The Liberal Supreme Court

123468

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Show me where anyone has said that.

    This is what I said.
    I guess it is not clear cut. I mean you can oppose Gay Marriage and think Homosexuals deserve love and compassion. But those two thoughts rarely exist in the same person.

    If you are in the first group then not a bigot, if you are in the second, you are and you are going to have to explain to me how you would not be.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    And they fired him-in January.

    Like he never said anything hateful prior to that.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Read the article they were asked not to participate because hey were gay. But if they called people like Tony Perkins a bigot, are they wrong?

    “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
    — FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

    In 2010, he was citing a 2008 study. A lot of people think the study was done poorly, and I disagree with Perkins, but at least he could show his work.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Show me where anyone has said that.

    This is what I said.
    I guess it is not clear cut. I mean you can oppose Gay Marriage and think Homosexuals deserve love and compassion. But those two thoughts rarely exist in the same person.

    If you are in the first group then not a bigot, if you are in the second, you are and you are going to have to explain to me how you would not be.

    This makes no sense.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    So some dude I've never heard of claims homosexuality leads to pedophilia, and that means I believe the same.

    Just so I'm clear on what my beliefs are.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    This isn't over. Not by a long shot. If anyone thinks the Free exercise claims aren't problematic in light of the gay marriage case, read this. Here's Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)


    The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    So some dude I've never heard of claims homosexuality leads to pedophilia, and that means I believe the same.

    Just so I'm clear on what my beliefs are.

    Who said you did?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    This makes no sense.

    What doesn't make sense? If you believe that homosexuals deserve love and compassion you are not a bigot. If you think they are filthy pedophiles and they should be outlawed and condemned by the law, you are.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    In 2010, he was citing a 2008 study. A lot of people think the study was done poorly, and I disagree with Perkins, but at least he could show his work.

    He knew his work was a lie and continued to spew it. Tell me how he doesn't hate gay people if he would say that?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Kennedy, as late as 2013. Jesus, I can't even. . .

    In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

    The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage isthe foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906) ; see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586–594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the lawsof the States and not to the laws of the United States”).

    Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. In De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570 (1956) , for example, the Court held that, “[t]o decide who is the widow or widower of a deceased author, or who are his executors or next of kin,” under the Copyright Act “requires a reference to the law of the State which created those legal relationships” because “there is no federal law of domestic relations.” Id., at 580. In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689, 703 (1992) . Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of “the virtually exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations.” Id., at 714 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).

    The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., **** 18, §5142 (2012), with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful—such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19 (2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    Read the article they were asked not to participate because hey were gay. But if they called people like Tony Perkins a bigot, are they wrong?

    “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
    — FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

    Perhaps. It would depend on whether there is a disproportionate overlap (I don't know if there is or not). If so, then he is merely stating a fact (again, if it's true).,
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    No it is not even remotely a fact and even if it were, blaming it on homosexuality is repugnant. Pedophiles are criminals period. Homosexuals are not pedophiles.

    If you were to look at the overlap of pedophiles and Speakers of the House or Christian Evangelists, would blame either of those things for their abhorrent behavior? But the fact is the majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual. And I know that no one here would suggest that the two were linked.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    What doesn't make sense? If you believe that homosexuals deserve love and compassion you are not a bigot. If you think they are filthy pedophiles and they should be outlawed and condemned by the law, you are.

    Who said all homosexuals are pedophiles. i.e, child molesters? Undoubtedly many are, probably most are not. Same thing applies to heteros. I don't think pedophiles deserve love and compassion with either group, if that make s me a bigot, I'm happy with that, at least I have a moral compass.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    https://stopabusecampaign.com/most-sex-abusers-are-heterosexual/

    Nobody is suggesting that pedophiles deserve love and compassion. What I am saying is that saying that pedophilia is a homosexual problem is the same thing that people like him have always said is that the gay agenda is to **** your little boys so they can turn them into homosexuals. It is an evil disgusting lie. Pedophilia is a separate and distinct issue from either homosexuality or heterosexuality.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,306 Senior Member
    Son of a ****....17 pages and I still don't know if Buffco is a bigot or not....seriously I need to know before I go over to eat leftovers from his fish fry (ok, I am going to go no matter what...but come on people)

    I need the Cliff's note version not a dissertation...Yes or No
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    A definite maybe.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    Son of a ****....17 pages and I still don't know if Buffco is a bigot or not....seriously I need to know before I go over to eat leftovers from his fish fry (ok, I am going to go no matter what...but come on people)

    I need the Cliff's note version not a dissertation...Yes or No

    I doubt he's a bigot, but he does discuss AI with his financial adviser which is kinda kinky..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    ricinus wrote: »
    I doubt he's a bigot, but he does discuss AI with his financial adviser which is kinda kinky..

