Online Now 926

Off-Topic

On this Board 357
Record: 1825 (5/20/2013)

Online now 1050
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Gay Marriage Bill Set to Pass in NY

  • The tiebreaking GOP vote in the NY Senate appears to be there, and the vote will happen in the next hour or so. Cuomo will sign the bill, and it would be a huge gain for gay rights activists as NY would become the biggest state by far to pass such a bill.

    PaulUMD ●

  • http://www.livestream.com/nysenate

    A.B.E.

    historicus ●

  • That's fine, if that's what NY wants to do. And if CA doesn't want it, they should have it their way.

    SATerp ●

  • SATerp said...

    That's fine, if that's what NY wants to do. And if CA doesn't want it, they should have it their way.

    Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, it should grant civil unions to anyone, that provides the legal rights that we currently get through state sanctioned marriage, and let the churches define marriage however they want. If the churches will only marry straight people, so be it. But the gov't should grant those rights to couples of any kind that wish to have them.

    PaulUMD ●

  • Passes 33-29

    PaulUMD ●

  • PaulUMD said...

    Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, it should grant civil unions to anyone, that provides the legal rights that we currently get through state sanctioned marriage, and let the churches define marriage however they want. If the churches will only marry straight people, so be it. But the gov't should grant those rights to couples of any kind that wish to have them.

    I'm commenting more on the willingness of people within a state to accept the popular will when expressed in fair elections.

    SATerp ●

  • SATerp said...

    I'm commenting more on the willingness of people within a state to accept the popular will when expressed in fair elections.

    I agree, if Cali passes gay marriage and the referendum knocks it down, so be it.

    PaulUMD ●

  • Great news for Luis Carruthers

    attachment

    So I respond "Tell you what, I'll read Dreams of My Father if you read MEIN KAMPF"

    MadMax901 ●

  • PaulUMD said...

    Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, it should grant civil unions to anyone, that provides the legal rights that we currently get through state sanctioned marriage, and let the churches define marriage however they want. If the churches will only marry straight people, so be it. But the gov't should grant those rights to couples of any kind that wish to have them.

    except for all the people who don't get married in a church

    goterpss

  • MadMax901 said...

    Great news for Luis Carruthers

    Separated at birth?

    attachment

    SATerp ●

  • Please stop making all kinds of sense. If you ran for office, you'd be unelectable.

    YankeeTerp ●

  • SATerp said...

    I'm commenting more on the willingness of people within a state to accept the popular will when expressed in fair elections.

    Except that when the popular will within a state indicated that black people couldn't marry white people, we didn't exactly wait around for ignorant and bigoted people to change their minds...

    terps99

  • yeah basic human/civil rights shouldnt be determined by a bunch of neanderthals in a particular state

    5th and lehigh

  • terps99 said...

    Except that when the popular will within a state indicated that black people couldn't marry white people, we didn't exactly wait around for ignorant and bigoted people to change their minds...

    Wait, are you proposing that the federal gov't institute gay marriage in the states?

    This post was edited by SATerp on 6/25/2011 at 12:36 PM

    SATerp ●

  • SATerp said...

    Wait, are you proposing that the federal gov't institute gay marriage in the states?

    A pretty strong argument could be made that the Constitution of the United States prevents states who choose to recognize heterosexual marriages from refusing to recognize homosexual marriages. An even stronger argument can be made that the Constitution precludes states from permitting heterosexuals from accessing benefits denied to homosexuals. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), should provide you with some background on how the argument might go.

    And, FYI, the federal government "institutes" all kinds of stuff in the states (drinking age, drug policy, unionization rules, etc.). It also already "institutes" certain marriage requirements (i.e., states can't refuse to recognize interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). So, you know, your argument isn't very strong.

    nmprisons

  • IT'S ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE!"!™®™™!!"!!"!™!!®!!!!"

    CuseTerp

  • nmprisons said...

    A pretty strong argument could be made that the Constitution of the United States prevents states who choose to recognize heterosexual marriages from refusing to recognize homosexual marriages. An even stronger argument can be made that the Constitution precludes states from permitting heterosexuals from accessing benefits denied to homosexuals. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), should provide you with some background on how the argument might go.

    And, FYI, the federal government "institutes" all kinds of stuff in the states (drinking age, drug policy, unionization rules, etc.). It also already "institutes" certain marriage requirements (i.e., states can't refuse to recognize interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). So, you know, your argument isn't very strong.

    What argument? I asked a question.

    And lol at the congress and/or President dumb enough to try to to dictate marriage to the states.

    SATerp ●

  • SATerp said...

    What argument? I asked a question.

    And lol at the congress and/or President dumb enough to try to to dictate marriage to the states.

