• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

When do clerks start getting charged with civil rights violations and what's the penalty for that?
 
bym051d said:
When do clerks start getting charged with civil rights violations and what's the penalty for that?
Click to expand...

never, they just get asked to resign.

then they sue the government and we all pay money to lawyers
 
bym051d said:
When do clerks start getting charged with civil rights violations and what's the penalty for that?
Click to expand...

What happens when the first straight couple sues a state because local clerks refuse to issue any marriage licenses for gay or straight couples?
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
What happens when the first straight couple sues a state because local clerks refuse to issue any marriage licenses for gay or straight couples?
Click to expand...

I would guess this headed towards the state getting out of the marriage business altogether. The GOP states will take their ball and go home.
 
Deadbolt said:
I would guess this headed towards the state getting out of the marriage business altogether. The GOP states will take their ball and go home.
Click to expand...

Looks that way, but how do social conservatives argue that marriage is the bedrock of society and then pretend that government should have no role in marriage? 4 or 5 red states are passively aggressively protesting, but they'll never achieve enough critical mass to strip away federal marriage benefits. It's been pretty clear for a few years that marriage equality was going to happen, but social conservatives had zero contingency plans and are flailing badly.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real?
Click to expand...

cs-chadmadreal.gif
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Looks that way, but how do social conservatives argue that marriage is the bedrock of society and then pretend that government should have no role in marriage? 4 or 5 red states are passively aggressively protesting, but they'll never achieve enough critical mass to strip away federal marriage benefits. It's been pretty clear for a few years that marriage equality was going to happen, but social conservatives had zero contingency plans and are flailing badly.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. And anything they do will look vindictive and petty and will hurt straight couples.
 
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/rick-santorum-talks-supreme-court-on-rachel-maddow

Wasn't sure whether to put this in the GOP presidential thread or here. Since Santorum won't be in the race much longer, thought this was the proper place. Santorum graduated from law school and was a U.S. Senator for 12 years and seems to believe marriage equality can be overturned by Congress without a constitutional amendment. Why hasn't Congress simply abolished abortion in the same manner?
 
People love to throw out the polygamy example, but I think there are some very big differences between the two.

1. Laws against polygamy don't prevent anybody from getting married, they prevent people from getting married more than once. So I think the dignity aspect angle played up by Kennedy doesn't apply.

2. There are many more compelling state interests in preventing multiple marriages than there were in preventing gay marriage
 
Junebug said:
1. Resorting to definitions didn't work very well for the pro-traditional marriage crowd. If I define myself and my sexuality as polyamorous, then two-person marriage laws infringe on my liberty interest to marry those whom I love. Your argument is nothing more than wordplay. Why do you want to deny the polyamorous their dignity?

What are you, a bigot or something?

2. You've ceded the high ground by assuming that the state would be required to have a compelling interest (as opposed to merely a rational basis), but, even so, you can't honestly believe that state interests weigh heavily in the balance when it comes to limiting people's dignity, their liberty, and their right to define themselves, can you? Besides, your invocation of "state interests" is based on an outdated view of polyamory that reflects vestiges of puritanical concerns of Mormon men wanting to have sex with young girls.

What are you, a bigot or something?
Click to expand...

No, there are a lot of issues that are completely unrelated to children. For example, which wife/husband gets to make health care decisions if their spouse is incapacitated? And there are many other things along those lines such questions of inheritance.

Also the biggest difference is that polygamy is not a biological function like being gay is. It's a choice - nobody is born a polygamist. So banning polygamy is not discriminating against somebody based on an inherent characteristic that they have no control over.

ETA that I didn't mean to suggest that strict scrutiny would be necessary, although I think that there are factors that could meet that standard
 
Last edited:
Oh goody. A defeated junebug returns to spout more nonsense. It's just too bad that I don't like popcorn because this is gonna get good, guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top