From: stephen@sprunk.org
On 22-May-14 17:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 22-May-14 13:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 22-May-14 01:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> That's bizarre. Yesterday, changing the fundamental
>>>>> definition of marriage wasn't a matter of equal protection,
>>>>> but today it is,
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't "yesterday"; they're using the same justification to
>>>> do so that they used to overturn state bans on interracial
>>>> marriage, going back to Loving v Virginia (1967).
>>>
>>> No, they're not. If marriage means between a man and woman, then
>>> there's an equal protection argument versus anti-miscegenation
>>> laws.
>>
>> If a man can marry a woman but a woman can't,
>
> I'm not a judge, so my brain will explode if I take the rest of this
> seriously.
Regardless, that's the equal protection argument--and it's working.
>>> On the other hand, if marriage means only what we want it to
>>> mean,
>>
>> All words mean only what we want them to mean.
>
> Lewis Carroll was writing farce, you twit.
I was referencing _1984_, not _Alice_.
>>> What about marriage between children? What about marriage to
>>> animals or dead people
>>
>> Such entities lack the ability to consent, so it's moot.
>
> What does marriage have to do with consent?
Marriage is a contract, and contracts require consent.
> Even in this country, people could marry as shockingly (by modern
> convention) low ages.
Most states are still in the range of 14-16, and one actually allows
marriage at age 12 (as long as she's not a virgin--14 if she is).
> In parts of the world, pre-pubescent girls can marry, which
> doesn't even make it an argument that "marriage is about
> procreation.
That's one of the arguments that religious nutjobs use to support _your_
position, not mine.
> Don't screw around with definitions.
Our definitions have changed over time as society has changed, something
that _anyone_ using the "traditional definition" argument must willfully
ignore.
For instance: You can't marry 700 women. You can't force your slaves
to marry. You can't marry a woman by raping her. You can't marry a
woman by buying her from her father. You can't beat your wife for not
obeying you. You can't rape your wife if she refuses to have sex with
you. You can't force your wife to stay married until death do you part.
You can't stone your wife to death if she cheats on you. You can't
stone your wife to death if you discover she had sex before you married
her. Etc.
_That_ is the "traditional" definition of marriage, as promulgated by
the sky monster's big book of fairy tales, and if you reject _any_ of
those things, then you are "changing the definition of marriage" just as
much as those who want to end discrimination against gays.
>>> Lawrence was about privacy and follows rather from Griswold;
>>> Bowers was an abberhation. Nothing to do with changing the
>>> meaning of a word whose meaning has been clear for centuries.
>>
>> Lawrence was about equal protection: Texas law allowed women to
>> have anal and oral sex but not men, which was found to be
>> discriminatory.
>>
>> After losing Lawrence, Texas made anal and oral sex illegal for
>> women too, and the new law was found to be constitutional because
>> it oppresses everyone equally, based on the Bowers ruling that
>> there is no constitutional right to have sex.
>
> You're so civilized. When are you creeps going to stay out of the
> bedrooms of consenting adults?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not one of the religious nutjobs that
favor such laws. I don't want the govt in my bedroom any more than you do.
>>> Various federal trial court judges have moved well beyond DOMA,
>>> and they don't have the power to do that, I thought.
>>
>> Courts can rule however they want if there isn't a precedent from
>> a higher court.
>
> That's not what they're doing.
That's exactly what they're doing.
> What they're doing at trial court is guessing that appellate courts
> will not overturn them on equal protection.
Of course; no judge likes being overturned, so they all try to guess
what an appellate court would do.
> The precedent, of course, is not changing the legal
> definition of marriage.
There is no such precedent, nor could there be for a non-action.
>> Higher courts generally only take cases to resolve a disagreement
>> in lower courts.
>
> Dude, that's true of the US Supreme Court, only. There's always an
> appeal to the federal circuit court.
Everyone appeals; that doesn't mean the appellate court accepts it.
> As far as I know, every state's
> highest appellate court takes appeals, with few exceptions.
Not all of them, or they'd still be working on their backlog from the
1800s. They pick and choose what cases to take, and a disagreement
amongst lower courts is a very important reason to do so.
>> They just didn't say that _other_ states had to.
>
> I just wrote that, twice now.
And I didn't disagree with it, so why do you keep arguing?
>> There is an interstate compact on handling _citations_, but not
>> the licenses themselves.
>
> Fair enough. I looked at the Driver's Licensing Law in my state's
> Vehicle Code. Acceptance of valid foreign licenses is found there.
> It's voluntary.
It's "voluntary" in the sense they've codified what the courts would
force them to do anyway. It reduces confusion and opportunities for
cops to harass people with charges that will inevitably get dropped as
soon as a prosecutor sees them.
>> That has not (yet) been applied to firearms licenses, but there
>> have been test cases working their way through the courts ever
>> since Heller and McDonald.
>
> You have yet to give us an involuntary example of any kind.
There are dozens of such cases; none have made their way to SCOTUS yet,
and it's not worth keeping track of them until they do. Go ask the NRA;
I'm sure they've got a list somewhere if you're interested, as they're
the ones funding the effort.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
