Sotomayor Grants Emergency Stay to Kansas: Halts Gay Marriage.

[Syriusly]

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.

The equal protection clause mandates that each be granted the same legal protection of their rights. Marriage is recognized by the courts as a fundamental right. Gays and lesbians are being denied the right to same sex marriage.....on the basis that that they can't procreate.

However, no one else is held to that standard. No straight couple is denied the right to marry because they fail that standard. No straight marriage is invalidated if there are no children. Not a single state applies this standard to any straight marriage.

If the procreation standard is the reason that gays and lesbians are denied the right to marriage, then the standard would apply to anyone who couldn't meet it. Including any straight couple who couldn't have children. Yet it isn't. Straights are exempted from this standard. While its applied exclusively to gays.

Its that unequal application of standards of exemption that violate equal protection.

That is completely wrong.
Gays are not denied the right o marry. A gay man can marry any woman he wants. The fact that he does not want to marry a woman is irrelevant. Otherwise lets extend marriage protections to people who dont want to get married at all.

And the Lovings were not denied the right to marry- a white many would marry any white woman he wanted. The fact that he does not want to marry a white woman was irrelevant.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.

The equal protection clause mandates that each be granted the same legal protection of their rights. Marriage is recognized by the courts as a fundamental right. Gays and lesbians are being denied the right to same sex marriage.....on the basis that that they can't procreate.

However, no one else is held to that standard. No straight couple is denied the right to marry because they fail that standard. No straight marriage is invalidated if there are no children. Not a single state applies this standard to any straight marriage.

If the procreation standard is the reason that gays and lesbians are denied the right to marriage, then the standard would apply to anyone who couldn't meet it. Including any straight couple who couldn't have children. Yet it isn't. Straights are exempted from this standard. While its applied exclusively to gays.

Its that unequal application of standards of exemption that violate equal protection.

That is completely wrong.
Gays are not denied the right o marry. A gay man can marry any woman he wants. The fact that he does not want to marry a woman is irrelevant. Otherwise lets extend marriage protections to people who dont want to get married at all.

And the Lovings were not denied the right to marry- a white many would marry any white woman he wanted. The fact that he does not want to marry a white woman was irrelevant.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

blah blah blah. The VA statute applied to blacks and prevented them from marrying whites, and vice versa. Nothing prevents gays from marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong.
Next.

Oh, no...he's got you. You're using the EXACT reasoning that was used to justify bans on interracial marriage:

"There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally whites and blacks are unable to marry those of the different race."

Its shocking how much your ilk has recycled the same rhetoric used by opponents of interracial marriage. The same logic. Hell, even the same appeals to God and Nature.

So, um....how's that working out for you?

But wait for it- the stock response is.....wait for it.....wait for it.....but that was race- and gay is choice!

And dance away from equal protection as fast as they can.......

How do you define a gay person? What is the accepted legal definition?
Oh, there isnt one. Oops. Further gay marriage laws would also apply to straight people. Ergo there is no disrcimination. You yourself admitted it.

LOL....yeah.....meanwhile.....

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.

The equal protection clause mandates that each be granted the same legal protection of their rights. Marriage is recognized by the courts as a fundamental right. Gays and lesbians are being denied the right to same sex marriage.....on the basis that that they can't procreate.

However, no one else is held to that standard. No straight couple is denied the right to marry because they fail that standard. No straight marriage is invalidated if there are no children. Not a single state applies this standard to any straight marriage.

If the procreation standard is the reason that gays and lesbians are denied the right to marriage, then the standard would apply to anyone who couldn't meet it. Including any straight couple who couldn't have children. Yet it isn't. Straights are exempted from this standard. While its applied exclusively to gays.

Its that unequal application of standards of exemption that violate equal protection.

That is completely wrong.
Gays are not denied the right o marry. A gay man can marry any woman he wants. The fact that he does not want to marry a woman is irrelevant. Otherwise lets extend marriage protections to people who dont want to get married at all.

And the Lovings were not denied the right to marry- a white many would marry any white woman he wanted. The fact that he does not want to marry a white woman was irrelevant.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

blah blah blah. The VA statute applied to blacks and prevented them from marrying whites, and vice versa. Nothing prevents gays from marrying.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gross misunderstandig of equal protection noted.

Rabbi.....you have no understanding of what equal protection is the law is, nor have even read the 14th amendment.

Run along, kiddo. The adults are talking.

Based on your posts that is clearly not the case.
"Equal protection" does not mean everyone gets the same bennies. Try again.

You still haven't read the 14th amendment and still haven't the first clue what 'equal protection in the law' is. When you figure it out, join us. Until then you're simply not informed enough to comment intelligently on the topic.

Start with the 14th amendment. At least read that. I'll even link to it for you so all you have to do is read.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.]

Equal protection Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.

Hint: it was written ten years ago, was wrong then in theory, and is wrong now in practice.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.

The equal protection clause mandates that each be granted the same legal protection of their rights. Marriage is recognized by the courts as a fundamental right. Gays and lesbians are being denied the right to same sex marriage.....on the basis that that they can't procreate.

However, no one else is held to that standard. No straight couple is denied the right to marry because they fail that standard. No straight marriage is invalidated if there are no children. Not a single state applies this standard to any straight marriage.

If the procreation standard is the reason that gays and lesbians are denied the right to marriage, then the standard would apply to anyone who couldn't meet it. Including any straight couple who couldn't have children. Yet it isn't. Straights are exempted from this standard. While its applied exclusively to gays.

Its that unequal application of standards of exemption that violate equal protection.

That is completely wrong.
Gays are not denied the right o marry. A gay man can marry any woman he wants. The fact that he does not want to marry a woman is irrelevant. Otherwise lets extend marriage protections to people who dont want to get married at all.

And the Lovings were not denied the right to marry- a white many would marry any white woman he wanted. The fact that he does not want to marry a white woman was irrelevant.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

blah blah blah. The VA statute applied to blacks and prevented them from marrying whites, and vice versa. Nothing prevents gays from marrying.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

Wrong. Black men did not have a right that white men had.
Homosexuals have all the rights that heterosexuals have. You've already admitted this.

 

[Syriusly]

The equal protection clause mandates that each be granted the same legal protection of their rights. Marriage is recognized by the courts as a fundamental right. Gays and lesbians are being denied the right to same sex marriage.....on the basis that that they can't procreate.

However, no one else is held to that standard. No straight couple is denied the right to marry because they fail that standard. No straight marriage is invalidated if there are no children. Not a single state applies this standard to any straight marriage.

If the procreation standard is the reason that gays and lesbians are denied the right to marriage, then the standard would apply to anyone who couldn't meet it. Including any straight couple who couldn't have children. Yet it isn't. Straights are exempted from this standard. While its applied exclusively to gays.

Its that unequal application of standards of exemption that violate equal protection.

That is completely wrong.
Gays are not denied the right o marry. A gay man can marry any woman he wants. The fact that he does not want to marry a woman is irrelevant. Otherwise lets extend marriage protections to people who dont want to get married at all.

And the Lovings were not denied the right to marry- a white many would marry any white woman he wanted. The fact that he does not want to marry a white woman was irrelevant.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

blah blah blah. The VA statute applied to blacks and prevented them from marrying whites, and vice versa. Nothing prevents gays from marrying.

If one is about equal protection- then the other is. Did the Lovings deserve equal protection under the law?

There is no discrimination as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to contract marriage. ANd equally homosexuals and heterosexuals are unable to marry those of the same sex.
QED.
There is no discrimination as both whites and blacks are able to contract marriage. And equally blacks and whites are unable to marry those of the opposite race.

Wrong. Black men did not have a right that white men had.
Homosexuals have all the rights that heterosexuals have. You've already admitted this.

Sure they did- according to your skewed logic, black men could marry anyone that they wanted- so long as the person was black- in exactly the same way that homosexuals can marry anyone that they want- so long as they are not the same gender.

 

[Skylar]

That is completely wrong.
Gays are not denied the right o marry. A gay man can marry any woman he wants. The fact that he does not want to marry a woman is irrelevant. Otherwise lets extend marriage protections to people who dont want to get married at all.

And shocker, you dust off yet another classic interracial marriage argument. "A white man can an marry any white woman he wants. The fact that he doesn't want to marry a white woman is irrelevant. "

The interracial marriage laws break when you try to explain WHY the standard exists. And bans on same sex marriage break in the exact same place. As there's no valid reason to deny gays the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. There's no rational reason for it. There's no valid state interest served by it. It just....because.

That's not good enough. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right, you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have none. Arbitrarily denying rights is a clear equal protection violation.

 

[Skylar]

Sure they did- according to your skewed logic, black men could marry anyone that they wanted- so long as the person was black- in exactly the same way that homosexuals can marry anyone that they want- so long as they are not the same gender.

Exactly. Its the same tired interracial marriage ban arguments all over again. The exact same logic, the exact same appeals, the exact same failure to produce a valid reason why.

 

[Skylar]

blah blah blah. The VA statute applied to blacks and prevented them from marrying whites, and vice versa. Nothing prevents gays from marrying.

The Virginia law didn't prevent blacks from marrying....as long as they only married other blacks. And you're using the same tired logic, insisting that the law doesn't prevent gays from marrying.....as long as they only marry women.

Both the interracial marriage ban and gay marriage ban arguments break in the exact same place: the complete lack of a valid reason why. The restrictions exist....because they exist. And when denying someone a fundamental right, you need a very good reason. That restrictions 'exist' isn't it.

 

[Politico]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

That is hopefully what she is saying since Kansas voters did decide. It was an activist fed judge that disagreed.