Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

Just like there was no discrimination against African Americans in the Virginia miscegnation laws......

 

But he would be talking to himself.

 

No, it was spelled out in the statute. "If any white person and colored person shall go out ......". Now lets see this law that bans "gay marriage" or even as much as even mentions sexual orientation.

 

My end of the conversation wouldnt change but we wouldnt have all these comments about ME. They attack me because they cant formulate a rational argument in response to my statements. I wish the silly fools would ignore me.

- - - Updated - - -

You could show me just one.

 

???? I see you claim I have it backwards, and then demonstrate that I do not.

 

I usually point out that heterosexuals are also prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

 

There are no laws or constitutional amendments that discriminate and ban "gay" marriage, because all they say is that "marriage shall be between a man and a woman"

Another mind(*)(*)(*)(*) game.......don't feed the troll

 

That is the only person he listens to. He posts no real arguments but pretends his irrelevant statements are some (*)(*)(*)(*) of argument.

Plus he admits to, and proclaims he is a troll see for yourself.

Even if he is proven wrong? Well see the statement above. He won't change. That's rather telling. It's really rare but occasionally my position is wrong and my end of the argument does change. But that is really called intelligent debate. Being obstinate in your own opinion and prejudiced against the opinions of others is the very definition of bigotry, to wit Dixon just openly confessed.

 

You mean don't offer a rational argument in response.
The sexual orientation of the couple is irrelevant. What you argue would be like an argument that laws against polygamy are discrimination against Mormons when they had no such intent at all. The couples religion is irrelevant. The laws prohibit people of ANY religion from polygamy. The fact that back then it was Mormons demanding a right to polygamy and the fact that it was only Mormons seeking plural marriage that were excluded from such marriages, doesn't transform the intent of the law into an intent to discriminate against Mormons. Just as you wont find as much as a mention of ones religion in our marriage laws, you wont find mention of sexual orientation. Both are irrelevant to the issues.

 

No, its a steadfast adherence to the text of the Constitution. Wouldn't be the first time the courts engaged in their freeform methods of "interpretation" of the constitution in order to produce whatever results they desire.

 

Which guarantees legal equality. Which you have weaseled around by arguing that ending discrimination is discriminatory!

Ah, so when due process of law finally ends up establishing policies and precedents you don't like, then THEY can't read! They just can't see that equality MEANS inequality, like you can. The courts think words MEAN something. But using a document demanding exactly the opposite of what you desire, to "support" your desires, is not ordinary bigotry, it's blind bigotry. It's funny, and it's losing every case. The Constitution is winning.

 

But there was no discrimination against white people or black people in the statute- anyone was free to marry- another person of the same color.

Just like you keep insisting that gays are free to marry- as long as they don't dare marry someone of the same gender.

- - - Updated - - -

Even assuming that is true-we still have the issue of sexual discrimination.

The only basis for denying same gender couples the same right to marriage as opposite gender couples is gender- or sex.

 

I had said that I was not going to respond to you any further but I'm going to make an exception here because, on the surface, you remarks seem reasonable. However it's just more horse(*)(*)(*)(*). There is a concept in law used when courts are considering the constitutionality of a law, or whether or not it is being applied correctly. It's called legislative intent. They look beyond the wording of the law to ascertain what the law makers wanted to achieve, who it effects an how. I don't know what the intent was with the anti polygamy laws was and I don't care. However, it's pretty clear that a law that restricts marriage to a man and a woman is directed at gays. No reasonable person can conclude otherwise since straight people do not want to marry someone of the same sex. You fail again

 

Our constitution doesn't require "legal equality". If that were true the law would have to treat the married and unmarried with "legal equality". It requires equal protection of the law which basically means at a minimum that any distinction in the law that does discriminate, must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. Most all laws discriminate between one classification of people and others. Legal Inequality by design.

 

I think this is worth more analysis. There were no laws against polygamy before the Mormons wanted Utah to become a state, because there was no demand for polygamy, so no need for such laws. Just as there are no laws today against levitation, because people aren't levitating. But just as soon as people should learn to levitate (and fly), you can guarantee a host of laws restricting and regulating this ability. EVEN IF these laws don't mention a single levitator specifically, and don't even mention levitation directly.

So anti-polygamy laws were passed at the federal level, to make sure that Utah could not join the union as a polygamist state. No, the laws did not mention Mormons, but it would be puerile to argue that they were NOT created to oblige the Mormons to "standardize" their marriages. These were Mormon-specific laws, no doubt about it. The intent of the law was to make the Mormons stop that disapproved practice.

Similarly, only an idiot would argue that the sudden wave of anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments and state laws had no context, and just at random happened to be passed at a time when same-sex marriage was getting major press coverage. Claiming on the basis of legislative wording that laws OBVIOUSLY passed to target Mormon marriage practices therefore had nothing to do with their religion, and that laws OBVIOUSLY passed to prevent same-sex marriage have nothing to do with sexual orientation, is profoundly dishonest. As usual.

