(01-31-2014 04:21 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I take the gay marriage briefs, cross out gay marriage and fill in whatever new marriage type is up for grabs.

If you want to reevaluate at that point, like you said earlier, too late and too bad. If you want that then the court has to do an about face on what it just decided in favour of homosexuals.

That's demonstrated what I said earlier that jurisprudence and judicial action doesn't move lines and then allow for discourse and reflection. Judicial action is a pool ball that never stops and merely gets nudged in new slight directions. Thus, you can't send it off in this direction and then wait and see about polygamy or whatever else.

So put "whatever new marriage type is up for grabs" into the scenario and use the precedent from gay marriage to argue for it in a way that would satisfy the law.

If loving v. virginia didn't automatically clear the way for gay marriage, then how does gay marriage automatically clear the way for everything else under the sun?

I just did...

You've just hit upon the difference between dicta and binding precedent.

(01-31-2014 03:56 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:52 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:48 PM)Hitch Wrote:  That ship has sailed.

Uh no. It would have sailed if people in places like Utah, Oklahoma were for gay marriage.

Yeah, if you think those state-level bans are going to stand for much longer, you're in for a rough ride.

That's not the point whatever goes man. The point is, the shipped will have sailed when those states accept gay marriage. They haven't. You think the courts have settled this, you are in for a rough ride, cowboy.

The courts haven't settled it yet. But the ship sailed as soon as the federal law began recognizing samesex marriages from states.

Maybe or maybe not from a legal standpoint. But that doesn't settle it from the social standpoint or prevent states from changing their laws - thus creating another obstacle for the gay marriage advocates and the federal courts.

I know it sucks to hear, but we still live in a Republic.

(01-31-2014 04:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:21 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I take the gay marriage briefs, cross out gay marriage and fill in whatever new marriage type is up for grabs.

If you want to reevaluate at that point, like you said earlier, too late and too bad. If you want that then the court has to do an about face on what it just decided in favour of homosexuals.

That's demonstrated what I said earlier that jurisprudence and judicial action doesn't move lines and then allow for discourse and reflection. Judicial action is a pool ball that never stops and merely gets nudged in new slight directions. Thus, you can't send it off in this direction and then wait and see about polygamy or whatever else.

So put "whatever new marriage type is up for grabs" into the scenario and use the precedent from gay marriage to argue for it in a way that would satisfy the law.

If loving v. virginia didn't automatically clear the way for gay marriage, then how does gay marriage automatically clear the way for everything else under the sun?

I just did...

You've just hit upon the difference between dicta and binding precedent.

Then walk me through the steps because I'm clearly not getting it. And please use a the next issue as an example.

(01-31-2014 04:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:56 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:52 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Uh no. It would have sailed if people in places like Utah, Oklahoma were for gay marriage.

Yeah, if you think those state-level bans are going to stand for much longer, you're in for a rough ride.

That's not the point whatever goes man. The point is, the shipped will have sailed when those states accept gay marriage. They haven't. You think the courts have settled this, you are in for a rough ride, cowboy.

The courts haven't settled it yet. But the ship sailed as soon as the federal law began recognizing samesex marriages from states.

Maybe or maybe not from a legal standpoint. But that doesn't settle it from the social standpoint or prevent states from changing their laws - thus creating another obstacle for the gay marriage advocates and the federal courts.

I know it sucks to hear, but we still live in a Republic.

I'm not worried about the social standpoint and states are more than free to keep amending their constitutions to try to get around federal rulings.

(01-31-2014 04:21 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I take the gay marriage briefs, cross out gay marriage and fill in whatever new marriage type is up for grabs.

If you want to reevaluate at that point, like you said earlier, too late and too bad. If you want that then the court has to do an about face on what it just decided in favour of homosexuals.

That's demonstrated what I said earlier that jurisprudence and judicial action doesn't move lines and then allow for discourse and reflection. Judicial action is a pool ball that never stops and merely gets nudged in new slight directions. Thus, you can't send it off in this direction and then wait and see about polygamy or whatever else.

So put "whatever new marriage type is up for grabs" into the scenario and use the precedent from gay marriage to argue for it in a way that would satisfy the law.

If loving v. virginia didn't automatically clear the way for gay marriage, then how does gay marriage automatically clear the way for everything else under the sun?

In a roundabout way it did. Loving v. VA was a challenge of a state law that negated the agency of contenting adults. Which is the same argument being made regarding same sex marriage. The same argument will be presented again for multiple partner unions. The only reason it took 40 years between the Loving case and today is that homosexuals back then rejected to idea of marriage as conformist and antiquated.

(01-31-2014 04:21 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I take the gay marriage briefs, cross out gay marriage and fill in whatever new marriage type is up for grabs.

If you want to reevaluate at that point, like you said earlier, too late and too bad. If you want that then the court has to do an about face on what it just decided in favour of homosexuals.

That's demonstrated what I said earlier that jurisprudence and judicial action doesn't move lines and then allow for discourse and reflection. Judicial action is a pool ball that never stops and merely gets nudged in new slight directions. Thus, you can't send it off in this direction and then wait and see about polygamy or whatever else.

So put "whatever new marriage type is up for grabs" into the scenario and use the precedent from gay marriage to argue for it in a way that would satisfy the law.

If loving v. virginia didn't automatically clear the way for gay marriage, then how does gay marriage automatically clear the way for everything else under the sun?

In a roundabout way it did. Loving v. VA was a challenge of a state law that negated the agency of contenting adults. Which is the same argument being made regarding same sex marriage. The same argument will be presented again for multiple partner unions. The only reason it took 40 years between the Loving case and today is that homosexuals back then rejected to idea of marriage as conformist and antiquated.

(01-31-2014 03:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:23 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  So what if multiple people want to form a civil union? Brother and sister? Man and German Shepard?

That is an inevitable consequence is this proposal. Polygamy/Polyandry, Bestiality and a charge to decrease the age of consent.

Actually this is an inevitable consequence or opening up the definition of marriage beyond what it had been for all of western history. We were telling you that more than a decade ago.

Now were at the point of trying to burn a fire line...

Yep, I sure remember when the moral majority argued against interracial marriage. Gone downhill since then, huh?

Reading comprehension problems? The racist practice of banning interracial marriage was mainly a problem in the united states.... "Western History" refers to all of western civilization

1 Man and 1 Woman goes back more than a millennia..