Alabama Supreme Court halts all same-sex marriages

[rudeguy]

It isn't that "gays are protected in some special way." It's that everyone is ensured of the same protection (and benefits) under the law.

Suppose a state wrote a law that said that everyone except men could own firearms. Do you think it would be "special protection" for the SCOTUS to tell that state the law was invalid on equal protection grounds? Now suppose the law said everyone except homosexuals could own firearms, and the SCOTUS struck down that law, too. Why, suddenly, is that a 'special protection" of gays?

Honestly, I don't know why it's so difficult for conservatives to understand the basic concept that "equal protection" is about just that: being protected equally.

Except that marriage is not clearly stated like firearms are.

Again...we are on the same side here. I think it should be legal, encouraged, promoted, etc. I just think it should be done in the proper way. The same way voting rights were handled.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh and I beg to differ about the amount of complicating factors about gay marriage, there are many and they aren't just "ick".

Thank you for demonstrating to werepossum the capacity of the conservative brain defect to deflect and rationalize away profoundly logical arguments, Right in his statement he mentioned that it's not hard to suppress the insanity of fear needed to walk safely across the street. If logic were cars you would be dead very quick. You are what you fear, mentally defective. It would be best for all of us if you marry a gold fish. There is, of course, an older word for you and it's 'bigot'. You have the ick factor in spades. Your capacity for disgust has made you disgusting. We always become what we fear. You ARE YOURSELF, the very exact thing that you hate.

 

[Brainonska511]

Except that marriage is not clearly stated like firearms are.

Again...we are on the same side here. I think it should be legal, encouraged, promoted, etc. I just think it should be done in the proper way. The same way voting rights were handled.

So if something is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, then a state is free to discriminate?

Last time I checked, equal protection and due process are spelled out.

 

[Moonbeam]

Except that marriage is not clearly stated like firearms are.

Again...we are on the same side here. I think it should be legal, encouraged, promoted, etc. I just think it should be done in the proper way. The same way voting rights were handled.

It's clearly stated that it's not clearly stated, that there are rights that are not enumerate.

 

[Moonbeam]

So if something is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, then a state is free to discriminate?

Last time I checked, equal protection and due process are spelled out.

When the conservative brain gets a hot bean up its ass, like having the desire for things to be spelled out, the logical faculty for interpretive reasoning flies out the window. Find a way for the conservative brain to need gay marriage, the discovery, for example, that gays accepted by society vote Republican, and they will see gay rights spelled out clearly in the cancer warnings on cigarette packs.

 

[rudeguy]

So if something is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, then a state is free to discriminate?

Last time I checked, equal protection and due process are spelled out.

I don't know. Is equal protection afforded to left handed people? Does due process apply here?

There are so many ways you could twist or turn this either way. So simplify it: pass an amendment. Make it clear.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't know. Is equal protection afforded to left handed people? Does due process apply here?

There are so many ways you could twist or turn this either way. So simplify it: pass an amendment. Make it clear.

Is there institutional discrimination against left handed people? Perhaps you want to consider another straw man.

 

[K1052]

I don't know. Is equal protection afforded to left handed people? Does due process apply here?

There are so many ways you could twist or turn this either way. So simplify it: pass an amendment. Make it clear.

Simply modify Title VII to include sexual orientation. Done. No amendment required.

Presuming the ruling comes down this year blowing out the last of the state holdouts for gay marriage I'd expect non-discrimination legislation to be an issue in 2016.

 

[rudeguy]

Simply modify Title VII to include sexual orientation. Done. No amendment required.

Presuming the ruling comes down this year blowing out the last of the state holdouts for gay marriage I'd expect non-discrimination legislation to be an issue in 2016.

I'm ok with that too.

 

[rudeguy]

Is there institutional discrimination against left handed people? Perhaps you want to consider another straw man.

No idea man. If it weren't for this place, I wouldn't think that discrimination existed at all. I learn about the ways people hate here.

I'm not going for a straw man. I'm trying to take away these morons' arguments who want to control other people's lives. Fighting it in court is just going to keep causing these issues to continue. Spell it out in black and white or stay out of it and let the states handle it.

 

[mikeymikec]

Oh and I beg to differ about the amount of complicating factors about gay marriage, there are many and they aren't just "ick".

I've yet to hear one that hasn't been shot down in flames umpteen times.

Furthermore, I've yet to hear one that doesn't blatantly point towards the person's closeted view that they would rather that homosexual people didn't exist in the first place.

 

[Moonbeam]

No idea man. If it weren't for this place, I wouldn't think that discrimination existed at all. I learn about the ways people hate here.

I'm not going for a straw man. I'm trying to take away these morons' arguments who want to control other people's lives. Fighting it in court is just going to keep causing these issues to continue. Spell it out in black and white or stay out of it and let the states handle it.

No. As a conservative, I do not want folk running to change the constitution every time some liberal gets a hot bean up his ass. Lets keep the constitution nice and general so that it doesn't have any language about the what size coke I can buy.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is there institutional discrimination against left handed people? Perhaps you want to consider another straw man.

Poor people clearly do not have equal... protection as rich people, due to different outcomes. The logic used to judicially rewrite marriage, to drop the criteria of opposite sexes, is alarming. I simply do not see its limits for it can logically be applied to rewrite anything.

Maybe this is the power of the Judiciary when backed by the President, without Congress acting. I'm just concerned by what we'll see them do next. The precedent does not stop with adding a re-written marriage to equal protection.

 

[K1052]

Poor people clearly do not have equal... protection as rich people, due to different outcomes. The logic used to judicially rewrite marriage, to drop the criteria of opposite sexes, is alarming. I simply do not see its limits for it can logically be applied to rewrite anything.

Maybe this is the power of the Judiciary when backed by the President, without Congress acting. I'm just concerned by what we'll see them do next. The precedent does not stop with adding a re-written marriage to equal protection.

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

 

[HomerJS]

No idea man. If it weren't for this place, I wouldn't think that discrimination existed at all. I learn about the ways people hate here.

I'm not going for a straw man. I'm trying to take away these morons' arguments who want to control other people's lives. Fighting it in court is just going to keep causing these issues to continue. Spell it out in black and white or stay out of it and let the states handle it.

Worked really well during the height of the civil rights era, 50s-60s

 

[rudeguy]

Worked really well during the height of the civil rights era, 50s-60s

You are a stupid man.

You just proved my point. How did we fix the civil rights problem?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You are a stupid man.

You just proved my point. How did we fix the civil rights problem?

The Supreme Court? Arkansas and Alabama officials tried to forcibly stop integration even after the Supreme Court ruling, so clearly leaving it up to the states didn't actually work. The Federal Government had to step in with the Civil Rights act, but that didn't happen for a full decade, and frankly it's insulting to say that states should have the right to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court until Congress specifically lays out what's acceptable. That goes against the Supremacy Clause which makes it the definition of unAmerican. But yes, let's leave matters of discrimination up to the states that have a 200 year track record of getting it absolutely wrong every single time.

 

[Wreckem]

You are a stupid man.

You just proved my point. How did we fix the civil rights problem?

SCotUS decisions and force is how.

SCotUS has already made up its mind. That is why they have refused to stay lower court rulings. The writing is on the wall and there will be a 6-3 opinion the last Thurday in June striking down all gay marriage bans across the nation(there are only 12 left). Alabama just makes itself look stupid and bigoted by unlawfully trying to supercede Federal Court orders.

Sure states can try to continue to enforce their bans after SCotUS rules but they will be subject to federal lawsuits that will expose them to millions/hundreds of millions in damages for civil rights violations. Then contempt and jail time for public officials who continue to refuse to payout damages/allow gay marriage.

Again the writing is on the wall. Idiots can keep going on and on and go down on the wrong side of history or they could quietly admit defeat(people who support gay marriage bans have already lost) and move on so they don't look as bad.

 

[Cozarkian]

Suppose a state wrote a law that said that everyone except men could own firearms.

Then heterosexual and homosexual men would be equally discriminated against, so the state would have written a law that discriminates based on gender, but not on sexual orientation. Now suppose a state wrote a law that everyone except men could marry a man. Can we now agree that this law also does not discriminate based on sexual orientation?

For another illustration, I'm going to go outside and randomly pick two people. What information do I need to obtain to determine if those two people can legally marry each other in a state with a traditional marriage law?

I would need to know their gender, age, whether they are already married to someone and whether they are related, correct? Notably, I would not need to know their sexual orientation, because whether those people are gay has no more relevance on their legal right to marry each other than their preference for sexual positions does.

How then, can the law be heldto deny equal protection to homosexuals, when the law makes no consideration of their status as homosexuals? The answer is it doesn't. That's my problem with the efforts to overturn the marriage laws through the courts. People have skipped straight to the question as to whether discrimination against gays violates equal protection without ever realizing the law doesn't actually discriminate against gays.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Then heterosexual and homosexual men would be equally discriminated against, so the state would have written a law that discriminates based on gender, but not on sexual orientation. Now suppose a state wrote a law that everyone except men could marry a man. Can we now agree that this law also does not discriminate based on sexual orientation?

For another illustration, I'm going to go outside and randomly pick two people. What information do I need to obtain to determine if those two people can legally marry each other in a state with a traditional marriage law?

I would need to know their gender, age, whether they are already married to someone and whether they are related, correct? Notably, I would not need to know their sexual orientation, because whether those people are gay has no more relevance on their legal right to marry each other than their preference for sexual positions does.

How then, can the law be heldto deny equal protection to homosexuals, when the law makes no consideration of their status as homosexuals? The answer is it doesn't. That's my problem with the efforts to overturn the marriage laws through the courts. People have skipped straight to the question as to whether discrimination against gays violates equal protection without ever realizing the law doesn't actually discriminate against gays.

I absolutely agree with this argument. Same sex marriage bans are about gender discrimination. They are still a violation of the 14th amendment, but not for the reasons most argue.

 

[norseamd]

Last time I checked, equal protection and due process are spelled out.

This.

There is far more to the constitution than the amendments. And in fact the amendments are not even the fundamental base of the constitution.

 

[zinfamous]

If you are for gays being married, then you better be for polygamous marriage and incestual marriage too, because it's all the exact same argument.

explain.

I expect to find humorous statements.

 

[waggy]

It amazes me that so many are against something that has ZERO effect on them.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm not saying what you can or cannot do in your bedroom, and neither is the government. You are free to do what you wish. The issue is should you and your goldfish be recognized as a legitimate relationship in the eyes of the law and society.

What about your toaster?

 

[feralkid]