Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[kddani]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I hadn't seen that until now. But if asked, I would say there is no reason to allow it. The bans are mostly for public reassurance. Marriage is male and female. There is no illegal discrimination here.

What legal support do you have? That's not a legal argument. Not going to fly in law school.

[shinerbock]

I reread your comments valk. I would probably use a defense involving localities being able to decide what is allowed within their own community, something along those lines. I originally thought your post had said I was arguing for a gay marriage ban.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I reread your comments valk. I would probably use a defense involving localities being able to decide what is allowed within their own community, something along those lines. I originally thought your post had said I was arguing for a gay marriage ban.

Yes, but the question is, once you give that power to the localities, what is THEIR legal basis for banning gay marriage??

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

However, look at this- Apparently gays are calling straight people "breeders" I found it pretty funny
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...own/?page=full

Cool. Instead of presenting a logical argument, you throw in a link to an irrelevant article that has nothing to do with the subject. Hopefully, assuming you make it through law school, you'll practice law in an area where everybody agrees with you on issues so you don't have to present logical arguments or citations to relevant authority, or where people are willing to get so riled up by being called breeders that they forget the original subject of discussion.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I reread your comments valk. I would probably use a defense involving localities being able to decide what is allowed within their own community, something along those lines. I originally thought your post had said I was arguing for a gay marriage ban.

I've not been to law school, mind you, but I have had several logic and philosophy classes (which require arguments). I would think this answer would have the professor either rolling his eyes or asking you to leave and return only once you could provide an actual argument, not just a few random buzz words thrown together.

[shinerbock]

because the court has ruled that localities should have control over what is present in their communities, to a degree. They could probably make a case involving the presence of obscenity, although it could be a stretch. I've yet to see a legal argument for gay marriage. The "theres no reason not to" is not a legal argument, contrary to popular belief. In reality, you should be brainstorming for ideas that promote gay marriage, especially considering odds are probably stacked against you.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I reread your comments valk. I would probably use a defense involving localities being able to decide what is allowed within their own community, something along those lines. I originally thought your post had said I was arguing for a gay marriage ban.

Here's what I'm asking. Say there is a locality where people want to enact a law allowing gay marriage. Argue against it -- or would you decline to do so, because localities should be able to decide for themselves?

[shinerbock]

Valk, you're being absurd. I posted that because I thought it was funny. Simply because you do not have any support for your argument does not merit you making a quite feeble attempt to discredit me.

[shinerbock]

Valk, I probably would. I mean, while I'm against gay marriage, I'm not so opposed to it I would fight it if the majority of the area was in favor of it.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Valk, you're being absurd. I posted that because I thought it was funny. Simply because you do not have any support for your argument does not merit you making a quite feeble attempt to discredit me.

What is my argument?

[shinerbock]

Reasoning for why gay marriage should be allowed?

[greekalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

They could probably make a case involving the presence of obscenity, although it could be a stretch.

COULD be?

[shinerbock]

Depends. Its very offensive to some.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Depends. Its very offensive to some.

Obscene applies to "speech". Marriage is not "speech."

[greekalum]

Right, but legally, obscenity refers to media, not private acts. And those private acts have already been ruled as a protected right- see Lawrence v. Texas.

Also, a legal argument against a ban on gay marriage would probably go something like all citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law via the 14th amendment and a law restricting marriage to members of the opposite sex would discriminate against homosexuals and fail to afford them equal protection since there are many legal issues in which marital status is a factor. (In laymans terms.)