Merged Gay Marriage Bans falling like dominos?

Desert Fox said:
This might give at least a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissent
Click to expand...

"Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable."

Sure: fornication, SSM, adultery, and masturbation are not and can not be made legally different from bestiality, and prostitution. That slope is sure slippery! I guess under the same criteria, any restriction in towns setting up speed traps along the highways would inevitably lead to abolishing murder as a crime. If you do it "for" one you have to do it for all...
 
ddt said:
For sure. It's their job to define exactly what are human rights and what not. Their job is very analogous to that of SCOTUS: to interpret the European Convention of Human Rights (vs. the US Constitution). In fact, they already had a case about that in 2010 and decided in the negative (I didn't know, so thanks for making me look it up). So it looks they won't do anytihng like mandate SSM any time soon.
Click to expand...

My understanding was that they were waiting on more nations to legalize it so they would have solid grounding before deciding.
 
Giordano said:
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
This might give at least a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrenc...ia.27s_dissent
Click to expand...
"Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable."

Sure: fornication, SSM, adultery, and masturbation are not and can not be made legally different from bestiality, and prostitution. That slope is sure slippery! I guess under the same criteria, any restriction in towns setting up speed traps along the highways would inevitably lead to abolishing murder as a crime. If you do it "for" one you have to do it for all...
Click to expand...
Also from that Wikipedia article:
He cited the majority opinion's concern that the criminalization of sodomy could be the basis for discrimination against homosexuals as evidence that the majority ignored the views of most Americans:
"So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal."
He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".
Click to expand...

Maybe he meant something a little more subtle than "if the folks of any given state want to legalize discrimination through their state government, it's not for us to say no," but that seems to be the thrust of it. Put that together with his recent pronouncement that it's "utterly absurd" to think that "the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non religion," and you have the basis for an opinion that says something like "if sincerely-held religious beliefs are the basis for a state action that denies SSM, we cannot override it"; apparently, whatever he means by "democratic action" will have to do that. I'm sure the black people in 1960's Mississippi would have been comforted by the notion that rights are strictly a matter of majority opinion.
 
turingtest said:
Also from that Wikipedia article:


Maybe he meant something a little more subtle than "if the folks of any given state want to legalize discrimination through their state government, it's not for us to say no," but that seems to be the thrust of it. Put that together with his recent pronouncement that it's "utterly absurd" to think that "the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non religion," and you have the basis for an opinion that says something like "if sincerely-held religious beliefs are the basis for a state action that denies SSM, we cannot override it"; apparently, whatever he means by "democratic action" will have to do that. I'm sure the black people in 1960's Mississippi would have been comforted by the notion that rights are strictly a matter of majority opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but only if the racists' views are "sincerely held." You racists-who-aren't-really-racist need not apply.
 
pgwenthold said:
Yeah, but only if the racists' views are "sincerely held." You racists-who-aren't-really-racist need not apply.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, courts tend to not try to test "sincerely held" as a criteria. That's why Pastafarians can get their Driver's License photo wearing a strainer on their head.
 
turingtest said:
Maybe he meant something a little more subtle than "if the folks of any given state want to legalize discrimination through their state government, it's not for us to say no," but that seems to be the thrust of it. Put that together with his recent pronouncement that it's "utterly absurd" to think that "the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non religion," and you have the basis for an opinion that says something like "if sincerely-held religious beliefs are the basis for a state action that denies SSM, we cannot override it"; apparently, whatever he means by "democratic action" will have to do that. I'm sure the black people in 1960's Mississippi would have been comforted by the notion that rights are strictly a matter of majority opinion.
Click to expand...
History will not be kind to a jurist who twists logic to fit his ideology.

wiki said:
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

Justice Scalia wrote in Smith: “Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.” Congress, as you said, responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Who do you believe was right?
Click to expand...
In short, firmly held religious opinion of employees cannot trump the needs of corporations.


Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
Click to expand...
Silly rabbit, the needs of individuals cannot trump the religious convictions of corporations.
 
Ah, the salty tears of impotent right wing rage.

I find it particulary satisfying that it was Utah, of all places that started this with the LDS push to ban gay marriages in California.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Ah, the salty tears of impotent right wing rage.

I find it particulary satisfying that it was Utah, of all places that started this with the LDS push to ban gay marriages in California.
Click to expand...
I try my best not to take any pleasure in the discomfort of others, but I admit to thoroughly enjoying each time an irrational, hateful bigot's skull erupts like a mushroom cloud.

As you can imagine, I'm enjoying myself today.
 
^I think he's referring to the cake bakers, florists, et al who will have to provide services for these weddings.
 
sylvan8798 said:
^I think he's referring to the cake bakers, florists, et al who will have to provide services for these weddings.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope that the cake bakers and florists have previously only provided services for straight weddings of which they approved. My wife and I had to sit down for three days of grueling questions from our baker before he agreed that we had good enough reasons to get married and get a wedding cake. Luckily we only asked for a two tier butter-cream cake, or it would have taken even longer. Oddly, the cleric only spent 5 minutes with us to verify the same thing.
 
pgwenthold said:
"Focus on the Family warned that it will result in a "further expansion of threats to religious freedom"

Gay people are allowed to get married is a threat to religious freedom how?
Click to expand...

Because they won't be as free to paint gays as abominations if you start treating them like regular people. Next thing you know gays will be cheating on their spouses, arguing over child support, child custody and getting divorces at a very high rate just like god-fearing Christians.
 
sylvan8798 said:
^I think he's referring to the cake bakers, florists, et al who will have to provide services for these weddings.
Click to expand...

Not to get off on a derail, but this is one of those things that really annoys me. Look, when a person gets a business license and opens a corporation, they get all sorts of goodies from the government. They get tax writeoffs. For an example, they can buy a "company car" and write it off, thereby getting a huge discount on their vehicles. They can write off an iPhone, or a new computer laptop. They can write off a portion of their home as a home office. A cake baker could write off buying other cakes as "research" and effectively get free dessert. They get limited liability, so that if they bake a cake with food poisoning, a person could not sue them and take their homes. The list goes on and on. Today's laws are very "pro business" and that means owning a business is a very sweet deal.

And what do we ask in return? That a cake baker who serves the public has to serve the whole public and can't pick and choose which members of the public are too icky to deserve their labor.

That's the deal. We give businesses a sweet deal, and in return they can't be bigoted morons in their business practices.

That's what they're complaining about?
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
Not to get off on a derail, but this is one of those things that really annoys me. Look, when a person gets a business license and opens a corporation, they get all sorts of goodies from the government. They get tax writeoffs. For an example, they can buy a "company car" and write it off, thereby getting a huge discount on their vehicles. They can write off an iPhone, or a new computer laptop. They can write off a portion of our home as a home office. A cake bake baker could write off buying other cakes as "research" and effectively get free dessert. They get limited liability, so that if they bake a cake with food poisoning, a person could not sue them and take their homes. The list goes on and on. Today's laws are very "pro business" and that means owning a business is a very sweet deal.

And what do we ask in return? That a cake baker who serves the public has to serve the whole public and can't pick and choose which members of the public are too icky to deserve their labor.

That's the deal. We give businesses a sweet deal, and in return they can't be bigoted morons in their business practices.

That's what they're complaining about?
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
Unabogie said:
Not to get off on a derail, but this is one of those things that really annoys me. Look, when a person gets a business license and opens a corporation, they get all sorts of goodies from the government. They get tax writeoffs. For an example, they can buy a "company car" and write it off, thereby getting a huge discount on their vehicles. They can write off an iPhone, or a new computer laptop. They can write off a portion of their home as a home office. A cake baker could write off buying other cakes as "research" and effectively get free dessert. They get limited liability, so that if they bake a cake with food poisoning, a person could not sue them and take their homes. The list goes on and on. Today's laws are very "pro business" and that means owning a business is a very sweet deal.

