Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

Oct 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Capital-Journal

In this March 8, 2012 file phoo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn.

Comments (Page 12)

Showing posts 221 - 240 of375
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#235
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

Keep dreaming, hon. We're not as stupid as you think we are.
Apparently, butch, you are!
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#236
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
"end of conversation"?
Oh,. you meant that instead of reading any of the cases you wont discuss it with me anymore...
good, then keep your word and STFU.
It's not me who's not reading Asstroll. You need to take your own F'ng advice and STFU

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#237
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
sure, then just post the SCOTUS marriage case that discusses marriage and doesn't mention procreation..
I'll wait.
Or how about you comment on this one:
"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
Explain how the SCOTUS in 1978 found the right to procreate IMPLIED a right to marry?
" if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to [marry].
whats that quote you guys love from Loving, oh right its actually from Skinner v Oklahoma a forced STRILIZATION case...wait...why would they discuss MARRIAGE in a case about STERILIZATION?
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
It doesn't say marriage OR procreation does it?
So, every case that discusses marriage discussed procreation....that proves they are linked...where's your support that they are not linked?
is it that ther eis no RREQUIREMENT to porcrete?
been there, done that:
"he equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
it also explains why it is not constitutional to do what you suggested to procreators...
how could you have read these cases and be so far off base?
If you are going to continue to quote from the Zablocki v. Redhail(1978)......it wasn't about procreation and marriage, but about the right to marry for a man who had previously had a child from a previous relationship, failed to pay court ordered child support and was denied the right to marry......which SCOTUS found violated the man's FUNDAMENTAL right to marry.

Chief Justice Burger joined with Justice Marshall's opinion, and concurred separately to note that the Wisconsin statute was an "intentional and substantial interference with the right to marry",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablocki_v._Redh...

And Griswold vs Connecticut is about a woman's right to decide when she wants to procreate......in other words, a married woman has the right to use birth control with regards to procreation!!!

And IMPLYING that procreation goes hand in hand with marriage is NOT the same thing as THEY DO GO HAND IN HAND........otherwise, a couple would need a marriage license before procreating.....and they don't!!!
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#238
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what, you mean people have kids outside of marriage?
WOW what a whopper....wonder why none of the SCOTUS justices knew that...
or maybe its not relevant to the point being made?
(in reality that's what it is, not that the justices are ignorant of a basic fact.)
If you want to pretend all opposition is based in bigotry, fine, but do you really expect me or anyone who HAS read the scotus cases to believe that?
Oh FINALLY a date on the case your touting..1978! Get a life grandpa..But wait, maybe you'll get another corporate republican't who'll stack the supreme court with judges that have that same backward viewpoint as you do!
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not me who's not reading Asstroll. You need to take your own F'ng advice and STFU
I thought you ended the conversation...

so, where's your scotus case that discusses marriage and NOT procreation?

I'll wait...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#240
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
says you.
Why not quote me a supreme court case that discusses marriage and NOT procreation?
because you can't?
explain bans on marriage between close relatives...
why would we have procreation concerns at the time of marriage if procreation was not implied by marriage?
you position they are not related is based on your feelings and your ignorance.
Again, do your own research.

Laws don't "imply" things. Laws won't work that way.

If marriage and procreation are somehow related, please explain to use why we don't require fertility testing before a couple can get a marriage license?

Why do we allow infertile couples to marry if the sole purpose of marriage is to support procreation?

Do you not consider a couple "really" married until they have children together?? If their marriage somehow "less than" a couple that has children together?

And why do we allow divorce between couples that have children together? Shouldn't that be illegal if marriage and procreation are somehow linked?

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#241
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you are a big strong man using your real name, except not your last name, that would be stupid...
do i have that right?
and your sex is supposed to be evident by this name?
and for the last time, I use ONLY ONE NAME...
I mean, how many other posters abuse ellipsis like me.....
...
...
but yes, i agree those tat use multiple names suck, and they are on BOTH SIDES of this...
Fox news? Come on, now your just throwing wild punches at the sky...
...
Some of these chat sites demand registering, for obvious reasons. I wish Topix did. It would cut down the flack and fakers hugely. It would also cut down on the extreme language and rancor and possibly people who WANTED to actually discuss somethings more room and less grade school virtual graffiti.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#242
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to continue to quote from the Zablocki v. Redhail(1978)......it wasn't about procreation and marriage, but about the right to marry for a man who had previously had a child from a previous relationship, failed to pay court ordered child support and was denied the right to marry......which SCOTUS found violated the man's FUNDAMENTAL right to marry.
Chief Justice Burger joined with Justice Marshall's opinion, and concurred separately to note that the Wisconsin statute was an "intentional and substantial interference with the right to marry",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablocki_v._Redh...
And Griswold vs Connecticut is about a woman's right to decide when she wants to procreate......in other words, a married woman has the right to use birth control with regards to procreation!!!
And IMPLYING that procreation goes hand in hand with marriage is NOT the same thing as THEY DO GO HAND IN HAND........otherwise, a couple would need a marriage license before procreating.....and they don't!!!
yes, but you cannot ignore that the court specifically found that right to be based (specifically IMPLIED by) our right to procreate...

yes, our right to procreate includes a right not to procreate in amarital setting...
so what?

"And IMPLYING that procreation goes hand in hand with marriage is NOT the same thing as THEY DO GO HAND IN HAND"

this is nonsense...the court did not imply they go hand in hand, the court expressly stated that the right to procreate IMPLIED (i.e supports) a right to marry...

a declaration that procreation is not required has no effect on this analysis as we have aright not to procreate...

how can you not see that we do NOT have a right to be free FROM GOVT that applies directly to a GOVT ISSUED license...

you need to find a PRIVACY right...
PUBLIC RECOGNITION is not a PRIVACY RIGHT..
procreation is...

so procreation provides the privacy right for straights, what is the privacy right for gays?

baselessly denying Zablocki is a marriage case just doesn't cut it.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#243
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, do your own research.
Laws don't "imply" things. Laws won't work that way.
If marriage and procreation are somehow related, please explain to use why we don't require fertility testing before a couple can get a marriage license?
Why do we allow infertile couples to marry if the sole purpose of marriage is to support procreation?
Do you not consider a couple "really" married until they have children together?? If their marriage somehow "less than" a couple that has children together?
And why do we allow divorce between couples that have children together? Shouldn't that be illegal if marriage and procreation are somehow linked?
How about those pesky senior citizens who marry late in life? If that 65 year old widow cannot give birth, then NO MARRIAGE for her! Let her sit home alone! The very idea, getting married and not reproducing!

Are we talking about humans or brood hens here? Many people don't have children, despite being precious heteros!
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#244
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, do your own research.
Laws don't "imply" things. Laws won't work that way.
Funny thats exactly what the SUPRME COURT said...
and you merely deny they said it..
noy a very good position..

Here it is again:

"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

so are you denying the court said this?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#245
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
You just typed out the same argument in a longer form...
no, its not REQUIRED...nor is LOVE..are you suggesting love has nothing to do within marriage?
So, our SCOTUS has discussed marriage along WITH procreation for over 100 years....how do you explain that because bigotry over gay marriage doesn't cut it...
Have you read the SOCTUS marriage cases?
find one that doesn't have the word procreation...
further, here is one from 1974:
http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt...
"As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. Wade, supra, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 430 U. S. 768-770, and n. 13 (1977); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 406 U. S. 175-176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
What you miss is that our right to privacy extends to having kids, but not directly to GOVT RECOGNITION, since it by definition is not being free from govt to request a GOVT ISSUED LICENSE...
So our right to procreate (which is a privacy issue) IMPLIES a right to marry...
so your "no requirement" BS is way off the point...
In short, you do not have a freedom from government to a GOVT ISSUED LICENSE...
but notice there is no birth LICENSE...
That you believe procreation was invented solely to deny you is a product of your ignorance, not the bigotry of others.
HOW OBTUSE CAN YOU BE!!! Yes, I was shouting.

I will attempt to break down your argument to its simplest form so you will have the ability to follow it and try to understand it.

Your argument is that gays and lesbians can, and should, be denied the right to civilly marry because same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate as a couple.

Yes or no, is this the premise of your argument?

If it is, please show us even one case or law where the inability to procreate is a bar to marriage. Please show where your standard to deny marriage has been, or could be applied to anyone but the plaintiffs.(If you only apply the standard to the plaintiffs, same-sex couples, then your argument fails as an animus towards same-sex couples. To be legally valid, the standard must be equally applied to all.)
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#246
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh FINALLY a date on the case your touting..1978! Get a life grandpa..But wait, maybe you'll get another corporate republican't who'll stack the supreme court with judges that have that same backward viewpoint as you do!
so your position is that the case is too old?

psst, loving, the case you guys just seem to drool over is OLDER...

do you catch how I am citing from the scotus cases language that specifically supports me and you are not?

Why do you think that is?
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you ended the conversation...
so, where's your scotus case that discusses marriage and NOT procreation?
I'll wait...
I did, but your insults p*ssed me off..to quote YOU -'if you want to converse with me fully, stop your childish insults'...Wait all you want, but I'm not answering sh*t until you can answer me!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>....Or how about you comment on this one: "Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child.... blah, blah, blah, blah, Supreme Court, blah, blah, I have no idea what I'm talking about, blah, blah, blahbiddy, blah....
Good for you! You can Google Supreme Court cases that mention marriage and procreation.

But you still CLEARLY have almost no understanding of law or even basic logic.

Even if they ARE saying that a right to marriage is based on a couple's ability to procreate (they're not, but even if they are....), they're NOT saying that the reverse is true, are they?

They're NOT saying that only couples that can procreate together can marry.

Logical arguments don't automatically work both directions and neither do legal arguments.

Here's a test.

Premise: People with red hair have the right to marry.
Conclusion: People with blond hair do NOT have the right to marry.

Does the conclusion follow the premise? Nope! Because there was nothing in the premise that said that non-redheads were barred from marrying or that marriage is the exclusive privilege of redheads, only that redheads were definitely eligible.

It's the same with your empty procreation=marriage argument. Just because people that CAN procreate have the right to marry, it doesn't logically follow that people that can't procreate don't.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thats exactly what the SUPRME COURT said...
and you merely deny they said it..
noy a very good position..
Here it is again:
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
so are you denying the court said this?
Not at all. I'm telling you that your backwards interpretation of it is wrong.

AGAIN... even if they ARE saying that procreation is the basis of the right to enter into marriage, they're *NOT* saying that ONLY people that can procreate together can marry.

I know you wish that's what they were saying, but they're not.

Find me a Supreme Court decision that indicates that only fertile couples with the intention of procreating are eligible to marry and you might have an argument. You don't because they didn't because that's not what the law says.

Face it. You're just flat-out wrong about this. But, by all means, keep arguing. You're giving me much entertainment as I wait for accounting reports to generate on our server.....
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

They're NOT saying that only couples that can procreate together can marry.
psst in baker v nelson that is exactly what they found...

wow...talk about having no basis in law...

no legitimate interest in denying marriage on hair color (or skin color), but as to procreators/non procreators, its a completely rational distinction...
...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
I did, but your insults p*ssed me off..to quote YOU -'if you want to converse with me fully, stop your childish insults'...Wait all you want, but I'm not answering sh*t until you can answer me!
so you got mad I insulted you back after asking you to stop insulting me and you didnt?
do i have that right?

forget all that junk...what is your question?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#252
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so your position is that the case is too old?
psst, loving, the case you guys just seem to drool over is OLDER...
do you catch how I am citing from the scotus cases language that specifically supports me and you are not?
Why do you think that is?
Because you're proven to use that you have no comprehension of Supreme Court decisions to begin with, so why should we try to use them as a tool with you?

Your interpretations of SCOTUS decisions are so far off that there's simply no point in pursuing them with you.

We're trying to use a far more basic logic with you. Of course, that's not working, either, since you don't seem to have the ability to process what we're saying anyway....

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253
Oct 10, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
psst in baker v nelson that is exactly what they found...
wow...talk about having no basis in law...
no legitimate interest in denying marriage on hair color (or skin color), but as to procreators/non procreators, its a completely rational distinction...
...
Nope. You're still wrong. If that's what they had decided, they would have effectively barred ALL infertile couples from the right marry. They didn't do that, did they? Does any state require fertility testing before they issue a marriage license?

And, please, do tell! What't the "compelling government interest" in denying marriage licenses for infertile couples?? And why do you only seek to apply that denial to gay couples and not the millions of straight couples that are equally incapable of procreating together?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

Your interpretations of SCOTUS decisions are so far off that there's simply no point in pursuing them with you.
.
sure, just provide some support for what you are saying...so far you have provided NONE...
I know why...

One thing I can tell you bud, i know this stuff very well, and you do not...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 221 - 240 of375
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••