The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop I'm not going to fight with you over this either. You too often are incapable of arguing any issue on its merits. So pick on somebody else. I'm just not in the mood for sophomoric name calling today. Thank you.

It's not sophomoric to point out your failings, Fox. It's educational.

I agree with the title of this thread completely, and you're a great example, Fox. For real. Neither you nor any other poster in this thread has answered the question of what harm would be done to anyone by allowing gays to marry. It's been years now, and it seems that no answer will be forthcoming. The courts cannot seem to find a good answer as to the harm either, which is why you keep seeing them over-turn bans on it.

You don't have to admit that you are a homophobe to be one. All you have to do is keep spouting the same sort of crap that you are here.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

No I will not admit to being homophobic because I am not. And I will not tell you that such accusation are not sophomoric as well as ignorant and stupid when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about or anything about me to justify such an opinion. And I am not about to repeat my previous arguments that you were intellectually incapable of understanding then and you are apparently incapable of understanding now.

So please take your childish ad hominems someplace else where they might actually be appreciated.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No I will not admit to being homophobic because I am not. And I will not tell you that such accusation are not sophomoric as well as ignorant and stupid when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about or anything about me to justify such an opinion. And I am not about to repeat my previous arguments that you were intellectually incapable of understanding then and you are apparently incapable of understanding now.

So please take your childish ad hominems someplace else where they might actually be appreciated.

This that you have just written is a lie. You have never shown what harm would be done to anyone by allowing gays to marry. Neither has anyone else on this thread.

You may decide to huff and puff and claim that you have no responsibility to go back and link to one, but that's a canard; you never put a cogent argument forth.

I only know what you write, and what you write indicates that you hold beliefs that Gays are not the equals to straight folks and should not have the ability to pursue happiness in the same way; that folks should not accept being gay as a valid way of life and one that we respect here in America. You would support their ability to marry if that were the case, because that is how decent human beings treat each other. You just don't seem to see them that way.

I have little doubt that religion plays some aspect in your internal defense; but that's just pushing your bigotry off onto an external party.

I'm not going to stop discussing what I see. You keep on displaying your attitudes and I will keep on describing them as I see fit. Deal?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Finn, you are correct that the aggressive fixation to use the term 'marriage' even while scorning the institution itself is driving the effort to protect traditional marriage. And this would never have happened if the very people most promoting the issue were not so intractable in discussing any form of compromise. It is unfortunate because if everybody's point of view was equally respected, I think most states would have already provided the very protections the gay community says that it wants and the federal government would follow suit.

I would like to hear from somebody well versed in Constitutional Law, however, who could speak to how the issue might wind up for an opinion by the SCOTUS.

Meanwhile for the time being, I shall ignore Cyclop who purports to know what I have NEVER done even as he purports to claim he knows what I have posted.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When the most liberal Senator in congress, and the standard bearer for the left-wing of his party, feels compelled to stake out a posiion that marriage must be limited to a a union between one man and one woman, gays and lesbians should dispair, or, at least, cultivate patience.

Clearly, the strategy is to relentlessly chip away at cultural barriers until they fall apart, but there really is no sign that such a breakthrough is imminent.

This is not a Left vs Right issue. It is a Left vs the rest of the population issue. Activist judges can attempt to force society in a direction it does not want to follow, but over and over again we have seen that when democratic processes are allowed to prevail the issue is decided against same sex marriages.

These judges are not doing "the cause" much good.If a democratically supported statute cannot withstand an activist majority on the bench, the populace will be forced to amend constitutions - state and perhaps eventually federal. Judges don't get to overturn constitutional amendments.

With each minor victory in his battle, the pro-same sex marriage bloc pushes the general populace towards a US constitutional amendment which would be a major setback.

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

You are aware of course that 3 of the 4 "activist judges" that created the majority ruling in the CA case were appointed by Republican govenors right?

