Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby The Reaper » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:17 pm UTC

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Dal ... 82762.html
A Dallas judge ruled Thursday that Texas' ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional as she cleared the way for two gay men to divorce, the Dallas Morning News reported.

State District Judge Tena Callahan said the state’s bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.

While the Texas attorney general had stepped into the case to say that because a gay marriage isn’t recognized in Texas, a Texas court can’t dissolve one through divorce, Tena denied the intervention.

The two Dallas men in the case married three years ago in Massachusetts, the first state to allow gays to marry.

"This is the first time that a same-sex marriage is allowed to be divorced in Texas, which is big," said Pete Schulte, the attorney who represents one of the men.

Schulte said Texas was the only place where they could file for divorce because they live in the state and have established residency.

"I have a feeling there are going to be opponents who say this is going to allow the floodgates of gay marriage to open, and I disagree that," he said. "Gay marriage and gay divorce are two different things."

Attorney General Greg Abbott released a statement saying that he will appeal the ruling.

“The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition -- despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters,” he said.

Lashard Williams, a supporter of gay marriage, said he believes the judge's ruling is a step in the right direction.

"One day, I might decide to get married, and I'm born and raised here in Dallas, and I'd like to do it here in Texas," he said.
I think the judge is right. I also think that if someone can get divorced somewhere, they can get married in that same area. If a ban on one is unconstitutional for equal rights reasons, the ban on the other must be as well.

User avatar
Spacemilk
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:03 pm UTC
Location: Hugh ston
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Spacemilk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:20 pm UTC

I agree with you.

How do they handle their taxes, I wonder? Does Texas treat them as a married couple? How does all of that work...
milk from space is good for you!



Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Chen » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:24 pm UTC

How do so many states have ban agaisnt gay marriage if it is unconstitutional? I can't imagine this judge is the first person to notice this...

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby JBJ » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

Chen wrote:How do so many states have ban against gay marriage if it is unconstitutional? I can't imagine this judge is the first person to notice this...

Probably not, but judges can't be proactive in determining a law's constitutionality. A case involving that law has to be brought before them.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Freakish » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:35 pm UTC

I never even thought about gay divorce. GOD IS ANGRY!!!!
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Chen » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:47 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Probably not, but judges can't be proactive in determining a law's constitutionality. A case involving that law has to be brought before them.


My point is, couldn't someone bring a case forward, in a state that bans gay marriage, saying that it is unconstitutional and that it should be changed? Like say a couple who have not been allowed to be married? Am I missing some subtlety to the legal system in the states with respect to constitutional issues?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:51 pm UTC

Chen wrote:How do so many states have ban agaisnt gay marriage if it is unconstitutional? I can't imagine this judge is the first person to notice this...

The judicial system is a passive entity - it has no power to act of its own volition. It can only respond to challenges that are brought forth to it.

Legislatures can pass a law declaring that all citizens have to shave their heads bald, and the executive branch (including the police) is obligated to enforce that law. Part of the enforcement process includes a means to challenge the law, and so you'd have someone who is facing the penalty for not shaving their head bringing their case to the court, at which point the court would say "Seriously, who passed this shit?" and strike it down.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Crius
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Crius » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:11 pm UTC

Is the law unconstitutional based on the Texas constitution, or the US constitution? The article states "equal protection", which could be the US, but I wouldn't be surprised for a state constitution to contain a similar clause.

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby MrGee » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:19 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Chen wrote:How do so many states have ban agaisnt gay marriage if it is unconstitutional? I can't imagine this judge is the first person to notice this...

The judicial system is a passive entity - it has no power to act of its own volition. It can only respond to challenges that are brought forth to it.

Legislatures can pass a law declaring that all citizens have to shave their heads bald, and the executive branch (including the police) is obligated to enforce that law. Part of the enforcement process includes a means to challenge the law, and so you'd have someone who is facing the penalty for not shaving their head bringing their case to the court, at which point the court would say "Seriously, who passed this shit?" and strike it down.


Isn't that a bit weird, when you think about it? I remember there was outrage over all the warrantless wiretapping, but no court could strike the law down because no one had standing to sue because of course no one KNOWS when they're being wiretapped.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Hm. I thought DOMA said that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages even if they are recognized in another state... Yes, I realize DOMA is under contention, but it's still there.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Brooklynxman » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:28 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:The judicial system is a passive entity - it has no power to act of its own volition. It can only respond to challenges that are brought forth to it.

Legislatures can pass a law declaring that all citizens have to shave their heads bald, and the executive branch (including the police) is obligated to enforce that law. Part of the enforcement process includes a means to challenge the law, and so you'd have someone who is facing the penalty for not shaving their head bringing their case to the court, at which point the court would say "Seriously, who passed this shit?" and strike it down.


Best description of our legal system ever. Best part: "Seriously, who passed this shit"

Second favorite: "law declaring all citizens have to shave their heads bald"??????
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:33 pm UTC

Countdown to "activist judge" accusations?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:35 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Countdown to "activist judge" accusations?

Too late.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Oh good.

God I love that everyone is all "The people have spoken!!!!!!1111!!!!1!!!!11!!!ELEVENTY ONE". Who the fuck said you even had the right to "speak" on this? Fuck off and mind your own fucking business.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:45 pm UTC

Belial wrote:God I love that everyone is all "The people have spoken!!!!!!1111!!!!1!!!!11!!!ELEVENTY ONE". Who the fuck said you even had the right to "speak" on this? Fuck off and mind your own fucking business.

Technically the democratic process and the right to vote does.
And in their minds, this is their business. I can see how they think that, too.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:47 pm UTC

The democratic process doesn't really give them the right to trample other peoples' right to equal treatment.

And on a less legalistic, more moral level, it's really, really not their business. It's not up to them to pass laws just to dick over people they don't like.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby MrGee » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:48 pm UTC

I don't get get how 75% of the state could vote for a gay marriage ban. After all,

Gunnery Sargeant Hartman wrote:ONLY TWO THINGS COME FROM TEXAS, STEERS AND QUEERS!

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:52 pm UTC

Belial wrote:The democratic process doesn't really give them the right to trample other peoples' right to equal treatment.

And on a less legalistic, more moral level, it's really, really not their business. It's not up to them to pass laws just to dick over people they don't like.

And here is where we get into SB stuff.

First of all, there is a right to marriage, yes, but much like you have to define what does and doesn't fall under 'free speech', you have to define what does and doesn't fall under 'marriage'. Texas, California, Arizona, Florida, and other states have defined it has 'one man and one woman', meaning no rights are being trampled. A gay man as just as much right to marry a woman that I do. A lesbian has just as much right to marry a man as my sister does.

Second of all, since when is the Left at all happy with legislating morality?
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:57 pm UTC

A gay man as just as much right to marry a woman that I do. A lesbian has just as much right to marry a man as my sister does.


And only if you're a particularly idiotic robot does that make sense.

Otherwise, it looks like exactly what it is. A thin coat of sly-smirked bullshit over obvious oppression.

Second of all, since when is the Left at all happy with legislating morality?


We're not. And we really wish you fuckers would cut it out.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby folkhero » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:40 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:First of all, there is a right to marriage, yes, but much like you have to define what does and doesn't fall under 'free speech', you have to define what does and doesn't fall under 'marriage'. Texas, California, Arizona, Florida, and other states have defined it has 'one man and one woman', meaning no rights are being trampled. A gay man as just as much right to marry a woman that I do. A lesbian has just as much right to marry a man as my sister does.

Second of all, since when is the Left at all happy with legislating morality?

Does a gay man have just as much right to marry a man as your sister does? Does a lesbian have just as much right to marry a woman as you do? Clearly not. So if you want to look at it your way, it's not an issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation, but rater discrimination based on sex which is disproportionately harmful to homosexuals.

Lets have a little fun with your post to see if it helps you understand my point.
H2SO4 wrote:First of all, there is a right to education, yes, but much like you have to define what does and doesn't fall under 'free speech', you have to define what does and doesn't fall under 'education'. Texas, California, Arizona, Florida, and other states have defined it has 'black students in black schools, white students in white schools', meaning no rights are being trampled. A white student who wants to go to a black school has just as much right to go to a white school that I do. A black student who wants to go to a white school has just as much right to go to a black school as my black friend who wants to go to black schools.

Second of all, since when is the Left at all happy with legislating morality?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Rysto
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Rysto » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:44 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
A gay man as just as much right to marry a woman that I do. A lesbian has just as much right to marry a man as my sister does.


And only if you're a particularly idiotic robot does that make sense.

Otherwise, it looks like exactly what it is. A thin coat of sly-smirked bullshit over obvious oppression.

No, no, let them make this argument. Discrimination based on sex faces much stricter scrutiny than discrimination based on orientation.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

Belial wrote:And only if you're a particularly idiotic robot does that make sense.