And what do we ask in return? That a cake baker who serves the public has to serve the whole public and can't pick and choose which members of the public are too icky to deserve their labor.

That's the deal. We give businesses a sweet deal, and in return they can't be bigoted morons in their business practices.

That's what they're complaining about?
Click to expand...

Nominated!
 
Unabogie said:
That's the deal. We give businesses a sweet deal, and in return they can't be bigoted morons in their business practices.
Click to expand...
To be pedantic, they can't be openly bigoted morons. If they disguise it well, they can get away with it. A business has a right to refuse business. They just can't refuse for a bad reason. Of course, if a pattern emerges, that's not disguising it very well.
 
Unabogie said:
Not to get off on a derail, but this is one of those things that really annoys me. Look, when a person gets a business license and opens a corporation, they get all sorts of goodies from the government. They get tax writeoffs. For an example, they can buy a "company car" and write it off, thereby getting a huge discount on their vehicles. They can write off an iPhone, or a new computer laptop. They can write off a portion of their home as a home office. A cake baker could write off buying other cakes as "research" and effectively get free dessert. They get limited liability, so that if they bake a cake with food poisoning, a person could not sue them and take their homes. The list goes on and on. Today's laws are very "pro business" and that means owning a business is a very sweet deal.

And what do we ask in return? That a cake baker who serves the public has to serve the whole public and can't pick and choose which members of the public are too icky to deserve their labor.

That's the deal. We give businesses a sweet deal, and in return they can't be bigoted morons in their business practices.

That's what they're complaining about?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Businesses want the benefits of owning in a business in modern liberal democracy but sometimes they don't want the responsibilities that come with that opportunity.

This includes taxes and labor laws. It includes environmental and fair trade laws.

Conservatives tend to think they create wealth in a vacuum and that they are the only side of the equation that drives commerce. They are doing consumers a favor and government is only trying to extort and control free market entrepreneurs, industrialists and corporations and business owners in general.
 
Ted Cruz weighs in:
The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.
Click to expand...

And there ya go- any decision can be "judicial activism" when it doesn't go someone's way; but by Cruz's "logic," no decision at all, with no explanation, is the worst sort of activism. Even by normal nut-job standards, this is idiotic; if doing nothing is "judicial activism at its worst," how would Cruz have reacted if the Supremes had taken a case and ruled against the state appealing to restore SSM bans? Cruz is railing against folks who, according to him, want to "re-define" marriage, while he's busily re-defining "worst."

But this'll play with the rubes- there are people in Mississippi (where I live) reading this crap and nodding their heads in eager agreement- "that's right, tell 'em, Ted!"
 
turingtest said:
Ted Cruz weighs in:


And there ya go- any decision can be "judicial activism" when it doesn't go someone's way; but by Cruz's "logic," no decision at all, with no explanation, is the worst sort of activism. Even by normal nut-job standards, this is idiotic; if doing nothing is "judicial activism at its worst," how would Cruz have reacted if the Supremes had taken a case and ruled against the state appealing to restore SSM bans? Cruz is railing against folks who, according to him, want to "re-define" marriage, while he's busily re-defining "worst."

But this'll play with the rubes- there are people in Mississippi (where I live) reading this crap and nodding their heads in eager agreement- "that's right, tell 'em, Ted!"
Click to expand...
It's not the rubes in Mississippi, it's the rubes in Texas that elect him that are more troublesome.
 
Spindrift said:
To be pedantic, they can't be openly bigoted morons. If they disguise it well, they can get away with it. A business has a right to refuse business. They just can't refuse for a bad reason. Of course, if a pattern emerges, that's not disguising it very well.
Click to expand...