0 Replies

And that is important why?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Finn, you are correct that the aggressive fixation to use the term 'marriage' even while scorning the institution itself is driving the effort to protect traditional marriage. And this would never have happened if the very people most promoting the issue were not so intractable in discussing any form of compromise. It is unfortunate because if everybody's point of view was equally respected, I think most states would have already provided the very protections the gay community says that it wants and the federal government would follow suit.

I would like to hear from somebody well versed in Constitutional Law, however, who could speak to how the issue might wind up for an opinion by the SCOTUS.

Meanwhile for the time being, I shall ignore Cyclop who purports to know what I have NEVER done even as he purports to claim he knows what I have posted.

I'm sure you can prove me wrong by linking to your substantive and reasonable argument, showing the harm that would happen to society by allowing gays to marry.

It would help me out, because I've read through this entire thread, and gosh, I just can't seem to find it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I would like to hear from somebody well versed in Constitutional Law, however, who could speak to how the issue might wind up for an opinion by the SCOTUS.

The only opinion that is going to be issued by the SCOTUS on the issue is "Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED".

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And that is important why?

Because I said so. I'm allowed to state my opinion and you aren't allowed to ever question it, remember?

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I would like to hear from somebody well versed in Constitutional Law, however, who could speak to how the issue might wind up for an opinion by the SCOTUS.

The only opinion that is going to be issued by the SCOTUS on the issue is "Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED".

Please cite your basis for what appears to be your firm opinion on this.

And again I ask what difference does it make who appointed the judges? At least one of our more liberal judges on the SCOTUS was also appointed by a Republican.

But as Finn expressed, this is not a Republican/Democrat issue at the grass roots level and/or could be seen as remarkably bipartisan if you look at the demographics involved. The real issue is one of good intentions providing unintended negative consequences that could be avoided if everybody would just stop and think and at least be willing to consider another point of view other than their own prejudiced one.

I do think SCOTUS will eventually rule on this but, just as with Roe v Wade, it will be on some basis other than 'gay marriage' per se.

0 Replies

So much misinformation, so little time to correct it all.

Foxfyre wrote:

So you are are saying that if the Texas Supreme Court had ruled on Roe v Wade before Coffee and Weddington got ahold of it, it never would have been accepted by SCOTUS?

Roe was filed in federal court because it involved a federal question, i.e. the right to privacy as established in Griswold v. Connecticut. I don't know what Roe would have looked like if it had been filed in state court and decided by the Texas supreme court, but then it wouldn't have been the Roe case. If the Texas supreme court, however, had decided the case on federal constitutional grounds, then the US supreme court might have had grounds to review its decision.

Foxfyre wrote:

At the time of the California ruling, the California law still defined marriage as a contractual relationship, recognized by the state, between one man and one woman and all provisions of and restrictions related to such contract are equally applicable to any and all citizens. Therefore there was no equal protection issue involved and the California Court acted improperly.

The California supreme court thought differently, but it doesn't matter: the case was decided under the California constitution's equal protection clause, not under the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think the California Supreme Court provided a sufficient legal basis for their recent ruling and that could be the basis on which the High Court could agree to hear the case.

Really? Have you even read the court's decision? (.pdf) Point out the parts of the court's opinion that you disagree with.

Foxfyre wrote:

It won't be decided on the issue of gay marriage. It will be decided on the right of a governing body to designate the terms of a legal contract.

That still wouldn't provide a basis for the US supreme court to exercise jurisdiction in this case.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, I've at least read up on it. And looked at some cases in which SCOTUS overruled the state courts and those in which SCOTUS decided they had no jurisdiction. Joe may be right that it won't be this particular case that makes it to SCOTUS but sooner or later SCOTUS will have to rule on this issue unless Congress passes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage.

The US supreme court won't rule on the issue presented in the California case -- it simply has no basis for doing so. Now, it's possible that the US supreme may have to decide some issue that is ancillary to the California decision, such as a comity clause case arising from another state's refusal to recognize a homosexual marriage entered into in California, but that's a different issue. As for the right of Californians to enter into homosexual marriages, that issue was definitively settled yesterday.

Foxfyre wrote:

Look Fishin, you seem to be spoiling for a fight and I'm not. I expressed an opinion that may or may not be justified. If you don't like the basis I've already provided, it is unlikely that I'll come up with one you'll like better. Are you a Constitutional lawyer? Or any kind of lawyer? If so, I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this subject and trust that you will provide your own opinion.

Fishin isn't a lawyer, but I am. You may, therefore, bow down to me.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

fishin wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

I would like to hear from somebody well versed in Constitutional Law, however, who could speak to how the issue might wind up for an opinion by the SCOTUS.

The only opinion that is going to be issued by the SCOTUS on the issue is "Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED".

Please cite your basis for what appears to be your firm opinion on this.

My basis is that the SCOTUS doens't decide state level Constitutional issues. It doesn't have the authority to do so. The SCOTUS's authority to review cases decided by State Supreme Courts is spelled out in 28 U.S.C. § 1257.:

"(a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "highest court of a State" includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals."

To simplfy that, the SCOTUS can only review a State Supreme Court case if there is a question on whether or not the decision violates the federal constitution.

Since there are no Federal Constituitional provisions that recognize sexual orientation as creating a "protected class" there aren't any provisions in the Federal Constitution for a state level ruling to be in violation of and the SCOTUS doesn't have any authority to review.

Both the MA and CA cases have been decided on the basis that their STATE LEVEL Constitutions did recognize sexual orientation as a protected class. Once sexual orientation is recognized as a valid protected class then other state level constitutional provisions can be used to argue that the protected class is being discriminated against.

No protected class = no Certiorari.

Quote:

And again I ask what difference does it make who appointed the judges? At least one of our more liberal judges on the SCOTUS was also appointed by a Republican.

But as Finn expressed, this is not a Republican/Democrat issue at the grass roots level and/or could be seen as remarkably bipartisan if you look at the demographics involved. The real issue is one of good intentions providing unintended negative consequences that could be avoided if everybody would just stop and think and at least be willing to consider another point of view other than their own prejudiced one.

Finn didn't say anything about Republican/Democrat. He very clearly said left/right. And he aslo stated that "It is a Left vs the rest of the population issue". Are you seriously trying to claim that Republican's appoinmt leftist judges as a matter of course?

Quote:

I do think SCOTUS will eventually rule on this but, just as with Roe v Wade, it will be on some basis other than 'gay marriage' per se.

yes, you've stated this several times. I'm inclined to say "Yeah, and?".

Very few cases are decided on the specific issue the person bringing the case is after as their desired end result. They can only raise Constitutional issues and there aren't all that many of them. If you are black and try to buy a baseball glove in a store that is open to the general public and the clerk refuses to sell it to you because of your race and you sue, you don't sue because they didn't sell you a baseball glove. You sue for racial discrimination because you'd be a part of a recognized protected class under the Constitution and in Federal Law. Baseball gloves aren't covered anywhere in the Constitution...

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Fishin isn't a lawyer, but I am. You may, therefore, bow down to me.

Bahahaha!

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

So much misinformation, so little time to correct it all.

Foxfyre wrote:
So you are are saying that if the Texas Supreme Court had ruled on Roe v Wade before Coffee and Weddington got ahold of it, it never would have been accepted by SCOTUS?

Roe was filed in federal court because it involved a federal question, i.e. the right to privacy as established in Griswold v. Connecticut. I don't know what Roe would have looked like if it had been filed in state court and decided by the Texas supreme court, but then it wouldn't have been the Roe case. If the Texas supreme court, however, had decided the case on federal constitutional grounds, then the US supreme court might have had grounds to review its decision.

Foxfyre wrote:
At the time of the California ruling, the California law still defined marriage as a contractual relationship, recognized by the state, between one man and one woman and all provisions of and restrictions related to such contract are equally applicable to any and all citizens. Therefore there was no equal protection issue involved and the California Court acted improperly.

The California supreme court thought differently, but it doesn't matter: the case was decided under the California constitution's equal protection clause, not under the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause.

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think the California Supreme Court provided a sufficient legal basis for their recent ruling and that could be the basis on which the High Court could agree to hear the case.

Really? Have you even read the court's decision? (.pdf) Point out the parts of the court's opinion that you disagree with.

Foxfyre wrote:
It won't be decided on the issue of gay marriage. It will be decided on the right of a governing body to designate the terms of a legal contract.

That still wouldn't provide a basis for the US supreme court to exercise jurisdiction in this case.

Foxfyre wrote:
Well, I've at least read up on it. And looked at some cases in which SCOTUS overruled the state courts and those in which SCOTUS decided they had no jurisdiction. Joe may be right that it won't be this particular case that makes it to SCOTUS but sooner or later SCOTUS will have to rule on this issue unless Congress passes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage.

The US supreme court won't rule on the issue presented in the California case -- it simply has no basis for doing so. Now, it's possible that the US supreme may have to decide some issue that is ancillary to the California decision, such as a comity clause case arising from another state's refusal to recognize a homosexual marriage entered into in California, but that's a different issue. As for the right of Californians to enter into homosexual marriages, that issue was definitively settled yesterday.

Foxfyre wrote:
Look Fishin, you seem to be spoiling for a fight and I'm not. I expressed an opinion that may or may not be justified. If you don't like the basis I've already provided, it is unlikely that I'll come up with one you'll like better. Are you a Constitutional lawyer? Or any kind of lawyer? If so, I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this subject and trust that you will provide your own opinion.

Fishin isn't a lawyer, but I am. You may, therefore, bow down to me.

Consider yourself bowed down to for having legal knowledge that I do not have. And I am fully prepared for your legal expertise to be proved right in this matter. But as I said, I am not completely alien to the legal system either, and I've seen some really strange things happen in court rulings that I would never have dreamed could happen.

So please understand that if somebody does find a way to get the definition of marriage before the SCOTUS, I probably won't be able to resist pointing it out. Smile

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The rest of your post is pretty much worthless

Cycloptichorn

Wow! How devastating.I guess you showed me you perfect ass.

0 Replies

Hey--

I know someone who stole a car once. As a result, he's no stranger to the legal system either. Shall I ask him about his opinion, just to balance Joe's?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Hey--

I know someone who stole a car once. As a result, he's no stranger to the legal system either. Shall I ask him about his opinion, just to balance Joe's?

Sure.

You're late...you have time for mischief.

:wink:

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Hey--

I know someone who stole a car once. As a result, he's no stranger to the legal system either. Shall I ask him about his opinion, just to balance Joe's?

I don't know. If you ask his opinion about stealing cars, it is likely he knows more than Joe does about that. You never can tell on really sparse information though can you.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
When the most liberal Senator in congress, and the standard bearer for the left-wing of his party, feels compelled to stake out a posiion that marriage must be limited to a a union between one man and one woman, gays and lesbians should dispair, or, at least, cultivate patience.

Clearly, the strategy is to relentlessly chip away at cultural barriers until they fall apart, but there really is no sign that such a breakthrough is imminent.

This is not a Left vs Right issue. It is a Left vs the rest of the population issue. Activist judges can attempt to force society in a direction it does not want to follow, but over and over again we have seen that when democratic processes are allowed to prevail the issue is decided against same sex marriages. '
These judges are not doing "the cause" much good.If a democratically supported statute cannot withstand an activist majority on the bench, the populace will be forced to amend constitutions - state and perhaps eventually federal. Judges don't get to overturn constitutional amendments.

With each minor victory in his battle, the pro-same sex marriage bloc pushes the general populace towards a US constitutional amendment which would be a major setback.

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

The most Liberal senator in Congress?

That's Bernie Sanders you're talking about, right?

The rest of your post is pretty much worthless

Cycloptichorn

Worthless, less than that, a pathetic attempt at a straw man argument, like all gays and lesbians think alike. The right here is becoming unhinged and I can't say that I blame them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

Really? Then I have a question for you. If the opponents of the California ruling want the Supreme Court sack it, they will have to claim that the state of California violated the US constitution with this ruling. What provision of the US constitution will they claim California to have violated?

Can't say. But if I was arguing the case...

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know