Started By
Message

re: The gays are upset with Utah's governor

Posted on 5/25/14 at 9:38 pm to
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 9:38 pm to
quote:

Utah governor will defend Utah law.


A law that's unconstitutional, violates the 14th amendment, due process and the equal protection clause.

He's going to lose.
Posted by KoolHndLuke
Texas
Member since Mar 2014
115 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 9:42 pm to
quote:

He's going to lose.


At least he is fighting for the laws the people of the state voted for. I will take that over the gutless pricks we see over and over.
Posted by IdahoTiger
San Diego, CA
Member since Dec 2007
1871 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 9:45 pm to
Utah's governor is just wasting money. But luckily the gay marriage ban is falling one step at a time. I can't wait to see the reaction when the Bible belt starts falling too
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
17960 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 9:48 pm to
quote:

A law that's unconstitutional, violates the 14th amendment, due process and the equal protection clause.


Where's the argument that sexual orientation is a protected class under the 14th amendment? I'm sure it's out there, but I was wondering if you have a link to a good summary of the Supreme Court's ruling of it under federal law. Or has that happened yet? I know Obama instructed his DOJ to not enforce DOMA, but is that all they're going on at this point in terms of actual action at the federal level? Is there an official interpretation?

BTW, the politics behind the 14th amendment is pretty interesting stuff.
Posted by KoolHndLuke
Texas
Member since Mar 2014
115 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 9:48 pm to
He's doing what the people of Utah voted him in for. We already have politicians wasting a lot more doing nothing. Whether their law is right or wrong I respect the move.

You can waste your time hoping for the fall of something, it really doesn't matter much to me.
Posted by LordSaintly
Member since Dec 2005
43176 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 9:57 pm to
quote:

At least he is fighting for the laws the people of the state voted for.


I get what you're saying, but we can't pass laws based solely on what the majority wants.
Posted by FightinTigersDammit
Louisiana North
Member since Mar 2006
46425 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:00 pm to
quote:

I get what you're saying, but we can't pass laws based solely on what the majority wants.


Should this be a state issue?
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
80811 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:06 pm to
quote:

Where's the argument that sexual orientation is a protected class under the 14th amendment?


Don't know the specific court reasoning but 14th Amendment is, of course, equal protection under the law. And the equal protection argument is that states are discriminating by not recognizing same sex marriages.

I don't agree with that particular argument because it was always assumed, until about 20 or so years ago, that marriage was a man and a woman. The Constitution has not changed in the interim...public opinion has changed, but that's something that should be reflected through legislators. Kind of like how life without parole for a 17 year old murderer is suddenly "cruel and unusual".

I voted against the Louisiana ban in 2004...but I don't buy that it violates the 14th.
Posted by LordSaintly
Member since Dec 2005
43176 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:07 pm to
quote:

Should this be a state issue?


I think it should be.
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
80811 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:09 pm to
quote:

I think it should be.


Agree. The most relevant analogy is first cousin marriages. Recognized in a few states, but not valid in most. And the reason for opposing them is the same--people find them sinful or "icky" or both.
Posted by JayDeerTay84
Texas
Member since May 2013
9956 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:14 pm to
I really wish people weren't so gay about everything.
Posted by IdahoTiger
San Diego, CA
Member since Dec 2007
1871 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:17 pm to
quote:


Agree. The most relevant analogy is first cousin marriages. Recognized in a few states, but not valid in most. And the reason for opposing them is the same--people find them sinful or "icky" or both.



Well the reason for opposing them isn't the same. The reason cousins shouldn't get married is for the high rate of genetic defects. There's no biological reason to oppose gay marriage though.
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
80811 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:22 pm to
quote:

The reason cousins shouldn't get married is for the high rate of genetic defects.


The risk of birth defects is overrated. They published a medical study a few years ago that showed that there was no meaningful increase in the odds of genetic defects unless you had several generations of cousin marriages. (I remember it because message boards in SEC country made a lot of "Good news for Bama fans" jokes.)
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
77250 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:23 pm to
quote:

The risk of birth defects is overrated. They published a medical study a few years ago that showed that there was no meaningful increase in the odds of genetic defects unless you had several generations of cousin marriages. (I remember it because message boards in SEC country made a lot of "Good news for Bama fans" jokes.)
This. It's just become a taboo topic.
Posted by IdahoTiger
San Diego, CA
Member since Dec 2007
1871 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 10:39 pm to
quote:

The risk of birth defects is overrated. They published a medical study a few years ago that showed that there was no meaningful increase in the odds of genetic defects unless you had several generations of cousin marriages. (I remember it because message boards in SEC country made a lot of "Good news for Bama fans" jokes.)



But my point remains, the risks are still there.
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
17960 posts
Posted on 5/25/14 at 11:47 pm to
quote:

I don't buy that it violates the 14th.


Thanks for the feedback/info. I agree, but I wasn't sure where the initial argument could be found where equal protection applied. Also, sexual orientation still isn't considered a protected class in many states, so it's difficult to apply that portion.
Posted by EST
Investigating
Member since Oct 2003
18290 posts
Posted on 5/26/14 at 5:44 am to
quote:

I don't agree with that particular argument because it was always assumed, until about 20 or so years ago, that marriage was a man and a woman. The Constitution has not changed in the interim...public opinion has changed, but that's something that should be reflected through legislators.


So if a certain segment of the population decides to redefine marriage, then the entire population must go along? What is Utah doesn't agree with the new definition of marriage? I agree that it is a state issue.

When are people going to realize the real issue is not about gays getting married - its about destroying religion. After the activist judges have made gay marriage legal in every state, who really thinks the gays are going to just go away?

They are going to directly target churches as "hate groups" for refusing to perform gay marriages. Book it.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36132 posts
Posted on 5/26/14 at 6:07 am to
quote:

Utah governor will defend Utah law.


Sounds familiar.

LINK



This post was edited on 5/26/14 at 6:09 am
Posted by bencoleman
RIP 7/19
Member since Feb 2009
37887 posts
Posted on 5/26/14 at 6:15 am to
Why is it that every few days the homo's are pissed at someone else. Don't they have to work. If they had to work twelve hours orso everyday they wwouldn't have time or energy to get mad at someone.
Posted by Hog on the Hill
AR
Member since Jun 2009
13493 posts
Posted on 5/26/14 at 7:05 am to
quote:

Why is it that every few days the homo's are pissed at someone else. Don't they have to work. If they had to work twelve hours orso everyday they wwouldn't have time or energy to get mad at someone.
Are you suggesting that gays are less likely to work than straight people? Because that would be a monumentally retarded thing to believe.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram