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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#276 Oct 10, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm sure you are right. But there might be lurkers.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#277 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.
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"
Problem is, The US Supreme Court never said this. This is from the Minnesota Supreme Court.

That's why it's cited as Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1971). The Minn refers to Minnesota. If it was a US Supreme Court decision, it would cite as "USC".

For those who insist on defining civil marriage solely by the desire or ability to procreate, why should the definition of an institution that creates a legal kinship between two unrelated people be contingent on an attribute that is neither necessary nor sufficient for its legal establishment?

As Scalia stated in Lawrence: "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest'... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."

One of the most conservative justices currently on the court understands that the procreation argument fails.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#278 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Oh, procreation is REQUIRED for marriage, I got it now, you HAVE to give birth when married, or what? Be fined or jailed? Wow. Even in Russia I don't think they are that draconian.

Hey, I LIKE this false "misunderstanding"! It's fun! I see why you guys utilize it so much, it makes for the END of serious debate, for it is impossible to defend or deny to anyone else. Cool. I think I may try this more often.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#279 Oct 10, 2012
To all that has been responding to Jane dough--- He has had enough attention for the day and eventually come out..but unless you enjoy the argument, it's a sad situation and proves no purpose..c/p of court decisions, procreation BS, having to argue to prove that you have rights and then only to have the subject deflected and avoided..I find it belittling, bigoted, ignorant and quite frankly, I don't need to prove my contribution to society to anyone, let alone to some bigot who will never change his opinion. ---Sorry Jane Dough, you give me little hope that this country will progress intellectually. Good luck in your fighting and the hatred you harbor.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#280 Oct 10, 2012
Uve wrote:
To all that has been responding to Jane dough--- He has had enough attention for the day and eventually come out..but unless you enjoy the argument, it's a sad situation and proves no purpose..c/p of court decisions, procreation BS, having to argue to prove that you have rights and then only to have the subject deflected and avoided..I find it belittling, bigoted, ignorant and quite frankly, I don't need to prove my contribution to society to anyone, let alone to some bigot who will never change his opinion.---Sorry Jane Dough, you give me little hope that this country will progress intellectually. Good luck in your fighting and the hatred you harbor.
You are absolutely correct......folks like Jane Dough don't care about the Constitution or the right to have our marriages treated equal to other legal marriages........they want to continue with the Status Quo, which is to continue treating Gay and Lesbian couples and their families as something less than heterosexual couples and families.

Let's fight to overturn DOMA and to get Marriage Equality in a few more States:-)

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#281 Oct 10, 2012
Uve wrote:
To all that has been responding to Jane dough--- He has had enough attention for the day and eventually come out..but unless you enjoy the argument, it's a sad situation and proves no purpose..c/p of court decisions, procreation BS, having to argue to prove that you have rights and then only to have the subject deflected and avoided..I find it belittling, bigoted, ignorant and quite frankly, I don't need to prove my contribution to society to anyone, let alone to some bigot who will never change his opinion.---Sorry Jane Dough, you give me little hope that this country will progress intellectually. Good luck in your fighting and the hatred you harbor.
You are right, of course, about the notion that citizens shouldn't have to prove themselves "worthy" of exercising a right or participating in a civil institution in the absence of any compelling state interest that would exclude them.

The other disturbing element of such a claim is that it turns the relationship of the citizen and the state on its head. Contrary to the implications of the "procreation argument," in a constitutional republic, citizens don't exist to benefit the state; the state exists to protect the rights of citizens. And in a secular constitutional republic with guarantees of equal protection of the law and minority rights, it takes a compelling governmental reason to deny a citizen's rights, whether it's the right to free speech, religion, press, or the right to travel, keep one's privacy, or obtain a civil marriage.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#282 Oct 11, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
you don't see it in a list with PROCREATION?

Its on the same level as they say ONE IMPLIES THE OTHER...
you cannot pull that line out of the decision, they expressly state, procreation implies the right to marry, and so, yes, they are on the same level...

now, does our procreational right implying a right to marry mean that it is required to procreate to marry?

nope.only that our "fundamental right" to marry is based on procreation.

that's why that argument is bad.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#283 Oct 11, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is, The US Supreme Court never said this. This is from the Minnesota Supreme Court.
That's why it's cited as Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1971). The Minn refers to Minnesota. If it was a US Supreme Court decision, it would cite as "USC".
How about you google the case, learn what MANDATORY REVIEW is and apologize?
I know you won't so HERE from wiki:
"Baker and McConnell appealed the Minnesota court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they claimed the Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[12] On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."[13]
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]"

Its the seminal case banning gay marriage and you are like the 20th person who doesn't know of its existence...

your side uses its ignorance as a weapon!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#284 Oct 11, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are absolutely correct......folks like Jane Dough don't care about the Constitution or the right to have our marriages treated equal to other legal marriages........they want to continue with the Status Quo, which is to continue treating Gay and Lesbian couples and their families as something less than heterosexual couples and families.
Let's fight to overturn DOMA and to get Marriage Equality in a few more States:-)
psst, remember like a week ago when you said you know i know this stuff better?

