GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 331,946
Threads: 115,725
Posts: 2,208,026
Welcome to our newest member, ajohnandext2841
» Online Users: 2,438
1 members and 2,437 guests
PGD-GRAD
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 08-09-2010, 09:41 AM
MysticCat MysticCat is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A dark and very expensive forest
Posts: 12,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter View Post
Loving vs. Virginia was a correct decision and a relatively easy one to make in hindsight. This was more about race and not a definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman. It did not address gay marriage nor was it considered to have done such.
No. of course it didn't. What it did do was was determine that laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races violate the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I agree that an argument can be made that this case is different because it can be seen as redefining marriage. But I can also see how the current case is the direct descendant of Loving.

Quote:
The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with apportioning 1 man/woman 1 vote. It overturned the Dred Scott decision. Again it does not address the claim for gay marriage unless one wants to cite the equal protection clause which I believe is more of an equal protection of a persons voting rights. Using due process is a huge stretch in my opinion.
I don't know of any court anywhere that would agree that the equal protection clause has to do only, or mainly, with voting rights. Aside from Loving, see Brown vs. Board of Education. Even Plessy v Furgeson (1896) held that the equal protection clause was designed to guarantee equality in civil rights. The idea that it has to only, or mainly, with voting rights is a dog that just won't hunt.

Quote:
So yes, I believe that states rights were infringed by the Federal judge in this decision as the state simply defined their definition of marriage.
And I can see that point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk View Post
Hopefully the government will simply get out of the business of marriage altogether.
^^ While that would be ideal, it will never happen because of all the legal aspects of marriage.
There is the model followed in some other countres where the legal union and religious aspects are separated. Legally, you appear before a government official (registrar, justice of the peace, etc.) to basically sign, seal and register the civil union contract. Then, if you want to, you head off to church (or temple, or wherever) for the religious ceremony.
__________________
AMONG MEN HARMONY
1898
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest a.e.B.O.T. News & Politics 152 12-10-2008 02:05 AM
Prop 8 - The Musical LightBulb Entertainment 7 12-05-2008 01:30 PM
Michigan's Prop 2 to ban affirmative action AGDee News & Politics 73 11-14-2006 09:44 PM
judicial ruling to be secret? IowaStatePhiPsi News & Politics 11 09-08-2004 05:45 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.