Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Or, maybe, noting that it has long been recognized as a right for a man and woman to marry.    You know, because it's never been OK for a free man to marry a squash or a cow. 
5/31/2012 4:53 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Are you arguing that same sex marriage should be banned because traditionally marriage has been between a man and woman?
5/31/2012 4:57 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm arguing that using a court case that references traditional "rights" is a **** poor argument for SSM.

Get it?
5/31/2012 5:04 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
All along, your argument has been that there needs to be a compelling legal reason for states to be allowed to ban same-sex marriage.

I'll submit that the binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that was set in the Baker vs. Nelson case is that compelling legal reason.

So now, it seems that there would need to be a compelling legal reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it's previous binding precedent.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think that compelling legal reason would be.

And "because I think they got it wrong 40 years ago" is neither compelling, nor a legal reason.
5/31/2012 5:08 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 5:04:00 PM (view original):
I'm arguing that using a court case that references traditional "rights" is a **** poor argument for SSM.

Get it?
Why?  Can't a court case referencing a long held right be used to argue that a group traditionally excluded from that right be allowed to participate?
5/31/2012 5:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Because SSM has not long been recognized nor is it traditional.

Again, it recognized the long standing "right" for a man and a woman to marry.   Not for free men to marry whoever/whatever they wanted. 
5/31/2012 5:13 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Traditionally, marriage was between people of the same race.  The court still applied the right to marry to interracial couples who, traditionally, hadn't had the right to marry.
5/31/2012 5:26 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):
What's wrong?

I'm not arguing for a federal definition.  The states set marriage laws.  They just can't violate the 14th amendment.
Oh, gosh.  Look what I found.  A U.S. Supreme Court precedent on SSM and the 14th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

That was 1972.  A lot has changed in 40 years, sodomy laws were just overturned in 2003.  I guess you can hope for a similar result if the court agrees to hear Perry, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Again it isnt the case of right or wring, but of legal precedent.

This to me is the slam dunk. The court said what we have been saying all along.

This might not rise to an issue of the 14th Amendment.

So I think that there needs to be a burden of proof to explain why this is an issue that SC needs to address.
5/31/2012 6:52 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
All along, your argument has been that there needs to be a compelling legal reason for states to be allowed to ban same-sex marriage.

I'll submit that the binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that was set in the Baker vs. Nelson case is that compelling legal reason.

So now, it seems that there would need to be a compelling legal reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it's previous binding precedent.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think that compelling legal reason would be.

And "because I think they got it wrong 40 years ago" is neither compelling, nor a legal reason.
baker isn't a normal supreme court ruling.  because it was a summary dismissal and not an argument and opinion, stare decisis won't apply if the supreme court decides to revisit the precedent.  also there is an argument (and since I quit law school after only one year, it's beyond me) that rodriguez de quijas doesn't apply in certain cases defined in hicks.  and apparently this is one of those cases.
5/31/2012 7:04 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 6:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/31/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):
What's wrong?

I'm not arguing for a federal definition.  The states set marriage laws.  They just can't violate the 14th amendment.
Oh, gosh.  Look what I found.  A U.S. Supreme Court precedent on SSM and the 14th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

That was 1972.  A lot has changed in 40 years, sodomy laws were just overturned in 2003.  I guess you can hope for a similar result if the court agrees to hear Perry, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Again it isnt the case of right or wring, but of legal precedent.

This to me is the slam dunk. The court said what we have been saying all along.

This might not rise to an issue of the 14th Amendment.

So I think that there needs to be a burden of proof to explain why this is an issue that SC needs to address.
i guess we'll find out if the supreme court takes the case.

one problem for your argument.  if the sc doesn't take the case the circuit court ruling stands and prop 8 is overturned.
5/31/2012 7:05 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
The court would decide to overturn the federal ruling and accept the state ruling.
5/31/2012 7:33 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 7:33:00 PM (view original):
The court would decide to overturn the federal ruling and accept the state ruling.
What state ruling?  If the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the Circuit Court ruling stands.  If it decides to hear the case, then it would be accepting the premise that this is an issue that needs to be brought to the Supreme Court.
5/31/2012 7:41 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
I meant Federal interference.

The state supreme court ruling should be the final word on this issue.
5/31/2012 7:44 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 7:44:00 PM (view original):
I meant Federal interference.

The state supreme court ruling should be the final word on this issue.
Sure, that'd be great.


5/31/2012 7:55 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 7:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 7:44:00 PM (view original):
I meant Federal interference.

The state supreme court ruling should be the final word on this issue.
Sure, that'd be great.


So that would uphold prop 8.

Glad you agree with the will of the people.
5/31/2012 7:58 PM
◂ Prev 1...81|82|83|84|85...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.