He was taught that marriage should be between a man and a woman?! Well some people were taught that Hitler was a good man and that some races were better than others, so does that make it right? Hmm....i think not
This minority is quoting the "Bible"! A farce, because they couldn't even read this text when "his ancestors" were brout to this land! If one must be honest.... it is truly that they found the Christian God... by slavery! But, the Blacks say... no, that isn't true! Ironic, that they would say that same God would condemn a thing such as gay (same sex) marriage when he (by the Bible) is a said "seperate tribe and people" a people of cain cursed with black skin to denote them!
Blacks...lol oh, Baptists? LOL! Special rights? What if I were a black man who was walking down the street and attacked and for being black? Do I deserve a special right to racial discrimination trial? the answer is... YES! So, if I were a gay man who was beaten for being gay do I deserve a special right to be beaten for being gay? Do I get anything special?
This is disgusting. Not glbt people, but this intolerance shown against them. More disgusting still is the double standard with lesbian/bi women being sexy. This suggests that it really only comes down to an instinctual drive to protect traditional masculinity. I think glbt people have their entire lifestyle threatened just so shallow people won't have to see 2 men hold hands. It sickens me.
im so happy for citizens of DC, everybody has right to love and live with whoever they want. I cant wait for the day the federal govt accepts gay marriage. Its done in Europe, Canada and alot of other countries, what are we waiting for?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah for this very sin. What makes you stupid Americans think that this country is so special to God that He won't destroy YOU for doing the same thing???
@MaryWaterton- God DID NOT destroy Sodom & Gomorrah because of homosexuality!!!! He did it because that city wanted to GANG RAPE people, and not only that but that city also did a whole lot of horrable things!!!!!! And that's why God destroed it, it had NOTHING to do with HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!
i can't stand an intellectual mind that holds a lack of empathy. very dangerous. if this man lived 200 years ago in a white mans body he would of been a slave owner.
This moron doesn't know what State rights or Civil rights are. Not to mention argues against himself, and changes his opinion mid conversation on courts.
People who are SO adamently against Gay Rights/Marriage etc, ESPECIALLY those of color and uses race as a crutch to defend their positions don't realize how easily they put themselves into a corner and contradict themselves. Then, when their arguments are exposed and debunked, get angry, defensive and spout MORE hate. I feel sorry for Brothas and Sistahs like him. Hatred takes up so much energy within the body.
My religion is Paganism and we are also American Citizens. We support gay marriages. When the capital of the United States of America finally supported equel rights for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS, it is a victory for liberty. Because of this, I am proud to be an American.
Its absolutely EMBARRASSING for "my" people to try and argue a moot point against marriage equality. Its amazing how this man talked about taking the "bible" out of the debate when CLEARLY his position comes from his religious beliefs (as he repeatedly said it over & over). He talks about how this country "legislates" morality, yes he feels he & others like him have the authority to DEFINE it for others. NOW, he wants SCOTUS to decide. Well guess what? Be careful for what you ask for bruh....
Great job RT! Your news anchor did a fantastic job of trying to pin this preacher down on his own contradictory responses. Bringing his deflections back to the topic, following up with questions that any logical person would ask. Just fantastic! And quite possibly the only news program to have taken on this extremely obvious matter. I'm really, really impressed.
Religion has NO MORE MEANING IN POLITICTS YOU IDIOT WE ALL HAVE DIFFRENT BELIEF ABOUT GOD NOW! xD btw my athiest friend who I accept says his imaginary god is equal to you'res!
Slippery slope argument. We're not talking about animals here. You're the one who don't seem intelligent enough to understand anything about civil rights.
i think that you have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy. YES, you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or multiple people. the right needs to be established by the supreme court first and right now that is not the case.
Slippery slope argument. Marrying your sister or multiple people are two other topics.
Interracial marriages were also prohibited before the Supreme Court judged that it was unconstitutional. Soon enough, the USA will finally stop being unconstitutional and become a real country of freedom.
Oh! By the way, gays in my country have the right to marry.
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson. The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy when the Mormons came around
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
- The Supreme Court of the United States, 1959
It's clear enough. And it appears in the lawsuit Massachussets has engaged against the federal government
"Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriage between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."
