So what do you haters think....?????

[GFR]

WHat do you teach, KBM, and where?

He teaches your mom how to swallow....at your house

 

[BigDyl]

He teaches your mom how to swallow....at your house

True Story, and now I pass down to you what I have been taught.

 

[clemson357]

Griswold v. Connecticut - holding unconstitutional a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptive.

"We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation."



Loving v. Virginia - Virginia statutes preventing marriages between persons solely on basis of racial classification are unconstitutional.

"...the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..."

Notably, racial distinctions are subject to strict scrutiny, and homosexuals get rational basis.



Cleveland Board of Education v. Cohen - Mandatory school board rules requiring pregnant school teacher in one case to take maternity leave five months before expected birth of child and in the other case at least four months prior to expected birth of child denied due process since arbitrary cut-off dates had no valid relationship to state interest.




Roberts v. United States Jaycees - The Minnesota Department of Human Rights of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on basis of sex in ???places of public accommodation,??? to Jaycees by ordering them to admit women to its local chapters in Minnesota is not unconstitutional.



FYI, the holding of a case usually is noted by an intro like "We hold here" or "Justice Brennan holds..." Every literal sentence appearing in a case doesn't constitute law.

 

[clemson357]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a holding that says the State cannot define marriage as between two people of opposite genders.

And if that is your opinion, maybe you can explain to us whether or not the State can define marriage as between two people. After all, it is a personal choice, as you so aptly pointed out. What if someone's personal choice is to marry two women? Or a man and a woman?

 

[kbm8795]

Griswold v. Connecticut - holding unconstitutional a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptive.

"We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation."

An intimate relationship rising above state scrutiny. The state has been unable to prove that same-sex relationships do not approximate the same level of intimate relation. The use of the term "personhood" has been increasingly used to define reasonable limits upon the state's power to shape the behavior of individuals and groups.

Loving v. Virginia - Virginia statutes preventing marriages between persons solely on basis of racial classification are unconstitutional.

"...the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..."

Notably, racial distinctions are subject to strict scrutiny, and homosexuals get rational basis.

The State's police power is limited to proving material and practical damages to society - race alone as a distinction cannot be used as a barrier to marriage.

Cleveland Board of Education v. Cohen - Mandatory school board rules requiring pregnant school teacher in one case to take maternity leave five months before expected birth of child and in the other case at least four months prior to expected birth of child denied due process since arbitrary cut-off dates had no valid relationship to state interest.

Yes...and your point?

Roberts v. United States Jaycees - The Minnesota Department of Human Rights of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on basis of sex in ???places of public accommodation,??? to Jaycees by ordering them to admit women to its local chapters in Minnesota is not unconstitutional.



FYI, the holding of a case usually is noted by an intro like "We hold here" or "Justice Brennan holds..." Every literal sentence appearing in a case doesn't constitute law.

Gee...no kidding.

 

[clemson357]

WHat do you teach, KBM, and where?

This is just a guess, but I would think he teaches law, if anything. Either an introduction to law class at some public highschool, or a Constitutional law class at some fourth tier law school.

 

[clemson357]

Anyway, I am going to have to go ahead and exercise my 35th amendment right to stop participating in this pointless conversation. You will find that right in the 'Bill of Human Rights,' added to the Constitution in the year 2197, Article 5, Section 9, Amendment 35.

I figure as long as we are making up rights, I might as well exercise mine...

 

[kbm8795]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a holding that says the State cannot define marriage as between two people of opposite genders.

Do you see holdings that insist the State is required to define marriage that way?

The State has altered marriage laws many times over the years, as well as divorce laws. Surely you can figure out here that the legal principles informing the right to marry are based on three foundational pillars: the right to privacy, the right to freedom of intimate association, and the right to promote social stability. The state has to show a compelling interest in limiting access to statutory protection of families beyond mere disapproval.

In Zablocki vs. Redhail (434 U.S. 374, 483) - "the right to marry is of fundamental importance." (The Court struck down statutes that proscribed the marriage of a person with outstanding child-support obligations).

The reason the Right is pushing constitutional amendments is because there are other parts of state constitutions (such as equal protection clauses - one example) which prohibit the state from favoring one group of citizens over another without a compelling reason. What is the rational basis for legislation denying that access for same-sex couples? You've shown no legitimate interest for that action, and the states which have been challenged have been generally unable to do so, either.

And if that is your opinion, maybe you can explain to us whether or not the State can define marriage as between two people.

Surely you understand the difference between monogamy and polygamy and that difference has nothing to do with same-sex couples. The State's justification for denying polygamy is based on practical and material issues involving distribution of property, designation of surviving spouses, etc. . .which also involve the areas in which the state can show a compelling interest. If, in a polygamous relationship, the man, for example, attempts to rank each "wife" in an order of importance, the state has an interest in protecting the rights of the wives. The arguments which don't work are that families are not "stable" unless they are in a two-person marriage, just as they don't work (despite the religious Right's best efforts at concocting research) in defining families headed by same-sex couples.

After all, it is a personal choice, as you so aptly pointed out. What if someone's personal choice is to marry two women? Or a man and a woman?

A typical rightwing argument which doesn't pass muster. Instead of the Right, which claims the State has the right to "police" marriage, asking "why are murderers, child sexual abusers, rapists, wifebeaters and adulterers allowed to marry?" Does the State not have a compelling interest in preventing someone who violated their marriage vows from marrying again? Does the state not have a compelling interest in arbitrarily dissolving the marriages of people who commit violent crimes against their families? Instead, they rush right to the outer limits in an attempt to dehumanize the gays. You know, the old "people will marry their dogs and their box turtles". . .a rather nice way of dehumanizing the rights of human beings (who we claim have equal rights) as they petition to redress grievances that we KNOW are true. Same-sex couples are not "single" people, and they can't enter into even common-law marriages in those locations where they still might exist. And the State still can't provide a basis for that denial.

 

[kbm8795]

Anyway, I am going to have to go ahead and exercise my 35th amendment right to stop participating in this pointless conversation. You will find that right in the 'Bill of Human Rights,' added to the Constitution in the year 2197, Article 5, Section 9, Amendment 35.

I figure as long as we are making up rights, I might as well exercise mine...

That would be a very typical thing for a wingnut to do. But you missed the 34th Amendment, which stripped all Republicans of declaring themselves exclusive beneficiaries of special rights.

 

[The Monkey Man]

Ahhhhhrrrgggghhh

Too much text

 

[kbm8795]

This is just a guess, but I would think he teaches law, if anything. Either an introduction to law class at some public highschool, or a Constitutional law class at some fourth tier law school.

. . .wrong on both counts.

 

[bio-chem]

back to the original topic of giving gays the right to their partners ss benifits. sounds legit to me i dont have a problem with it.

i do think ss security is doomed however. im 25 years old and i do not expect to see ss when i retire. i dont mind paying it however as i believe we should take care of our elderly and that is the system unfortuneately too many baby boomers relied on for their support.

and abstinence is effective. ive not gotten an std or had an illigetimate child yet

 

[BigDyl]

. . .wrong on both counts.

I give up, what do you teach?

 

[kbm8795]

I give up, what do you teach?

I teach people not to give Foreman Rules two more beers after he squints his eyes, looks over and says "I'm horny."

 

[bio-chem]

I teach people not to give Foreman Rules two more beers after he squints his eyes, looks over and says "I'm horny."

you wise, wise, wise individual