Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

Oct 5, 2012 Full story: The Capital-Journal 375

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

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#255 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
if they say what you claim, then its easy....
you cut and paste like I have been doing...

I know why you don't, they don't say anything close to what you think they do...

marriage is not related to procreation, okay, jut show me one supreme court case where they were analyzed independently, you haven't done so and we BOTH know why...

isn't this the place where you deny Baker is a SCOTUS case or some other ignorant stance?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#256 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
.
Baker v. Nelson.

Done.
you do get that all of your tripe was expressly backhanded right?
"These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court

The iinstitution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion."
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#257 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
nope they expressly found they DO NOT NEED TO DO THAT:

"The 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."

All of your points are "reality aside"...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#258 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
it doesn't need to be compelling at all, now tell me why...
rational is all that it needs to be and legitimate at best:

"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that, for the welfare of children, it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of
marriage and its attendant benefits—to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,
long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer
the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex
couples only.
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father. Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
hold."

Yup here is a court saying procreation concerns and providing a mom and dad are rational and legitimate...

no bible, no morality, just social science...

that you are even looking for a "compelling reason" means you have no clue about this stuff...just saying, that's a fact!
Even walker in CA ruled under rational basis...
I am not sure you even get the difference between rational, legitimate and compelling reasons ...do you?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#259 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Baker v. Nelson.
Done.
you do get that all of your tripe was expressly backhanded right?
"These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court
The iinstitution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion."
LOL!!!! WHERE does it say that ONLY fertile couples are allowed to marry, to the exclusion of all others???

Of COURSE is says that fertile couples can marry, why wouldn't they be able to?? But they do NOT say that infertile couples are banned from marrying BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT!

You desperately need a class in basic law and simple logic. You clearly have no clue about either.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#260 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
it doesn't need to be compelling at all, now tell me why...
rational is all that it needs to be and legitimate at best:, blah, blah, copy and paste, I still have no idea what I'm talking about....
Then WHY do we continue to allow infertile couples to marry, couples with children to divorce, and gay couples to have children?

The reason I keep telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about is because you clearly believe that SCOTUS decisions mean whatever you want them to mean, not what legal, judicial, and legislative people understand them to mean.

Despite all your copying and pasting and insisting you're right, the fact remains that we *DON'T* bar infertile couples from marrying, we *DON'T* forcibly divorce couples that don't procreate within a given amount of time, and we *DON'T* ban divorce for people with children.

If the SCOTUS decided what you believe they decided, NONE OF THOSE THINGS would be possible. As long as those things are all possible, your fantasy that the SCOTUS has already banned marriage equality based on the fact that gay couples can't procreate is just that. Fantasy.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#261 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!! WHERE does it say that ONLY fertile couples are allowed to marry, to the exclusion of all others???
Of COURSE is says that fertile couples can marry, why wouldn't they be able to?? But they do NOT say that infertile couples are banned from marrying BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT!
You desperately need a class in basic law and simple logic. You clearly have no clue about either.
yup, they do, just not in my cut and paste but tsince you said you know these decisions:

well here, I dont mind spoonfeeding you:
" 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. "

This is your exact argument is it not?
and the court finds it is bullfloppy:
"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."
theoretically imperfect..that means your exception that some infertile marry, does not negate the rule, marriage rights are based on procreation...

I mean, your EXACT argument was addressed and refuted, there is no "grey" area here...

and again, why no citations or ANYTHING to support yourself?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#262 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Then WHY do we continue to allow infertile couples to marry, couples with children to divorce, and gay couples to have children?
The reason I keep telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about is because you clearly believe that SCOTUS decisions mean whatever you want them to mean, not what legal, judicial, and legislative people understand them to mean.
Despite all your copying and pasting and insisting you're right, the fact remains that we *DON'T* bar infertile couples from marrying, we *DON'T* forcibly divorce couples that don't procreate within a given amount of time, and we *DON'T* ban divorce for people with children.
If the SCOTUS decided what you believe they decided, NONE OF THOSE THINGS would be possible. As long as those things are all possible, your fantasy that the SCOTUS has already banned marriage equality based on the fact that gay couples can't procreate is just that. Fantasy.
actually, all it means is that you never read Baker...
the court didn't fall for your exceptions negate rules junk...
and they wont...

AGAIN, why NO SUPPORT for yourself...
why are you just writing your bare beliefs without ANYTHING of substance to back yourself up?
I know why...

here's more for me
http://www.kylewood.com/familylaw/baker.htm :
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1971)

CASE: Male companions applied for and were denied a marriage license on the grounds that they were of the same sex.

FACTS: Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell made an application for a marriage license with the respondent, who is the clerk of Hennepin County District Court. They were denied a license on the grounds that they were not man and woman, but man and man. The trial court ruled that the respondent was not required to issue a marriage license and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. The couple appealed.

BAKER ARGUES:

The absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages.
The law is unconstitutional because it (a) denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
STATE ARGUES: Probably that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages, that the state has the power to regulate marriage.

COURT SAYS: Affirms the lower court ruling, denying the men a marriage license.

HOLDING: State did not deprive a gay couple of liberty or property without due process or of equal protection when it prohibited them from obtaining a marriage license on the basis of their sex.

RATIONALE:

The legislature did not intend to permit same-sex marriages by not specifically outlawing them, as evidenced by the use of heterosexual words like "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" in the laws it passed governing the instutition.
********The point of marriage is procreation, a fact that is as old as Genesis.******
There is no irrational discrimination against homosexuals because of their classification in the statute, even though the state does not require heterosexual married couples to have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate ("abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment).

"The point of marriage is procreation"
"The point of marriage is procreation"

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#263 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
it doesn't need to be compelling at all, now tell me why...
rational is all that it needs to be and legitimate at best:
"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that, for the welfare of children, it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of
marriage and its attendant benefits—to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,
long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer
the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex
couples only.
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father. Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
hold."
Yup here is a court saying procreation concerns and providing a mom and dad are rational and legitimate...
no bible, no morality, just social science...
that you are even looking for a "compelling reason" means you have no clue about this stuff...just saying, that's a fact!
Even walker in CA ruled under rational basis...
I am not sure you even get the difference between rational, legitimate and compelling reasons ...do you?
In other words, people are baby machines and if a man or woman is sterile, or incapable of birth, he or she should NOT be given a marriage license, since marriage is ONLY for procreation. You make it sound as romantic as a stud horse and brood mare who are only kept to screw for reproduction.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#264 Oct 10, 2012
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, people are baby machines and if a man or woman is sterile, or incapable of birth, he or she should NOT be given a marriage license, since marriage is ONLY for procreation. You make it sound as romantic as a stud horse and brood mare who are only kept to screw for reproduction.
nope, not at all....only that we as society have little reason to foster gay marriages and lots of reasons to foster straights ones, because in general straight couples produce children together and in general (meaning ALWAYS), the gays one don't.

You can keep pretending I am saying procreation is required for marriage but don't consider it debating me...

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#266 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
why aren't gays married in most places?
seems like you do have to be able to procreate, doesn't it?
Well, you stupid sow, name a state where the ability to procreate is a requirement for marriage...
:::crickets chirping::::
Jane Dough wrote:
I mean thats the current law of the SOCTUS isn't it?
exceptions don't negate the rule...
There is no rule.
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Jane Dough wrote:
you want to change that...
fine...
but I don't agree...
its THAT simple...
I am in favor or equal rights.
You are not.
I'm pro American.
You are anti American...
it's THAT simple...

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#267 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you do not want to believe it, but the basis for you being denied marriage rights is procreation...
No, it's bigotry. Pure bigotry.
Jane Dough wrote:
its tough because it indicates you are not the same (no better or worse, but not the same), which you apparently really want to be...
so, some people who like the opposite sex are LGBT (some transgenders)
so if your position is correct, the only reason the exception is not applied to all straights is discrimination?
You don't understand logic.
Jane Dough wrote:
so, is the LGBT a bigoted organization?
or is it possible that we can try to foster one group without it being animus at another?
I would really like an answer, can we FOSTER one group without it being DEROGATORY to those not included?
or is it only with YOUR clubs that this is possible?
I get that LGBT is not exactly the same as a marriage, but to the extent I am asking you about them, they are!
Damn, PLEASE study logic. It's not funny anymore, it's flat out pathetic.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#268 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
REQUIREMENT is false logic...
all rules have excpetions and so nothig is ever 100 %
LGBT is even 100% gay for cripses sake
nothing is "required" of a marriage but a piece of paper...
BS.
You can't already be married.
In some states you have to get a blood test.
In some there are waiting periods.
There are age requirements.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_state...
Jane Dough wrote:
there are however many things we expect from a marriage...
love, commitment, and procreation...
If I were to marry, I'd only expect the first two.
As far as other people's marriages...I tend to my own knitting.
Jane Dough wrote:
none of them are REQUIRED, do you think that means all of these are not related?
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Period.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#269 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, it does. On what basis are you being denied...you say bigotry, I say PROCREATION...
I have a scotus case that supports me, what do you have?
There's a case that says you have to be able to procreate in order to marry?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#270 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Back then...in WI, you could not legally have sex outside of marriage. Now you can. So, the right to procreate no longer implies a right to marriage. Next.
Jane Dough wrote:
so your "no requirement" BS is way off the point...
It is THE point. You say gay marriage should not be recognized because gay couples can't reproduce.
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
You make no sense. Are you sure you're not Brian G?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#271 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, but you cannot ignore that the court specifically found that right to be based (specifically IMPLIED by) our right to procreate...
That was because, way back then, it was only legal to have sex within marriage. And you have to have sex to procreate.
Jane Dough wrote:
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...
Not anymore. It's perfectly legal to have sex outside of marriage in WI now.
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
Give it up.
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#272 Oct 10, 2012
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?
But, the state of WI now allows sexual relations to legally take place outside of marriage. Hello, 21st Century...
So, the right to procreate no longer implies a right to marry.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#273 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, all it means is that you never read Baker...
the court didn't fall for your exceptions negate rules junk...
and they wont...
AGAIN, why NO SUPPORT for yourself...
why are you just writing your bare beliefs without ANYTHING of substance to back yourself up?
I know why...
here's more for me
http://www.kylewood.com/familylaw/baker.htm :
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1971)
CASE: Male companions applied for and were denied a marriage license on the grounds that they were of the same sex.
FACTS: Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell made an application for a marriage license with the respondent, who is the clerk of Hennepin County District Court. They were denied a license on the grounds that they were not man and woman, but man and man. The trial court ruled that the respondent was not required to issue a marriage license and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. The couple appealed.
BAKER ARGUES:
The absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages.
The law is unconstitutional because it (a) denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
STATE ARGUES: Probably that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages, that the state has the power to regulate marriage.
COURT SAYS: Affirms the lower court ruling, denying the men a marriage license.
HOLDING: State did not deprive a gay couple of liberty or property without due process or of equal protection when it prohibited them from obtaining a marriage license on the basis of their sex.
Yes, it did.
The 14th Amendment clearly states all US citizens should get equal protection under the law. It doesn't add, "unless you are men.".
Jane Dough wrote:
<
RATIONALE:
The legislature did not intend to permit same-sex marriages by not specifically outlawing them, as evidenced by the use of heterosexual words like "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" in the laws it passed governing the instutition.
********The point of marriage is procreation, a fact that is as old as Genesis.******
There is no irrational discrimination against homosexuals because of their classification in the statute, even though the state does not require heterosexual married couples to have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate ("abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment).
"The point of marriage is procreation"
"The point of marriage is procreation"
The 14th Amendment clearly states all US citizens should get equal protection under the law.
Why are you against that?
And, sorry, the point of marriage isn't procreation. There are many people who don't procreate, yet still marry.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#274 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
baselessly denying Zablocki is a marriage case just doesn't cut it.
Topix's autofilter does not like the link that was posted, so it removed the post, but here it is:
Zablocki vs Redhail(1978) was about the right to marry......the man had obviously already procreated outside of marriage.........and no matter how you try to put your spin on it......it was only about the right to marry!!!

"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." Id., at 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).[434 U.S. 374, 384]

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." Id., at 486.

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions `relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska,[262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)].'" Id., at 684-685, quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 -153 (1973).

See also Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 -640 (1974)("This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 842 -844 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976). 10 [434 U.S. 374, 386]
It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. 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.
You may go to caselaw.lp.findlaw com in order to see where the information came from

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships.

This is the part you ignore the most!!!
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#275 Oct 10, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it did.
The 14th Amendment clearly states all US citizens should get equal protection under the law. It doesn't add, "unless you are men.".
<quoted text>
The 14th Amendment clearly states all US citizens should get equal protection under the law.
Why are you against that?
And, sorry, the point of marriage isn't procreation. There are many people who don't procreate, yet still marry.
Go get em'.. but he's been proven wrong on his procreation argument by others and still won't give it up. Just so you know it's a waste of time.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 9 min Pietro Armando 5,228
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Brian_G 6,117
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr chris toal 26,961
ACLU sues to allow gay club in Indiana school 2 hr Terre Poot 89
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 2 hr Estelle 219,642
Couples Who Challenged Utah's Gay Marriage Ban ... 3 hr Sir Andrew 4
Add Analog Watch Co. eco-friendly watches to yo... 3 hr stefan 1
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,088
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,596
More from around the web