Just because a court says so doesn't mean it is constitutional.
I am glad you are sexually attracted to your dog you creep.... As much as we cant make you like the same sex we can't like the oposite sex so it is not the same thing and we do not need to be cured we were born to like people this way god made us this way to help our growing population which btw is thanx to you breeders we dont accidently get pregnant and abuse our children do we?
Wow this is hilarious. I work in the religion department for my school, for the professor of Black Theology. Today she had me make a copy of a book called 'Their Own Receive Them Not', which is a book about how black people don't support black gay people. So uncool. I think it's just because blacks in general are more religious than other people, and unfortunately they are very fundamental which causes for such narrow views on love and equality.
No sir, you're not allowed to vote on civil rights. Marriage is not only a civil right, it is a fundamental right. Any vote on civil rights by a majority would become a tyranny of the majority over minorities.
Poligamy? Slippery slope argument. We'll discuss it in due time.
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. Being gay may not be a choice but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here. The government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.
and in the south were whites allowed to vote on the rights of blacks??? at that time the majority of whites did not believe that blacks were equal. this is NOT a religious issue! why do they even have a rev. as a guest on this show?? i dont give two shits what he was "taught" i was BORN gay...i deserve EQUAL TREATMENT!!!!
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage
@kenballer00 Did the Court actually 'hear' Baker v. Nelson, or was it lacking of a substantial federal question? There were plenty of pro-black cases that were not heard because of the same reason, so should we have used those pre Brown v Board of Education cases as legal precedent?
since Baker was on MANDATORY appellate review, this is not just any dismissal. A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases Hicks v. Miranda. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts.
Therefore, the same-sex union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous to them the U.S. supreme court rejected it without any further review
@kenballer00 It need not be any 'constitutional right'. The simple fact that there is no legally valid difference between the capacity of a woman to be a spouse to a woman, or a man heralds the end of restrictions in marriage based on gender. I'm not sure why people don't see this already. Sexuality need not have anything to do with it. There is no reason to deny two heterosexual males legal marriage, when a drag queen and a lesbian can get legal marriage.
i have already gave you the reason why its justified to not allow marriage to be redefined. They may not be COMPELLING reasons to most people at this point in time but they are good enough to just say hey we are not going to call it marriage but here's civil unions and if thats not enough, you and others can put it on the ballot and resolve it in that way
@kenballer00 Nope, sorry. Since its in play to go to actual courts for actual trials, you need to have some consistently applicable and legally valid justification as to why gender matters when a couple gets married. lmao @ "good enough to just say hey, we're not going to ever explain ourselves, so here's a separate but equal substitute that we feel is good enough for you, although we cannot legally justify why gender is still a factor with legal marriage in any courtroom setting.'
@kenballer00 So let me get this straight: You believe that even though a case was not heard in 1975, the fact that the specific case lacked a substantial federal question should stand forever as a substitute for any actual 'explanation' or 'ruling' as far as why the gender of a woman should always be used to prevent her from marrying a woman, correct?
that is not the only case i showed you that explained why there is no right to same gendered marriage. There are other federal courts besides the U.S supreme court that give precedent. Nevertheless, i am sure when the Perry case gets to the U.S. supreme court , it will take a much stronger precedent than Baker in rejecting gay marriage again.
@kenballer00 There need not be a 'constitutional right'. There is currently no justification to discriminate based on gender, and therefore no consistently applicable rationale to keep bans on SSM in place. So unless you make it constitutional to tell women that only men can marry women, absent of any consistent rationale, you folks are ultimately sunk.
@kenballer00 Why would the Perry case go to the Supreme Court? What would be the Federal Question if opponents of same sex marriage took it that far? "The majority reserves the right to vote on any issue, and need not explain with consistently applicable rationale"? That would be an interesting precedent indeed...
“In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”
Rational basis review is “very deferential to the legislature, and does not permit this Court to interject or substitute its own personal views of DOMA or same-sex marriage.” Kandu at 145. This presumption of validity remains true “even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous.”
"the government argues that DOMA fosters the development relationships that are optimal for procreation, thereby encouraging the “stable generational continuity of the United States.” (Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 39), pp. 15-16). DOMA allegedly furthers this interest by permitting the states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and by adopting the traditional definition of marriage for purposes of federal statutes."
@kenballer00 Luckily, this is ultimately a gender discrimination issue. Even along the greatest reaches of your rationale (which, I might add...completely ignore the fact that judges have begun to demand 'strict' scrutiny for this gender conflict issue), both time & the law are on the side of same sex marriage being legal. Under rational basis, segregation remains legally viable and enforceable for many of the same arguments you posted yourself. Under strict scrutiny, it was struck down.
well first off gender is a quasi suspect class which requires intermediate scrutiny not strict scrutiny but even if they were a suspect class, it depends on how you are defining discrimination in this situation that i would agree with you in the first place. if you are saying discrimination is happening to a category of individual citizens, then thats not happening because men and women equally have the right to marry each other and vice versa. Same goes with gays and straights.
its not about allowing certain groups of people to get PHYSICALLY married but promoting a certain definition of marriage PUBLICLY. In order for the state to maintain society it uses the culturally understood term marriage to encourage responsible procreation and rearing of kids so the generation and generation after that can continue to understand where they need to focus their natural urges to procreate. The idea of marriage is about family and kids which springs from the idea of Gender
@kenballer00 So a state can only maintain society if same sex couples are not allowed to get legal marriage? Interesting. I never knew that blocking same sex marriages was such a vital component to heterosexual propagation.
@kenballer00 And what 'groups of people' are you talking about? Sexuality is never tested for legal marriage, as gay men can marry lesbians. When SSM is legal (as it now is again in California), heterosexual men can also marry other heterosexual men.
I really don't care about how you 'feel' marriage should be used by the state, but by what arguments you can raise to justify your position in 2010.
the point that i am making from the court cases is that we are not talking about infringing on somebody's right to get married, we are talking about ADDING a new right onto the positive laws that already exist to marry somebody of the same sex for a small group of people. this makes the burden of proof on your side to explain why we should change the definition of marriage because i admit i don't know whether it will infringe on the state's results from those efforts but the onus is not on me
@kenballer00 Clearly, in the most recent federal court case, we have seen that the simple desire to get legal marriage need not be a compelling reason to grant marriage rights. It is not 'that' much trouble to recognize same sex marriages. It is also not the first 'change' to a 'definition'.
"My religious convictions shouldn't be superimposed on you." The end! No buts!!
theopenmind05 1 week ago
He was taught that marriage should be between a man and a woman?! Well some people were taught that Hitler was a good man and that some races were better than others, so does that make it right? Hmm....i think not
borjie85 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
borjie85 2 weeks ago
This minority is quoting the "Bible"! A farce, because they couldn't even read this text when "his ancestors" were brout to this land! If one must be honest.... it is truly that they found the Christian God... by slavery! But, the Blacks say... no, that isn't true! Ironic, that they would say that same God would condemn a thing such as gay (same sex) marriage when he (by the Bible) is a said "seperate tribe and people" a people of cain cursed with black skin to denote them!
macrent2 1 month ago
Blacks...lol oh, Baptists? LOL! Special rights? What if I were a black man who was walking down the street and attacked and for being black? Do I deserve a special right to racial discrimination trial? the answer is... YES! So, if I were a gay man who was beaten for being gay do I deserve a special right to be beaten for being gay? Do I get anything special?
macrent2 1 month ago
You can choose whether your mind is infected with religion or not, you don't choose your sexual orientation.
MyITRcom 4 months ago
So simple, because black people were oppressed they feel really good about opressing others.
MyITRcom 4 months ago
NOT EXACTLY A CRITCAL THINKER, IS HE?
Pilgrim812 1 year ago
Keep worming Asian girls datemedear.info
posauago 1 year ago
I just don't see how straight people can claim to know better than gay people what gay means. It blows my mind.
musepigg 1 year ago
@musepigg Simple, religion is a mind infection that once it is installed, you can't see anything in a logical manner.
MyITRcom 4 months ago
Why the fuck did this broad not just ask why the people of DC were not allowed to vote on interracial marriage?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
GO D.C.!!! :) THANK GOD SOMEONE IS STEPPING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND NOT BACKWARDS. :)
unaguy05 1 year ago
This is disgusting. Not glbt people, but this intolerance shown against them. More disgusting still is the double standard with lesbian/bi women being sexy. This suggests that it really only comes down to an instinctual drive to protect traditional masculinity. I think glbt people have their entire lifestyle threatened just so shallow people won't have to see 2 men hold hands. It sickens me.
BipolarStoner420 1 year ago
Slavery and polygamy are approved by the bible.
You have rights to discriminate against LGBT minorities ?
Do I have rights to call you "N####R",sir?
NKWIA12 1 year ago 3
im so happy for citizens of DC, everybody has right to love and live with whoever they want. I cant wait for the day the federal govt accepts gay marriage. Its done in Europe, Canada and alot of other countries, what are we waiting for?
alps112001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah for this very sin. What makes you stupid Americans think that this country is so special to God that He won't destroy YOU for doing the same thing???
MaryWaterton 2 years ago
@MaryWaterton- God DID NOT destroy Sodom & Gomorrah because of homosexuality!!!! He did it because that city wanted to GANG RAPE people, and not only that but that city also did a whole lot of horrable things!!!!!! And that's why God destroed it, it had NOTHING to do with HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!
honeyblossom17 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot. If it were left up to a vote at the time, he'd still be picking cotton.
pcsassy03 2 years ago 10
i can't stand an intellectual mind that holds a lack of empathy. very dangerous. if this man lived 200 years ago in a white mans body he would of been a slave owner.
shelbyoryan 1 year ago
Oooppppsss!
muitaloca 2 years ago
This moron doesn't know what State rights or Civil rights are. Not to mention argues against himself, and changes his opinion mid conversation on courts.
kinxofsepluv 2 years ago 2
You noticed that too? LOL!
I was just laughing at him the entire time.
People who are SO adamently against Gay Rights/Marriage etc, ESPECIALLY those of color and uses race as a crutch to defend their positions don't realize how easily they put themselves into a corner and contradict themselves. Then, when their arguments are exposed and debunked, get angry, defensive and spout MORE hate. I feel sorry for Brothas and Sistahs like him. Hatred takes up so much energy within the body.
texxxasfynest 2 years ago 2
My religion is Paganism and we are also American Citizens. We support gay marriages. When the capital of the United States of America finally supported equel rights for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS, it is a victory for liberty. Because of this, I am proud to be an American.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago 5
Its absolutely EMBARRASSING for "my" people to try and argue a moot point against marriage equality. Its amazing how this man talked about taking the "bible" out of the debate when CLEARLY his position comes from his religious beliefs (as he repeatedly said it over & over). He talks about how this country "legislates" morality, yes he feels he & others like him have the authority to DEFINE it for others. NOW, he wants SCOTUS to decide. Well guess what? Be careful for what you ask for bruh....
texxxasfynest 2 years ago 3
when can we vote on his marriage? what scum
rextrek 2 years ago
Great job RT! Your news anchor did a fantastic job of trying to pin this preacher down on his own contradictory responses. Bringing his deflections back to the topic, following up with questions that any logical person would ask. Just fantastic! And quite possibly the only news program to have taken on this extremely obvious matter. I'm really, really impressed.
dweester 2 years ago
Wonderful, thank you for challenging his bigoted views.
spacepup84 2 years ago
Religion has NO MORE MEANING IN POLITICTS YOU IDIOT WE ALL HAVE DIFFRENT BELIEF ABOUT GOD NOW! xD btw my athiest friend who I accept says his imaginary god is equal to you'res!
AllAboutMen1234 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
being a queer is a sickness and you are all a bunch of freaks who dont know nothin about civil rights..i love my dog but i'm not gonna marry him
sssssssss999999 2 years ago
Slippery slope argument. We're not talking about animals here. You're the one who don't seem intelligent enough to understand anything about civil rights.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
@montrealpsycho
i think that you have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy. YES, you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or multiple people. the right needs to be established by the supreme court first and right now that is not the case.
kenballer00 2 years ago
My african american friend is all for gay marrige cause she may not be gay but she knows what equality is!
AllAboutMen1234 2 years ago 3
Slippery slope argument. Marrying your sister or multiple people are two other topics.
Interracial marriages were also prohibited before the Supreme Court judged that it was unconstitutional. Soon enough, the USA will finally stop being unconstitutional and become a real country of freedom.
Oh! By the way, gays in my country have the right to marry.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
@montrealpsycho
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson. The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy when the Mormons came around
kenballer00 2 years ago
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
- The Supreme Court of the United States, 1959
It's clear enough. And it appears in the lawsuit Massachussets has engaged against the federal government
"Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriage between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."
Just because a court says so doesn't mean it is constitutional.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
Furthermore, you can speak about the 14th amendment all you want, the Bill of Rights prevails. It's how the 21st amendment was repelled.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
this is the most retarded thing i have ever read. congrats on showing how uneducated you are...
mgoss85 2 years ago
I am glad you are sexually attracted to your dog you creep.... As much as we cant make you like the same sex we can't like the oposite sex so it is not the same thing and we do not need to be cured we were born to like people this way god made us this way to help our growing population which btw is thanx to you breeders we dont accidently get pregnant and abuse our children do we?
AllAboutMen1234 2 years ago
xD we don't choose our orientation buddy but you could do what Micheal jackson did to change his skin it makes no diffrence to me!
AllAboutMen1234 2 years ago
U worried about the wrong thing, you need to be more force on how to get freakness contain.
uraine7626 1 year ago
Wow this is hilarious. I work in the religion department for my school, for the professor of Black Theology. Today she had me make a copy of a book called 'Their Own Receive Them Not', which is a book about how black people don't support black gay people. So uncool. I think it's just because blacks in general are more religious than other people, and unfortunately they are very fundamental which causes for such narrow views on love and equality.
theFriendlyHughes 2 years ago 2
No sir, you're not allowed to vote on civil rights. Marriage is not only a civil right, it is a fundamental right. Any vote on civil rights by a majority would become a tyranny of the majority over minorities.
Poligamy? Slippery slope argument. We'll discuss it in due time.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
Suck it up Christians!
Clemburke1111 2 years ago
4:21 lol! that girls sign is qouting gaga =]
so happy it was passed today =]
daccord1 2 years ago
HE DIDNT CHOOSE TO BE BLACK!!!! I DIDNT CHOOSE TO BE GAY!!!! how is this NOT a civil rights issue? i dont understand his logic...
mgoss85 2 years ago 12
@mgoss85
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. Being gay may not be a choice but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here. The government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00 No matter how you slice it, bigotry is still bigotry.
MyITRcom 4 months ago
@MyITRcom
No matter how YOU slice it, special rights is still SPECIAL RIGHTS.
kenballer00 4 months ago
and in the south were whites allowed to vote on the rights of blacks??? at that time the majority of whites did not believe that blacks were equal. this is NOT a religious issue! why do they even have a rev. as a guest on this show?? i dont give two shits what he was "taught" i was BORN gay...i deserve EQUAL TREATMENT!!!!
mgoss85 2 years ago 3
@mgoss85
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Did the Court actually 'hear' Baker v. Nelson, or was it lacking of a substantial federal question? There were plenty of pro-black cases that were not heard because of the same reason, so should we have used those pre Brown v Board of Education cases as legal precedent?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbi
since Baker was on MANDATORY appellate review, this is not just any dismissal. A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases Hicks v. Miranda. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts.
Therefore, the same-sex union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous to them the U.S. supreme court rejected it without any further review
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 It need not be any 'constitutional right'. The simple fact that there is no legally valid difference between the capacity of a woman to be a spouse to a woman, or a man heralds the end of restrictions in marriage based on gender. I'm not sure why people don't see this already. Sexuality need not have anything to do with it. There is no reason to deny two heterosexual males legal marriage, when a drag queen and a lesbian can get legal marriage.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbison7
i have already gave you the reason why its justified to not allow marriage to be redefined. They may not be COMPELLING reasons to most people at this point in time but they are good enough to just say hey we are not going to call it marriage but here's civil unions and if thats not enough, you and others can put it on the ballot and resolve it in that way
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Nope, sorry. Since its in play to go to actual courts for actual trials, you need to have some consistently applicable and legally valid justification as to why gender matters when a couple gets married. lmao @ "good enough to just say hey, we're not going to ever explain ourselves, so here's a separate but equal substitute that we feel is good enough for you, although we cannot legally justify why gender is still a factor with legal marriage in any courtroom setting.'
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbison7
we just went through this. i gave you the legal reasons already. do you want them again but in a different form
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 So let me get this straight: You believe that even though a case was not heard in 1975, the fact that the specific case lacked a substantial federal question should stand forever as a substitute for any actual 'explanation' or 'ruling' as far as why the gender of a woman should always be used to prevent her from marrying a woman, correct?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbison7
that is not the only case i showed you that explained why there is no right to same gendered marriage. There are other federal courts besides the U.S supreme court that give precedent. Nevertheless, i am sure when the Perry case gets to the U.S. supreme court , it will take a much stronger precedent than Baker in rejecting gay marriage again.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 There need not be a 'constitutional right'. There is currently no justification to discriminate based on gender, and therefore no consistently applicable rationale to keep bans on SSM in place. So unless you make it constitutional to tell women that only men can marry women, absent of any consistent rationale, you folks are ultimately sunk.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Why would the Perry case go to the Supreme Court? What would be the Federal Question if opponents of same sex marriage took it that far? "The majority reserves the right to vote on any issue, and need not explain with consistently applicable rationale"? That would be an interesting precedent indeed...
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbison7
from the Federal court in Wilson v. Ake:
“In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Darkbison7
Rational basis review is “very deferential to the legislature, and does not permit this Court to interject or substitute its own personal views of DOMA or same-sex marriage.” Kandu at 145. This presumption of validity remains true “even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous.”
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Darkbison7
"the government argues that DOMA fosters the development relationships that are optimal for procreation, thereby encouraging the “stable generational continuity of the United States.” (Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 39), pp. 15-16). DOMA allegedly furthers this interest by permitting the states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and by adopting the traditional definition of marriage for purposes of federal statutes."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Luckily, this is ultimately a gender discrimination issue. Even along the greatest reaches of your rationale (which, I might add...completely ignore the fact that judges have begun to demand 'strict' scrutiny for this gender conflict issue), both time & the law are on the side of same sex marriage being legal. Under rational basis, segregation remains legally viable and enforceable for many of the same arguments you posted yourself. Under strict scrutiny, it was struck down.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbison7
well first off gender is a quasi suspect class which requires intermediate scrutiny not strict scrutiny but even if they were a suspect class, it depends on how you are defining discrimination in this situation that i would agree with you in the first place. if you are saying discrimination is happening to a category of individual citizens, then thats not happening because men and women equally have the right to marry each other and vice versa. Same goes with gays and straights.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Why should only men be allowed to marry women?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbison7 See also: Why should only men be allowed to vote?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Dark
its not about allowing certain groups of people to get PHYSICALLY married but promoting a certain definition of marriage PUBLICLY. In order for the state to maintain society it uses the culturally understood term marriage to encourage responsible procreation and rearing of kids so the generation and generation after that can continue to understand where they need to focus their natural urges to procreate. The idea of marriage is about family and kids which springs from the idea of Gender
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 So a state can only maintain society if same sex couples are not allowed to get legal marriage? Interesting. I never knew that blocking same sex marriages was such a vital component to heterosexual propagation.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@kenballer00 And what 'groups of people' are you talking about? Sexuality is never tested for legal marriage, as gay men can marry lesbians. When SSM is legal (as it now is again in California), heterosexual men can also marry other heterosexual men.
I really don't care about how you 'feel' marriage should be used by the state, but by what arguments you can raise to justify your position in 2010.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@D
the point that i am making from the court cases is that we are not talking about infringing on somebody's right to get married, we are talking about ADDING a new right onto the positive laws that already exist to marry somebody of the same sex for a small group of people. this makes the burden of proof on your side to explain why we should change the definition of marriage because i admit i don't know whether it will infringe on the state's results from those efforts but the onus is not on me
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Clearly, in the most recent federal court case, we have seen that the simple desire to get legal marriage need not be a compelling reason to grant marriage rights. It is not 'that' much trouble to recognize same sex marriages. It is also not the first 'change' to a 'definition'.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
c'mon girl...pick apart his "marriage is not a civil rights issue" by talking about interracial marriage...ugh fml
minutrax 2 years ago