Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
clearly I know what I am talking about because I am speaking through logic ...and not emotion as you most definitely are.
LOGIC, not emotion he says!
Originally Posted by Shogun
LOGIC, eh? naw, bullshit is more like it. Again, if you have anything to offer besides predictable crap then feel free to post it. In case you are wondering, yes, this is a direct challenge to prove marriage, gay or otherwise, is a civil right.
In its decision, the court wrote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
See, you can't even figure out when you dive bomb or when what you post to is irrelevant.
Try reading Atlas' post to you... there is no gender, racial or sexual component to the FUNDAMENTAL right of marriage.
Let me teach you a little bit about how a Constitutional case should be read (of course, I'm not an expert, but I'd say I've had a few more minutes of education in the area than you have).
1. If something is found to be a fundamental right, any law limiting that right is subject to strict scrutiny. That means government must have a really good reason for limiting the right.
1.a. When dealing with suspect classifications in laws (particularly those governing fundamental rights) there is an even higher burder to justify any intrusion on the right.
2. Marriage has been found to be a fundamental right. (go back and read Loving, because THAT is the proposition for which is stands).
3. Race, gender and sexuality are suspect when they are singled out for limitation of any right.
Conclusion: One may not single out homosexuals in order to deny them the fundamental right of marriage recognized for the rest of us, regardless of race, religion, etc.
And THAT is how one analyzes a constitutional issue with LOGIC and not emotion.
Did you really think I wouldn't call you on this? Provide a source that says orientation is a protected status, Jillian. It's cute watching you act like a laywer dancing around the facts but im afraid im going to have to call shenannigans on ya here. Sexual orientation is no more a protected status than hair color is. what YOU THINK is suspect means two things: jack and shit. Your opinon about the motivation to restrict marriage just isn't all that impressive.
and psssssssssst... Shogie... the whole point of the Constitution is that some idiot with his/her own biases can't deny someone a right to marry because they don't like them and think they should be discriminated against.
I don't buy it because my read on the constitution is it does not give us rights, it protects certain rights while the rest are assumed. I can't be the only person that thinks this. DOMA, IMO, is also unconstitutional. The Tenth doesn't give the states the right to deny civil rights.
I seem to be correct as hell about that NY bar exam.
Conclusion: You need to go back to school if that is the epitome of your legal expertise. Again, I hate to get all Scalia on ya but you, ma'am, are full of shit.
He's wrong on DOMA and even on Loving,.
Please explain how you see this in regard to the CA ruling.
I passed more states than NY on the first try, shogie baby... do try again.
As for the rest of your rant...
Conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about so are blowing nothing but air.
Go have another ciggie and try again someday....
1. If something is found to be a fundamental right, any law limiting that right is subject to strict scrutiny. That means government must have a really good reason for limiting the right.
HA!
no, Jillian.. the Constitution is meant to be a common system of government where DEMOCRACY (remember that word?) is fulfilled via representatives.
damn, yo.. tell me you are joking.
Not only a really good (compelling) reason, but they'd also have to show that the way in which they limit the right is narrowly tailored to advance the state's compelling interest.
Show-gun, has been proven wrong.
please, allow him him lick his wounded scrotum in peace.
Exactly correct. But shogie knows better.... eh?
really? that is the most perfect example of discrimination based on sexual preference and that is not a state interest. to show a state interest, one would have to show that interest being gays being a threat to something.Well, if the CA Constitution protects the right of marriage, and it extends to gay people, then the State would have a very hard time regulating that right differently from how they regulate marriage for straight people.
They would have to show a compelling State interest in the regulation, and also show that the regulation is very narrowly tailored to advance that interest, just as when the government makes laws affecting persons belonging to suspect classifications.
In the case of suspect class, you apply strict scrutiny.
Seems to me the same would apply for regulation of a fundamental right of marriage to gays in California.
You two are way over my head. Are you saying that the burden is on the state to explain why they are limiting someone's civil rights?
Exactly correct. But shogie knows better.... eh?
You two are way over my head. Are you saying that the burden is on the state to explain why they are limiting someone's civil rights?
I don't buy it because my read on the constitution is it does not give us rights, it protects certain rights while the rest are assumed. I can't be the only person that thinks this. DOMA, IMO, is also unconstitutional. The Tenth doesn't give the states the right to deny civil rights.
