fifty states, whether by referendum, Supreme Court ruling, alien fiat, or whatever.


what a sloppy post....what IS "marriage equality"? Is that when I can marry any animal ( or several), or thing, for instance maybe my cell phone?? I should be able to marry for instance my daughter, because all choices are equal, right?
U shud need the free consent
of all parties to the marriage!
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 11:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
U shud need the free consent
of all parties to the marriage!


does the government get to regulate who is allowed to consent, for instance by applying arbitrary age restrictions? Does the government get to contradict the parties, for instance by claiming that the consent was coerced when both parties insist that it was not?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 12:04 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
U shud need the free consent
of all parties to the marriage!

hawkeye10 wrote:
does the government get to regulate who is allowed to consent,
for instance by applying arbitrary age restrictions?
No; not unless we awarded it that jurisdiction.
It is enuf of an honor to government
to let it clean our spitoons.


hawkeye10 wrote:
Does the government get to contradict the parties,
for instance by claiming that the consent was coerced when both parties insist that it was not?
No, unless evidence of duress is independently available.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 01:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law and not their private concepts of morality.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 02:10 am
@Brandon9000,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David
Brandon9000 wrote:

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.
YES. Judges get paid for doing that.
Do u trust your fellow human beings not to cheat????
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 02:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David
Brandon9000 wrote:

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.
YES. Judges get paid for doing that.
Do u trust your fellow human beings not to cheat????

...and, therefore, judges shouldn't rule laws unconstitutional based on things the Constitution doesn't actually say. It's a good thing when the electorate gets to determine their own government by voting, rather than being disenfranchised by judges who rule any way they please regardless of the law.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 03:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
rather than being disenfranchised by judges who rule any way they please regardless of the law.
It is pretty clear that SCOTUS has decided that they are ROME, the Bible says what ever they say it says, and they can change their minds when ever they bloody well please.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 03:23 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
rather than being disenfranchised by judges who rule any way they please regardless of the law.
hawkeye10 wrote:
It is pretty clear that SCOTUS has decided that they are ROME, the Bible says what ever they say it says,
and they can change their minds when ever they bloody well please.
That is liberalism; it is distortion for the purpose of cheating.

Conservatism means just playing it straight,
like an accurate accountant reading numbers from a general ledger.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 03:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Conservatism means just playing it straight,
Roberts, who decided to rewrite OBAMACARE singlehandidly from the bench, seems to not agree with you sir.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 03:33 am
@Brandon9000,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David
Brandon9000 wrote:

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.
YES. Judges get paid for doing that.
Do u trust your fellow human beings not to cheat????
Brandon9000 wrote:
...and, therefore, judges shouldn't rule laws unconstitutional based on things the Constitution doesn't actually say. It's a good thing when the electorate gets to determine their own government by voting, rather than being disenfranchised by judges who rule any way they please regardless of the law.
. . . My memory fails; I 'm trying to recall the name
of the French philosopher who visited America soon
after the Revolutionary War. He opined in his book
that the enfranchised poor in a democracy woud use their votes
to manipulate government as a weapon to rob the rich
and give the loot to the poor voters. I usually don t think much
of politicians, elected or not.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 03:35 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Conservatism means just playing it straight,
Roberts, who decided to rewrite OBAMACARE singlehandidly from the bench,
seems to not agree with you sir.
That 's like an ex-drunk who falls off the wagon.
If he does not play it straight, then he is not a conservative.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  4  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 04:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Thanks David!

Some of the best free entertainment in the world was 6 or 7 years ago when DebraLaw would post. I was just a kid back then but I sure got a kick out of her. She was brilliant and a damn good lawyer, she would grab Brandon by the seat of his pants and mop the forum floor with him. Back then I had to give him a little credit, after an ass whopping that hard headed little **** would come back for more.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 05:24 am
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

Thanks David!

Some of the best free entertainment in the world was 6 or 7 years ago when DebraLaw would post. I was just a kid back then but I sure got a kick out of her. She was brilliant and a damn good lawyer, she would grab Brandon by the seat of his pants and mop the forum floor with him. Back then I had to give him a little credit, after an ass whopping that hard headed little **** would come back for more.
U are welcome, Morgan.
I wish u and Marco a very long,
loving and happy marriage, in the best of health.
May u both live in beauty.

Florida will be less for your departure.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 05:59 am
@Brandon9000,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David
Brandon9000 wrote:
I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.
Let me supplement my answer
by observing that another analysis that must be rendered
is ascertaining whether the legislature was ever awarded jurisdiction
in its enabling instrument (i.e., its constitution) to control
the citizenry in the manner in question; e.g., in this matter,
whether or not it was awarded authority to discriminate against homosexuals
who choose to marry. Does the challenged statute, as applied,
have a competent Constitutional foundation, or not ?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2014 06:05 am
In the news this morning. Mark Herring (D), the new AG in Virginia announced that our state has switched sides in pending Federal court cases involving gay marriage issues. The state will no longer weigh in as being in favor of any ban on them.
In other news there was an election to fill the seat left vacant by Herring. It was won by a Dem.The significance here is that Dems now have control of the state Senate.
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 09:19:35