Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

    Continue
    Code:
    As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
    College Hockey 6       College Football 0
    BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
    Originally posted by SanTropez
    May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
    Originally posted by bigblue_dl
    I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
    Originally posted by Kepler
    When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
    He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

  • #2
    Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

    I think we're going to see a repeat of 50 years ago. Just like with bans on interracial marriage, I think the Supremes are going to say enough is enough, the ship has sailed, and any laws banning same sex marriage violate the equal protection clause, and we'll be done with it.
    If the ruling went down that way, legally speaking, you would have to strike down the progressive income tax. The only way to make same sex marriage part of the equal protection clause without opening pandora's box would be to pass an amendment to add gay people to women, minorities, etc...
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

      The only reason I think they'll go that way is this. First, they already apply the 14th amendment in sex discrimination. Courts are clearly going the direction of recognizing same sex discrimination. I just think they are going to find the patchwork of state laws on same sex marriage/banning same sex marriage too similar to the patchwork of bans on interracial marriage we saw 50 years ago. As for issues regarding income taxes, or Bob's desire to saddle himself with another wife (just kidding Bob), they'll ignore it in this decision and wait to see if it comes before them. It will be a very narrow application of EP.
      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

        Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
        The only reason I think they'll go that way is this. First, they already apply the 14th amendment in sex discrimination. Courts are clearly going the direction of recognizing same sex discrimination. I just think they are going to find the patchwork of state laws on same sex marriage/banning same sex marriage too similar to the patchwork of bans on interracial marriage we saw 50 years ago. As for issues regarding income taxes, or Bob's desire to saddle himself with another wife (just kidding Bob), they'll ignore it in this decision and wait to see if it comes before them. It will be a very narrow application of EP.
        Probably true, but this is something that really should be handled through the legislature.
        "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

          How do courts handle different marriage provisions now? For example in Kentucky its legal to marry at age 12 (I'm not kidding). In some states you might have to wait until you're 18. Say a Kentucky couple moves to one of these states and then gets divorced before the age of 18. How does the divorce court handle that?
          Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

          Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

          "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

            Originally posted by Rover View Post
            How do courts handle different marriage provisions now? For example in Kentucky its legal to marry at age 12 (I'm not kidding). In some states you might have to wait until you're 18. Say a Kentucky couple moves to one of these states and then gets divorced before the age of 18. How does the divorce court handle that?
            That is a reasonable question, though I doubt there are tons of married 12-year old Kentuckians heading over the borders and then divorcing. But, it is an interesting question in general as to how differences in state laws that impact a person's status even after they've left that state are addressed.
            Originally posted by Priceless
            Good to see you're so reasonable.
            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
            Very well, said.
            Originally posted by Rover
            A fair assessment Bob.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

              Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
              That is a reasonable question, though I doubt there are tons of married 12-year old Kentuckians heading over the borders and then divorcing. But, it is an interesting question in general as to how differences in state laws that impact a person's status even after they've left that state are addressed.
              Most or all states have laws setting forth the requirements of valid marriage, including provisions applying to marriages obtained in other states.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                That is a reasonable question, though I doubt there are tons of married 12-year old Kentuckians heading over the borders and then divorcing. But, it is an interesting question in general as to how differences in state laws that impact a person's status even after they've left that state are addressed.
                True and this is an extreme example although I have to imagine its come up at least once. However, lets say a state allows a 16 year old to marry an 18 year old and then they move to another state. Can that state arrest the 18 year old for banging an underage person even though they're married???
                Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

                  Originally posted by Rover View Post
                  True and this is an extreme example although I have to imagine its come up at least once. However, lets say a state allows a 16 year old to marry an 18 year old and then they move to another state. Can that state arrest the 18 year old for banging an underage person even though they're married???
                  Good question again. My guess is that the other state would recognize the marriage and thus there wouldn't be an issue. Probably because the second state would not see the difference as being that significant to make an issue over it. The difference with same sex marriage is states have staked out very different positions on what they will or will not recognize. Not sure how that gets tidied up.
                  Originally posted by Priceless
                  Good to see you're so reasonable.
                  Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                  Very well, said.
                  Originally posted by Rover
                  A fair assessment Bob.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

                    Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                    Good question again. My guess is that the other state would recognize the marriage and thus there wouldn't be an issue. Probably because the second state would not see the difference as being that significant to make an issue over it. The difference with same sex marriage is states have staked out very different positions on what they will or will not recognize. Not sure how that gets tidied up.
                    This actually isn't that unusual. It comes up all the time. Classic examples are couples who claim a "common law" marriage from a state that recognizes them, then seek a divorce or some sort of status as a marital couple in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriages. Or someone from China who claims to have been married in that country under circumstances we might find bizarre.

                    I think typically the courts have said they recognize those "foreign" marriages unless they would be so outside the bounds of normalcy that the state simply can't recognize it. Marrying a 14 year old probably wouldn't meet that standard. Marrying your dog probably would.
                    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                      This actually isn't that unusual. It comes up all the time. Classic examples are couples who claim a "common law" marriage from a state that recognizes them, then seek a divorce or some sort of status as a marital couple in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriages. Or someone from China who claims to have been married in that country under circumstances we might find bizarre.

                      I think typically the courts have said they recognize those "foreign" marriages unless they would be so outside the bounds of normalcy that the state simply can't recognize it. Marrying a 14 year old probably wouldn't meet that standard. Marrying your dog probably would.
                      Aha! This sets a good precedent then for same sex marriages/civil unions I would think. It sounds like state courts deal with what they have in front of them (say a divorce from a marriage made overseas or an underage union) even if the marriage wouldn't have happened under their own state law. By that logic, couldn't a same sex marriage and divorce be treated the same way, as in somebody gets the assets and maybe pays alimony while the other party gets the rest of the assets?
                      Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                      Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                      "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MinnFan View Post
                        If the ruling went down that way, legally speaking, you would have to strike down the progressive income tax.
                        Awww...it's so cute when someone with no legal training thinks they're a constitutional law scholar.

                        But do tell. How is a progressive income tax a violation of the 14th Amendment
                        Last edited by unofan; 12-13-2012, 02:10 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

                          Originally posted by unofan View Post
                          Awww...it's so cute when someone with no legal training thinks they're a constitutional law scholar.

                          But do tell. How is a progressive income tax a violation of the 14th Amendment
                          It's not. However, if you say that a law has to be applied equally to everyone then it would be. How is banning same sex marraige a violation?

                          The legal standard is that people in a similar circumstance are treated in a similar manner. Thus, all people making $50K/yr have the same rate applied to them and those making $250K/yr have the same (higher) rate applied to them. Just like all men are allowed to marry women regardless of sexual preference.
                          "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

                            Originally posted by MinnFan View Post
                            It's not. However, if you say that a law has to be applied equally to everyone then it would be. How is banning same sex marraige a violation?

                            The legal standard is that people in a similar circumstance are treated in a similar manner. Thus, all people making $50K/yr have the same rate applied to them and those making $250K/yr have the same (higher) rate applied to them. Just like all men are allowed to marry women regardless of sexual preference.
                            Be careful, because you can use this to try to justify affirmative action and quotas, at least one of which has recently been declared unconstitutional.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MinnFan View Post
                              It's not. However, if you say that a law has to be applied equally to everyone then it would be.
                              No, it wouldn't. You could have said the same thing when interracial marriage was legalized, and yet we still have progressive taxes.

                              But if you think you've discovered legal gold, I invite you to share your conclusions with the sovereign citizens and their ilk. It's right up their alley

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X