- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Orleans Federal Court hears same-sex marriage case today.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:55 pm to petar
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:55 pm to petar
quote:
quote:
it is within the "UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY" of the states to define what marriage is. It's the Feds who can't deny the "rights" of those that a state allows to marry.
Not according to several federal and circuit courts that since the windsor case have used the windsor case to rule state gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. so either you have something mistaken or they do...
Then, they're clearly going against Windsor.
As I stated, biased, politicized and fearful judges will throw whatever they can against the wall, LIKE SH!T, and see what sticks.
quote:
This whole unquestioned authority doesnt mean shite if they don't have a substantial government interest in issuing the ban. so far, none of the states have been able to have a substantial government interest argument that holds any weight
Part of the logical fallacy in Windsor is that Kennedy apparently looked into the soul of all the Congressman (the vast overwhelming majority of BOTH parties) and BILL CLINTON and claimed that they could only have voted for/signed DOMA out of spite and hate.
Is he ready to say that about ALL INDIVIDUAL VOTERS who went to the ballot box and voted to keep the same definition of marriage that has been on the books since this country was founded?
Although I think it's a joke, it's still one thing to say it about Congressmen who are going against the will of the people in different states, and then turning around and ACTUALLY going against the will of the people in the remaining states.
Serious Question for those who want to see judges overturn gay marriage bans --
What do you think is going to happen to the first non-Supreme Court judge -- AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS -- who writes an opinion stating that there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage?
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 1:08 pm
3
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:14 pm to MMauler
Im not sure if you understand how this thing works. Windsor did not address state rights issues on whether they can ban same-sex marriage (atleast in the majority opinion).
Windsor did state that if there was not a substantial government interest for the federal government to not recognize state approved marriages than it is unconstitutional. they said the federal government has no substantial government interest.
Now moving forward on state-bans. Since we have the 14th amendment, State's have to also provide a substantial government interest to ban something. While they didn't say it directly, if the federal government can't constitutional ban something because they don't have a government interest, then i imagine it will be damn hard to prove a state has an interest in banning something.
they have lifetime appointments for a reason... they are scared of shite. Federal Judges aren't (for the most part) scared of being overturned. there is basically no likelihood of being impeached unless they start willfully not following binding authority and certainly not for ruling on a new issue.
what the frick are you talking about?
I think you are saying that popular vote trumps the constitution in this country which is absolutely false unless you get an amendment.
Windsor did state that if there was not a substantial government interest for the federal government to not recognize state approved marriages than it is unconstitutional. they said the federal government has no substantial government interest.
Now moving forward on state-bans. Since we have the 14th amendment, State's have to also provide a substantial government interest to ban something. While they didn't say it directly, if the federal government can't constitutional ban something because they don't have a government interest, then i imagine it will be damn hard to prove a state has an interest in banning something.
quote:
biased, politicized and fearful judges
they have lifetime appointments for a reason... they are scared of shite. Federal Judges aren't (for the most part) scared of being overturned. there is basically no likelihood of being impeached unless they start willfully not following binding authority and certainly not for ruling on a new issue.
quote:
Part of the logical fallacy in Windsor is that Kennedy apparently looked into the soul of all the Congressman (the vast overwhelming majority of BOTH parties) and BILL CLINTON and claimed that they could only have voted for/signed DOMA out of spite and hate.
Is he ready to say that about ALL INDIVIDUAL VOTERS who went to the ballot box and voted to keep the same definition of marriage that has been on the books since this country was founded?
Although I think it's a joke, it's still one thing to say it about Congressmen who are going against the will of the people in different states, and then turning around and ACTUALLY going against the will of the people in the remaining states.
what the frick are you talking about?
I think you are saying that popular vote trumps the constitution in this country which is absolutely false unless you get an amendment.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:15 pm to MMauler
quote:
What do you think is going to happen to the first non-Supreme Court judge -- AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS -- who writes an opinion stating that there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage?
are you suggesting that there is some sort of gay mafia that will break thumbs of judges and kidnap families?
I think a) it has already happened. b) the next will be overturned by a court.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:16 pm to petar
quote:
what the frick are you talking about? I think you are saying that popular vote trumps the constitution in this country which is absolutely false unless you get an amendment.
Did you even read the Windsor opinion?
I know you're going to say you did, but we both know AND IT'S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that you just read articles where certain pro-gay marriage authors "analyzed" it.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:17 pm to petar
quote:
are you suggesting that there is some sort of gay mafia that will break thumbs of judges and kidnap families?
Are you suggesting that people who publicly support traditional marriage haven't been terrorized and threatened?
Are you that f*cking ignorant?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:23 pm to MMauler
quote:
That's why the Scalia dissent was brilliant. It pointed out how absurd the majority opinion is.
You do realize that Scalia's dissent has been used by at least half a dozen judges in overturning state bans since December?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:24 pm to MMauler
quote:
Did you even read the Windsor opinion?
yep and i have read a few of the opinions of the courts that have come out since not all as i am no longer required to read them, but i will once i go back and get a chance.
