Arguments against gay marriage echo those heard against racial intermarriage

[straight shooter]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you read the whole reply? It would appear not.
Again, the constitutional question of equal treatment under the law remains open.
Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”
The fear they could get it wrong, remains.

reality is that a court said, "gays were not included in all those 14 cases" and the scotus said, "sure, I'll agree to that.."
Do you dispute this is a very real fact?

Yet here you are insisting a right exists that doesn't...and your argument for getting that right is that you have it...
ie BOOTSTRAPPING...

[NorCal Native]

straight shooter wrote:

<quoted text>
reality is that a court said, "gays were not included in all those 14 cases" and the scotus said, "sure, I'll agree to that.."

Where did the court say, "Gays were not included in all those 14 cases"?

In fact, where in those 14 cases was "GENDER" specifically mentioned?

And before you actually go there......I'm not referring to or getting into that which you think is there, the procreation issue or right.

[straight shooter]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did the court say, "Gays were not included in all those 14 cases"?

Baker v Nelson.
I would research it before repeating the idiocy put forth by others about that case...

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>

In fact, where in those 14 cases was "GENDER" specifically mentioned?
.

nowhere but guess how many of them mention PROCREATION BETWEEN THE SPOUSES...
come on...
guess....

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>

And before you actually go there......I'm not referring to or getting into that which you think is there, the procreation issue or right.

before you go there....your "not mention gender" argument is just plain silly...

[NorCal Native]

straight shooter wrote:

<quoted text>
Baker v Nelson.
I would research it before repeating the idiocy put forth by others about that case...
<quoted text>
nowhere but guess how many of them mention PROCREATION BETWEEN THE SPOUSES...
come on...
guess....
<quoted text>
before you go there....your "not mention gender" argument is just plain silly...

Sorry, but Baker came after many of those cases and NONE of them after have stated that either.....but thanks again for bringing up a case that is not relevant to every marriage ruling!!!

We have already had the discussion that Marriage is a Fundamental right and so is procreation......but NONE of the marriage rulings specifically state that a married couple MUST procreate......and some even state that both are important decisions that we make as adults.

[straight shooter]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but Baker came after many of those cases and NONE of them after have stated that either.....but thanks again for bringing up a case that is not relevant to every marriage ruling!!!
.

yes, BAker would HAVE to come after...
and it did.
see how that would work?
So AFTER the scotus found marriage was fundamental, the court sanctioned a case saying "but not gay marriage"..
that is a FACT.

as is the FACT that baker has been applied recently by the first circuit DOma case to deny a right to gay marriage.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

so the court found no right to gay marriage AT ALL....
"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage"

also, notice the scotus didn't take this case but instead took the one where the court found the opposite?

So did I...

[NorCal Native]

straight shooter wrote:

<quoted text>
yes, BAker would HAVE to come after...
and it did.
see how that would work?
So AFTER the scotus found marriage was fundamental, the court sanctioned a case saying "but not gay marriage"..
that is a FACT.
as is the FACT that baker has been applied recently by the first circuit DOma case to deny a right to gay marriage.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
so the court found no right to gay marriage AT ALL....
"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage"
also, notice the scotus didn't take this case but instead took the one where the court found the opposite?
So did I...

We will see how SCOTUS rules......until then.....I'm really not going to debate this with you because I know you believe that SCOTUS is going to rule in your favor at least with regards to Prop 8......and I don't.....so, well have to wait until June!!!

[NorCal Native]

straight shooter wrote:

as is the FACT that baker has been applied recently by the first circuit DOma case to deny a right to gay marriage.

Well, the right to marry was NOT a question before the First Circuit Court of Appeals and therefore their comments on Baker were very much irrelevant.

In regards to your your comment from SCOTUS with regard to Baker.......they dismissed it.....and it has applied basically no where else......especially with regards to the Prop 8 case:-)

[Hillbilly Ninja]

Homersexuals have a lousy birth rate but their abortion rate is low too. I'm thinkin' it might be even Steven.

[Not Yet Equal]

straight shooter wrote:

<quoted text>
reality is that a court said, "gays were not included in all those 14 cases" and the scotus said, "sure, I'll agree to that.."
Do you dispute this is a very real fact?
Yet here you are insisting a right exists that doesn't...and your argument for getting that right is that you have it...
ie BOOTSTRAPPING...

Yes, I dispute your claim. Cite the source of your quote.

The fundamental right of marriage exists under US law.

The remaining question is whether the Supreme court will agree with the lower courts, that there is no legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny that right to gay couples.

[Not Yet Equal]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but Baker came after many of those cases and NONE of them after have stated that either.....but thanks again for bringing up a case that is not relevant to every marriage ruling!!!
We have already had the discussion that Marriage is a Fundamental right and so is procreation......but NONE of the marriage rulings specifically state that a married couple MUST procreate......and some even state that both are important decisions that we make as adults.

I think "straight" missed the point that some of those cases were decided AFTER Baker, making her statement impossible to be true.

8 of those 14 cases were decided after Baker. Most of them affirmed the government has no business in the private decisions of whether or not to raise a family, and one even made it clear the ability to even have sex is not required for the fundamental right of marriage to remain a right of the individual.

[Not Yet Equal]

Hillbilly Ninja wrote:

Homersexuals have a lousy birth rate but their abortion rate is low too. I'm thinkin' it might be even Steven.

The birth rate is much higher than you seem to think, but because there are no accidental births, the abortion rate is nil.

[Not Yet Equal]

straight shooter wrote:

<quoted text>
yes, BAker would HAVE to come after...
and it did.
see how that would work?
So AFTER the scotus found marriage was fundamental, the court sanctioned a case saying "but not gay marriage"..
that is a FACT.
as is the FACT that baker has been applied recently by the first circuit DOma case to deny a right to gay marriage.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
so the court found no right to gay marriage AT ALL....
"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage"
also, notice the scotus didn't take this case but instead took the one where the court found the opposite?
So did I...

You misrepresent this case as finding against same sex marriage, when in fact it upheld the decision DOMA is unconstitutional.

Without finding a right to same sex marriage, the court still found there was no legitimate governmental interest served by DOMA, upholding the finding it is unconstitutional.

[Cal In AZ]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you read the whole reply? It would appear not.
Again, the constitutional question of equal treatment under the law remains open.
Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”
The fear they could get it wrong, remains.

I cannot think of a more persuasive argument than what Ted Olson David Boise stated, which you have quoted here. If this doesn't persuade a SCOTUS Justice, then NOTHING will.(7-2 I predict for both cases).

[snyper]

straight shooter wrote:

oops *pray...
but its better since most of you would probably seize on that word and then insist I am religious!

I might or might not. It would depend on context.

What I WOULD do (and am now) is point out how colloquial turns of phrase demonstrate how religion can permeate a cultural unconscious, motivating individuals and structuring their presuppositions.

In your case, it's just subtle evidence. of this cultural/historical influence.

Has it made YOU a better person in any way and, through you, improved the culture?

[Stupid Topx Users]

It's exactly the same. Civil Rights... gay rights... it's all the same. Shame black folks r homophobic. U eva seen "Kiss of the Spider Woman", w/ Raul Julia ?

[snyper]

Stupid Topx Users wrote:

It's exactly the same. Civil Rights... gay rights... it's all the same. Shame black folks r homophobic. U eva seen "Kiss of the Spider Woman", w/ Raul Julia ?

Ever see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[John Masters]

I hadn't... though, cool stuff man. Thanks. Raul Julia's "Kiss of the Spider Woman" was absolutely a beautifully made movie.

[straight shooter]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, the right to marry was NOT a question before the First Circuit Court of Appeals and therefore their comments on Baker were very much irrelevant.
In regards to your your comment from SCOTUS with regard to Baker.......they dismissed it.....and it has applied basically no where else......especially with regards to the Prop 8 case:-)

honestly, what you write is just un-knowledgeable, in other words, pure fiction to which no response is required except: read more.

[straight shooter]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
You misrepresent this case as finding against same sex marriage, when in fact it upheld the decision DOMA is unconstitutional.
Without finding a right to same sex marriage, the court still found there was no legitimate governmental interest served by DOMA, upholding the finding it is unconstitutional.

no I didn't, they do so under STATES RIGHTS, which if you thought about it, means the state has the right and theredfore the gays DO NOT...
think about it!

[straight shooter]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I dispute your claim. Cite the source of your quote.
The fundamental right of marriage exists under US law.

yup, but not for polygamists and gays...

my cite is BAKER??????
your "dispute" is just a denial of reality...
in what way does baker not say what I said it does?