From: ahk@chinet.com
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>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_.
And what was Huxley referring to?
>>>> 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.
Not when people change what marriage means so that it doesn't require
consent. You've never heard of chattel, dowries, arrangements?
>> 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.
'Tain't my position, but a legal and social concept many centuries old.
>> 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.
That's hand waiving. Is that what legal scholarship is today?
>>>>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.
Sorry, you're still wrong. There isn't precedent; it's all new law.
>>>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.
Wrong again; circuit courts don't have the option to reject appeals that
the US Supreme Court has.
>>>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.
Forget gun rights. Give us another example of a license that one state
can force a foreign state to accept.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
