I would think everyone would care if a judge was actually legislating from the bench but this whole gay marriage thing has been on shaky constitutional ground since the beginning.
The only gay issue that is on shakier constitutional ground is probably DOMA.
Are you just being silly or do you actually think this is an intelligent analogy?
Marriage is something that gays want to enter into. Comparing it into slavery, which is something that the slaves don’t want to enter into, is pretty fucking stupid.
I hope you’re trying to be funny, because that level of reasoning is pretty scary.
[/QUOTE]
It is a good analogy.
Since part of the argument is “it doesn’t mandate that which you don’t like” I pointed out to a point in time where laws allowed slavery yet didn’t mandate it. Of course slaves got screwed, but the law accepted the screwing; which is also part of my argument. The fact that a law mandates/allows/bans something doesn’t - by that very fact alone - make that good/acceptable/bad.
Furthermore, the fact that a law does not directly affect me (or it might seems to you) doesn’t mean I can’t oppose it.
Hating gays (or hating in general) is not part of me. I won’t make much of it, because it is part of the Gospel here.
Slavery involves human beings being forced into degrading, dangerous, and abusive conditions against their will. That’s the evil of slavery.
Who does gay marriage hurt and why?
You are very dumb.
Legally. Slavery was legal.
Gay marriage is the beginning of the end of civil marriage.
It took you so long to figure it out that it can only mean you’re dumber than I.
How, exactly, will gay marriage cause the end of civil marriage?
And how long will it take, because here in Massachusetts, just as the most convenient example, we’ve had gay marriage for a bit over six years, and last I heard, we had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the US. So what harm am I supposed to be looking for?
Not really. There’s lots of posters here. A good number of them post dumb things from time to time. Often, someone that has a decent record of not being dumb happens to post something dumb. I might have even done it myself. Keeping track of who’s actually a dumb person, and who’s merely a person who has said some dumb things, not to mention just keeping the hundreds of semi-regular posters here straight, is a hard job. As dumb as you are, I’ve never noticed you say anything even close to as idiotic as your analogy between gay marriage and slavery.
While I did suspect that you’re a moron, nothing that I’d seen actually put the nail in the coffin quite like that logical trainwreck. Not to speak for Miller, of course.
Hookay, Nino. Hope you enjoy your filled milk, dodging 10-year-old car drivers, and having no city zoning restrictions.
Well it’s more because the end of society as a whole. I mean here in MA, we all need to watch out for falling fiery mountains frogs and hail, livestock and first born sons dying everywhere, the swarms of insects are getting tiring. This stuff must be getting so common it doesn’t even make the news.
To be fair, it’s really easy to adapt these days. When the water turned to blood we just slapped on a new water filter and we were good to go.
I’m not a lawyer so can someone explain to me why the 14th amendment has to be strictly restricted to racial discrimination? If it was originally only intended for Blacks, how can we even extend it to other races? Perhaps someone can define “protected class” and what’s required to pass a certain “level of scrutiny”.
Hooray! And the stool-pushers rejoiced! Next in line… Pedos!
OK, then. We have a man whose is challenging his imprisonment. The government has locked him in jail and won’t let him go. He is thus being treated unequally to you, who are (presumably) not locked up.
Yes, yes, he’s committed multiple murders. But the amendment doesn’t say anything about that.
Oh, what’s that? You agree that the government should be able to create a classification under the law that treats convicted criminals differently than non-convicted criminals?
So, the government CAN create classes of people that they treat differently. OK, how should we judge those classes and decide which types of classifications are permissible?
Ahh, I see. The dadaism argument style. Well to bring it back to reality, proponents of slavery claimed it would be the end of society if the slaves were freed. Just as twits such as yourself brainlessly predict gloom and doom.
Since you’re comparing slavery to gay marriage, do you feel slavery should have continued to satisfy the evil retard “we need slaves” crowd?
Bricker, you did the read the part about due process of law, correct? Unless you’re claiming gay is a crime like murder, then your argument is very weak.
It just will, okay? Now stop asking him questions that require reasoning to answer… can’t you see the man’s in pain?
First, the only end it could cause to civil marriage is if retards like you are afraid you’ll catch the gay if (gasp) they are allowed to use the same words as you are.
Second, if gay marriage can kill marriage, maybe it doesn’t deserve to live. Though the mechanism by which this will occur is a mystery.
I know this is the Pit but my question was serious. Can anyone help me out?
A) Funny how filled milk isn’t banned in most places these days, and it’s still as yet uncommon.
B) Funny how a driver’s test that is equally applied to everyone who can reach the pedals is actually not something I’d get too worried about.
C) Funny how zoning restrictions don’t seem to me to need any levels of scrutiny to be enacted–I can’t see any intersections between zoning and levels of scrutiny except in cases where the zoning laws change underneath someone already on a property, and presuming those zoning laws apply equally to any property owner (white black whatever) then they are fine by me under what I consider to be the plain text of the 14th.
Interesting, though, reading the filled milk case seemed to indicate that the rational basis test in fact originally existed as a means to force the court to abandon the presumption of constitutionality and pay closer attention to people trying to take away minority rights. So what the hell happened, judiciary system?
In the course of digging through the caselaw on this, I also note that the courts later ruled (in Korematsu v. US) that even under strict scrutiny, the Japanese internments in WWII were totally legal. Which, for the record, kinda hurts my point, since even if we DID treat all laws with a “strict scrutiny” level of vigilance (which most closely describes my considered position, despite my earlier frothing–just as the compelling interest in dudes not yelling fire in a crowded theatre can overrule the on-paper absolute protections of free speech…) there’s no guarantee the courts wouldn’t be discriminatory dicks anyway.