Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[robvalue]

I'm not going through it all again, I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your arguments.

Let's get real: people who are opposing gay marriage are not (on the whole) doing it because of these legal issues. They are using the legal issues as a last resort because there's no rational defense and "because religion" isn't cutting it anymore. I don't see any argument about this that isn't exactly the same as allowing mixed race marriage; and other countries have managed this fine without cascade effects.

I don't know law, so my opinion isn't worth much, I know. But I know what is right.

[Anima]

I don't know law, so my opinion isn't worth much, I know. But I know what is right.

That's what the ones you are saying are wrong said

[robvalue]

I'm all for discussion, but I'm not sure why you are so determined to convince us it's a bad idea. Especially as people like me know squat about law, and I can't really debate someone who is providing the facts about the law while telling me I'm wrong. I hope you appreciate that's rather difficult for me.

The courts are going to decide soon (I expect) and if they don't allow this, then religion and/or legal red tape are blocking the removal of blatant discrimination. The fact that anyone is trying to convince themselves this isn't discrimination is beyond me.

It would be more interesting to hear why you really oppose it, assuming you do.

PS point taken, I knew as I was writing it announcing I know what is right is a bit hollow! Should have cut that bit.

[Ace]

I'm all for discussion, but I'm not sure why you are so determined to convince us it's a bad idea. Especially as people like me know squat about law, and I can't really debate someone who is providing the facts about the law while telling me I'm wrong. I hope you appreciate that's rather difficult for me.

The courts are going to decide soon (I expect) and if they don't allow this, then religion and/or legal red tape are blocking the removal of blatant discrimination. The fact that anyone is trying to convince themselves this isn't discrimination is beyond me.

It would be more interesting to hear why you really oppose it, assuming you do.

PS point taken, I knew as I was writing it announcing I know what is right is a bit hollow! Should have cut that bit.

In asking, “Why I oppose the issue” (that is if I actually do which is neither here or there) It seems to me that those who oppose must be doing so for religious reason. However, I say the hell with religion, F#) (*@) (* the G.O.D. and J.C., whoever! (Sorry for any who are religious I truly mean not to disrespect, but to try to abstain information and understanding)

Is it not my right to say I oppose homosexual sex as I oppose threesome, one night stands, incest, orgies, SM (which can be argued, is done by both straight and gay alike) If one does not agree with the sexual act, dose religion have to be the reason why? Or is one not allowed not to accept what one may not find to their like?

I do remember  Anima offering to argue the issue historically, biologically, legally, culturally (any way you wish) This blog can be called the legal option. Also, and no disrespect, but this is not the first time you have stated then you own a limited amount of knowledge of the law were as Anima has stated that he has study it, (I assume he might be a lawyer giving how he writes in legal terms) Yet, you say that he is in the wrong but you have  not provided any legal rebuttal to him/her but just side remarks and yourself proclaim “I don’t agree. ”  But why? In addition, if you cannot argue it legally then why replay? (Yes, I know you can do what you wish, but it just seems a little un- logical to enter a discussion that one does not know much about)

[robvalue]

Well, I've been looking for clarification on the law because I find it extremely hard to believe it would actually work like this. But you're right, I am kind of wasting my time so I won't bother anymore.

Indeed, objections don't have to be religious. But I've never heard any rational objections. Just saying "the law can't do it, sorry" isn't a rational objection but an admission that the legal system needs fixing.

But I'll leave this now, I just got sucked in again. Thanks for your input.

[Ace]

Robvalue : But I've never heard any rational objections. Just saying "the law can't do it, sorry" isn't a rational objection but an admission that the legal system needs fixing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what do you defined as a rational objection? Because it seems that your view is: “it is a rational objection because I agree with it.” But an objection, rational or un-rational, is not agreement or in other words rational objective statements do not have to be agreed upon to constitute a rational objection.

Even a shit kicker, (no offences to shit kickers) can be said to have a rational objection argument when he states “I don’t agree with atheist because it is anti-American, which was founded on the issue of religion and the freedom of religion. Throughout human history every society, big and small, religion has always been. In fact, atheism did not truly become an issue until it was the commies that start this shit. China, the Russia, Cuba, they all did away with religion and even kill and imprison those who were religious because commies are anti-freedom and anti-American. That is why to be atheist is ant-American”

I would say that on the contrary, Anima has argued his position of rational objection very rationally, logically and in correct legal concepts of the law in regards to the topic. He/she has based the argument, not only in legal terminology, but has thought out the replay logical, conditionally, and rationally. He/she has used the cases of precedent that both sides are using and has shown the difference between what it means is a constitutional right, what is a legal right, the level of scrutiny that is need when placing restrictions.

Also, there seem to be a massive misconception that the government cannot do certain thing; like take away a person’s rights or imprison people without due process, (it is called Marshal Law, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, an Executive Dissection, Clear and Present Danger.)

For example, the serial killer Jeffery Dahmer should, (under the law) have had the evidences found in his apartment thrown out of court because it was an illegal search. The officer who did the illegal search even stated this to the court. (He had opened the refrigerator and found a head within it. The officers were called to the residents because of a complaint of a possible assault had occurred; one victim had escaped and went to the cops) The court will not say to Dahmer “Well shit Jeffery, you got us. Well, we did an illegal search so you can go on your merry way. Now don’t you go doing something bad now.

No Way! A human head in the refrigerator over rides anybody’s due process of law. I do not care if the cops kicked in the door just for fun and slapped you for good luck.

[robvalue]

Sure, I have never heard an argument that I have thought is rational. I should have stated that, sorry. That is my opinion only. I'm not stating such a thing is impossible, or that other people might not find it rational. I didn't mean to present myself as an authority on anything.

I've been mighty unconvinced by everything in this thread, I'm afraid. But if you find it convincing, then that is fine!

I'm not going to debate anymore, like you say it's not worth it. Other people do not seem to support Anima's interpretation of the law. And I have no idea who is correct, I would just be horrified if Anima was actually correct.

[Anima]

Sure, I have never heard an argument that I have thought is rational. I should have stated that, sorry. That is my opinion only. I'm not stating such a thing is impossible, or that other people might not find it rational. I didn't mean to present myself as an authority on anything.

I've been mighty unconvinced by everything in this thread, I'm afraid. But if you find it convincing, then that is fine!

I'm not going to debate anymore, like you say it's not worth it. Other people do not seem to support Anima's interpretation of the law. And I have no idea who is correct, I would just be horrified if Anima was actually correct.

Then let the horror begin!!!

I will keep you guys abreast of the reason given by the court upon their ruling. It should come out in the next week or two.

[Ace]

Hahahaha

Poor Anima, no one whats to talk to you, Because it seems that I may be the reason for this I will take the bold step and do my best and debate you.


I do have a question, If the state's interest is children or the issue of population can it be argued that because the state allows birth control to be sold in its boundaries, (even the state's own medical system provides birth control in both blue and red states) Allows children to be adopted by other nations or (to some) grants abortion that aid in the decreasing of the population. To now argue that marriage is important to the state because of population, is hypocritical and considered to not be the states intent given their actions in support of various forms of reducing the population?

Can the court take this into account when deliberating the cases?

[Anima]

Hahahaha        

Poor Anima, no one whats to talk to you, Because it seems that I may be the reason for this I will take the bold step and do my best and debate you.


I do have a question, If the state's interest is children or the issue of population can it be argued that because the state allows birth control to be sold in its boundaries, (even the state's own medical system provides birth control in both blue and red states) Allows children to be adopted by other nations or (to some) grants abortion that aid in the decreasing of the population. To now argue that marriage is important to the state because of population, is hypocritical and considered to not be the states intent given their actions in support of various forms of reducing the population?

Can the court take this into account when deliberating the cases?

This a very interesting question. I really had to give it some thought and read up some constitutional and state law to figure it out.

1. There is not an inherent right to abortion. What was decided by the Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade was a reinforcement of the 4th amendment protections to privacy. As such restrictions against abortion must meet strict scrutiny: so that state 1) must have a compelling interest; 2) the discrimination must be narrowly tailored; 3) the discrimination must be the least intrusive means; 4) and the discrimination must satisfy the states interest. In short the court decided in Roe V Wade that states prohibition against abortion violate #3 and is not the least intrusive means of satisfying the states compelling interest.

2. With that said two things were noted by the Supreme Court. First the court recognized the compelling interest of the state increases with the viability of the embryo/fetus. Thus as the fetus approaches autonomous viability it approaches personhood and protection by law as an individual person, whom under the 14th amendment may not be deprived of LIFE without due process of law.

"The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[6] The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week.[6]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Second the Court recognized the States right to regulate abortion so long as it does not impose an undue burden (that is to say so long as it remains least intrusive):

"The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the "trimester framework," permitting the states to regulate abortion in ways not posing an "undue burden" on the right of the mother to an abortion at any point before viability; on account of technological developments between 1973 and 1992, viability itself was legally dissociated from the hard line of 28 weeks, leaving the point at which "undue burdens" were permissible variable depending on the technology of the time and the judgment of the state legislatures." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Which we are all aware of the State has regulated highly.

3. In regards to your particular question it may be said the Supreme Court has held, in numerous cases, the compelling interest of the state to promote, preserve, and protect life outweighs privacy protections of the 4th amendment. However, the court has also ruled the State may not intercede in the private health decisions (Roe V. Wade) or private intimacy decisions (Lawrence V. Texas) of individuals until such time as the States compelling interest exceeds the private interests of individuals. The court will take this into account in their decision, though they do not need to because the State's prohibition does not need to satisfy strict scrutiny. It only needs to satisfy rational basis. Furthermore, State recognition of same sex marriage is not a private issue (what is sought is State/public recognition) and thus is not given 4th amendment protections as private health decisions are afforded.