Oh you were talking about Scalia's dissent. because Anthony did not say Hate, Soul, or anything of the like in his MAJORITY OPINION..
however Scalia has characterized it as such and it is abundantly clear that you have mistaken his views upon the majority opinion is the views of the majority opinion
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:26 pm to MMauler
quote:
Are you suggesting that people who publicly support traditional marriage haven't been terrorized and threatened?
there are two sides to a coin... both sides have done some stupid and hateful things and i wont deny that...
to equate that to mafia-like threatening of judges and trying to influence judicial opinions is a little wild and ignorant in my opinion
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:27 pm to Toddy
quote:
You do realize that Scalia's dissent has been used by at least half a dozen judges in overturning state bans since December?
Like I said, throwing sh!t against the wall. In no way does the Scalia dissent support gay marriage. Those judges who thought they were being cute citing Scalia's dissent apparently didn't understand that Scalia was mocking the majority opinion.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:28 pm to MMauler
quote:
What do you think is going to happen to the first non-Supreme Court judge -- AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS -- who writes an opinion stating that there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage?
There was a dissent in the 10th Circuit ruling today.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:28 pm to Tigerlaff
So glad we have another homo related thread.
It's been a while.
It's been a while.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:28 pm to MMauler
quote:
Are you suggesting that people who publicly support traditional marriage haven't been terrorized and threatened?
LOL
Yeah, because no gays or lesbians have been terrorized or threatened from the loving bible thumpers
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:29 pm to MMauler
quote:
Scalia's
he is the same guy that says there is no right to privacy especially in your bedroom. That contraceptives should remain illegal. etc.
quote:
Those judges who thought they were being cute citing Scalia's dissent apparently didn't understand that Scalia was mocking the majority opinion.
they prbly do and it was prbly a jab at Scalia in the same way he jabbed at the majority opinion in a unjudicial, unprofessional way.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:34 pm to petar
While I doubt you've actually read the opinion, let's pretend like you did.
Do you really think that the four liberal IDIOTS on the court actually wanted to sign their names onto the majority opinion? Do you think that it represents their true beliefs?
But, just like the Obamacare decision, they had no choice if they wanted to achieve their political agendas.
But, make no mistake, both opinions are complete jokes.
Do you really think that the four liberal IDIOTS on the court actually wanted to sign their names onto the majority opinion? Do you think that it represents their true beliefs?
But, just like the Obamacare decision, they had no choice if they wanted to achieve their political agendas.
But, make no mistake, both opinions are complete jokes.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:36 pm to petar
quote:
Oh you were talking about Scalia's dissent. because Anthony did not say Hate, Soul, or anything of the like in his MAJORITY OPINION..
First, that wasn't a quote.
Second, once again, clearly you haven't read the opinion.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:43 pm to Tigerlaff
To paraphrase Victor Hugo --- One cannot stop an idea whose time has come.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:49 pm to MMauler
quote:
Do you really think that the four liberal IDIOTS on the court actually wanted to sign their names onto the majority opinion? Do you think that it represents their true beliefs?
yea it seems to fall in line to thier previous opinions pretty closely.
Anthony isn't considered a liberal of the court by most commentators, but he generally goes personal ilberties top most everything else so no suprise he authored the opinion.
quote:
Second, once again, clearly you haven't read the opinion.
I have and its clear you are taking scalia's dissent said and what he characterized the majority opinion as and taking it as what the majority opinion said.
not saying that it is wrong, but it is obvious. and makes me believe that you only read his dissent
I just searched the document: Kennedy never once in his opinion said the words (unless quoting) hate, injury, mocked congress for enacting such a statue
He said the statute demeans homosexuals and they should be given the same dignity etc.
I have the document open on westlaw as i though i might have misread it or characterized Kennedy's opinion. But i dont think i did.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 4:08 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
The Plaintiffs want LA to recognize their out-of-state marriages.
The judge expanded the case today to include marriages performed in Louisiana.
quote:
United States District Court Judge Martin Feldman today announced that he will expand the parameters of a case before him, and will decide if same-sex couples have the right to marry in the state of Louisiana. After about 90 minutes of arguments, Feldman reportedly summonsed both sides to the bench and announced the true nature of the case was not whether Louisiana should recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, but whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in the state.
“I feel uncomfortable resolving some issues one way or the other and not all issues one way or another,” Feldman told attorneys for both sides, according to Louisiana newspaper The Advocate.
Judge Feldman, according to the Times-Picayune, "told attorneys and observers who packed his courtroom Wednesday morning that it would only be fair to the parties involved in the cases and the public that he rules on the gay marriage questions in one decision, instead of handing down 'piecemeal' rulings.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 5:09 pm to Toddy
Interesting.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 5:19 pm to Solo
Fwiw and for all the at home qb's, Feldman considered a conservative judge appointed by Reagan. Famous for mainly the BP case at least one of them.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News