NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[Surfrider]

Mainline is somebody who's been banned from here in the past for his/her bullshit stories and narrowminded opinions.





/jarmo

But SLCPUNK can call people racist, as he did to me, and espouse viewpoints such as the US inflicted 911 upon itself?

[Surfrider]

Berkely, you really believe we should have a vote to determine whether or not these people should have equal rights? ?

Well, that is a complicated question.? It depends what rights you are talking about.? If they are rights already protected in the Constitution, no.? If they are rights that the Constitution does not protect - and therefore not really rights - then yes.  The Courts only have authority to interpret the Consitution and statutes which are things created by popular will.  They do not have authority to rewrite the Consitution or create rights which they see are fit.  If you think that is what Courts should do, then we may want to reevaluate which type of people we place on these high courts.?

[Brody]

Mainline is somebody who's been banned from here in the past for his/her bullshit stories and narrowminded opinions.





/jarmo

But SLCPUNK can call people racist, as he did to me, and espouse viewpoints such as the US inflicted 911 upon itself?

What about budfox? hes ruined alot of threads by calling people with opposing views moron, murderers, racists, pigs, stooges, fags, closet homosexuals, nambla members.. But yet he is still around.

On the gay marriage issue.. I neither support or oppose anyones views on it. I have no opinion of it.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Don't worry Brody.  I still believe Bud Fox is someone's alternate user name.  He's already got -2 Karmas.  He won't be around much longer.

[Brody]

Don't worry Brody.  I still believe Bud Fox is someone's alternate user name.  He's already got -2 Karmas.  He won't be around much longer.

well lets just say that someone just happend to slip up when spamming my forum.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I know who you mean, and I stated earlier that I think it's him.

[GeorgeSteele]

Berkely, you really believe we should have a vote to determine whether or not these people should have equal rights? ?

Well, that is a complicated question.? It depends what rights you are talking about.? If they are rights already protected in the Constitution, no.? If they are rights that the Constitution does not protect - and therefore not really rights - then yes.? The Courts only have authority to interpret the Consitution and statutes which are things created by popular will.? They do not have authority to rewrite the Consitution or create rights which they see are fit.? If you think that is what Courts should do, then we may want to reevaluate which type of people we place on these high courts.?

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted "equal protection of the laws" to mean the following:

 - Racial segregation in public schools is impermissible (Brown v. Board of Ed.)
 - Government cannot ban the sale of contraceptives; further providing that 14th Amendment created a "zone of privacy" (Griswold v. Conn.)
 - Ending all race-based legal restriction on marriage (Loving v. Virginia)
 - State laws prohibiting sodomy were unconstitutional <Thank God>(Lawrence v. Texas)

Obviously, there are many more cases, too many, to list, but it's clear that the US Supreme Court has historically interpreted the 14th Amendment very broadly and America is a better country for it. ?

[Guns N RockMusic]

See this whole gay marriage thing is heading in the wrong direction.  If two gay people want to spend their lives together, more power to them.  The state should not give benefits to any married couple, be it straight or gay.  Each person should be treated as an individual and not receive special benefits or privlidges because they're married.  Marriage is a personal committment between two people and the government should have no role in that.  I mean think about it : "Baby, this relationship we're in is getting hot.  I want to spend the rest of my life with you.  We gots to get the government in on this one."  Why would you want to invite lawyers into your private life.  Love is an emotion and I fail to see the logic in signing a legal document making you fiscally responsible for the other the rest of your life.  I say play the love lotto, see if you come up lucky.  But if it doesn't work out, walk away happy and not fucked the rest of your life because it didn't work out.  You're committing to an emotion, it's like me signign a contract saying I promise to be mad at you or scared of you the rest of my life.  It's ridiculous.  Find someone you love and be happy, but don't get lawyers and the government involved in your private life.  I mean isn't that the basis of this argument afterall; the right of two individuals to be with whom they want without government restriction?

[Brody]

I know who you mean, and I stated earlier that I think it's him.

well then i can just say it. slc + Buddyfox are the same people.

ps. I think jameslofton came to me with this same question to.

seeing as i cant post members / a members personal info i wont.

[The Dog]

See this whole gay marriage thing is heading in the wrong direction.  If two gay people want to spend their lives together, more power to them.  The state should not give benefits to any married couple, be it straight or gay.  Each person should be treated as an individual and not receive special benefits or privlidges because they're married.  Marriage is a personal committment between two people and the government should have no role in that.  I mean think about it : "Baby, this relationship we're in is getting hot.  I want to spend the rest of my life with you.  We gots to get the government in on this one."  Why would you want to invite lawyers into your private life.  Love is an emotion and I fail to see the logic in signing a legal document making you fiscally responsible for the other the rest of your life.  I say play the love lotto, see if you come up lucky.  But if it doesn't work out, walk away happy and not fucked the rest of your life because it didn't work out.  You're committing to an emotion, it's like me signign a contract saying I promise to be mad at you or scared of you the rest of my life.  It's ridiculous.  Find someone you love and be happy, but don't get lawyers and the government involved in your private life.  I mean isn't that the basis of this argument afterall; the right of two individuals to be with whom they want without government restriction?

I totally agree with you in regards to marriage being an emotion.  Its a committment and I don't see what signing a piece of paper does to that.  However, I think the govt gets involved in terms of tax breaks and what not b/c they want people to get married, they want people to have kids (more tax breaks) so we can create new workers to populate the country when the current ones get to old.  Those tax breaks help out a lot of families who otherwise couldn't afford to have kids (and I don't mean welfare and that nonsense, I mean normal regular middle class americans) and buy houses etc...

In a perfect world though, I agree, everyone should be treated equally.  Its sort of an affront to single people that we have to pay higher taxes just b/c you can't find anyone (or choose not to).

So the fact of the matter is that marriage (in a governmental way) is here to stay....so who gets to say they are married??  Just straight people, or everyone?  Thats the issue at hand.

[Surfrider]

Berkely, you really believe we should have a vote to determine whether or not these people should have equal rights? ?

Well, that is a complicated question.? It depends what rights you are talking about.? If they are rights already protected in the Constitution, no.? If they are rights that the Constitution does not protect - and therefore not really rights - then yes.? The Courts only have authority to interpret the Consitution and statutes which are things created by popular will.? They do not have authority to rewrite the Consitution or create rights which they see are fit.? If you think that is what Courts should do, then we may want to reevaluate which type of people we place on these high courts.?

Did you pull your post from a website or did you come up with these cases on your own?? Your post is not entirely accurate.? Have you read any of these cases?? If not, you shouldn't be posting them in support of a proposition that you do not understand.? If you have, lets discuss.? I am not trying to be condescending, but this is a very complex area of law that takes a substantial amount of studying to grasp.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The originally understood and intended meaning of this Amendment is not what the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean.? Thus, from my perspexctive, the Supreme Court is imposing its viewpoints on the populace.? However, even assuming the Supreme Court has correctly interpreted the equal protection clause, there is still no foundation for in the Constitution for gay marriage.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted "equal protection of the laws" to mean the following:

 - Racial segregation in public schools is impermissible (Brown v. Board of Ed.)

I am not sure if you know this, but different types of discrimination and cases are treated differently.? Race based discrimination or differential treatment based on race is automatically considered suspect and subject to strict scrutiny.? Sexual orientation cases are given rational basis scrutiny.? Here, there is definately a conceivable state interest in protecting the sanctity of marriage.

- Government cannot ban the sale of contraceptives; further providing that 14th Amendment created a "zone of privacy" (Griswold v. Conn.)

This is a due process case, not an equal protection case.? A zone of privacy does not support state sponsored marriages.

- Ending all race-based legal restriction on marriage (Loving v. Virginia)

Again, a race case where heightened scrutiny is given.? Homosexuals have never been considered a suspect class.? On its face, a heterosexual marriage only law applies to all sexes and all races.

- State laws prohibiting sodomy were unconstitutional <Thank God>(Lawrence v. Texas)

I am not sure what the thank god is for?? You are probably looking at the result rather than the path to the result.? This is also a due process case, and I suggest you read Scalia's dissent.? He makes the majority look like ridiculous on several counts.? Only Justice OConnor used equal protection grounds to support the opinion.? However, in her concurence she specifically states that her position would be different if a gay marriage case was before her because states have a legitimate interest in upholding the sanctity of marriage.? As for substantive due process, the right must be a fundamental liberty interest in order to get strict scrutiny.? To be such an interest, the liberty must be one that has been traditionally protected in our society.? Gay marriage is not such a liberty interest.? In fact, no state has ever allowed it.? Personally, I think Lawrence is one of the Court's worst opinions in recent times.  I tend to support Justice Thomas' position:

 I write separately to note that the law before the Court today ?is ? uncommonly silly.? Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

    Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to ?decide cases ?agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.? ? Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I ?can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,? ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the ?liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,? ante, at 1.


?

[SLCPUNK]

Mainline is somebody who's been banned from here in the past for his/her bullshit stories and narrowminded opinions.





/jarmo

But SLCPUNK can call people racist, as he did to me, and espouse viewpoints such as the US inflicted 911 upon itself?

Mainline is HolyWar if I can recall...........from Utah too, if I remember right.

I never said 9-11 was an inside job. But rather we should explore all options presented, as the official story does not add up.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Damn HolyWar is back.  I remember that guy.  He was a good poster, along with popmetal.  Damn I miss the old days.

[TheChin]

Damn HolyWar is back.? I remember that guy.? He was a good poster, along with popmetal.? Damn I miss the old days.

I never really go away.  I was back briefly before certain people needed Jarmo to run interference for them.  Needless to say, I was quickly shown the exit door, as I'm positive I will be again....

[TheChin]

Mainline is somebody who's been banned from here in the past for his/her bullshit stories and narrowminded opinions.





/jarmo

But SLCPUNK can call people racist, as he did to me, and espouse viewpoints such as the US inflicted 911 upon itself?

Mainline is HolyWar if I can recall...........from Utah too, if I remember right.

I never said 9-11 was an inside job. But rather we should explore all options presented, as the official story does not add up.

For the record, SLC, you being banned from ever coming back to Utah still stands.....

[TheChin]

mainline I'm gonna ask you some thing, when do you wanna get together, and have a fight, like a man to man fight where I kick your ass.


You are probably the most narrow minded bigoted poster I have come across. And you my(not) friend are really finding yourself in the minority these days on this. you speak as if you are god, as if you have a divine right to say what is good or bad, right or wrong, what is moral or not. Buddy, you are probably a fucking kid, who is being reared by backwards thinking god forbid I should say it but i will the same thread of fiber you were conceived!?

Seems to me you don't get out much, or are on a worldly basic, but probably sheltered and hiding the fact you are morally raped by your own kind. Hell I wonder does inbreed mean anything to you, how about incest. Cause I feel like you would totally find a argument to justify those things!

Maybe your twisted and are warped by harsh realities you cant confront just yet, thats not my problem. BUT from this FAG TO YOU? SUCK SOMEONE ELSE'S PUSSY. Cause you are lost , so last!

Don't type checks your ass can't cash.

[SLCPUNK]

For the record, SLC, you being banned from ever coming back to Utah still stands.....

LOL, I'll be back in March, wanna have some coffee? 

[SLCPUNK]

Damn HolyWar is back.  I remember that guy.  He was a good poster, along with popmetal.  Damn I miss the old days.

Wow, mainline was banned again...............What would Jesus say dude?

[GeorgeSteele]

 I write separately to note that the law before the Court today ?is ? uncommonly silly.? Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

? ? Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to ?decide cases ?agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.? ? Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I ?can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,? ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the ?liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,? ante, at 1.

?

Good thing that was a dissent and not a majority opinion.?

I'm impressed by your knowledge of those cases and unfortunately can't discuss at the same level of detail as you, given I read them 9 years ago.? With that said, get off your high horse and don't tell me what I should or shouldn't post - surely you're capable of understanding that the cases I cited (not from the Internet, from memory) were evidence of the Court taking a broad view of the Constitution, rather than the narrow one you favored.? I find it incredible that you can be critical of court decisions that expand[/i] our freedoms all in the name of some false democratic ideal - as though you're oblivious to the tyranny of the majority.? Race-based restrictions on marriage were fortunately deemed to be bullshit based on that broad view.? Do you have a problem with that decision?? Oh, the result is OK but the path to that result was not?? Guess what - the country was scorchingly racist then, so laws like that got passed.? Similarly, we now have a lot of homophobia in this country, so homosexuals at this time will not be afforded the "equal protection of the laws" via the democratic process.? To come back and say they're not a protected class is completely arbitrary.? On what basis do you make a distinction?

[Guns N RockMusic]

See this whole gay marriage thing is heading in the wrong direction.? If two gay people want to spend their lives together, more power to them.? The state should not give benefits to any married couple, be it straight or gay.? Each person should be treated as an individual and not receive special benefits or privlidges because they're married.? Marriage is a personal committment between two people and the government should have no role in that.? I mean think about it : "Baby, this relationship we're in is getting hot.? I want to spend the rest of my life with you.? We gots to get the government in on this one."? Why would you want to invite lawyers into your private life.? Love is an emotion and I fail to see the logic in signing a legal document making you fiscally responsible for the other the rest of your life.? I say play the love lotto, see if you come up lucky.? But if it doesn't work out, walk away happy and not fucked the rest of your life because it didn't work out.? You're committing to an emotion, it's like me signign a contract saying I promise to be mad at you or scared of you the rest of my life.? It's ridiculous.? Find someone you love and be happy, but don't get lawyers and the government involved in your private life.? I mean isn't that the basis of this argument afterall; the right of two individuals to be with whom they want without government restriction?

I totally agree with you in regards to marriage being an emotion.? Its a committment and I don't see what signing a piece of paper does to that.? However, I think the govt gets involved in terms of tax breaks and what not b/c they want people to get married, they want people to have kids (more tax breaks) so we can create new workers to populate the country when the current ones get to old.? Those tax breaks help out a lot of families who otherwise couldn't afford to have kids (and I don't mean welfare and that nonsense, I mean normal regular middle class americans) and buy houses etc...

In a perfect world though, I agree, everyone should be treated equally.? Its sort of an affront to single people that we have to pay higher taxes just b/c you can't find anyone (or choose not to).

So the fact of the matter is that marriage (in a governmental way) is here to stay....so who gets to say they are married??? Just straight people, or everyone?? Thats the issue at hand.

Well in your post, you claim married people get tax breaks to have children.  Since homosexual couples can't have their own children (unless they use science to do so which would nullify their need for tax breaks if they can afford that operation), then they don't receive benefits under this reasoning.  I say again that no one should receive benefits for having children. We should stop rewarding people for overpopulating the world and not having the means to provide their children with proper care.  We spay and neuter cats and dogs because they can't control themselves and their breeding.  Don't you think that some people might need to be considered for this too.  Talk about an advantage to being gay, all the sex you want and no risk of pregnancy.