Chicago Bans, and Gets Sued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]

So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]

So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]

How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]

How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]

I found this:

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

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 ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/quote]

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say right, only the Chief Justice does. So, again I’m not sure how the 14th Amendment gives persons the right to get married, it clearly states “privileges” which are different than rights.

82

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]

So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]

So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]

How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]

How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]
14th amendment. [/quote]

How does the 14th Amendment give individuals the right to marry?[/quote]
It was used to defend interracial marriage. The state couldn’t deny the right to get married based on race. [/quote]

Yes, it was used to defend interracial marriage. I’m still not sure how the 14th Amendment gives anyone the right to marry. Please explain this? Because you’ve yet to explain that there is a right to marry in the first place.[/quote]

Yeah the 14th Amendment crap is weak.

Lumping gay marriage into this is a non-sequitur…

83

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deal? If we put it up to popular vote can both sides promise to take the results and STFU? Such a tired non-issue that is never going to have pro/con find middle ground.[/quote]

Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice. [/quote]

I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.

[/quote]
Then change it to miscegenation. [/quote]

I like how you ignore the rest of my post, particularly the last part.

Remember, I’m coming from a position of agreeing with you. So I’ll ask again:

If democracy isn’t the answer, what is your solution to the issue?

[/quote]

Well if we keep bringing up slavery I guess civil war is the solution when democracy fails? But since the north had twice as many people and won I think we are back to democracy yet again.

84

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]

So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]

So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]

How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]

How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]

I found this:

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

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 ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/quote]

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say right, only the Chief Justice does. So, again I’m not sure how the 14th Amendment gives persons the right to get married, it clearly states “privileges” which are different than rights.[/quote]
Given that it is he who interprets the laws I would say that his opinion means more than ours.

85

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]

So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]

So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]

How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]

How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]

I found this:

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

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 ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/quote]

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say right, only the Chief Justice does. So, again I’m not sure how the 14th Amendment gives persons the right to get married, it clearly states “privileges” which are different than rights.[/quote]
Given that it is he who interprets the laws I would say that his opinion means more than ours. [/quote]

But that is only so because Justice Marshall claimed it to be so.

The SCOTUS is chief interpreter supreme because the SCOTUS claims it to be so.

I dunno, sounds fishy to me.

86

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deal? If we put it up to popular vote can both sides promise to take the results and STFU? Such a tired non-issue that is never going to have pro/con find middle ground.[/quote]

Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice. [/quote]

I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.

[/quote]
Then change it to miscegenation. [/quote]

I like how you ignore the rest of my post, particularly the last part.

Remember, I’m coming from a position of agreeing with you. So I’ll ask again:

If democracy isn’t the answer, what is your solution to the issue?

[/quote]
People just mind their own business. I’m too busy with my own life to worry about who is marrying who and I’m too concerned with my own life to care.

Democracy is overrated and is hardly some beacon to preserve the rights and dignity of man. The Athenians taught us this in their dealings with the Melians. We showed that with our treatment of the Indians and blacks. The Germans with the Holocaust. Yes, Hitler was a dictator but Germany was a republic when he took over and the Germans stood by (probably because they agreed with him) while he did as he pleased.

But since people are nosy and we aren’t getting rid of our form of govt any time soon, Maybe one solution is to keep religion out of matters of govt. If you want to argue against gay marriage keep your religious views out of it. This would apply to any matter.

87

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

People just mind their own business. I’m too busy with my own life to worry about who is marrying who and I’m too concerned with my own life to care. [/quote]

But we’re talking about a public institution. State recognized marriage…

88

[quote]

But that is only so because Justice Marshall claimed it to be so.

The SCOTUS is chief interpreter supreme because the SCOTUS claims it to be so.

I dunno, sounds fishy to me. [/quote]

No, its so because despite criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community and generally speaking the President doesn’t send in the army when it disagrees with the Supreme Court. I don’t think for the most part that anyone remotely near the mainstream questions the power of judicial review in this day and age.

89

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote] orion wrote:

But that is only so because Justice Marshall claimed it to be so.

The SCOTUS is chief interpreter supreme because the SCOTUS claims it to be so.

I dunno, sounds fishy to me. [/quote]

No, its so because despite criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community and generally speaking the President doesn’t send in the army when it disagrees with the Supreme Court. I don’t think for the most part that anyone remotely near the mainstream questions the power of judicial review in this day and age.
[/quote]

And appeal to the majority and, arguably, authority.

Well…

No.

90

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

People just mind their own business. … Hitler was a dictator but Germany was a republic when he took over and the Germans stood by … while he did as he pleased.

[/quote]

Do you see why your responce is, well, cause for concern?

So you want us to stand by? But then condemn the German people for standing by? Not saying gay marriage at all equals genocide, but apathy is just as dangerous as being nosey.

91

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deal? If we put it up to popular vote can both sides promise to take the results and STFU? Such a tired non-issue that is never going to have pro/con find middle ground.[/quote]

Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice. [/quote]

I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.

[/quote]
Then change it to miscegenation. [/quote]

I like how you ignore the rest of my post, particularly the last part.

Remember, I’m coming from a position of agreeing with you. So I’ll ask again:

If democracy isn’t the answer, what is your solution to the issue?

