- 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 1:28 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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News