sob It’s like he’s witnessing slavery, with 100% more hot man-on-man action!
suck it you hateful bigoted degenerate whore-mothered goat-fucking trash(gay marriage ban overturned
Basically, as it stands right now, there are three broad levels of standards for whether a law violates the Constitution (specifically, the 5th and 14th amendments) or not.
The lowest, “Rational Basis”. simply means that a law that restricts the behavior of citizens must be rationally related to a potential legitimate government interest. Whether that interest is the actual intent or not. This is the default level of review for any cases not involving a suspect class. So for example, since gays are not a suspect class, the fact that there’s a argument that banning gay marriage increases tax revenue means that gay marriage bans will arguably pass a rational basis test.
Intermediate scrutiny, by contrast, requires that the law be "substantially"related to an “important” interest. This level is typically applied to gender discrimination and discrimination based on legitimacy–at the federal level, it also applies to immigration status. It also applies to cases about free speech that involve time, place, and manner rules. A law forcing all pornographic theatres into a specific zoning area, for example, falls under intermediate scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny, which in my biased opinion means “following the letter of the damn constitution as much as is practical”, requires that a law serve a compelling government interest, be narrowly defined to serve that interest, and restrict as little as possible. Currently this level applies to race, to immigration status at the state level, and to any minority group that is A) historically discriminated against, B) politically powerless, C) “discrete or insular”, and D) in possession of a trait that is immutable or visible. As I said above, the Japanese internments were ruled to fall under strict scrutiny (and passed it).
Duh, there’s a giant GD thread on this. Nevermind. :o
Thanks, Zeriel!
Yeah. Those knobs who thought up *Brown vs. Board of Education *were way out of line.
Jim Crow passed a Supreme Court challenge too in Plessy v. Ferguson using that logic too.
Go fuck yourself, you ignorant son of a fornicating anarchist.
I dunno, is it? I just picked a name that sounded churchy because I couldn’t think of any names that sounde firehally or chapelonthebeachy.
Christ on a cracker, it’s not that hard. It’s not relevant in any way how I feel about tax breaks. I know the SDMB doesn’t do well with staying on topic, but please quit trying to read beyond what I’ve said. Quit assigning me positions.
Now where in my argument do you see anything where I said “gay people should not have tax breaks”? That’s right. Nowhere. Where did I say the opposite? Oh yeah, also nowhere.
Exactly. Which is why you have to avoid giving them another “out”. You can’t give them an easily knocked-down statement. You’ve got to pound on the fact that they think gays are icky. Once you start saying things like “it doesn’t even affect you”, all they have to do is show how it affects them, no matter how slightly, and you’re now wrong. Just because you can win the argument doesn’t mean you can say whatever the hell you want and expect it to fly.
I totally fail to understand this argument (Clothahump’s not Stu’s).
What is a federal judge meant to do? Not all laws are constitutional. If the legislature enacted a law criminalizing Church attendance, would it be legislating from the bench for a court to strike it as violating the First Amendment?
If you don’t want courts to be able to strike legislation, that’s fine, but that means you have to get rid of the constitution. If you don’t want that, you need some mechanism to enforce it. Now don’t be childish and call it legislating from the bench just because you don’t agree with the outcome.
You said if gay people are allowed to marry, they will get tax breaks they didn’t previously get and that that would inconvenience straight people (like inconveniencing all us straights would cause the union to crumble).
So lets stop splitting hairs, shall we? If that statement isn’t designed to imply that gay people shouldn’t get tax breaks, then what is it designed to imply … I mean besides, gay’s are icky and here’s a rationalization for discriminating against them?
It’s also (surprise surprise for Chessic) just factually wrong. Married couples are, on average, wealthier. Allowing gays to marry will, on average, increase the tax base and, despite the tax breaks, result in higher revenues, allowing more tax breaks for good straight folk like Chessic. Sort of like the Laffer Curve, but drawn on a fabulous pink linen napkin rather than a crappy paper one.
Yeah separate but “equal” drinking fountains for gays!
Um…
What?
Yes, way to completely miss the point. OK, right you are: the murderer was a bad example, since he’s being deprived of liberty with due process of law.
So let’s consider the gun owner who is required to have training before he can carry a concealed weapon. He’s being treated differently than someone who HASN’T had that training. The law is making a distinction between the two, and not treating them equally. Terrible, right?
Also, the guy that wants to sell prescription drugs is being told he can’t, but his neighbor is allowed to!!! That is clearly unequal protection of the laws. Sure, sure – his neighbor has a degree in pharmacology and a license, but that’s no explanation for unequal treatment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The only thing “due process of law” applies to is depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
Obviously the government can make laws that permit unequal treatment of people… if it has good reason to.
Now: how do our courts decided what “good” reason is?
In other words, what sort of scrutiny do we subject laws to? we have to have scrutiny of some kind; we cannot just say that no law permitting unequal treatment of people is permissible - can we?
You really are a fucking tool, aren’t you? Are you even reading my posts? Are you even comprehending the words that are in them? It’s like you’re so incredibly stupid that I’m having a hard time continuing with you. Did you see the part where I said “I’m not implying anything” and “don’t read into this”? Then why THE FUCK would you say “what is it designed to imply”, you fucking turd?
Did you see the part where I said you can substitute any inconvenience you want in there? And that the tax thing isn’t the important part? That you can even sub in something about booking all the nice wedding spots? Then why the fuck are you shit-for-brains still going on about tax arguments?
Did you read the part where I said that it says nothing about whether you can or should pass Prop 8? Then why the fuck would you wipe the drool off your chin and go “like that would cause the union to crumlbe, HAR HAR”?
Did you read the fucking clear-as-day part where I said this applies to any and every argument posters ever makes about anything? Then why the fuck are you still on about gays?
I even numbered and labeled the premises and conclusions so you could have your hands held all the way from A to B and you still don’t fucking get it. You’re still like “Yeah…but what are you trying to say?” like some toked-out, glue-sniffing retard.
I don’t know why I even bother with you fucking simpletons.
Oh. I see now.
Well, don’t read anything into this, and I’m not implying anything, but suck my cock, asshole.
No, no, this *totally *has an impact! It will make them all gay. The Mormon Church will devolve into a senseless orgy of handjobs and rimming! Because if we could choose to marry people of the same sex, who the hell would want to marry an opposite-sex partner?! I mean, let’s be honest–which of us *doesn’t *have to close our eyes and imagine some dreamy same-gendered media figure in order to consummate our marriages as God intended?
Chessic, I appreciate that you think you’re trying to play Devil’s Advocate here. Unfortunately, you shot past the mark and landed on Retard’s Advocate.
Even if an argument from a fiscal perspective were remotely legitimate when deciding on civil rights,* you’re only looking at one tiny part of the picture: same-sex couples who, being allowed to file jointly, will result in a net decrease of tax revenue. However, this is far from the only economic consideration. For example: being married will allow partners to be covered under health care plans. How much money do you think it will save the state to not have to treat a bunch of previously uninsured people? And how many same-sex couples will be paying more taxes once they’re married? Etc.
*Freeing all the slaves was *really *expensive. Just terrible for the economy!
You mean the Out Of State Mormons From Utah that came to California to push their religion based shit on us and bankrolled the original Prop?
Good. I hope their fucking heads explode.
Certainly, see my amended post–strict scrutiny for every law. In other words, no “levels” of scrutiny at all, no one is more equal than anyone else.
Why intermdeiated scrutiny for sexual orientation? Why is sexual orientation more like gender than race? Put differently, what is the rationale behind subjecting race to strict scrutiny and gender to intermediate scrutiny, and why should the latter apply to sexual orientation? Does the rationale have something to do with the fact that sometimes it’s approppriate to discriminate between genders/sexes (no dudes in the ladies’ room; there’s a presumption that young children belong with their moms) whereas it’s hard to think of a reason it would be appropriate to discriminate on race/ethnicity/nationality (happened once, right?)? If so, when is it appropriate to discrimnate based on sexual orientation?
whole bean:
Why do you think it is appropriate to have “no dudes in the ladies’ room”?
You don’t care about, that unless a ruling goes against your right wing beliefs. The Roberts court is activist as hell and reaches far to change the laws. But they are righties just doing what needs to be done in the righty handbook . If you perceive a judge to be a lefty, it just raises your fight responses and elevates your adrenaline blocking out fair a reasoned responses.
The judge is a conservative one anyway. He can think, which is not allowed.