Arguments against gay marriage echo those heard against racial intermarriage

Jan 6, 2013 Full story: www.courier-journal.com 138

When Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Pike County, Ky., voted last year to bar interracial couples as members, the condemnation was swift and universal: The head of the county ministers association said, "This is not the spirit of the community in any way, shape or form."

Full Story
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#84 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
some poster on this board changed their name in yet another pathetic attempt to bully me, can anyone guess who that fraudulent liar is?
actions speak louder than words, right?
Tell Jane/Mona....
Can you say "special pleading fallacy?" I know you can.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#85 Jan 8, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Honey, no one needs my interpretations. Your posts are here for anyone to read. And it doesn't take a law degree to see that you are a fraud.
Yes, as are yours...
What part of reality making what you say silly do you miss over a thousand times?

You are not a man....

but since you are, what effect does my claiming you are not, really have?
NONE?

Same as yours...

But I do love how you feel I am so important that you would write OVER A THOUSAND TIMES I am not a lawyer...
in that way, I own you...
:)

What are you going to do tomorrow?

Depends on what I do..
see how that works?
(ring)
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#86 Jan 8, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you say "special pleading fallacy?" I know you can.
be proud of your childish bullchip, I mean that's all you have isn't it?

I wouldn't let you carry my briefcase....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#87 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I do love to argue...
you are right about everything you wrote...
but Mona/Jane DoDo is just a stupid troll...
as to your "argument", thankfully you always make one, you do have to admit that you get backed into a corner of declaring gay marriage a right when you know that is not necessarily the case....
I mean, in the end, don't you have some trepidation that the court will rule exactly as you deny is the case here?
and what will you do then?
declare the court bigoted and argue on, just as you would accuse me of doing, right?
I don't declare "gay marriage" is a fundamental right.

I demonstrate marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed on 14 occasions by the Supreme Court.

I also admit the remaining question is; are gay people "persons" entitled to equal treatment under the constitution, or are they not.

I am also fully aware they could get it wrong, as they have so many times in the past when they upheld discrimination as legal, based on a tradition of prejudice and discrimination, only to overturn themselves at a later point in time.

So yes, having lived my entire life with the equal treatment under the law as promised by our founding documents and constitution debated and denied, I have some trepidation, especially knowing that for Scalia, a tradition of prejudice is enough to continue harming others needlessly.

And while I will avoid the word "bigoted", if they find an excuse to deny equality, I will be able to demonstrate how that decision is based on prejudice rather than the constitutional requirement of equal treatment of "all persons".

Hopefully they will get it right this time. All gay people in the US who have died, lived their entire lives never knowing the full equal treatment under the law promised to them by our constitution. I fear that I will be one more. While you are arguing for the sake of argument, we are still fighting for our lives.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#88 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't declare "gay marriage" is a fundamental right.
I demonstrate marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed on 14 occasions by the Supreme Court.
ignoring that the courts have not found gay marriage to be one recently, or that the SCOTUS specifically found gay marriage is not one...
be honest, you have to know this is a very weak spot for you...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#89 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

And while I will avoid the word "bigoted", if they find an excuse to deny equality, I will be able to demonstrate how that decision is based on prejudice rather than the constitutional requirement of equal treatment of "all persons".
and so even if the high court finds it, you will NEVER change your mind?

Didn't you accuse ME of exactly that?

You need to fathom that you are wrong...
Honestly I do fathom that i could be wrong, and if the scotus finds so, I will abide as I did with Obama care...
But you should ask yourself how much you are like those you claim to despise....
you believe what you believe and no science law or logic will convince you otherwise....just as you claimed I am....

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#90 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
ignoring that the courts have not found gay marriage to be one recently, or that the SCOTUS specifically found gay marriage is not one...
be honest, you have to know this is a very weak spot for you...
This response clearly demonstrates your dubious legal qualifications.

Not Yet Equal clearly states that "Gay Marriage" is not a fundamental right. Just as "Interracial Marriage" is not a fundamental right.

But here's the kicker. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. Not Yet Equal clearly states this. SCOTUS has clearly stated this. And as a fundamental right, the government must show a compelling state interest to deny that right to its citizens.

The court will never find that "Gay Marriage" is a fundamental right. What it could (should) find is that MARRIAGE is a fundamental right and individuals cannot be denied access to that right based upon the gender of their intended spouse. SCOTUS did not find "Interracial Marriage" as a fundamental right. It found that individuals could not be denied access to that right based upon the race of their intended spouse.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#91 Jan 8, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
This response clearly demonstrates your dubious legal qualifications.
no, it doesn't. It speaks to yours...
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>

Not Yet Equal clearly states that "Gay Marriage" is not a fundamental right. Just as "Interracial Marriage" is not a fundamental right.
But here's the kicker. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. Not Yet Equal clearly states this. SCOTUS has clearly stated this. And as a fundamental right, the government must show a compelling state interest to deny that right to its citizens.
The court will never find that "Gay Marriage" is a fundamental right. What it could (should) find is that MARRIAGE is a fundamental right and individuals cannot be denied access to that right based upon the gender of their intended spouse. SCOTUS did not find "Interracial Marriage" as a fundamental right. It found that individuals could not be denied access to that right based upon the race of their intended spouse.
and this is all not correct at all....

lets ask Kagan?
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/kagan-there-...

your word games are just that and while the suffice or even sound great on a message board, they are not legal arguments at all, just mere semantics...

What does Baker hold?
You can claim Baker is not a scotus precedent, but then you'd just be ignorant....

from the first circuit in Gill:
"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."

"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."
"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 I know what NYE said, she is just very WRONG!

There is gay marriage and straight marriage, one is constitutionally protected, the other doesn't exist....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#92 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
ignoring that the courts have not found gay marriage to be one recently, or that the SCOTUS specifically found gay marriage is not one...
be honest, you have to know this is a very weak spot for you...
SCOTUS has never heard arguments, and this court has never directly considered the issue.

While lower courts have not specifically declared marriage a fundamental right for gay people, they have upheld marriage equality, showing there is no rational reason to deny equal treatment as required by the 5th and 14th amendments.

But again, I am also fully aware they could get it wrong, as they have so many times in the past when they upheld discrimination as legal, based on a tradition of prejudice and discrimination, only to overturn themselves at a later point in time.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#93 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has never heard arguments, and this court has never directly considered the issue.
and what prey tell is the legal significance of that?

NOTHING?

"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."
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#94 Jan 8, 2013
oops *pray...
but its better since most of you would probably seize on that word and then insist I am religious!

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#95 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and so even if the high court finds it, you will NEVER change your mind?
Didn't you accuse ME of exactly that?
You need to fathom that you are wrong...
Honestly I do fathom that i could be wrong, and if the scotus finds so, I will abide as I did with Obama care...
But you should ask yourself how much you are like those you claim to despise....
you believe what you believe and no science law or logic will convince you otherwise....just as you claimed I am....
We are not talking about Obamacare, student loans, or other issues.

We are talking about an institution that has been affirmed as a fundamental right of the individual on 14 separate occasions. The question is not is marriage a fundamental right.

The question is; can a fundamental right be denied to a segment of the population based on a tradition of irrational prejudice and discrimination.

If you had science, law, or logic on your side, I would have to re-examine my position. Fortunately, you have nothing but a tradition of discrimination based on an irrational though historic prejudice.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#96 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not talking about Obamacare, student loans, or other issues.
We are talking about an institution that has been affirmed as a fundamental right of the individual on 14 separate occasions. The question is not is marriage a fundamental right.
The question is; can a fundamental right be denied to a segment of the population based on a tradition of irrational prejudice
its a loaded question that is garbage in garbage out...

The fundamental right has been based on procreation in all 14 cases...
and the court found that it DID NOT APPLY to gays...
that's a FACT.
one you refuse to grasp.

Baker does not resolve our...you get the jist....
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

If you had science, law, or logic on your side, I would have to re-examine my position.
When you refuse to accept any science, any ruling of the high court or that you do not have a federal right to anything, where does that leave you?
right where you are....
lost.

In short, when you admit you will not accept as scotus ruling as valid law, you are just being pig headed like you claimed I was...
before you accuse me....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#97 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and what prey tell is the legal significance of that?
NOTHING?
"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."
And yet they found gay people did have the right to marry, even with Baker preventing them from declaring it a constitutional right.

Again, SCOTUS has never held a hearing on marriage equality for gay people, and the court as well as other laws have changed considerably since Baker.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#98 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
no, it doesn't. It speaks to yours...
<quoted text>
and this is all not correct at all....
lets ask Kagan?
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/kagan-there-...
your word games are just that and while the suffice or even sound great on a message board, they are not legal arguments at all, just mere semantics...
What does Baker hold?
You can claim Baker is not a scotus precedent, but then you'd just be ignorant....
from the first circuit in Gill:
"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."
"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."
"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 I know what NYE said, she is just very WRONG!
There is gay marriage and straight marriage, one is constitutionally protected, the other doesn't exist....
And again, they found gay people did have the right to marry, even with Baker preventing them from declaring it a constitutional right.

How can you possible say marriage doesn't exist for gay people when thousands have been getting married and their marriages are recognized by 10 states and several other countries? Clearly marriage equality for gay people is a reality in many jurisdictions. This is recognized by many courts including the courts that have led to the two cases that will soon be considered by the Supreme's.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#99 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
its a loaded question that is garbage in garbage out...
The fundamental right has been based on procreation in all 14 cases...
and the court found that it DID NOT APPLY to gays...
that's a FACT.
one you refuse to grasp.
Baker does not resolve our...you get the jist....
<quoted text>
When you refuse to accept any science, any ruling of the high court or that you do not have a federal right to anything, where does that leave you?
right where you are....
lost.
In short, when you admit you will not accept as scotus ruling as valid law, you are just being pig headed like you claimed I was...
before you accuse me....
Wrong.

Procreation was not the determining factor in those 14 cases, and some of those cases specifically recognized marriage remains a fundamental right even when procreation is impossible. Procreation ability or intent has never been a legal requirement for marriage.

Baker was decided at a time when sex for gay people was still illegal in Minn. That has changed. SCOTUS now says you cannot use the law to punish gay people simply for being gay like you could at the time of Baker. While only they can overrule Baker, the legal ground upon which it was found has changed significantly.

I never said I wouldn't accept science. I said there is none to support anti-gay prejudice and discrimination. There is no basis on which to deny equal treatment other than irrational prejudice and a tradition of discrimination.

And again, the problem with accepting a ruling that relies on a tradition of prejudice and discrimination is that other rulings in the past that used that rationale have been subsequently found to be wrong and have been overturned. I remember and did not accept Bowers, as it relied on prejudice, and was eventually overturned by Lawrence. So have many other decisions when they upheld discrimination as legal, based on a tradition of prejudice and discrimination. Have you not seen the list?

There is no rational or scientific justification for denial of equal treatment under the law. If they overturn the lower courts and find an excuse to deny equality, it will rely on a tradition of prejudice and discrimination. While they have sometimes accepted that in the past, prejudice and discrimination are not valid reasons to deny equal treatment under the law.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#100 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

How can you possible say marriage doesn't exist for gay people when thousands have been getting married and their marriages are recognized by 10 states and several other countries?
Easy, I'm not, but like polygamy exists y it is not a relationship we are required to recognize under the US constitution...

You do declare it to be a fundamental right yet most of the courts do not agree with you, and to do so is a bootstrapping argument....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#101 Jan 10, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy, I'm not, but like polygamy exists y it is not a relationship we are required to recognize under the US constitution...
You do declare it to be a fundamental right yet most of the courts do not agree with you, and to do so is a bootstrapping argument....
Unlike polygamy, treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect is now the law in many parts of the US.

The constitutional question of equal treatment under the law remains open. We know marriage is a fundamental right.

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.”
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#102 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
We know marriage is a fundamental right.
.”
interesting. so what was all that talk about fear of the scotus review of prop 8?

You BS'd way too soon...
and we both know it...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#103 Jan 10, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
interesting. so what was all that talk about fear of the scotus review of prop 8?
You BS'd way too soon...
and we both know it...
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.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Louisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thomas Clay Jr. (Apr '14) 1 hr hereyougo 4
Dana "Soserious" Cox. ..... (Jun '14) 1 hr Say_it_aint_true 7
KFC yum! center 3 hr ForumCommando 15
Tymberwood trace apts 6 hr mudslinger 3
Review: Allen's Moves Are Us (Jul '09) 22 hr givemeabreak 14
white girls or miexed Tue JCM 1
Mr. T Tue Hewasborninchicago 2
Louisville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Louisville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Louisville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Louisville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:47 pm PST

NFL 1:47PM
One Preview: Passing and rushing yardage leaders meet in Big D
NBC Sports 2:30 PM
Manziel looking for better showing in second start - NBC Sports
Yahoo! Sports 3:51 PM
Luck trying to work out issues before playoffs
Bleacher Report 5:47 PM
Denver Broncos vs. Cincinnati Bengals Betting Odds, Analysis, NFL Pick
Bleacher Report 5:55 PM
Indianapolis Colts vs. Dallas Cowboys Betting Odds, Analysis, NFL Pick