Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 99 of 181

Thread: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

  1. #91

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    But the state can't deny anyone the privilege based upon discriminatory criteria - like race, gender, or sexual orientation.
    That is a very very very good point Spider. And a very huge PWNing of WhippetGrappler<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_288729", true); </SCRIPT>

  2. #92
    Super Moderator Zapp Brannigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    Posts
    8,269

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    But the state can't deny anyone the privilege based upon discriminatory criteria - like race, gender, or sexual orientation.
    I've pointed this out several times, but it's very possible (and given the lack of action here, probable) that they can, in fact, make laws that are discriminatory based on sexual orientation. It is not a federally protected class.
    Jacob Schlottke---Gone too soon, and the world is a little less bright because of it. RIP, brother.

    One, two, Evans is coming for you...

  3. #93
    Olympic Champ RYou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    8,376

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    It all resurfaced back here in NJ over the last week in December. The Senate President has promised to bring it a floor vote if it passes the NJ Senate vote today. The NJ Assembly shot it down 5-6 weeks ago. The lame duck Gov leaves office in 2 weeks. The lame duck legislature closes for winter break in 1 week.

    The issue I have with the way it is being handled now is that the Senate President is trying to usurp the formality of a bill being approved by both the Assembly and Senate before it comes to a floor vote. This is beyond the typical ramrod politics common to NJ and the fact this legislature has done absolutely nothing to confront a current $1 Bil deficit and projected budget deficit of $10 Bil for FY '10/11 is down right shameful.

    Check the odds in Vegas and if there is a line on this vote, take it as a loser because of the way it has been handled. BTW - 95% of the NJ legislature and the Gov are Demos and do nothing the reflects the will of the people in this state.
    Life's not the breaths you take, the breathing in and out that gets you through the day ain't what it's all about. It's the moments that take your breath away.

  4. #94

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan View Post
    I've pointed this out several times, but it's very possible (and given the lack of action here, probable) that they can, in fact, make laws that are discriminatory based on sexual orientation. It is not a federally protected class.
    And every time that has happened in the history of the US the people have risen up, recognized the injustice and gotten those being opprossed added into the list of protected class.

  5. #95

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhippetGrappler View Post
    Sully, you just contradicted yourself in the above statement. First, you claimed that marriage was a right. Underlined above you call it a priviledge. Which is it? A marriage license is a priviledge just as a drivers license is a priviledge. It is issued by a state which has the right to deny the priviledge.
    I don't see where in the statement you quoted I said marriage was a right, but my coffee might not have kicked in yet.

    I have made (or tried to make) two points in this thread, 1. People have the right to not be discriminated against based on their gender, dening people the priveledge to marry because they are the wrong gender is in violation of their right to not be discriminated against based on gender. And 2. I understand that there is no legal 'right' to marry and that sexual orientation is not a protected class under whatever statute, but I don't believe that it's constitutional/legal/whatever to give different groups of people different privledges even if it's not based on skin/gender/religion/whatever else is protected. For example, if a state passed a law that says people with blue eyes aren't allowed to use sidewalks, it would get overturned by a court, right? Use of sidewalks is not a legally guaranteed right and eye color isn't a protected class.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  6. #96

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    But the state can't deny anyone the privilege based upon discriminatory criteria - like race, gender, or sexual orientation.
    And under that criteria then we must allow bigamy too.

  7. #97

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    And under that criteria then we must allow bigamy too.
    This is not true, the state can deny privleges based on marital status.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  8. #98

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    This is not true, the state can deny privleges based on marital status.
    Well if it can be denied on that basis than likewise it can be denied on gender.

    Once you say... consenting adults shall not be denied marriage licenses based on sexual preference, I GUARANTEE you, bigamists will sue the courts based on the same equal protection clause that homosexuals now now argue they are being denied.

  9. #99

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Well if it can be denied on that basis than likewise it can be denied on gender.

    Once you say... consenting adults shall not be denied marriage licenses based on sexual preference, I GUARANTEE you, bigamists will sue the courts based on the same equal protection clause that homosexuals now now argue they are being denied.
    As I understand the equal protection clause (and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me), a person can't be discriminated against based on their race, religion or gender. If two men walk into a courthouse and say they want to get married they will currently be denied because they are the wrong gender, they're being discriminated against because of their gender. If a bigamist walks into the same courthouse and wants to get married he'll be denied because of his marital status, not because of his religion or because of his race or his gender.

    Also, did bigamists sue the courts based on the equal protection clause when the courts ruled that people of different races could marry each other? if so, how'd it work out?
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •