|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 01, 2020, 04:19:30 PM
News: 2020 Election day live thread: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=409870.0

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: TexasGurl, Position TBD Pete, Associate Justice PiT)
  By 2020 which states will..
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: By 2020 which states will..  (Read 2335 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2010, 04:22:01 PM »

I'm going to be pessimistic and say almost all Gore/Kerry states will have gay marriage and almost all Bush Jr. 2000/2004 states will not have gay marriage.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,523
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2010, 12:10:42 AM »

Logged
Devilman88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2010, 12:29:34 AM »


This map is so far off base it's not even funny.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,523
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2010, 12:35:37 AM »


This map is so far off base it's not even funny.

where am I off-base? is this a question you asked but think you know the answer to? if so, let's see a map!
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,051


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2010, 12:47:59 AM »

At best:

Logged
Devilman88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2010, 09:29:33 AM »


This map is so far off base it's not even funny.

where am I off-base? is this a question you asked but think you know the answer to? if so, let's see a map!

My map would look something like this:



Red- Same-Sex Marriage
Green- Civil Unions
Blue- Banned

Logged
Grumpy Thug
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,899
Korea, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2010, 09:37:31 AM »

Do you guys seriously think Montana will go for it?  Roll Eyes
Logged
IBNU
Rookie
**
Posts: 143
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2020, 10:28:46 AM »

All of them.
Logged
The Runaway American Dream
CraneHusband
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
Antarctica


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -3.83

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2020, 11:21:47 AM »

The discourse back then really shows how people stupidly thought it was up to states to legalize gay marriage, while it ended up being done by a tiny handful of judges and one Supreme Court Justice who was otherwise an incompetent, malicious hack.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,567
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2020, 10:04:45 PM »

It also severely underestimates the number of states who legalized it even before the Supreme Court.
Logged
bagelman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,045
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2020, 10:36:00 PM »

In high school I really thought that gay marriage would be a long struggle that would continue to be an issue today. Turned out wonderfully.
Logged
bagelman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,045
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2020, 10:37:40 PM »

By the year 2020 which states will have gay marriages? I'm hoping all of them because by that time, I will be 32 and ready to marry. Smiley  What states do you think will have gay marriage by 2020, 10 years from now.

Smiley
Logged
MarkD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,718
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2020, 03:18:59 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2020, 03:22:47 PM by MarkD »

The discourse back then really shows how people stupidly thought it was up to states to legalize gay marriage, while it ended up being done by a tiny handful of judges and one Supreme Court Justice who was otherwise an incompetent, malicious hack.

Whether or not to ban same-sex marriage actually was up to the states from the beginning of the Republic until the year 2015. Whether or not to ban marriage between people who are closely related or whether to regulate the minimum age at which one can get married is still up to the states right now. Whether or not a public school district can fire an openly gay teacher is still up to the states right now.

Marriage is not actually a constitutionally-protected right, despite the claims by the Court that it is. In the 19th Century, the Court upheld laws that ban polygamy, because the Court, at the time, understood that marriage is not any kind of constitutionally-protected right. The Court has been erroneously claiming that marriage is a right protected by the Constitution starting with a bit of obiter dictum in Meyer v. Nebraska, and continuing on with Section 2 of Loving v. Virginia, and the main opinions in Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court's conclusion in Loving was correct, because of the reasons given in Section 1 of its opinion, but Section 2 of the opinion was unnecessary and inaccurate. The fact that the Court keeps repeating this mistake does not make it true. If marriage is a constitutionally-protected right, then laws against polygamy, laws banning a certain degree of consanguineous marriage, and regulations about the minimum age at which someone can marry are all constitutionally suspect and have to be scrutinized by the courts. That would mean our opinions on those laws are irrelevant -- only the opinions of federal judges matter.

It would also be a mistake to think that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination against gay people. That is not what the Clause was intended to mean. At the time the 14th was adopted, the noun that would have been most commonly used to refer to gay men was the word "sodomite." No member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1866 would have told their constituents that "I supported the proposing of the 14th Amendment because I believe not only in equality for the recently freed slaves, but also because I support equal rights for sodomites." Likewise, none of the members of the state legislatures, in 1868, would have said such a thing in explaining why they voted for ratification of the 14th. The Equal Protection Clause has only one known purpose, and that was to ban state government discrimination based on race. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, in the late 19th Century, was far narrower than it has become in the 20th and 21st Century. That's appropriate, because the Justices of the late 19th Century were adults when the 14th was adopted, and they were much more familiar with what the 14th was intended to accomplish.

Don't think that, just because the Court has been rendering broader interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause in the 20th and 21st Centuries, and that it has started to strike down some state laws that were/are discriminatory towards gay people, that the Court has now proven that sexual orientation is not a choice. The Court, over the 20th and 21st Centuries, has never claimed that the only circumstances in which they will enforce the Equal Protection Clause is when state governments discriminate against people on the basis of an immutable characteristic -- a characteristic that people are born with and can never change. The Court has often struck down laws that discriminate based on a characteristic that people obviously choose. There is no limit to what ways the Court can and might enforce the Equal Protection Clause. Five Justices might invoke the Equal Protection Clause as their reason for striking down any law they don't like any time they choose to.

The Court still has not ever said that any and all government discrimination against gay people is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, or that said discrimination is "constitutionally suspect." Justice Anthony Kennedy, who you seem to think is "an incompetent, malicious hack," has had four opportunities to say such things, and he has consistently avoided saying so. in Romer v. Evans Kennedy said that one state law that was discriminatory toward gay people only violated the "rational basis test," which is extremely different from any heightened scrutiny tests. Then in the next three cases, Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges, Kennedy wrote about libertarian principles, not an egalitarian principle about sexual orientation. Long before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Kennedy wrote an opinion, for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that it was constitutionally permissible for the federal government to bar gay people from serving in the military.

Whether or not to declare that marriage is a constitutionally-protected right or to declare that there should be absolutely no government discrimination against anyone because of their sexual orientation is based entirely on the subjective choices of five or more Justices. Such choices are not guided by any historical facts surrounding why the 14th Amendment was adopted. So long as the Supreme Court continues to expand the meaning of the 14th -- what rights does it protect and what kinds of discrimination does it forbid -- the states are going to continue losing their powers to make laws that the voters and the state legislatures want to make. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, another member of the Court who was already alive and an adult at the time the 14th was adopted, saw his younger colleagues on the Court frequently strike down state and local laws they do not like. He saw it happen frequently during the 29 years he served on the Court in the early 20th Century. In 1930, he wrote a dissenting opinion on another occasion in which it was happening, and part of what he said was this.

Quote
I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. ... [W]e ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the states, and should be slow to construe ... the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the states may pass. (Baldwin v. Missouri, dissenting opinion.)

Rewrite the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer. Enumerate what rights the states cannot violate; enumerate what kinds of discrimination are prohibited. States should have clear guidelines what laws they cannot adopt and the federal courts should have far less discretion in choosing what laws to strike down. To continue living in a federal system in which the federal courts have unfettered discretion in choosing what laws to strike down is very stupid.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.