Incidentally, the general issue of legislative intent has always been a sort of tug-of-war. On the one hand, legislators are very aware that if they make their intent clear, the courts will use that intent in considering a law. Courts don't just read the Congressional Record, they read committee hearing transcripts, debate language on the floor, newsletters to the constituents, etc. To avoid making his intent obvious, a legislator must go to some lengths not to mention it. Unfortunately, those lengths make it equally difficult for the constituents to understand what he did, and therefore re-elect him for sharing their prejudices. There are many examples of this tension, ranging from anti-homosexuals and anti-polygamy to anti-Democrats (with the voter ID laws) and many others. Making life miserable for a generally unpopular minority is a surefire way to get votes, but a surefire way to lose court decisions.

 

These little declarative statements without as much as stringing a few words together as to why, are really meaningless. Ive presented everything from ancient Mesopotamian law, BC Roman through US court decisions, all demonstrating that the intent is to include heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation. Marriage is limited to men and women for the exact same reason all 50 states limit this or similar statutes to men and women.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

and it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

 

I won't feed the troll either!

 

dixon you forgot to provide a link for your claim so that people may read it in context and see what it's really about.

Here, I'll provide it for you and for the benefit of others.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.160.htm

 

He clearly doesn't care what the constitution says. He said so himself.

Even though forbidding somebody to do something based only on their sex is sexual discrimination. He doesn't care, he hs said as much.

clearly he is obstinate in his own opinion and prejudiced against the opinions of others.

by definition that is bigotry. He said he was. His own words, see where I quoted him.

 

Yes it does. Try reading it sometime.

Also false. Legitimate distinctions matter. Children are not required to be treated as adults, felons are not required to be treated as non-felons, women are not required to be treated as men. The deciding question is do different treatments serve a legitimate public interest? In the case of same-sex marriage, the answer has been "no", without exception.

Correct. There is often a tradeoff, whereby a minority benefits greatly while the majority suffers but very little. Consider taxation, for a good example of this. However, in the case of same-sex marriage, courts have consistently found that the minority benefits greatly by eliminating prohibitions, while doing so causes NOBODY to suffer ANYTHING. In other words, prohibiting same-sex marriage serves NO legitimate governmental interest, while permitting it DOES serve such an interest.

But not without compelling reason. Children are NOT adults. Women are NOT men. Veterans are NOT non-veterans. People granted security clearances (after due diligence) have privileges not granted to others. Nobody is arguing that everyone is or should be equal in every respect. People are instead arguing that in this one rather smallo respect, there is NO VALID REASON to establish legal discrimination.

Maybe you are being confused by the language. If you are asked to separate the black jellybeans from all other colors, you are being asked to exercise appropriate discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws don't require the police to ignore the 8-year-old driving a car. They require that the police regard all drivers as legally equal EXCEPT in carefully defined cases (such as the 8-year old or the drunk). Now, I grant that the police must exercise some considerable complex judgment. A young black driver, driving a new expensive car and paying meticulous attention to the speed laws (and all others), observed in a known drug-transportation corridor, is highly likely to be carrying drugs. But pulling him over for doing nothing wrong is plainly discriminatory in the sense of wrong-context discrimination. It's a tough call.

So we are back to the matter of intent. Distinctions are important, but must be drawn within an appropriate context. In the case of same-sex marriage, the context has been "who benefits and how much, and who is injured and how much" within a given legal context. Clearly, the context here is complicated. SHOULD the government grant benefits to married couples? In most cases, yes, it makes sense. Contrary to allegations commonly expressed here, most of those benefits are fairly unexceptional. They deal with property law, with testimony law, with probate law, and lots of little ways that people in long-term committed relationships would expect (and which are inapplicable to those NOT in such relationships).

I suspect the error here is in the assumption that laws exist solely to promote government interests. But laws prohibiting same-sex marriage do NOT in any way promote any government interest. What they promote is political interest, which isn't the same thing. Yes, many laws discriminate (that is, distinguish) between one classification of people and another. The issue is whether the resulting inequality is socially essential. If the effect is to harm some while benefiting nobody, then the inequality is considered illegal discrimination.

 

big·ot·ry
ˈbigətrē/
noun
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Nuff said.

 

Why would he bother? At this point, it appears to be case law. You have what, 20, 215 precedents all saying the same thing.

I applaud this guy for not wasting state time, resources, and money to mount a case that fights against constitutional protections.

 

Sigh. And once again, nobody is trying to restrict or even alter man-woman marriages in any way. They are irrelevant in this forum.

No, it has to do with disputed paternity. DNA testing has rendered it obsolete.

 

I said it wasn't an intent to discriminate against Mormons.

- - - Updated - - -

I never claimed anyone was. Ill wait here while you run down that strawman.

 

No relevance to my post

- - - Updated - - -

No relevance to the thread