[/quote]
People just mind their own business. I’m too busy with my own life to worry about who is marrying who and I’m too concerned with my own life to care.

Democracy is overrated and is hardly some beacon to preserve the rights and dignity of man. The Athenians taught us this in their dealings with the Melians. We showed that with our treatment of the Indians and blacks. The Germans with the Holocaust. Yes, Hitler was a dictator but Germany was a republic when he took over and the Germans stood by (probably because they agreed with him) while he did as he pleased.

But since people are nosy and we aren’t getting rid of our form of govt any time soon, Maybe one solution is to keep religion out of matters of govt. If you want to argue against gay marriage keep your religious views out of it. This would apply to any matter.
[/quote]

If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.

92

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I’m not all that concerned with where this has or hasn’t been debated. Also, so what if one relationship produces children and the other does not? Gay couples are not going to produce children whether they are married or not, so what interest is the state furthering by denying them the right to marry? The same number of children will be produced whether or not gay marriage is recognized. [/quote]

Because there are unique public policy problems related to the whole field of reproduction and child raising from time immemorial, or hadn’t you noticed? The relationship that produces chidlren - heterosexual - require special attention because of all the social problems/issues this relationship can cause.

That is the function of the public policy of marriage - dealing with these problems that arise from this relationship - not making people feel culturally “validated” by being able to have a state-sanctioned wedding license.

Well, it is and it does.[/quote]

You might be right on the standard, but I don’t think its a settled point yet, and the standard depends a lot of how the case is postured and how the issues get framed.

That said, the real answer to this whole discussion is that what you and I think, today, doesn’t really matter, because there has been a generational shift in the attitude toward gay marriage that won’t likely be reversed. My toddler will be sitting in a college poli-sci class somewhere 15 or 20 years from now wondering with the rest of his classmates how this was even a close call.

93

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
First, it shows that “Marriage” is important to you, which means its is likely important to gay couples. Denying that status to gay couples is clearly a “harm” to them, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue.

Second, its not for you to decide whether someone else gets equal protection under the law, just like gay couples can’t tell you not to marry a straight person for religious reasons or because they find it distasteful.

Third, I’ll wager that the reason you want to deny gay couples the legal authorization to marry are religious reasons. I’m not aware of any other reason to deny them. The establishment clause prevents–or should prevent–the government from acting for purely religious reasons.

Fourth, almost every state’s family code ties property and custody rights to something called “marriage.” Once this something called marriage is tied to a system of property rights, equal protection requires granting gay couples access to the system. The alternative is de-coupling property rights to a system called “marriage.” Thus, the state should either recognize marriage for gay couples or it should not recognize marriage for straight couples and recognize only “civil unions” for all and decouple the concept of marriage from property rights. [/quote]

Yes

94

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

People just mind their own business. … Hitler was a dictator but Germany was a republic when he took over and the Germans stood by … while he did as he pleased.

[/quote]

Do you see why your responce is, well, cause for concern?

So you want us to stand by? But then condemn the German people for standing by? Not saying gay marriage at all equals genocide, but apathy is just as dangerous as being nosey.[/quote]
When I wrote stood by I should have been more clear, though I think I was, in that they stood by because they agreed. And not all stood by as many took an active part. In other words it wasn’t apathy.

95

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man.

96

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

But you’re using my representative government to recognize and privilege homosexuality as if it’s more special (like, being critical to very fabric of society) than someone else’s friendship. That’s unjustifiably bigoted.

97

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.[/quote]

That’s because it isn’t. Not even remotely. State not recognizing, arranging, ordering, and promoting a private and individual relationship? Well, we keep hearing how it’s a private expression of an individual’s rights…So, it’s only appropriate that the government not recognize it. It’s a private act without critical and irreplaceable implications for society as a whole. The government is presently treating it as a private expression, by not recognizing it.

Compare that to slavery? Give me a break.[/quote]

That comparison is so blatantly offensive I am offended and I am not even black. It’s not even the same game much less ball park. I wonder why the NAACP doesn’t jump down their throats for making these ridiculous comparison.[/quote]
Why? Why does it only have something to do with blacks? The word slavery does not equal black. Slavery as an institution has existed for centuries and was not restricted to blacks. Athens was a democracy and they had slavery. The majority didn’t vote to end it.

98

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

But you’re using my representative government to recognize and privilege homosexuality as if it’s more special (like, being critical to very fabric of society) than someone else’s friendship. That’s unjustifiably bigoted.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is doing that.

99

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

I don’t think anyone is doing that. [/quote]

Then you missed the part about this being an argument over state recognized marriage. If we were actually talking about private observance of marriage, gays would exchange rings and handle their property the same way as two best friend/roommates would.

100

See, you’re not supporting the equalization of consenting adult relationships. You’re supporting the addition of one other type of human arrangement for special recognition, status, and privilege. A great big one other form…

Why? What is the critical interest for the state, justifying the elevation of this one other form of relationship above all others? Giving it status, privilege, and title? Why is homosexuality that critical, such discrimination is justified? It’s, oddly, bigotry. Based on nothing but a faddish and emotional social movement.