But it does mean that if they are caught discriminating, they can't cry about persecution. They signed the deal when they applied for their business license. For instance, here are the laws pertaining to Oregon.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx#state

There's a link to this page when you apply for your business license.
 
turingtest said:
Ted Cruz weighs in:
Click to expand...

And he continues:

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/519524722862989312
I’ll be introducing a constitutional amdt to prevent fed govt or courts from striking down state marriage laws:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...onal-Amendment-Defending-Traditional-Marriage
Click to expand...

A constitutional amendment that prevents the Supreme Court from striking down unconstitutional laws, or in other words, the entire and sole purpose of the Supreme Court.
 
turingtest said:
Ted Cruz weighs in:


And there ya go- any decision can be "judicial activism" when it doesn't go someone's way; but by Cruz's "logic," no decision at all, with no explanation, is the worst sort of activism. Even by normal nut-job standards, this is idiotic; if doing nothing is "judicial activism at its worst," how would Cruz have reacted if the Supremes had taken a case and ruled against the state appealing to restore SSM bans? Cruz is railing against folks who, according to him, want to "re-define" marriage, while he's busily re-defining "worst."

But this'll play with the rubes- there are people in Mississippi (where I live) reading this crap and nodding their heads in eager agreement- "that's right, tell 'em, Ted!"
Click to expand...


To be (vaguely) fair, Cruz' statement is just ambiguous enough to say that he's referring to the appellate courts as judicial activists, not the SCt.

However, it hardly matters. By the 2016 election, SSM will be legal in at least 30 states and will be supported by a majority of young republicans. So, it's not going to be a national political issue that gains any traction. (It might be enough of a wedge issue to separate Republicans during their primary).
 
ehcks said:
And he continues:

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/519524722862989312

Quote:
I’ll be introducing a constitutional amdt to prevent fed govt or courts from striking down state marriage laws:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ional-Marriage
Click to expand...
A constitutional amendment that prevents the Supreme Court from striking down unconstitutional laws, or in other words, the entire and sole purpose of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Ha! Good catch, I didn't notice that. Trust Ted Cruz to come up with an idea that poses such a recursive conundrum as this; could the Supreme Court constitutionally strike down a constitutional amendment that would prevent the Supreme Court from striking it down?
 
turingtest said:
Ha! Good catch, I didn't notice that. Trust Ted Cruz to come up with an idea that poses such a recursive conundrum as this; could the Supreme Court constitutionally strike down a constitutional amendment that would prevent the Supreme Court from striking it down?
Click to expand...

The Nixon approach...
 
Loss Leader said:
To be (vaguely) fair, Cruz' statement is just ambiguous enough to say that he's referring to the appellate courts as judicial activists, not the SCt.
However, it hardly matters. By the 2016 election, SSM will be legal in at least 30 states and will be supported by a majority of young republicans. So, it's not going to be a national political issue that gains any traction. (It might be enough of a wedge issue to separate Republicans during their primary).
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, and I retract mine. Too bad it's incumbent upon rational people to be fairer to Ted Cruz than he's willing to be to gay people.
 
turingtest said:
That's a fair point, and I retract mine. Too bad it's incumbent upon rational people to be fairer to Ted Cruz than he's willing to be to gay people.
Click to expand...
Whoa. Don't withdraw too quickly. His (Cruz) first paragraph is entirely about the Supremes. Then he says his activism sentence. I think it is fair to assume he is talking about the Supremes. To further that, he mentions "unelected judges". The Supremes are unelected but some state court judges are.

But it's a molehill next to Mt. Everest. He's making an ass out of himself in either case which is confirmed by his amendment idea.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Oh yeah, in Vermont too. We're hiding under the bed eating woodchucks and hemerocallis roots.
Click to expand...

ArmillarySphere said:
We take care to stockpile ammo and satin fabric to deal with the gay zombie attacks. They're easily distracted.
Click to expand...
:D

As funny as this is, and it is, there really is such a level of absurdity to live in fear of gays and lesbians. They are just human beings. They pay their taxes and take their children to little league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom