LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[The Rabbi]

So a privilege can't be taken away but a right can? You're making no sense.

Rights can't be taken away, they can only be infringed, and they can (or should) only be taken away after due process.

The right to life can be infringed after due process.

Privileges can be taken away without due process. However, it doesn't mean they will be.

Was that a yes or a no?
A specific privilege can be taken away. People can be barred from the securities industry for life. People can have their federal firearms licenses revoked. People can have their marriage liceneses revoked. But no one has their ability to marry revoked. Because it is a privilege not a right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage, as defined by SCOTUS, is a right not a privilege.

It can be regulated by the states as long as they don't infringe on the right.

Utah is hoping to make its argument that it is "about the kids."

It will argue that having two adults in the house is good.

It will argue and fail that having two same-sex adults in the house is bad.

SCOTUS ruling will not only uphold same sex marriage, it will also uphold same-sex second parent adoption.

SCOTUS will conclude that Jake Starkey is unconstitutional.

You conservative progressives are going to lose this one big time and the issue will be over for good.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage, as defined by SCOTUS, is a right not a privilege.

It can be regulated by the states as long as they don't infringe on the right.

Utah is hoping to make its argument that it is "about the kids."

It will argue that having two adults in the house is good.

It will argue and fail that having two same-sex adults in the house is bad.

SCOTUS ruling will not only uphold same sex marriage, it will also uphold same-sex second parent adoption.

SCOTUS will conclude that Jake Starkey is unconstitutional.

You conservative progressives are going to lose this one big time and the issue will be over for good.

Congress will vote to outlaw Jake Starkey from message boards. Count on it!

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS will conclude that Jake Starkey is unconstitutional.

You conservative progressives are going to lose this one big time and the issue will be over for good.

Congress will vote to outlaw Jake Starkey from message boards. Count on it!

The Rabbi, my favorite conservative progressive idiot on the board. Wanting Big Government to do the job of forcing his religious wants on the rest of us.

tuff

 

[OKTexas]

Marriage, as defined by SCOTUS, is a right not a privilege.

It can be regulated by the states as long as they don't infringe on the right.

Utah is hoping to make its argument that it is "about the kids."

It will argue that having two adults in the house is good.

It will argue and fail that having two same-sex adults in the house is bad.

SCOTUS ruling will not only uphold same sex marriage, it will also uphold same-sex second parent adoption.

SCOTUS will conclude that Jake Starkey is unconstitutional.

You conservative progressives are going to lose this one big time and the issue will be over for good.

"conservative progressive", great oxymoron there fakey, when are you going to start referring to yourself in the third person like many other flipped out commies?

 

[Seawytch]

Again the fact remains...If you commit a felony you lose your right to vote and to bear arms and yet a Supreme Court decision said you can't take marriage rights away from those same criminals. Why is that, Rabbi?

Because unlike voting and firearms marriage is not a right but a privilege. You've proven it yourself.

So a privilege can't be taken away but a right can? You're making no sense.

{ahem}Still waiting for you to explain how a right like voting or bearing arms can be taken away by incarceration, but a "privilege" like marriage cannot? Care to give it a go?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because unlike voting and firearms marriage is not a right but a privilege. You've proven it yourself.

So a privilege can't be taken away but a right can? You're making no sense.

{ahem}Still waiting for you to explain how a right like voting or bearing arms can be taken away by incarceration, but a "privilege" like marriage cannot? Care to give it a go?

I explained that already. The marriage license is a privilege and can be revoked. That does nto imply any right of marriage.
Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Neither one requires a permit from the government. Thus they require due process to deny that right.

 

[Silhouette]

I explained that already. The marriage license is a privilege and can be revoked. That does nto imply any right of marriage.
Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Neither one requires a permit from the government. Thus they require due process to deny that right.

That's why in the DOMA/Prop 8 Hearing last year, one of the Justices asked the LGBT cult attorney "where in the Constitution is marriage guaranteed as a right"? Then they'll cite Loving v Virginia when they can't cite that from the Constitution. Then the next question is "how are you a race, gender, religion or country of origin"? None of those apply except a religion or cult. But LGBT has not applied for federal recognition or tax exempt status. They should really get on that if they want Loving to apply to them. Mere compulsive behaviors that organized don't cut the muster.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's why in the DOMA/Prop 8 Hearing last year, one of the Justices asked the LGBT cult attorney "where in the Constitution is marriage guaranteed as a right"? Then they'll cite Loving v Virginia when they can't cite that from the Constitution. Then the next question is "how are you a race, gender, religion or country of origin"? None of those apply except a religion or cult. But LGBT has not applied for federal recognition or tax exempt status. They should really get on that if they want Loving to apply to them. Mere compulsive behaviors that organized don't cut the muster.

Then they'll ask where the right to privacy is in the US constitution. Then they'll ask where the right to own a TV is in the constitution, or the right to eat Japanese food, or all the other things you can do because the US has a constitution that protects you from unwanted attention from the US constitution.

Then they'll say, hey, there's something called precedent you know. And the judges will say "yeah, we read about that in law school, and have dealt with this almost every day of our lives since then".

I don't remember straight people applying for tax exempt status either. What is your point?

 

[The Rabbi]

That's why in the DOMA/Prop 8 Hearing last year, one of the Justices asked the LGBT cult attorney "where in the Constitution is marriage guaranteed as a right"? Then they'll cite Loving v Virginia when they can't cite that from the Constitution. Then the next question is "how are you a race, gender, religion or country of origin"? None of those apply except a religion or cult. But LGBT has not applied for federal recognition or tax exempt status. They should really get on that if they want Loving to apply to them. Mere compulsive behaviors that organized don't cut the muster.

Then they'll ask where the right to privacy is in the US constitution. Then they'll ask where the right to own a TV is in the constitution, or the right to eat Japanese food, or all the other things you can do because the US has a constitution that protects you from unwanted attention from the US constitution.

Then they'll say, hey, there's something called precedent you know. And the judges will say "yeah, we read about that in law school, and have dealt with this almost every day of our lives since then".

I don't remember straight people applying for tax exempt status either. What is your point?

The right to privacy was discovered during Griswold.
There is no right to own a TV. No right to eat Jap food. No right to wear a hat. Not everything you're allowed to do is subject to being a right.

 

[Silhouette]

That's why in the DOMA/Prop 8 Hearing last year, one of the Justices asked the LGBT cult attorney "where in the Constitution is marriage guaranteed as a right"? Then they'll cite Loving v Virginia when they can't cite that from the Constitution. Then the next question is "how are you a race, gender, religion or country of origin"? None of those apply except a religion or cult. But LGBT has not applied for federal recognition or tax exempt status. They should really get on that if they want Loving to apply to them. Mere compulsive behaviors that organized don't cut the muster.

Then they'll ask where the right to privacy is in the US constitution. Then they'll ask where the right to own a TV is in the constitution, or the right to eat Japanese food, or all the other things you can do because the US has a constitution that protects you from unwanted attention from the US constitution.

Then they'll say, hey, there's something called precedent you know. And the judges will say "yeah, we read about that in law school, and have dealt with this almost every day of our lives since then".

I don't remember straight people applying for tax exempt status either. What is your point?

I just told you that if the cult of LGBT is tested against "Loving", it will fail because it doesn't live up to "race" "gender" "religion" or "country of origin". In fact, in DOMA as you well know, "Loving" was brought up and the Decision still was that the right to say yes or no to gay marriage was Found to be the "unquestioned authority" of the broadest consensus of each state. That subsequent judges have "questioned" the "unquestionable" authority since then is irrelevant. Their decisions aren't worth the paper they're written on. Gay marraige by the DOMA definition is only legal in 3 states by a consensus definition.

Behaviors only have one choice in the 14th: apply for federal recognition and tax-exempt status as a religion or fail.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Behaviors only have one choice in the 14th: apply for federal recognition and tax-exempt status as a religion or fail.

Again you are incorrect about the law.

When Colorado passed a law targeting homosexual for discrimination it was struck as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court - see Romer v. Evans (Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).).


Homosexual prevailed in removing the law so they didn't "fail" and they didn't have to apply for any special religious federal recognition.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

So a privilege can't be taken away but a right can? You're making no sense.

{ahem}Still waiting for you to explain how a right like voting or bearing arms can be taken away by incarceration, but a "privilege" like marriage cannot? Care to give it a go?

I explained that already. The marriage license is a privilege and can be revoked. That does nto imply any right of marriage.
Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Neither one requires a permit from the government. Thus they require due process to deny that right.

Sorry, that dance doesn't explain Turner v Safley...

 

[Silhouette]

Behaviors only have one choice in the 14th: apply for federal recognition and tax-exempt status as a religion or fail.

Again you are incorrect about the law.

When Colorado passed a law targeting homosexual for discrimination it was struck as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court - see Romer v. Evans (Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).).


Homosexual prevailed in removing the law so they didn't "fail" and they didn't have to apply for any special religious federal recognition.


>>>>

Another flawed premise...what, do you folks have a playbook called "false LGBT premises to use in debate"?

Marriage laws in the contested states don't target homosexuals for disinclusion. Also disincluded are other behaviors like wanting to marry your adult consenting sister or marrying more than one person. Don't feel singled out because you're not. Many behaviors and states of being don't qualify. Minors don't qualify also. Any one of those groups could just as "legitimately" insist they are being singled out and "targeted" using your "logic"..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The right to privacy was discovered during Griswold.
There is no right to own a TV. No right to eat Jap food. No right to wear a hat. Not everything you're allowed to do is subject to being a right.

That's correct but this about adults being equal to marry other adults. Here we support equality, even equality you don't like.

 

[Silhouette]

The right to privacy was discovered during Griswold.
There is no right to own a TV. No right to eat Jap food. No right to wear a hat. Not everything you're allowed to do is subject to being a right.

That's correct but this about adults being equal to marry other adults. Here we support equality, even equality you don't like.

Do you support brother/sister adults marrying? Father/son? Mother/daughter? Polygamists?

No, you don't support "equality" in the purest sense, do you? You support "specialty treatment" for members of the church of LGBT...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you support brother/sister adults marrying? Father/son? Mother/daughter? Polygamists?

I don't "support" it but it's allowable. "That's icky" is not a rational legal basis to deny someone equal standing before the law.

As for your "church", that exists only in your tiny homophobic mind.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Behaviors only have one choice in the 14th: apply for federal recognition and tax-exempt status as a religion or fail.

Again you are incorrect about the law.

When Colorado passed a law targeting homosexual for discrimination it was struck as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court - see Romer v. Evans (Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).).


Homosexual prevailed in removing the law so they didn't "fail" and they didn't have to apply for any special religious federal recognition.


>>>>

Another flawed premise...what, do you folks have a playbook called "false LGBT premises to use in debate"?

And what is the false premise?

YOU claimed that homosexuals did not qualify based on homosexuality being a "behavior" (which is the opinion you have staked out) and as such "Behaviors" don't qualify for equal protection under the 14th Amendment (ignoring the fact that originally constitutional prohibition regarding religion - a behavior - only applied to the Federal government and were extended to the States via the 14th).

I provided a cite United States Supreme Court Case which proved your were wrong, Colorado passed discriminatory laws targeting homosexuals and that law was deemed unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

From Romer:

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "​

You really should learn to admit being incorrect when you are wrong and proof is provided that proves you were wrong. In this case, your premise that homosexuals are not included under the 14th Amendment's equal protections provisions, is wrong statement as Romer v. Evans shows.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Do you support brother/sister adults marrying? Father/son? Mother/daughter? Polygamists?

I don't "support" it but it's allowable. "That's icky" is not a rational legal basis to deny someone equal standing before the law.

As for your "church", that exists only in your tiny homophobic mind.

Would you be willing to say what you just said in an amicus brief to the 10th circuit federal court of appeals?

If not, I don't believe you are being genuine with your "equality argument". Put your money where your mouth is and tell the US Supreme Court [when it gets there] that you believe brothers and sisters, parents and children be they adult and consenting should all enjoy the same marital benefits and "rights' as LGBT cultees. OK? You're right BTW. There is no official LGBT church. It's a cult and not federally-recognized...the only hope LGBT has at a shot at the 14th. What an unfortunate pickle to find yourselves in..

No? .....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you support brother/sister adults marrying? Father/son? Mother/daughter? Polygamists?

These questions are ignorant demagoguery and moot, as marriage law is not written to accommodate siblings or parents marrying their children.

Marriage law is written to accommodate only two unrelated equal partners, same- or opposite-sex.

The inequality manifests when the states deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re currently eligible to participate in, without changing, modify, or ‘redefining’ marriage in any manner, which is not the case with siblings, fathers and daughters, etc.

This nonsense about incest ‘marriage’ and the like is the desperate attempt by you and others on the social right to salvage an argument you know you’ve already lost.