Posted by tecwrg on 5/9/2012 10:43:00 PM (view original):
Why is that "the right side"?

Also, Mike, this is what started the discussion. It was about morality, not law.

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/10/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/9/2012 10:43:00 PM (view original):
Why is that "the right side"?

Also, Mike, this is what started the discussion. It was about morality, not law.

I was referring to the right side legally.  I don't care about someone else's morality.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/10/2012 5:53:00 AM (view original):
Oh, of course that must be it.  Thousands of years of human social and cultural norms must have been "wrong" all along.

Weak. You can justify slavery in that manner. I think you'll find that "social and cultural norms" don't always look out for minorities.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):
It sure isn't.  Which is why I don't understand why you don't get it.   Women couldn't vote/blacks were slaves/children worked in coal mines when no one cared.  When people cared about those things, the laws changed.  

Enough people care about SSM, or don't care about preventing it, so changes are afoot.

Rights aren't up to a majority vote.  Federalist #10.

So what part of my post are you claiming to be incorrect?   Women were always allowed to vote?  Slavery didn't exist?   Children have never worked?  People have never cared about those things? 

Explain.

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/10/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/9/2012 10:43:00 PM (view original):
Why is that "the right side"?

Also, Mike, this is what started the discussion. It was about morality, not law.

Morality is a hard to define, slippery slope.

Goes back to my Bible comment.  If you believe in the Bible, Man on Man is wrong. 

I accept the Bible as a guide of neither law nor morality.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):
It sure isn't.  Which is why I don't understand why you don't get it.   Women couldn't vote/blacks were slaves/children worked in coal mines when no one cared.  When people cared about those things, the laws changed.  

Enough people care about SSM, or don't care about preventing it, so changes are afoot.

Rights aren't up to a majority vote.  Federalist #10.

So what part of my post are you claiming to be incorrect?   Women were always allowed to vote?  Slavery didn't exist?   Children have never worked?  People have never cared about those things? 

Explain.

Women's suffrage, slavery, and segregation are not things that are up to a majority vote.  Enough people caring about the issue isn't a requirement for abolishing slavery or allowing women to vote.  The laws were unconstitutional regardless of the will of the people.

And they were laws for a very long time.  Why do you think they were changed?   As a follow-up, why do you think SSM is now an issue?

You really don't get it, do you?   "Compelling legal reason" has nothing to do with the passing of laws. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):
And they were laws for a very long time.  Why do you think they were changed?   As a follow-up, why do you think SSM is now an issue?

You really don't get it, do you?   "Compelling legal reason" has nothing to do with the passing of laws. 

It has nothing to do with the passing of laws, but everything to do with the validity of laws that restrict the rights of a group of people.

Same sex marriage was legal in CA.  Prop 8 passed, eliminating that right for a group of people.  For Prop 8 to be valid, the state has to have a compelling interest in banning same sex marriage.

You seem to be changing the discussion ever so slightly.

So, without "compelling legal reason", laws will be repealed?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):
You seem to be changing the discussion ever so slightly.

So, without "compelling legal reason", laws will be repealed?

If the law restricts the rights of a group of people and is challenged in court, then the state has to show a compelling interest.  If the state can't, then it is likely that the law will be repealed.

OK, with all this talk of repealing SSM, didn't NC just pass a law spefically banning it?

Do you not think they have reason to believe that such a law will stand up to court challenges?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 1:24:00 PM (view original):
OK, with all this talk of repealing SSM, didn't NC just pass a law spefically banning it?

Do you not think they have reason to believe that such a law will stand up to court challenges?

I'm not going to pretend to know what the authors of that law believed.  

I think you know they felt, within their state, that there was plenty of support in not allowing such unions.

And, BTW, they voted on it. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think you know they felt, within their state, that there was plenty of support in not allowing such unions.

And, BTW, they voted on it. 

Yes they did.  But once again, majority support for a law doesn't make the law valid.