[quote]I don’t need backhanded insults. Save your “embarrassment” for when you read your own posts aloud.
Are you in high school?
To everyone else,
Race has HISTORICAL PRECEDENT to make it a protected class, because, “historically” (keyword!) race has been at the center of many, many issues.
But to say race and sexual orientation are different is absurd. It makes no difference that “race” is based on genetics and “sexuality” is based on “behavior” (actually, I would argue that sexuality can be based on genetics as well).
Both race and sexuality AND religion AND national origin - and damn well any other class, protected or NOT, federally protected or otherwise - serve as the basis of an individual’s IDENTITY, and thus discriminating against a component of this identity - e.g. race - is the same as discriminating against the person as a whole, against their identity.
Sexual orientation has not been a core issue historically that has led to wars, genocide, political issues comparable to “racial issues.” That’s all, but that’s not good enough to keep sexual orientation from being a protected class, because it is still for many a component of their identity.[/quote]
So, what you posted is Ponce-de-Leon’s “wish list” for the way he wants “things to be” rather than what is “the law”?
Because, legally, what you posted is not correct as a matter of law under the Constitution - see different levels of scrutiny depending on which class a person falls under. If you want that law to be changed, fine, say so - but don’t wander into this forum and declare “you don’t know the law!” when, well, it’s clear it’s you who really doesn’t.
So, yes, I am embarrassed for you, because despite all your hubris, you’ve proven yourself to be incorrect and ignorant. Question is: will you admit it?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Have we found the Gay Gene yet? Until then it is a choice.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Do you wake up in the morning and decide you like pussy? Of course not. You like it because that is what feels right to you. There is no “thinking about it”. You can’t convert gay people to straight anymore than you can make a straight person gay.
Seriously, why would a gay man decide to live a lifestyle that is associated with all sorts of ridicule and ignorant social stigmas?
In an odd twist, the federal judge may have set himself up to have the decision at the trial level vacated:
[i] And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet’s nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. “If the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, then it’s entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial,” Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. “This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial.”
Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn’t have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene â?? but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices.
In that event, what happens next is anybody’s guess. “We’re in uncharted waters here,” Amar told TIME.[/i]
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
They are predisposed to accept a ‘religious’ answer to big questions. [/quote]
Aha! “They are predisposed to accept a ‘religious’ answer to big questions…”
Do you see the problems there?
You simply declare that there are those predisposed to accepting ‘religious’ answers. Yet, predisposition to Christianity does not exist. Now, why’s that? I believe someone else answered “because man invented Christianity. So it’s a choice!” That suggests they believe religion as a whole wasn’t ‘invented’ by man. Hmmm. I guess God did it So the question of what man did or did not ‘invent’ is of no significance.
But, most problematic is that not all ‘religious’ answers to the big questions are the same answers. There is no religion of Religion. So, if the bulk of the religious answers that one finds themselves “predisposed to accept” are specifically Christian answers…
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Lets put up a list of Protected classes.
Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age, and Sex.
Only one is not determined by genes or place of birth and that is Religion. Religion though is spelled out in the Constitution, so that is why that one is in the list. Sexual Orientation is not spelled out in the Constitution.[/quote]
But when the Constitution was written there were slaves which were not free, they were not considered when drafting the Constitution.
Not everything protected in the Constitution should only refer to its inception. Times change. Constitution amended. No more slaves.
Because it was not included then does not mean that it should not be now.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In an odd twist, the federal judge may have set himself up to have the decision at the trial level vacated:
[i] And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet’s nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. “If the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, then it’s entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial,” Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. “This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial.”
Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn’t have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene Ã?¢?? but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices.
In that event, what happens next is anybody’s guess. “We’re in uncharted waters here,” Amar told TIME.[/i]
He’s wrong. Their standing in the original trial was parasitic and relied upon the existence of a defendant. The only time SCOTUS discussed this issue was in dicta in this case: Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
“The standing Article III requires must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance. Diamond, 476 U. S., at 62. The decision to seek review ‘is not to be placed in the hands of concerned bystanders,' ' persons who would seize it 'as a vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’ ’ Ibid. (citation omitted). An intervenor cannot step into the shoes of the original party unless the intervenor independently ‘fulfills the requirements of Article III.’ Id., at 68.”
So they had standing sufficient to act as intervenors in the original case, but probably need an independent jurisdictional basis to pursue an appeal
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Have we found the Gay Gene yet? Until then it is a choice.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Do you wake up in the morning and decide you like pussy? Of course not. You like it because that is what feels right to you. There is no “thinking about it”. You can’t convert gay people to straight anymore than you can make a straight person gay.
Seriously, why would a gay man decide to live a lifestyle that is associated with all sorts of ridicule and ignorant social stigmas?
edited - typo
[/quote]
This is a question that still baffles me. How is it that people who are actually gay say they have no choice (and it’s not a choice any rational human being would make) and the only people who say it’s a choice are usually anti-gay zealots. Zealots who don’t say that that they CHOOSE to be straight. Actually, I guess sometimes they say they have ‘chosen’ to be straight. But those are usually religious zealot right wingers who try to avoid homosexual behavior but usually get caught with men and often with some type of illicit drugs.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Lets put up a list of Protected classes.
Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age, and Sex.
Only one is not determined by genes or place of birth and that is Religion. Religion though is spelled out in the Constitution, so that is why that one is in the list. Sexual Orientation is not spelled out in the Constitution.[/quote]
But when the Constitution was written there were slaves which were not free, they were not considered when drafting the Constitution.
Not everything protected in the Constitution should only refer to its inception. Times change. Constitution amended. No more slaves.
Because it was not included then does not mean that it should not be now.
[/quote]
So, if you feel a constitutional amendment is necessary, you don’t buy this decision on the merits? Or you just feel that sexual orientation should be a protected class for OTHER reasons, such as employment discrimination?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In an odd twist, the federal judge may have set himself up to have the decision at the trial level vacated:
[i] And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet’s nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. “If the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, then it’s entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial,” Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. “This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial.”
Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn’t have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene Ã??Ã?¢?? but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices.
In that event, what happens next is anybody’s guess. “We’re in uncharted waters here,” Amar told TIME.[/i]
He’s wrong. Their standing in the original trial was parasitic and relied upon the existence of a defendant. The only time SCOTUS discussed this issue was in dicta in this case: Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
“The standing Article III requires must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance. Diamond, 476 U. S., at 62. The decision to seek review ‘is not to be placed in the hands of concerned bystanders,' ' persons who would seize it 'as a vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’ ’ Ibid. (citation omitted). An intervenor cannot step into the shoes of the original party unless the intervenor independently ‘fulfills the requirements of Article III.’ Id., at 68.”
So they had standing sufficient to act as intervenors in the original case, but probably need an independent jurisdictional basis to pursue an appeal[/quote]
Well, he’s not “wrong” because there is a circuit split as to whether intervenors are required to have standing. The 9th Circuit says no (in addition to 2d, 5th, 6th and 10th), but others say yes (7th, 8th, DC). If the intervenors don’t have standing to appeal, there is a chance they didn’t have the required standing at the trial level, and judge Walker’s highlighting this as part of his decision may have opened up a fight over the question.
Your question was irrelevant fluff. You continue to pose what seems to be hundreds of questions that head exactly nowhere, and you don’t provide any original or particularly coherent arguments on behalf of your cause.
It gets dull, and when you post irrelevant fluff, don’t get mad become someone happens to tell you so.
Your question was irrelevant fluff. You continue to pose what seems to be hundreds of questions that head exactly nowhere, and you don’t provide any original or particularly coherent arguments on behalf of your cause.
It gets dull, and when you post irrelevant fluff, don’t get mad become someone happens to tell you so.[/quote]
sigh
What point do you think I was making, in asking how many people consider the use of drugs to be immoral?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In an odd twist, the federal judge may have set himself up to have the decision at the trial level vacated:
[i] And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet’s nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. “If the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, then it’s entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial,” Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. “This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial.”
Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn’t have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices.
In that event, what happens next is anybody’s guess. “We’re in uncharted waters here,” Amar told TIME.[/i]
He’s wrong. Their standing in the original trial was parasitic and relied upon the existence of a defendant. The only time SCOTUS discussed this issue was in dicta in this case: Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
“The standing Article III requires must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance. Diamond, 476 U. S., at 62. The decision to seek review ‘is not to be placed in the hands of concerned bystanders,' ' persons who would seize it 'as a vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’ ’ Ibid. (citation omitted). An intervenor cannot step into the shoes of the original party unless the intervenor independently ‘fulfills the requirements of Article III.’ Id., at 68.”
So they had standing sufficient to act as intervenors in the original case, but probably need an independent jurisdictional basis to pursue an appeal[/quote]
Well, he’s not “wrong” because there is a circuit split as to whether intervenors are required to have standing. The 9th Circuit says no (in addition to 2d, 5th, 6th and 10th), but others say yes (7th, 8th, DC). If the intervenors don’t have standing to appeal, there is a chance they didn’t have the required standing at the trial level, and judge Walker’s highlighting this as part of his decision may have opened up a fight over the question.[/quote]
Yeah, we’ll see what happens. But if I were the lawyer advocating against Prop 8, I could put together a compelling brief if this became an issue. The guys at Boies are no dummies.
What point do you think I was making, in asking how many people consider the use of drugs to be immoral?[/quote]
No idea - so just tell me. Just make a coherent argument.
I know tons of people that consider drug use immoral on the basis that the usage of drugs leads to all sorts of consequences outside of the individual - including the ravaging of families.
So, what you posted is Ponce-de-Leon’s “wish list” for the way he wants “things to be” rather than what is “the law”?
Because, legally, what you posted is not correct as a matter of law under the Constitution - see different levels of scrutiny depending on which class a person falls under. If you want that law to be changed, fine, say so - but don’t wander into this forum and declare “you don’t know the law!” when, well, it’s clear it’s you who really doesn’t.
So, yes, I am embarrassed for you, because despite all your hubris, you’ve proven yourself to be incorrect and ignorant. Question is: will you admit it?[/quote]
The only thing that anyone can deduce from your response is that you are a cunt that enjoys reading what you write.
I asked that you answer a question and not avoid it, yet you spent your entire post “breaking” me down to make yourself feel better, while I’m putting personal attacks aside and asking you to answer a simple fucking question which addresses a fundamental point of view relevant to the topic at hand.
That I got “wrong” that sexual orientation is a protected class, when it is not federally but CAN be at the state level, is a MINOR error that you’re trying to spread thin to fuel every personal attack. What we are arguing (well, just you) is one person saying the sky is blue and another saying that “No, it’s baby blue.” I got it wrong but the basis of my argument is the same.
The error did not invalidate my point, but I am positive you will spend another useless post with a wordy missive (because I’m sure reading your own posts gives you a hard on) to put my error in the spotlight again.
Don’t respond if you can’t address a point or question I make and just want to insult me personally: that’s what the PM function is for and I welcome it from you.
Repost for everyone else:
Race has HISTORICAL PRECEDENT to make it a protected class, because, “historically” (keyword!) race has been at the center of many, many issues.
But to say race and sexual orientation are different is absurd. It makes no difference that “race” is based on genetics and “sexuality” is based on “behavior” (actually, I would argue that sexuality can be based on genetics as well).
Both race and sexuality AND religion AND national origin - and damn well any other class, protected or NOT, federally protected or otherwise - serve as the basis of an individual’s IDENTITY, and thus discriminating against a component of this identity - e.g. race - is the same as discriminating against the person as a whole, against their identity.
Sexual orientation has not been a core issue historically that has led to wars, genocide, political issues comparable to “racial issues.” That’s all, but that’s not good enough to keep sexual orientation from being a protected class, because it is still for many a component of their identity.
The only thing that anyone can deduce from your response is that you are a cunt that enjoys reading what you write.
I asked that you answer a question and not avoid it, yet you spent your entire post “breaking” me down to make yourself feel better, while I’m putting personal attacks aside and asking you to answer a simple fucking question which addresses a fundamental point of view relevant to the topic at hand.
That I got “wrong” that sexual orientation is a protected class, when it is not federally but CAN be at the state level, is a MINOR error that you’re trying to spread thin to fuel every personal attack. What we are arguing (well, just you) is one person saying the sky is blue and another saying that “No, it’s baby blue.” I got it wrong but the basis of my argument is the same.
The error did not invalidate my point, but I am positive you will spend another useless post with a wordy missive (because I’m sure reading your own posts gives you a hard on) to put my error in the spotlight again. [/quote]
Your tantrum aside, no, you remain incorrect on the whole damn thing (even setting aside your “minor” error on sexual orientation being a protected class under federal statute). That is what I have been saying all along - you got it all wrong.
If you had any knowledge of the topic you claim to - and you don’t - you’d know you were wrong. But such pride.
Your point is dead wrong - under the Equal Protection Clause (regardless of federal statute), sexual orientation is not and has never been placed in the same class as race. It’s a fact. I gave you a Wikipedia page to study up on, and it’s clear you ignored it. Not my problem to fix.
All race-based classifications must be subjected to strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny, as the Supreme Court held in Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), overruling Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (89-453), 497 U.S. 547 (1990).
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law. Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards employed by courts to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or principle that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued.
Same website.
Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, refers to a level of scrutiny applied by courts when deciding cases presenting constitutional due process or equal protection issues related to the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Rational basis is the lowest level of scrutiny that a court applies when engaging in judicial review.
The Supreme Court has seemed unwilling to extend full “suspect class” status (i.e., status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) to groups other than racial minorities and religious groups.
Notably, O’Connor did not claim to apply a higher level of scrutiny than mere rational basis, and the Court has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation.
Same.
You maintain that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the same as discrimination on the basis of race. Not so, whether you wish it was that way or not.
Honestly - you look like a damned idiot posting this stuff. Will you learn?
See above, Einstein - everything you posted is wrong.
If you want sexual orientation to be treated the same as race, fine - make the argument. Currently, for purposes of Equal Protection (and whether a “discriminatory” law should be stricken down by a court or left in place), they are not the same. It’s a fact. So in the interest of preserving any credibility you have as someone with a functioning brain stem, stop saying what you have been saying.
But, in perhaps the most pathetic attempt at hollow arrogance I have seen on PWI in years, you have humiliated yourself by - with such gusto! - asserting that, yes, in fact, sexual orientation is currently treated the same as race (!).
Hey, remember when you said this as your first post here?
You have horrible reasoning and you do not know the law well enough to post on the matter.
What point do you think I was making, in asking how many people consider the use of drugs to be immoral?[/quote]
No idea - so just tell me. Just make a coherent argument.
I know tons of people that consider drug use immoral on the basis that the usage of drugs leads to all sorts of consequences outside of the individual - including the ravaging of families.
So what?[/quote]
The majority of consequences outside the individual are due to external forces like ridiculous laws and societal stigma. See: Steroid use.
Strict scrutiny schmutiny. If a law distinguishes between groups or individuals, and it it not rationally related to any legitimate government interest, it violates the equal protection clause and is unconstitutiuonal.
Why are we arguing over whether sexual orientation is a federally protected class for the purposes of an equal protection analysis? It clearly isn’t. Not really relevant to this opinion. If it was, prohibitions on gay marriage would most assuredly fail very easily. Strict in theory, fatal in fact as they say.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Strict scrutiny schmutiny. If a law distinguishes between groups or individuals, and it it not rationally related to any legitimate government interest, it violates the equal protection clause and is unconstitutiuonal.
Why are we arguing over whether sexual orientation is a federally protected class for the purposes of an equal protection analysis? It clearly isn’t. Not really relevant to this opinion. If it was, prohibitions on gay marriage would most assuredly fail very easily. Strict in theory, fatal in fact as they say. [/quote]
I mean that sexual orientation clearly isn’t a protected class under existing federal jurisprudence. Not that it necessarily shouldn’t be.
Strict scrutiny schmutiny. If a law distinguishes between groups or individuals, and it it not rationally related to any legitimate government interest, it violates the equal protection clause and is unconstitutiuonal. [/quote]
Correct, but in cases of race, because of strict scrutiny, the law is presumed unconstitutional, rather than the other way around, and burdens of proof shift. So, no one should be making comparisons between sexual orientation laws and race-related laws - unfit comparisons.
Correct - and this somehow remains an issue for posters who continue to insist and use analogies that conflate sexual orientation and race.
And, technically it is relevant to this opinion - or it will be on appeal, more specifically - since the judge said that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review (butwent to say Prop 8 didn’t even survive rational basis, an odd attempt to set precedent to cover both bases in order to get a result he liked) - but not relevant to the point being attempted by uninformed bozos like Ponce-de-Leon who think that Prop 8 “must fall” for the same reasons Jim Crow, etc. did.
EDIT: changed the underlined from “marriage” to make sense.
So the question of what man did or did not ‘invent’ is of no significance.