    Mike
    We were just talking shop. Discussing screwing over you 99%ers.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,306 Senior Member
    ricinus wrote: »
    I doubt he's a bigot, but he does discuss AI with his financial adviser which is kinda kinky..

    Mike
    Buffco wrote: »
    We were just talking shop. Discussing screwing over you 99%ers.

    So wait a minute. You have a financial advisor, who from previous posts, sounds like a male. You are having kinky relationship with conversations which involve screwing 99% of the population.

    I don't know about bigot, but I think the LBGTers just found their new spokesma...make that spokesperson.

    daCPrpP.jpg
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    My early introduction to the Confederacy..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRyIMqXA_o8

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    sherb wrote: »
    Kennedy, as late as 2013. Jesus, I can't even. . .

    In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

    The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage isthe foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906) ; see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586–594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the lawsof the States and not to the laws of the United States”).

    Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. In De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570 (1956) , for example, the Court held that, “[t]o decide who is the widow or widower of a deceased author, or who are his executors or next of kin,” under the Copyright Act “requires a reference to the law of the State which created those legal relationships” because “there is no federal law of domestic relations.” Id., at 580. In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689, 703 (1992) . Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of “the virtually exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations.” Id., at 714 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).

    The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., **** 18, §5142 (2012), with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful—such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19 (2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State.

    How long until we get a polygamy case?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Well first we have to do the kabuki dance where everybody scoffs and sputters with outraged indignation at the idea that gay marriage could ever have any negative precedential effects.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Sometime after that.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    And as we speak, I receive this...

    http://www.hoover.org/research/hard-questions-same-sex-marriage

    Why can't such a brilliant guy ever cut to the basket?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Steven wrote: »
    And as we speak, I receive this...

    http://www.hoover.org/research/hard-questions-same-sex-marriage

    Why can't such a brilliant guy ever cut to the basket?

    Fantastic analysis. Its probably a good thing for you he's better at conlaw than he is at basketball. Spot on.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    He was on my team Saturday. Painful.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    What is so awful about polygamy? Why is it conservatives, who say they believe in smaller government, want the government to dictate the most intimate details of our personal lives?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    What is so awful about polygamy? Why is it conservatives, who say they believe in smaller government, want the government to dictate the most intimate details of our personal lives?

    well, the historical case for polygamy is certainly stronger, since unlike gay marriage it actually existed in the past. But against that, the state has a strong interest in limiting the number of wives a man may have, because polygamy reduces the number of marriageable females, and that's a recipe for societal instability. It also increases economic inequality, which should be of great interest to the left. Its unknown whether that interest is sufficiently compelling to overcome Kennedy's "liberty and dignity" jurisprudential approach. I would say that that Supreme Court has backed itself into a corner. Not that it matters. Precedence has little effect on Kennedy and the other justices. But his analysis will be problematic at the lower court level.

    Obviously this isn't guaranteed to happen. But its a very real possibility.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,271 Senior Member
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Old_World

    You're assuming that there would be no marriages where the husbands would outnumber the wives and that polygamy would be a popular option.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    And you're making a policy argument about the wisdom of plural marriage. But a reviewing court would not consider whether a state's decision to ban polygamy was wise; rather they would seek to determine if the state had a legitimate interest in doing so, and whether that interest would outweigh the liberty interest of the putative married partners. Given the decision last week, I'm not confident in what the Court's answer would be.

    As The Hoover institute link pointed out, the Supreme Court would have to overrule a prior US Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. United States, but that case was decided on free exercise grounds and not on the due process liberty interest of the aggrieved parties. So if the court wanted to give its blessing to Plural marriage, it could.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.