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 VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
I agree with your 1st sentence. Justice Kennedy thought otherwise.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference between saying the 14th does not apply to a law and saying it applies but the law passed the applicable test. I was just wondering if you were saying marriage laws should be excepted from 14th A analysis.

I may be just picking nits.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Minorities were settled in Loving and, I'm sure, the various civil rights acts.
Click to expand...

And gays were settled in Obergefell. What's your point? You said you disagreed with this ruling and I'm asking why you don't disagree with Loving for the same reason (that you stated).
 
Last edited:
joecct said:
No. No. What I wanted was
1. SCOTUS to affirm the right that each state may determine who can get married within its borders.
2. SCOTUS validates the existing law that a marriage (or divorce) enacted in State A is valid in the rest of the USA.

The results allows everyone to be happy.

Old timers will remember the special spot that Elkton, MD occupied along the East Coast.
Click to expand...

Except for people too poor to go to another state to get married.

And by that logic, it sounds as though you'd be fine if the south stl prohibited interracial marriage, so long as they were forced to recognize such a marriage from Yankee-dom.

Yeah, no. We're not going back 50 years.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

GrinCDXX said:
And gays were settled in Obergefell. What's your point? You said you disagreed with this ruling and I'm asking why you don't disagree with Loving for the same reason (that you stated).
Click to expand...

Because god only dislikes minorities but he hates Gays!
 
unofan said:
Except for people too poor to go to another state to get married.

And by that logic, it sounds as though you'd be fine if the south stl prohibited interracial marriage, so long as they were forced to recognize such a marriage from Yankee-dom.

Yeah, no. We're not going back 50 years.
Click to expand...

a) How did they get married when State A had a required blood test and waiting period and State B did not? How did they get divorced when one State did quickies and other states made it exceedingly difficult? They figured out the answers and if they wanted it to happen bad enough, they made it happen.

b) No. Never said that.
 
unofan said:
This makes no sense. How do you logically believe Loving was correctly decided but not Obergefell?
Click to expand...

Is SSM a civil right? The SSM supporters managed to convince the courts, some legislators, and voters that it is. I don't think it is, but the SCOTUS disagrees with my opinion.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Is SSM a civil right? The SSM supporters managed to convince the courts, some legislators, and voters that it is. I don't think it is, but the SCOTUS disagrees with my opinion.
Click to expand...

You look at it as same sex marriage- others look at it as treating all people exactly the same. That's not only my point, but unofan's, too- based on his posts.

So by the measure of treating all people the same, and giving all couples the same protections and rules, yes, SSM is a civil right. Just another equal right, among many.
 
Let's replace same sex with interracial...

joecct said:
Is interracial marriage a civil right? The IM supporters managed to convince the courts, some legislators, and voters that it is. I don't think it is, but the SCOTUS disagrees with my opinion.
Click to expand...

How is this any different than what you actually posted?

Again, I'm not getting how you are distinguishing Loving from Obergefell. The only difference is changing race to sexual orientation. Both rely on the 14th Amendment, both made state laws that banned them unconstitutional, both were opposed on religious/natural law grounds.

So what logically differentiates them?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

unofan said:
This makes no sense. How do you logically believe Loving was correctly decided but not Obergefell?
Click to expand...

Because every white guy I know thinks Halle Berry is drop dead gorgeous and a good number of the same white guys think two guys getting busy with each other is icky.

This whole argument and the divisiveness is has caused really fries my hash anymore and its time to start calling this like it is. I guess that makes me as close minded as the people who oppose marriage equality. Well guess what, I'll tell you the same thing I've told all the Texas fans who bloviated about how they were going to come into my stadium and win:

SCOREBOARD.

The gay marriage issue is settled. The highest court in the freeking land said so. Freeking live with it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

WeAreNDHockey said:
Because every white guy I know thinks Halle Berry is drop dead gorgeous and a good number of the same white guys think two guys getting busy with each other is icky.
Click to expand...

In 1862, slave owners raped their female slaves, most likely because they found them attractive (and for certain because they considered them chattels). But most of those same people did not support allowing whites to marry their slaves. The culture they lived in was against it, typically because most people felt it was against God's plan. The trial judge in Loving stated as much:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

That statement was made by an educated and law-trained judge in the 1960s, a full century after the Emancipation Proclamation. Given time, nearly all of us have come to believe that idea is utter nonsense and that such bigotry cannot be and never has been sanctioned by God. Racial discrimination is not the last form of bigotry and intolerance we will eventually outgrow and cease laying at God's feet.
 
burd said:
In 1862, slave owners raped their female slaves, most likely because they found them attractive (and for certain because they considered them chattels). But most of those same people did not support allowing whites to marry their slaves. The culture they lived in was against it, typically because most people felt it was against God's plan. The trial judge in Loving stated as much:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

That statement was made by an educated and law-trained judge in the 1960s, a full century after the Emancipation Proclamation. Given time, nearly all of us have come to believe that idea is utter nonsense and that such bigotry cannot be and never has been sanctioned by God. Racial discrimination is not the last form of bigotry and intolerance we will eventually outgrow and cease laying at God's feet.
Click to expand...

It wasn't limited to slaves. Remember Droit du seigneur?

In modern times Zaire's president Mobutu Sese Seko appropriated the droit de cuissage when traveling around the country where local chiefs offered him virgins; this was considered a great honor for the virgin's family.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top