I guess you feel different today?

I know conlaw very well...
you will see what i have written here again, you will just refuse to understand and think it feels more like bigotry...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#285 Oct 11, 2012
Uve wrote:
To all that has been responding to Jane dough--- He has had enough attention for the day and eventually come out..but unless you enjoy the argument, it's a sad situation and proves no purpose..c/p of court decisions, procreation BS, having to argue to prove that you have rights and then only to have the subject deflected and avoided..I find it belittling, bigoted, ignorant and quite frankly, I don't need to prove my contribution to society to anyone, let alone to some bigot who will never change his opinion.---Sorry Jane Dough, you give me little hope that this country will progress intellectually. Good luck in your fighting and the hatred you harbor.
I would appreciate if you didn't respond...

you use your ignorance as a weapon...like deeming me a bigot because I argue the constitutional law here...
all you guys have done is denied the legal reality here...but I have confidence you will see it again. I also have confidence you won;t understand even when its all over for you...

in short, your sense of entitlement overshadows your willingness to learn about the rights you claim are owed to you...

but again, do feel free to ignore me, you really haven't addressed me anyway...
you guys just level personal attacks anyway...
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#286 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
you guys just level personal attacks anyway...
THAT is funny!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#287 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I would appreciate if you didn't respond...
you use your ignorance as a weapon...like deeming me a bigot because I argue the constitutional law here...
all you guys have done is denied the legal reality here...but I have confidence you will see it again. I also have confidence you won;t understand even when its all over for you...
in short, your sense of entitlement overshadows your willingness to learn about the rights you claim are owed to you...
but again, do feel free to ignore me, you really haven't addressed me anyway...
you guys just level personal attacks anyway...
If you WERE ignored, whom would you rant at all day? I note that some of the others, also unregistered, are losing interest for we have stopped giving them the fuel they need, attention.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#288 Oct 11, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
THAT is funny!
and you think you don't?

I'll just point them out all day, i don't mind...
Oh...actually, this is one of just a personal attack with no substance...

ONE!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#289 Oct 11, 2012
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>If you WERE ignored, whom would you rant at all day? I note that some of the others, also unregistered, are losing interest for we have stopped giving them the fuel they need, attention.
nope. We lose interest because we are looking for an intelligent debate on the law and you guys turn it into Jerry Springer...

Mona and Rose attack like bulldogs and it makes it not worth people's time...
but I have time, i am in the office long hours and I am on hold a lot.

So, like I said feel free to ignore me....another "not yet equal" or someone like"snyper" who can refrain from childishness will come along...
and the peanut gallery of Mona and Rose is obsessed with me, so plenty to respond to...

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#290 Oct 11, 2012
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>If you WERE ignored, whom would you rant at all day? I note that some of the others, also unregistered, are losing interest for we have stopped giving them the fuel they need, attention.
At the very least if people are going to respond to "JD", in your response delete the "Troll Trash" so that the BS doesn't get reposted.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#291 Oct 11, 2012
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
At the very least if people are going to respond to "JD", in your response delete the "Troll Trash" so that the BS doesn't get reposted.
yes, be sure to work together to maintain the illusion....

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#292 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>

..
You mean like that?
Cletus

United States

#293 Oct 11, 2012
I wish the homosexuals would stop having sex with children.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#294 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't see it in a list with PROCREATION?
Its on the same level as they say ONE IMPLIES THE OTHER...
you cannot pull that line out of the decision, they expressly state, procreation implies the right to marry, and so, yes, they are on the same level...
now, does our procreational right implying a right to marry mean that it is required to procreate to marry?
nope.only that our "fundamental right" to marry is based on procreation.
that's why that argument is bad.
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Why can't you get that through your thick skull?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#295 Oct 11, 2012
Uve wrote:
To all that has been responding to Jane dough--- He has had enough attention for the day and eventually come out..but unless you enjoy the argument, it's a sad situation and proves no purpose..c/p of court decisions, procreation BS, having to argue to prove that you have rights and then only to have the subject deflected and avoided..I find it belittling, bigoted, ignorant and quite frankly, I don't need to prove my contribution to society to anyone, let alone to some bigot who will never change his opinion.---Sorry Jane Dough, you give me little hope that this country will progress intellectually. Good luck in your fighting and the hatred you harbor.
Yes, I know Jane just wants attention. So, he will get it. I figure it's better that he gets it here than by shooting up a mall or something.

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
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 5 min WeTheSheeple 919
Drag queens dress down Facebook over names 7 min MJP 6
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 11 min uther pendragon 1,404
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 16 min take a number 200,967
Chattanooga voters repeal civil rights for LGBT... 22 min Tre H 95
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 32 min Pastor Ssempa Da ... 55,922
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 33 min WeTheSheeple 784
Web filter lifts block on gay sitesWeb filter l... 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 38
Ginsburg: Watch 6th Circuit on gay marriage 5 hr Fa-Foxy 64
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••