Otherwise, it looks like exactly what it is. A thin coat of sly-smirked bullshit over obvious oppression.

Ah, and now the ad hominem starts. Why can't there be a debate on this without ad hominem?

Belial wrote:We're not. And we really wish you fuckers would cut it out.

I believe you said that it is none of my business on a moral level. That's morality.

Does a gay man have just as much right to marry a man as your sister does? Does a lesbian have just as much right to marry a woman as you do? Clearly not. So if you want to look at it your way, it's not an issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation, but rater discrimination based on sex which is disproportionately harmful to homosexuals.

Lets have a little fun with your post to see if it helps you understand my point.

There is no discrimination based on sex. The right is marriage, and marriage is to someone of the opposite sex, so you have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right.

The problem with that there is that there is a difference in schooling between the two based on prejudices about either race. "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" is the quote from Brown v. Board. The schools were receiving different funding, different services, etc. In a school system where the schools are segregated solely because of how the borders played out (like how it was in my high school), there is nothing that can be done.
And please, we both know there is a difference between a black man and a gay man. There are actually black people who take offense at their skin color being compared to someone's sexuality.
http://tyrashow.warnerbros.com/2009/08/ ... hp?page=11 (Ctrl+F "gay and black")
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/674748.html
http://www.crystaldixon.com/page04.html
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:38 pm UTC

Ah, and now the ad hominem starts. Why can't there be a debate on this without ad hominem?


Sigh. Learn what words mean. I didn't commit ad hominem, I pointed out that what you're doing is obviously, self-evidently bullshit, and said you were an asshole for saying it.

It doesn't become ad hominem until I say that it's bullshit *because* you're an asshole.

Thanks for playing, though.

I believe you said that it is none of my business on a moral level. That's morality.


Mmm. Yes. But you're neglecting the other part of the sentence. It's not *legislating*. The part where someone *legislated* was the part where they banned gay marriage specifically because it offended their religious morality.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:46 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Sigh. Learn what words mean. I didn't commit ad hominem, I pointed out that what you're doing is obviously, self-evidently bullshit, and said you were an asshole for saying it.

It doesn't become ad hominem until I say that it's bullshit *because* you're an asshole.

Thanks for playing, though.

Ahem.
Belial wrote:And only if you're a particularly idiotic robot does that make sense.

I believe that's you saying that my argument is only valid if I am an idiotic robot.

Belial wrote:Mmm. Yes. But you're neglecting the other part of the sentence. It's not *legislating*. The part where someone *legislated* was the part where they banned gay marriage specifically because it offended their religious morality.

And now sweeping generalizations. There are plenty of logical reasons to put it in writing that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:49 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:I believe that's you saying that my argument is only valid if I am an idiotic robot.


Right. Think about it for a minute. Still pretty much the inverse of an ad hom.

And now sweeping generalizations. There are plenty of logical reasons to put it in writing that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Hahah. Sure.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Lumpy » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:54 pm UTC

I think you mean "converse," not "inverse." Inverse would be "your argument is not wrong because you are an idiot," and the contrapositive would be "you are not an idiot because your argument isn't wrong"

User avatar
harpyblues
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:19 am UTC
Location: Chicago

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby harpyblues » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:And now sweeping generalizations. There are plenty of logical reasons to put it in writing that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Back. That. Shit. Up.

Right now, because you can't use the 'they can't have kids speech', or 'they'll just use it for tax reductions' because you've got straight couples doing that too.
michaelandjimi wrote:But these are zombies of cuteness!

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Sourire » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:03 pm UTC

Let's try it this way. The Texas legislature/voting body/what have you (I'm not sure in this instance) apparently voted with a 75% majority that marriage is between one man and one woman. Congratulations anti-gay marriage crowd.

However, the judiciary branch was called to decide whether or not that definition is constitutional, and it was ruled that under the Constitution (state or federal, I'm not aware), the definition could not stand. Congratulations pro-gay marriage crowd.

That's somewhat of how these things work.

Also, in other news, does anyone find it completely weird that it seems to be the more traditionally conservative states that have these types of cases? Obviously states that currently allow gay marriage absolutely cannot have a court case ruling gay marriage discrimination unconstitutional, but on the totem pole of liberalism, states like Texas and Iowa coming "ahead" of states like New York and California surprise me.
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

User avatar
harpyblues
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:19 am UTC
Location: Chicago

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby harpyblues » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

Sourire wrote:Let's try it this way. The Texas legislature/voting body/what have you (I'm not sure in this instance) apparently voted with a 75% majority that marriage is between one man and one woman. Congratulations anti-gay marriage crowd.

However, the judiciary branch was called to decide whether or not that definition is constitutional, and it was ruled that under the Constitution (state or federal, I'm not aware), the definition could not stand. Congratulations pro-gay marriage crowd.

That's somewhat of how these things work.

Also, in other news, does anyone find it completely weird that it seems to be the more traditionally conservative states that have these types of cases? Obviously states that currently allow gay marriage absolutely cannot have a court case ruling gay marriage discrimination unconstitutional, but on the totem pole of liberalism, states like Texas and Iowa coming "ahead" of states like New York and California surprise me.


Usually, because only the really conservative ones make a fuss and try to ban it in the first place. Then, you get storms of angry people at the courts. I think there's a state level of judicial review for state laws, though correct me if I'm wrong.
michaelandjimi wrote:But these are zombies of cuteness!

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Sourire » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:11 pm UTC

[imath][/imath]
harpyblues wrote:
H2SO4 wrote:And now sweeping generalizations. There are plenty of logical reasons to put it in writing that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Back. That. Shit. Up.

Right now, because you can't use the 'they can't have kids speech', or 'they'll just use it for tax reductions' because you've got straight couples doing that too.

After reading the rest of his posts, I think the intent was closer to the lines of "There are plenty of logical reasons to have a uniform and codified definition of marriage". Now I agree, as a gay male (most of the time) and supporter of gay marriage that the one man-one woman argument is absolute crap. But having some structure is absolutely necessary. And there's a whole group of people out there who say that "two consenting adults" is every bit as oppressive as "one man, one woman".[imath]^1[/imath]

[imath]^1[/imath]-But seriously, let's not go there right now.
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:14 pm UTC

Lumpy wrote:I think you mean "converse," not "inverse." Inverse would be "your argument is not wrong because you are an idiot," and the contrapositive would be "you are not an idiot because your argument isn't wrong"


You're right, sorry, I always fuck those two up.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby General_Norris » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:24 pm UTC

Well, you have the right to give me a lot of presents! And I too have that right! Isn't this wonderful?

The problem is, they don't have the right to marry the person they love. That's all.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:27 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:The problem is, they don't have the right to marry the person they love. That's all.

No one has the right to marry the person they love. What if you love you sister? Or someone who is already married? Or a dead person? Or a child?
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Sourire » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:43 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
General_Norris wrote:The problem is, they don't have the right to marry the person they love. That's all.

No one has the right to marry the person they love. What if you love you sister? Or someone who is already married? Or a dead person? Or a child?

And what if people continue to make rather baseless arguments? But okay, I'll play.

Sister
-Most people do love their sister, in one capacity or another. And there is an enormous disparity between the possibility of birth defects and the possibility you'd feel uncomfortable giving a speech at the wedding. The reason incest is frowned upon is twofold, firstly because of biological impacts to potential offspring (why it's illegal), and secondly because society feels it's "gross" (completely irrelevant to why it's illegal).

Already Married
-Marriage is a consenting union. If we assume it's exclusively between two adults (see my latest post), then someone who is already married does not want to be married to you. And if they were married, met you, and decided they'd "prefer" you to their current spouse, divorce isn't exactly uncommon in this era.

Dead Person
-Dead people cannot willfully enter a marriage. And I can't believe you even fucking said this one.

Child
-Children cannot enter any legal arrangement. And again, these get more obnoxious each time.

And in response to "No one has the right to marry the person they love.", well, let's try rewriting it to be completely accurate, eh?
Opposite-sex attractive people who seek to enter a legally recognized commitment to someone of the sex they are attracted to are able to do so as long as the other party knowingly and willfully consents to enter the union as well. (There may be a hole in that wording, I haven't slept much this week). The point here being "Opposite-sex attractive" is a completely unnecessary and legally unsound modifier in terms of giving out any civil privilege.
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:52 pm UTC

Sourire wrote:Sister
-Most people do love their sister, in one capacity or another. And there is an enormous disparity between the possibility of birth defects and the possibility you'd feel uncomfortable giving a speech at the wedding. The reason incest is frowned upon is twofold, firstly because of biological impacts to potential offspring (why it's illegal), and secondly because society feels it's "gross" (completely irrelevant to why it's illegal).

(emphasis mine)

So children play a part in marriage?

Already Married
-Marriage is a consenting union. If we assume it's exclusively between two adults (see my latest post), then someone who is already married does not want to be married to you. And if they were married, met you, and decided they'd "prefer" you to their current spouse, divorce isn't exactly uncommon in this era.

So it's impossible to love more than one person in that fashion?

And in response to "No one has the right to marry the person they love.", well, let's try rewriting it to be completely accurate, eh?
Opposite-sex attractive people who seek to enter a legally recognized commitment to someone of the sex they are attracted to are able to do so as long as the other party knowingly and willfully consents to enter the union as well. (There may be a hole in that wording, I haven't slept much this week). The point here being "Opposite-sex attractive" is a completely unnecessary and legally unsound modifier in terms of giving out any civil privilege.

That still opens the door for polygamy and incest.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:53 pm UTC

ITT: Sophistry.

So, does this mean that gay marriage is going to be legal in Texas soon? Is this as awesome as it sounds?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Cynical Idealist » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:00 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:(emphasis mine)

So children play a part in marriage?

Yes, they do. This is why men who have had vasectomies cannot marry anyone.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Sourire » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:01 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
Sourire wrote:Sister
-Most people do love their sister, in one capacity or another. And there is an enormous disparity between the possibility of birth defects and the possibility you'd feel uncomfortable giving a speech at the wedding. The reason incest is frowned upon is twofold, firstly because of biological impacts to potential offspring (why it's illegal), and secondly because society feels it's "gross" (completely irrelevant to why it's illegal).

(emphasis mine)

So children play a part in marriage?

Marriage is often seen as the "legitimization" of a romantic relationship. In long-term romantic relationships, many people have sex. Heterosexual sex has the possibility to produce children. Thereby, it logically follows that many heterosexual marriages will have the possibility to produce children.

H2SO4 wrote:
Already Married
-Marriage is a consenting union. If we assume it's exclusively between two adults (see my latest post), then someone who is already married does not want to be married to you. And if they were married, met you, and decided they'd "prefer" you to their current spouse, divorce isn't exactly uncommon in this era.

So it's impossible to love more than one person in that fashion?

Nope. See the "If we assume..."

H2SO4 wrote:
And in response to "No one has the right to marry the person they love.", well, let's try rewriting it to be completely accurate, eh?
Opposite-sex attractive people who seek to enter a legally recognized commitment to someone of the sex they are attracted to are able to do so as long as the other party knowingly and willfully consents to enter the union as well. (There may be a hole in that wording, I haven't slept much this week). The point here being "Opposite-sex attractive" is a completely unnecessary and legally unsound modifier in terms of giving out any civil privilege.

That still opens the door for polygamy and incest.

That opens the door for you to voice your personal distaste you're legislating regarding polygamist and (non-child-bearing) incestuous relationships. I think from a purely legal perspective, unless there's a damned good reason I've yet to hear, that there absolutely should be legalized polygamist recognition. Now whether or not you see that as anything more than a civil procedure is, again, your prerogative. And as far as incestuous relationships go (and do me a favor, please stop comparing homosexuality to incest), as I pointed out, the source of legal concern is in potential harm to another (prospectively) living being. Not because you don't like the idea. Because in an ideal society, the laws don't give a rat's ass what ideas you like. It's about equal treatment and protection to all of its citizens.
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:04 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
General_Norris wrote:The problem is, they don't have the right to marry the person they love. That's all.

No one has the right to marry the person they love. What if you love you sister? Or someone who is already married? Or a dead person? Or a child?


Sigh. The reason you can't marry your sister or a child is for the same reason that incest and pedophilia are illegal, because they're considered exploitative relationships. You can't marry a dead person because a dead person is not a person, it's a sack of inert meat.

And you can't marry a person who is already married because polygamy is illegal, partially because of bigotry, partially as a misguided attempt to stop exploitation by a certain religion that likes to form big exploitative polygynous marriages...

So not really helping your argument.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Lóng the Dragon
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Dallas Judge rules tx ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Postby Lóng the Dragon » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:07 pm UTC

Sourire wrote:And as far as incestuous relationships go (and do me a favor, please stop comparing homosexuality to incest), as I pointed out, the source of legal concern is in potential harm to another (prospectively) living being. Not because you don't like the idea. Because in an ideal society, the laws don't give a rat's ass what ideas you like. It's about equal treatment and protection to all of its citizens.

I believe what plays a large role in not allowing incestuous marriages is how consent is complicated. Between a brother and a sister, there is bound to be some sort of power imbalance (that's what you get from growing up together).

Edit: Sort-of-ninja'd.
I'm just being bilingually redundant.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests