ADVERTISEMENT

What Does HROT Think About the Irish Vote on Gay Marriage?

You still refuse to face that other thread, keep pretending that every poster on here didn't see you caught in your lie.

I'm not parroting TJ, I used TJ as an example of the argument. TJ has not made the same claim I have in this thread. LOTS of people have claimed what I have here, you still keep claiming that "SSM" isn't a Constitutional right. How about this: White Man Gun Ownership isn't a specific Constitutional right....gun ownership is.

I'm not using the E.P. clause, and I have made that very clear in numerous pots. You are obtuse, and a proven liar.

Here, I will link to that thread again, maybe you'd like to finally face the facts and admit you are full of shit and, still, refuse to post why "old marriage" was good, but this newfangled marriage is now bad, as in government sanctioning.

http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threa...iage-ruling-a-just-cause-for-war.12561/page-5
LOL. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, I provided the proof, and you still can't admit you lied. You are a little man. Own up to you lies.

You literally parroted what TJ said, and you even admitted it in the first post. Embrace it, it's who you are.

Why do I want to go revisit a post and let you slander me for another 2 weeks. Wasn't slandering me for 2 weeks enough for you. You lied. I did provide my reasoning, the answers were in the thread you linked, you were too lazy or too obtuse to read them. My problem is not that you disagree with my position. Hell, I could care less about that. My problem with you is you repeatedly said I didn't answer questions when I specifically showed I did. You don't agree with my answers, but I did answer the questions. You lied. It's not worth debating an issue with someone who's a dishonest broker, and you, sir, are as dishonest as they come.
 
This ONLY makes sense if you ignore Loving, which you do, and have done so in many, many posts.

Your mathematical equation is the EXACT SAME equation used to support laws that banned interracial marriage.

Your second claim, as I have dispelled more than once makes entirely no sense. It presupposes a few things, but the most important being: 1. "bi-sexual" people, as a class, wish to marry more than one partner. You can not establish that in any way, shape or form, and you haven't even attempted to do so. Currently you have nobody making that claim, except for you. Feel free to cite your examples of this, you know, being a concern we should even discuss.

Even IF you follow that rabbit down the hole, it still doesn't apply, as you still believe a ban on polygamous marriage is apt. If that is legal, then it has no bearing on this issue, as nothing in SSM is requiring polygamous relationships. You just WANT to compare it to polygamy, because you are having a difficult time fighting ssm itself.
Good grief you are back to Loving, comparing apples to cinder blocks. You are a broken record, stuck on wrong.

I'm down debating with you. You're a dishonest broker. It's impossible to debate with someone as dishonest as you.

Go ahead and tell more lies, I'm finished with this thread. You aren't worth my time. You're a little man.
 
Balderdash. Of course you care about the scrutiny standard, or you are trying to change the standard for "rational basis". The courts have pretty much ruled that rational basis is met with a law passed by Congress. Historical reasons would satisfy "rational basis". Good grief, the ssm is hardly in agreement with you regarding scrutiny standard. They realize they lose or take a huge chance if they leave it up to "rational basis". Besides, who give frack if you think it fails rational basis for you. You're the dope who thought the 1st amendment (applicable to religious beliefs) solely dealt with the establishment of religion, you totally forgot (or didn't know) it also prohibits that free exercise of religion. Based on what you've written in numerous posts it's not surprising you didn't know this. It explains your hostility towards RFRA.

You are missing my point entirely, and then just making shit up. No Court has ruled that, "Wellp, Congress done passed it, so good enough for us." That wouldn't be a scrutiny, that wouldn't even be a test.

Rational basis is not complicated: The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Yes, "historical reasons" have satisfied Courts before, but it isn't determinative. Even with that, one will have difficulty proving that, in fact, our current system of marriage is historically preserved. SCOTUS would have to find a legitimate government interest...and then the law would have to relate to it. For example: One could scream about procreation....but would then have to convince the Court that a law banning SSM actually affects that interest in some way. So far they have failed.

I don't care, nor should I what the "SSM" agrees with or wants to argue, I'm not a part of their team making any arguments. I don't think, today, it passes Rational Basis, which is precisely why I've said I don't care what standard they use.

LOL at trying to attack me separately in order to diminish my posts. Have fun, oh, feel free to respond in that other thread...you know, at some point.
 
You literally parroted what TJ said, and you even admitted it in the first post. Embrace it, it's who you are.
.

Good God this is a lie. Everyone here can see what I responded to. You are ridiculous. Here is that "first post" you are referring to:

Is there actually a poster here who has, or is claiming that SAME SEX MARRIAGE is a specific Constitutional right? Phantom loves to throw that out there, but I haven't seen anybody actually post that.

The two that are most often cited are:

1. Marriage is a Constitutional right
2. What TJ said above, Equal Protection requires marriage laws to be applied equally to same sex partners as to heteros.

It just seems disingenuous to try and frame it as Phantom does.

That, quite clearly, does not parrot anything of TJ's, and specifically cites to him as one who supports #2.

Hell, I've clearly, CLEARLY stated that I'm in camp #1, not camp #2. You are a buffoon.
 
Good grief you are back to Loving, comparing apples to cinder blocks. You are a broken record, stuck on wrong.

I'm down debating with you. You're a dishonest broker. It's impossible to debate with someone as dishonest as you.

Go ahead and tell more lies, I'm finished with this thread. You aren't worth my time. You're a little man.

Let's talk about Loving. Certainly one can claim that Blacks & Gays are not similar, and not similarly offended...therefore that aspect of Loving is different, but one can NOT argue with the fact that the Court says that Marriage is a Fundamental Right, among other things. It will be interesting to see how you deal with the SCOTUS' words:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. "

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."


"To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. "


Obviously the difference in the last one is race vs. sex (gender), or sexual orientation. The one, lone, difference between Loving and these cases is race. OBVIOUSLY, if one believes that the protection is ONLY for protected classes, such as race, this is vastly important. If, on the other hand, the ideas are equal protection, or Marriage as a fundamental right, then the matter of race becomes secondary. What is primary is the REASONS behind the ban. This is exactly what we have been discussing.

BTW, interesting that you find cases that deals with 1. Marriage, 2. the Constitution, 3. Laws that ban specific traits from marrying, to be "apples vs. cinderblocks". You must have strange cinderblocks in Florida.

In fact, the other interesting part to Phantom's "LOVING DOESN'T COUNT"...is the fact that it would entirely moot his "bi-sexual" or polygamy argument. If these cases are cinderblocks to Loving's apples, then by necessity, polygamy is a treefrog.

Oh wait, he disappeared again. Maybe I should go check that other thread to see if he, finally responded...
 
Phantom, if you only do one thing in this thread, make it this:

Support your "bi-sexuals" are unfairly discriminated against logic. Do you have any support for it, at all?

I think I figured out where he got it from: Mike Huckabee.

"In his new book God, Guns, Grits and Gravy, Huckabee claims allowing same-sex marriage would lead to bisexuals in legally recognized throuples.


“Shouldn’t a bisexual be able to have both a male and female spouse?” the former Arkansas governor asks in excerpts of his book released by U.S. News & World Report. “Wouldn’t restricting that person's access to both genders be denying the bisexual his or her marriage ‘equality?’”"


Now we know what Phantom has been up late at night reading. If you can't beat gay marriage, compare it to something else (whether or not its, you know, a real thing) and change the subject.
 
If you read the thread title you can easily see my response was relevant.

Do you know what they do to homosexuals in Saudi or Iran?

Point is what they do overseas has little bearing on what happens in the U.S.

The thread title specifically says, "What Does HROT Think About the Irish Vote on Gay Marriage?"

Of course it has "little bearing" on the US. It just seems a strange response to the question posed.

Try this: "What does HROT think about beautiful naked women servicing nerdy internet posters on the beaches of Normandy?"

Would your answer really be, "Who cares, it happened on the other side of the Atlantic!"
 
