|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 11:52:51 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
You are the one who on one hand insists that government stays out of his life yet on the other hand insists the government recognize what he thinks is a marriage. |
Nonsense. It takes a law to ban same sex marriage. That is government interference. Were asking for those laws to be removed from the books, as they serve only to impose an arbitrary government restriction and an invasion of privacy on one small but significant segment of the population. It's discrimination by way of government edict.
And if you think your rights are being taken away from you if you can't vote to refuse rights to others, what you are really saying is that you think you should have the right to tell the government to impose an arbitrary government restriction and an invasion of privacy on one small but significant segment of the population, which is still supporting big government. It's just the big government that you want and it's still antithetical to conservative principles.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 11:57:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill Scott
When someone tells me that they would give legal marriage status to a bowling team I think it is safe to say that I will never understnd this person so why just go in circles? |
I have been following this thread for the last couple days and my first thought was "Why is Bill Scott obsessed with the idea that bowling teams will want to get married?"
Yes, I know that you are attempting reductio ad absurdum simply trying to prove that your position is true by showing that if the opposition's argument were true you would get an absurd result. Dave's not buying it.
Truth is functional non-traditional families exist not only in our country but all over the world. This argument is not about whether you can create a non-traditional family (you can) it's about whether those non-traditional families can get the same rights, protections and recognition under the law.
The bowling team idea just doesn't hold up. First of all, actual bowling teams are only made up of three to four people, which puts them in the range of the original bisexual polygamy question anyway. Second, a large number of bowling teams are already made up of traditional families so marriage and adoption are not really an issue for them.
If you really want to start the head spinning, question whether a small home church congregation (say beginning with 8-10 in the worshipers) should be allowed marital status in order to adopt and indoctrinate children. This is not an absurd argument as we have seen such upstanding people as David Koresh and Jim Jones already push this particular envelope.
I don't agree with your position by the way. I only give you this suggestion because the whole "bowling team" idea is just pointless and if I'm going to watch this argument, I prefer you at least make it interesting.
|
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 12:13:54 [Permalink]
|
It wouldn't require more or special work for government employees to have the government "recognize" same-sex (for example) marriages. All the government has to do is instruct its clerks to stop saying "no" when two guys show up asking for a marriage license, and they'll do that by removing "two men" from the list of prohibited marriages. That's less government, Bill, not more.
Similarly, removing the proscription against more than two people in a marriage will reduce the cost to taxpayers, not increase it (though they may have to print more lines on a license). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 20:58:58 [Permalink]
|
Federal judge strikes down Utah ban on same-sex marriage
A federal judge in Utah on Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the U.S. Constitution offers the same equal protection and due process rights to same-sex individuals to marry the person of their choice that it gives heterosexual individuals.
"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby in the 53-page decision. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional." |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2013 : 06:50:47 [Permalink]
|
U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby may be an Obama appointee, but both of Utah's deeply conservative Senators endorsed him.
And my state count was off, before. With the Utah ruling, same-sex marriage is now legal in 18 states and D.C., so there are only 32 states left. If the Utah ruling gets appealed to the 10th Circuit and is upheld, that'll apply to Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming, too. Because of that, conservative groups and the LDS may very well be urging the Utahn Attorney General to not appeal Shelby's ruling. Nine of the twenty 10th Circuit judges were appointed by liberal Presidents, and an appeal would likely be heard by a three-judge panel.
The Utahn Governor needs a civics refresher as much as Bill does:Utah Gov. Gary Herbert released a statement that said he was "very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah"... If "the will of the people" is unconstitutional, where else do aggrieved parties have to turn but the courts? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2013 : 16:23:34 [Permalink]
|
Appeals Court denies Utah’s appeal to stay same-sex marriage ruling:While it prepares its Supreme Court motion, the attorney general's office issued an advisory opinion telling county clerks that they could be held in contempt of court if they refused to issue marriage licenses. And [Governor] Herbert's chief of staff sent a message telling state agencies that "where no conflicting laws exist you should conduct business in compliance with the federal judge's ruling until such time that the current district court decision is addressed by the 10th Circuit Court." Note well that this only denies staying the ruling already mentioned in this thread, this isn't about any actual appeal of that ruling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
 Posted - 12/25/2013 : 20:49:49 [Permalink]
|
| If "the will of the people" is unconstitutional, where else do aggrieved parties have to turn but the courts? |
WTF! If the will of the people is unconstitutional, I wouldn't recommend they go to the Supreme Court.
No doubt that slippery slop Bill's been fearing has broke loose, whoa with us.
| While it prepares its Supreme Court motion, |
Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this kind of discrimination last summer? |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2013 : 22:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this kind of discrimination last summer? |
Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that if a same-sex couple in legally married by some state or other, the Federal government must recognize that marriage insofar as the government has to give them the same benefits as any other marriage (Social Security, taxes, etc.), striking down the one section of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 which said that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize any same-sex marriages. The SCOTUS did not overturn section 2 of DOMA, which says that states can decide for themselves which marriages are legal and which aren't. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2013 : 22:39:37 [Permalink]
|
| Aha! So the plot thickens. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2013 : 19:13:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The SCOTUS did not overturn section 2 of DOMA, which says that states can decide for themselves which marriages are legal and which aren't.
|
OK,thanks for that clarification and review. So they didn't address whether any state law banning same sex marriage was was unconstitutional based upon it being discrimination of a protected group. Which they did make so last summer. link
Instead, the five justices in the majority have made sexual orientation a full-fledged protected class under the 5th (and presumably 14th) Amendment. That is indeed truly historic. |
It comes down to if voters or legislators wouldn't pass state laws or changes to their State Constitution that violate the United States Constitution, which preempts them, than they wouldn't get stuck down by the Supreme Court. So this probably will go to the SCOTUS. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
 |
|
I told you so.....