    Um, you realize that we have a Constitution, right? It has a Supremacy Clause that makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. The Constitution contains the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has said that the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from precluding interracial marriage or, in your terms, forces the states to recognize marriages between people of two different races. (Loving v. Virginia) The Supreme Court has also said that the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from singling out homosexuals and taking away certain rights from them. (Romer v. Evans)

    I am not debating the policy implications or whether we should "lol at the congress and/or the President" (although you are on the side of a dwindling minority on this one), rather I am saying that a very plausible reading of the Equal Protection Clause, based on Supreme Court precedent (Romer was written by Kennedy, by the way) would indicate that states cannot exclude homosexuals from the benefits of marriage. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue, but it will at some point in the next ten years or so, but it would be wholly unsurprising if they extending Loving v. Virginia to homosexual marriage.

    nmprisons

  • nmprisons said...

    Um, you realize that we have a Constitution, right? It has a Supremacy Clause that makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. The Constitution contains the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has said that the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from precluding interracial marriage or, in your terms, forces the states to recognize marriages between people of two different races. (Loving v. Virginia) The Supreme Court has also said that the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from singling out homosexuals and taking away certain rights from them. (Romer v. Evans)

    I am not debating the policy implications or whether we should "lol at the congress and/or the President" (although you are on the side of a dwindling minority on this one), rather I am saying that a very plausible reading of the Equal Protection Clause, based on Supreme Court precedent (Romer was written by Kennedy, by the way) would indicate that states cannot exclude homosexuals from the benefits of marriage. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue, but it will at some point in the next ten years or so, but it would be wholly unsurprising if they extending Loving v. Virginia to homosexual marriage.

    You're apparently not aware of political implications of actions taken by members of congress and the President. I very much doubt that enough of them have the nerve to fuck any more with marriage than they already have, no matter how much you may desire it.

    And yes, I have heard that we have a Constitution, one that contains a Tenth Amendment, yes?

    SATerp ●

  • Seriously. Slow down and read what I wrote. I am not saying that Congress or the President should legislate the issue (though I agree that they messed with marriage far too much already (see DOMA). I actually think the most likely course of action on a federal level is that in 6 or 7 years the Supreme Court rules state bans on homosexual marriage to be Unconstitutional.

    I will repeat what I said above more clearly, and in stages, as you missed it the first time.

    Aricle VI, Clause II of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    That means that, if it is in the Constitution or a federal law then the states are bound by it.

    The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    So, that "nor prohibited by it to the States" means that the Supremacy Clause applies and States can't undermine federal legislation or the constitution.

    You with me so far?

    If so, let me know.

    This post was edited by nmprisons on 6/25/2011 at 2:52 PM

    nmprisons

  • nmprisons said...

    Seriously. Slow down and read what I wrote. I am not saying that Congress or the President should legislate the issue (though I agree that they messed with marriage far too much already (see DOMA).

    I will repeat what I said more clearly as you missed it the first time.

    Aricle VI, Clause II of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    That means that, if it is in the Constitution or a federal law then the states are bound by it.

    The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    So, that "nor prohibited by it to the States" means that the Supremacy Clause applies and States can't undermine federal legislation or the constitution.

    You with me so far?

    If so, let me know.

    You're looking for a debate on the matter, and I'm not interested. You're talking legalities, and I'm talking reality.

    But we all DO appreciate being talked down to.

    SATerp ●

  • SATerp said...

    You're looking for a debate on the matter, and I'm not interested. You're talking legalities, and I'm talking reality.

    But we all DO appreciate being talked down to.

    I figured that would be your response. And I am talking down to you only because you claim to know something about the law, having brought up the 10th A. yourself, but don't really have any idea about how the law works.

    nmprisons

  • nmprisons said...

    I figured that would be your response. And I am talking down to you only because you claim to know something about the law, having brought up the 10th A. yourself, but don't really have any idea about how the law works.

    You ARE a piece of work. If a citizen mentions the 10th Amendment, he's claiming he "knows something about the law"? So the Constitution is for attorneys only. Good to know.

    Just get your J. D., and itching to show how smart you are?

    SATerp ●

  • SATerp said...

    You ARE a piece of work. If a citizen mentions the 10th Amendment, he's claiming he "knows something about the law"? So the Constitution is for attorneys only. Good to know.

    Just get your J. D., and itching to show how smart you are?

    You mentioned the 10th A. without having any idea what it means. How am I possibly at fault for explaining to you why the 10th A. doesn't matter when it comes to whether states can ban homosexual marriage?

    It would be like if I said 1+1 = 3 and then got made at you for explaining that 1+1 = 2.

    Oh, and I never claimed to be an attorney, though I try and read documents before talking about them.

    nmprisons

  • SATerp said...

    Wait, are you proposing that the federal gov't institute gay marriage in the states?

    No, of course not. I don't think government should be in the marriage business at all. But the government isn't getting out of that business anytime soon...

    I do think, however, that if the federal government legislates marriage, and in the course of the legislation, makes homosexual marriage illegal, that is unconstitutional. And I'm sure the courts will hold as much sooner or later.

    terps99

Maryland
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports