What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FlagDUDE08 said:
What about the e-coli-related diseases you could get from "giving the package"?
Click to expand...

I think it's more of a risk-consequence ranking. The risk of two siblings giving birth to a child with mental retardation or physical deformities is quite high. The consequences are also relatively severe. Both on a micro and macro scale. So high risk, high consequence. There's a reason it's not allowed.

I think your most salient point was regarding those infected with HIV bearing children. I am hoping someone else could address that point because I wouldn't know how to even approach it. The risk is high, the consequences are severe. It does seem like a double standard to not allow it. At least at face value.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

dxmnkd316 said:
I think your most salient point was regarding those infected with HIV bearing children. I am hoping someone else could address that point because I wouldn't know how to even approach it. The risk is high, the consequences are severe. It does seem like a double standard to not allow it. At least at face value.
Click to expand...

Any time you are dealing with government restriction of citizen rights, there is going to be a balancing test in play. You have to balance the right of the individual vs the good done for society in restricting that right. The degree of restriction is another thing you have to consider.

Restricting marriages between close kin is across the board, and not discriminatory against any particular class or subset of people (apart from those people who want to marry their sister - sorry Alabamans). It's also a relatively mild restriction. The law is saying "You can't marry this extremely small subset of people", not "You can't get married at all." There is a whole world of other folks out there for them to marry.

Folks with diseases that can be transmitted to offspring are a whole different matter. You would be completely eliminating their ability to marry, not imposing a mild restriction. Pretty sure that wouldn't be kosher under the ADA. In any event, they still wouldn't be able to marry their sisters.

Also, common sense says that we can't reasonably expect to stop someone from procreating. We can try to encourage them not to procreate with close kin.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
The ban is still based upon the ability to safely bear healthy children without a third party influence. You haven't changed that, only tried to spin it in order to fit an agenda. It's still discrimination.
Click to expand...

Different classes can have different reasons. You can stop trying to pigeonhole everything into a one-size fits all answer just to be a *****...err...devil's advocate. A reason to prevent incestual marriages that are capable of producing deformed offspring has absolutely no effect on gay couples who inherently cannot produce such off spring. The exclusion isn't to encourage healthy child rearing, but to prevent deformed offspring. Again, that's why a state like arizona lets first cousins marry so long as one is sterile.

To the extent you think aids people should similarly be excluded, I'd say you could make that argument and could possibly win. But good luck getting that passed in your state house. Again, you start with the presumption that marriage is a fundamental right that all can enjoy. You then exclude certain forms. Depending on what you're excluding, you need to justify it. The justification for one exclusion need not apply to others where it's inapplicable.

Seriously, if you want to prevent gay marriage, come up with one legitimate reason. Its likely sexual orientation won't be given heightened scrutiny, so all you need is some legitimate reason (rather than a compelling one). "Because god and the Bible" doesn't count. Neither does "it's icky." This is why the lawyers are stuck on this procreation theme this week, because it's all they have. And it doesn't pass common sense at all given that they're fine with octogenarians getting married even though they can't have kids.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
Different classes can have different reasons. You can stop trying to pigeonhole everything into a one-size fits all answer just to be a *****...err...devil's advocate. A reason to prevent incestual marriages that are capable of producing deformed offspring has absolutely no effect on gay couples who inherently cannot produce such off spring. The exclusion isn't to encourage healthy child rearing, but to prevent deformed offspring. Again, that's why a state like arizona lets first cousins marry so long as one is sterile.

To the extent you think aids people should similarly be excluded, I'd say you could make that argument and could possibly win. But good luck getting that passed in your state house. Again, you start with the presumption that marriage is a fundamental right that all can enjoy. You then exclude certain forms. Depending on what you're excluding, you need to justify it. The justification for one exclusion need not apply to others where it's inapplicable.

Seriously, if you want to prevent gay marriage, come up with one legitimate reason. Its likely sexual orientation won't be given heightened scrutiny, so all you need is some legitimate reason (rather than a compelling one). "Because god and the Bible" doesn't count. Neither does "it's icky." This is why the lawyers are stuck on this procreation theme this week, because it's all they have. And it doesn't pass common sense at all given that they're fine with octogenarians getting married even though they can't have kids.
Click to expand...

You know what's funny? You're trying to pigeonhole everything into a one-size fits all answer through a totalitarian system until you figure out that the pigeonhole is inconveniencing you. I haven't taken a stand on the issue; I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your planning and how much of a hypocritical jerk you leftists really are.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FlagDUDE08 said:
You know what's funny? You're trying to pigeonhole everything into a one-size fits all answer through a totalitarian system until you figure out that the pigeonhole is inconveniencing you. I haven't taken a stand on the issue; I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your planning and how much of a hypocritical jerk you leftists really are.
Click to expand...

Honest question, what is your specific stand here?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

French Rage said:
Honest question, what is your specific stand here?
Click to expand...

Because the word "marriage" is heavily used in the country's tax code, either it must be defined or taken out of the tax code. The Constitution states that Congress shall make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out the duties within the Constitution, and obviously that includes taxation. From a standpoint of the federal definition of "marriage", Congress passed a law declaring it as a union between one man and one woman. Do I have any issue with civil unions between two people regardless of gender? I do not, so long as the church's decision to define the state of matrimony in their eyes, and only their eyes, is not infringed. If you want to create legislation defining a legal marriage as between two people regardless of gender, so be it. I doubt this case will be any different from how PPACA went.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
You know what's funny? You're trying to pigeonhole everything into a one-size fits all answer through a totalitarian system until you figure out that the pigeonhole is inconveniencing you. I haven't taken a stand on the issue; I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your planning and how much of a hypocritical jerk you leftists really are.
Click to expand...

Do you and fishy understand how completely disingenuous and full of crap you sound when you make the "I'm just asking questions, I don't personally believe this" statement?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Every argument has flaws...the question is are you pointing them out to be helpful or are you just being a dick?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Because the word "marriage" is heavily used in the country's tax code, either it must be defined or taken out of the tax code. The Constitution states that Congress shall make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out the duties within the Constitution, and obviously that includes taxation. From a standpoint of the federal definition of "marriage", Congress passed a law declaring it as a union between one man and one woman. Do I have any issue with civil unions between two people regardless of gender? I do not, so long as the church's decision to define the state of matrimony in their eyes, and only their eyes, is not infringed. If you want to create legislation defining a legal marriage as between two people regardless of gender, so be it. I doubt this case will be any different from how PPACA went.
Click to expand...

Works for me.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Because the word "marriage" is heavily used in the country's tax code, either it must be defined or taken out of the tax code. The Constitution states that Congress shall make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out the duties within the Constitution, and obviously that includes taxation. From a standpoint of the federal definition of "marriage", Congress passed a law declaring it as a union between one man and one woman. Do I have any issue with civil unions between two people regardless of gender? I do not, so long as the church's decision to define the state of matrimony in their eyes, and only their eyes, is not infringed. If you want to create legislation defining a legal marriage as between two people regardless of gender, so be it. I doubt this case will be any different from how PPACA went.
Click to expand...
What if you tossed it from the US Code? Consequences - short and long term?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

joecct said:
What if you tossed it from the US Code? Consequences - short and long term?
Click to expand...

If you tossed it from the code, in the short term it would be left up to the states, thereby throwing out DOMA but allowing Prop 8. In the long term, people would only get faith based marriages. We'd probably end up with a Demolition Man part of the future where everyone is single.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I highly doubt that SCOTUS will rule on DOMA in any way that would remove existing "marital deductions" from the tax code, especially for estate taxes; the family is broadly seen as an economic unit that as a whole is greater than the sum of its consitutent parts due to synergistic effects.

The state has a very clear and direct interest in recognizing the family as an entity unto itself for a variety of economic purposes. Absolutely no way will SCOTUS rule that Congress cannot make laws which determine what kinds of arrangements will and will not be recognized as "family" units, however you want to define it.

Currently, we use "married" and "family" interchangeably in the tax code, although the tax code also does allow a form of kibbutz so to speak for organizations and agencies that feed, house, and educate parentless children (the infamous section 501(c)(3)). I can imagine an alternate universe in which each family has to undergo some parental training before they can be certified to be entitled to "head of household" status

In other words, a "qualifying family" for tax purposes, is a "qualifying charity" so to speak, as custodians of society's next generation. The state has the most compelling imaginable interest in assuring that its future citizens are provided for. Giving them tax "breaks" is comparable to people who don't have children helping to subsidize the upkeep of other people's children, because n 20 years they will rely upon the fruits of those children's future labor (fast forward twenty years, do you want to be buying stuff? well, who made it, and shipped it?)

It's my observation that the special tax status for "married" people in the federal tax code is actually a special tax status for "family unit run by two people who until now at least had always been one man and one woman joined in a civil ceremony and perhaps in a religious ceremony as well." Though that last phrase is kind of awkward for a tax form.

Also, it's hard to envision them ruling "just use each state's definition" because people move around. Then you have a real gnarly situation if a marriage is entered into in one jurisdiction and the couple then moves into another jurisdiction in which their marriage would not have been allowed to occur. Which state's laws take precedence for Federal purposes if the Federal defintion is "whatever the state recognizes."? Anyway, that section of DOMA (section 2) is not under review from what I've read, "only" section 3 is.

So that is out too.

I get the sense that a majority of the justices secretly would like to vote "who the*&%# agreed to accept this dammed case to begin with?" it only takes 4 to agree....
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Now this is rather droll.....

Connecticut state lawmakers are still nursing the sore arms they have from patting themselves on the back over their new anti-gun law, and a lawsuit has already been filed to invalidate at least parts of it.

By, get this, a disabled person who maintains that the CT gun law violates his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act!

It seems (i've heard this so no link, sorry) that the details of the law outlaw the only kind of grip he can use to hold and fire a gun.


Whatever happened to the idea that legislatures are supposed to be "deliberative" bodies? Now it seems as if giving the appearance of doing "something" is all that matters, even if that "something" is so rushed and ill-considered that lots of problems that would have become apparent after a modicum of reflection are totally overlooked in the hurry.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FreshFish said:
Now this is rather droll.....

Connecticut state lawmakers are still nursing the sore arms they have from patting themselves on the back over their new anti-gun law, and a lawsuit has already been filed to invalidate at least parts of it.

By, get this, a disabled person who maintains that the CT gun law violates his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act!

It seems (i've heard this so no link, sorry) that the details of the law outlaw the only kind of grip he can use to hold and fire a gun.


Whatever happened to the idea that legislatures are supposed to be "deliberative" bodies? Now it seems as if giving the appearance of doing "something" is all that matters, even if that "something" is so rushed and ill-considered that lots of problems that would have become apparent after a modicum of reflection are totally overlooked in the hurry.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's a pretty unique and unexpected challenge to the law. If they had debated it eight hours a day for two months it probably wouldn't have come up.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

dxmnkd316 said:
To be fair, that's a pretty unique and unexpected challenge to the law. If they had debated it eight hours a day for two months it probably wouldn't have come up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, based soley on what I posted, I can understand that perspective. Can't always provide proper context. Some of the lawmakers were so laughable. One obviously had no idea what a "magazine" was or how it worked yet she was bloviating away on how they needed to be regulated anyway. You probably heard about when the NY state gun law was drafted they worded it in such a way that all of its restrictions applied to the police too. Like passing laws in and of itself ever solves anything. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top