Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 12, 2022, 2:28 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
#1
Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
I would like to discuss the legal arguments in the recent same sex marriage case present before the supreme court. As such I am attaching a link to the oral arguments for those who have not heard them (which also has a link the transcripts).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen.../14-556-q1

I look forward to a lively discussion centered around legalistic principles.

As an initial post to the thread I would state I think the guy arguing the state bans killed it!! He even argued in a manner he did not have to and killed that!!!
Reply
#2
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
Why don't you set out something you'd like to talk about instead of starting a thread and asking others to start a conversation?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#3
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(May 29, 2015 at 11:09 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Why don't you set out something you'd like to talk about instead of starting a thread and asking others to start a conversation?

Because I would like to talk about the various legal theories expressed in the oral arguments. So that would be:

1. Reasonable scrutiny, Hightened Scruitiny, and Strict scrutiny. (argued by Respondents)
2. 14th Amendment Equal protection clause (argued by the Solicitor General)
3. 14th Amendment Fundamental Rights argument under Liberty (argued by Petitioners)
4. 4th Amendment Right to privacy (argued by Respondent).
5. United States vs. Windsor (Utilized by all parties)
6. Enumeration of Powers (underlying US V. Windsor and this Case)
Reply
#4
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
The way a discussion forum works, you see, is that you make an argument or observation, and someone responds. You have no hope of defending all of those points at the same time against 40 people.

So pick one, lay out your opinion/argument/observation, and we shall discuss.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#5
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
Then talk about them instead of just listing them.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
While not disputing the above points regarding proper forum procedure, I'll definitely get my two cents in on this later in the day (I'll have some free time this afternoon). I haven't read the transcripts yet but very much want to. I'm sure I'll have something to say about the argument Big Grin
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D

Don't worry, my friend.  If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Reply
#7
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
Okay;

First, lets deal with Scalia's statement that so long as the State legislates it may be tailored. If marriage is ruled to be a fundamental right than it becomes akin to the 2nd amendment and may not be abridged or withheld.

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage. Now if we assume the age restriction placed on the 2nd amendment (a child under the age of four does not have the right to bear arms as they lack sufficient development of person to understand the right in anyway) there may be a restriction placed on children under the age of 5 (though not likely as the restriction for the second is predicated on the inherent dangerous nature of a firearm).

This would thereby make adult to child weddings legal (likely with parental consent).
Reply
#8
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(May 29, 2015 at 11:37 am)Anima Wrote: Okay;

First, lets deal with Scalia's statement that so long as the State legislates it may be tailored.  If marriage is ruled to be a fundamental right than it becomes akin to the 2nd amendment and may not be abridged or withheld.

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  Now if we assume the age restriction placed on the 2nd amendment (a child under the age of four does not have the right to bear arms as they lack sufficient development of person to understand the right in anyway) there may be a restriction placed on children under the age of 5 (though not likely as the restriction for the second is predicated on the inherent dangerous nature of a firearm).

This would thereby make adult to child weddings legal (likely with parental consent).

I would assume that restrictions on such a basic right must be justified by a compelling interest of the state.  Is Scalia not arguing in line with that?
Reply
#9
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(May 29, 2015 at 11:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(May 29, 2015 at 11:37 am)Anima Wrote: Okay;

First, lets deal with Scalia's statement that so long as the State legislates it may be tailored.  If marriage is ruled to be a fundamental right than it becomes akin to the 2nd amendment and may not be abridged or withheld.

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  Now if we assume the age restriction placed on the 2nd amendment (a child under the age of four does not have the right to bear arms as they lack sufficient development of person to understand the right in anyway) there may be a restriction placed on children under the age of 5 (though not likely as the restriction for the second is predicated on the inherent dangerous nature of a firearm).

This would thereby make adult to child weddings legal (likely with parental consent).

I would assume that restrictions on such a basic right must be justified by a compelling interest of the state.  Is Scalia not arguing in line with that?

Scalia is arguing that if the right is granted by the State it may be restricted under reasonable, heightened, or strict scrutiny. Presently age restriction to marriage have been argued under reasonable scrutiny.

(Reasonable Scrutiny = The state must have a legitimate interest and the discrimination must be reasonably related to the furtherance of that interest).

(May 29, 2015 at 11:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I would assume that restrictions on such a basic right must be justified by a compelling interest of the state.  Is Scalia not arguing in line with that?

If made a fundamental right the State may discriminate under strict scrutiny where:

Strict Scrutiny = The state must have a compelling legitimate interest, the discrimination must be narrowly tailored, and the least restrictive means of satisfying that interest.

As one would imagine this level of tailoring is much more difficult to satisfy as it is commonly argue the discrimination is not narrowly tailored or least restrictive.
Reply
#10
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(May 29, 2015 at 11:46 am)Anima Wrote:


Scalia is arguing that if the right is granted by the State it may be restricted under reasonable, heightened, or strict scrutiny.  Presently age restriction to marriage have been argued under reasonable scrutiny.

(Reasonable Scrutiny = The state must have a legitimate interest and the discrimination must be reasonably related to the furtherance of that interest).

But, surely, an age restriction on marriage would survive not only Rational Basis Scrutiny (which I take your word for that it's evaluated under now) but also Strict Scrutiny, yes?
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D

Don't worry, my friend.  If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Leaked Supreme Court Decision signals majority set to overturn Roe v. Wade Cecelia 234 6661 June 7, 2022 at 11:58 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Same guy? onlinebiker 10 301 May 27, 2022 at 6:42 pm
Last Post: Helios
  Madison Cawthorn Sex Tape Released Divinity 26 2262 May 6, 2022 at 4:52 am
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Supreme Court To Take Up Right to Carry Firearm Outside Home onlinebiker 57 1168 April 29, 2021 at 8:20 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Court Ordered Quarantine brewer 2 333 October 24, 2019 at 10:15 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Supreme Court Considers Mandatory Govt Funding of Religious Education EgoDeath 8 485 September 24, 2019 at 10:37 am
Last Post: EgoDeath
  Fed Court, "hand over 8yrs of your finances" Brian37 15 620 May 22, 2019 at 6:34 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Corruption is the same worldwide..... Brian37 4 487 December 2, 2018 at 12:59 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Hitler Had The Same Problem Minimalist 4 447 November 26, 2018 at 6:41 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Court of Appeals Tells Alabama Shitheads to "Fuck Off!" Minimalist 6 682 August 23, 2018 at 2:00 am
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)