The 6th Circuit Court disagrees with your conclusion. The point is which standard applies, rational basis or strict scrutiny. You are plugging strict scrutiny because you think ssm is a right.

What a court that is 2:1 republican appointee ruled in favor of an SSM ban?! Shocked I tell you shocked!

Meanwhile the fourth circuit shot down a ban, so did the ninth, 7th too let's include them. 10th you want in sure. Funny that you left them off. So which group of judges do we believe? The one with one circuit or the one with four including the progressive deep blue states of Utah, New Mexico, Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina and others.


hmmmmmmmm..........
 
Try this: "What does HROT think about beautiful naked women servicing nerdy internet posters on the beaches of Normandy?"

What does HROT thing about posters who post this and there are only words?! OFF WITH THE HEAD!
 
Meanwhile in the wiki article on the fourth circuit ruling
"On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari for the appeal, making the Fourth Circuit's decision final.[6] Virginia promptly began solemnizing same-sex marriages."

Did anyone else totally not read that word as "solemnizing"
 
We don't allow "all couples" to marry now.

Yes, you are in effect saying SSM should be a constitutional right. Sexual orientation is not a protected class (meaning the gov't only needs to provide a rational basis for "discrimination" against ssm), you are trying to change this to strict scrutiny because ssm should be a constitutional right.
What then is the "rational basis" for banning SSM? Because it's yucky? Because it's not traditional? Because of the imaginary claim that it somehow undermines the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?

Why should it even matter whether sexual orientation is a protected class? The EPC clearly specifies that no state shall deny "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't say "any member of a protected class within its jurisdiction."

It seems to me that if there is any ambiguity at all about whether the EPC applies to SSM then the government should err on the side of granting rights rather than depriving them.
 
What then is the "rational basis" for banning SSM? Because it's yucky? Because it's not traditional? Because of the imaginary claim that it somehow undermines the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?

Why should it even matter whether sexual orientation is a protected class? The EPC clearly specifies that no state shall deny "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't say "any member of a protected class within its jurisdiction."

It seems to me that if there is any ambiguity at all about whether the EPC applies to SSM then the government should err on the side of granting rights rather than depriving them.
Great post.

There's also the 9th amendment. People in the "where does the constitution say that?" camp need to read that one from time to time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ8869
Why should it even matter whether sexual orientation is a protected class?

.

Well, specifically, it doesn't, but it certainly simplifies the entire topic. Obviously we limit the rights of LOTS of people and classes, an obvious example most would agree with is banning felon's from possessing firearms. The question is, always, whether the ban (whatever it may be) is illegal/unConstitutional, and one way to determine that is to set specific standards for certain cases. These were simply invented by various courts. Loving, and others, decided that race was going to be held to a very high standard, gender usually to a lesser standard. It is simply an easy characterization, which, as you point out, shouldn't really matter to begin with.

I, personally, can't think of a single "class" that shouldn't be allowed to marry another person. Hair color, social status, from Seattle and loves sweetcorn and microbrews, gender, race, sexual orientation...it just doesn't make sense to stop any of it. The only ones left that I can think of would be Incest and Age, but age is entirely taken care of by other things (inability to consent, e.g.).
 
Well, specifically, it doesn't, but it certainly simplifies the entire topic. Obviously we limit the rights of LOTS of people and classes, an obvious example most would agree with is banning felon's from possessing firearms. The question is, always, whether the ban (whatever it may be) is illegal/unConstitutional, and one way to determine that is to set specific standards for certain cases. These were simply invented by various courts. Loving, and others, decided that race was going to be held to a very high standard, gender usually to a lesser standard. It is simply an easy characterization, which, as you point out, shouldn't really matter to begin with.

I, personally, can't think of a single "class" that shouldn't be allowed to marry another person. Hair color, social status, from Seattle and loves sweetcorn and microbrews, gender, race, sexual orientation...it just doesn't make sense to stop any of it. The only ones left that I can think of would be Incest and Age, but age is entirely taken care of by other things (inability to consent, e.g.).
Another good post.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT