BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
European Auto Source
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-30-2015, 12:22 AM   #23
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
601
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

I can't say whether you are ignorant, but I can say that the comments you've made regarding the federal government's authority to act with regard to marriage ignores both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Procedural due process:
The guarantee of procedural fairness which flows from both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process clauses to the U.S. Constitution. This guarantee requires that a party in risk of losing a fundamental right is entitled to a hearing and notice of the proceeding.

Substantive due process:
Doctrine that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution require legislation to be fair and reasonable in content as well as application. Specifically, no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.

Strict scrutiny test:
A governmental measure which is found to affect adversely a fundamental right will be subject to the “strict scrutiny” test, which requires a state to establish that it has a compelling interest to justify the law or statute enacted.

Unlike the system of marriage in English history, in the U.S., marriage was conceived as a civil contract, thereby giving states jurisdiction over marriage. Thus, both federal and state regulations govern family law.

The U.S. constitution plays a major part in regulating family life. Specifically, the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ensure that: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The aspect of this clause that deals with family law protection focuses on deprivation of liberty—the liberty to plan one's own family relationships, which necessarily includes the right of individuals to choose with whom they enter into contractually agreed familial relationships.

Due process has two prongs: procedural and substantive. The former requires that courts follow certain procedures to ensure that a family’s rights are respected. Substantive due process limits governmental action vis-à-vis the family’s right to control the choices it makes in its day-to-day family life.

Thus, before governmental regulations of families’ decisions pass scrutiny, they must have a close relationship to the advancement of a valid state purpose rather than arbitrarily intrude on families’ lives. Given the seriousness of these decisions, governments are held to the standard of “strict scrutiny” because these family rights are so fundamental. Under this elevated level of review, governmental regulations have to promote a “compelling” state interest before they are deemed valid.

Quite simply, there is no "compelling" state interest to be protected by denying homosexuals the freedom, the right, to marry and enjoy or suffer the consequences of electing that familial status. Thus it's un-Constitutional to deny gays the right to marry, to elect the familial status of "married," on the merits of Constitutional law.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 09:37 AM   #24
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
119
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Quite simply, there is no "compelling" state interest to be protected by denying homosexuals the freedom, the right, to marry and enjoy or suffer the consequences of electing that familial status. Thus it's un-Constitutional to deny gays the right to marry, to elect the familial status of "married," on the merits of Constitutional law.

All the best.
Except, in times past, it was the church's job to marry people. Marriage isn't just a social status.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

We aren't called to celebrate sins. Celebrating same-sex marriage is celebrating sin.

As for America today, I believe it should be left up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow it. If your state doesn't allow it, move. Of course, little late for that now.
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 09:58 AM   #25
iamwingman
Captain
483
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: m4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
I can't say whether you are ignorant, but I can say that the comments you've made regarding the federal government's authority to act with regard to marriage ignores both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Procedural due process:
The guarantee of procedural fairness which flows from both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process clauses to the U.S. Constitution. This guarantee requires that a party in risk of losing a fundamental right is entitled to a hearing and notice of the proceeding.

Substantive due process:
Doctrine that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution require legislation to be fair and reasonable in content as well as application. Specifically, no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.

Strict scrutiny test:
A governmental measure which is found to affect adversely a fundamental right will be subject to the “strict scrutiny” test, which requires a state to establish that it has a compelling interest to justify the law or statute enacted.

Unlike the system of marriage in English history, in the U.S., marriage was conceived as a civil contract, thereby giving states jurisdiction over marriage. Thus, both federal and state regulations govern family law.

The U.S. constitution plays a major part in regulating family life. Specifically, the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ensure that: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The aspect of this clause that deals with family law protection focuses on deprivation of liberty—the liberty to plan one's own family relationships, which necessarily includes the right of individuals to choose with whom they enter into contractually agreed familial relationships.

Due process has two prongs: procedural and substantive. The former requires that courts follow certain procedures to ensure that a family’s rights are respected. Substantive due process limits governmental action vis-à-vis the family’s right to control the choices it makes in its day-to-day family life.

Thus, before governmental regulations of families’ decisions pass scrutiny, they must have a close relationship to the advancement of a valid state purpose rather than arbitrarily intrude on families’ lives. Given the seriousness of these decisions, governments are held to the standard of “strict scrutiny” because these family rights are so fundamental. Under this elevated level of review, governmental regulations have to promote a “compelling” state interest before they are deemed valid.

Quite simply, there is no "compelling" state interest to be protected by denying homosexuals the freedom, the right, to marry and enjoy or suffer the consequences of electing that familial status. Thus it's un-Constitutional to deny gays the right to marry, to elect the familial status of "married," on the merits of Constitutional law.

All the best.
Except gays have never been disallowed to marry. Equal protection should not be considered, because they had been treated equally. Last month, last year, and ten years ago- gay men had the precisely equal access to marriage as a straight men. Without relying on equal protection it takes the issue away from the feds and to the states. This was a political decision/conclusion that was made by the court. Not based on law.. The modern court makes political decisions and then, after the fact, looks to the law to try to support the decisions. Whether the law supports those political decisions or not then becomes irrelevant.
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:06 AM   #26
iamwingman
Captain
483
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: m4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

And this has nothing to do with how I feel about gay marriage. It was a bad decision, not based on law. It didn't start with this decision either. The court is and has been setting dangerous precedents that are dangerous for the long term viability of this country. The supreme court wss designed to be insulated from politics. Now they are nothing but a reflection of politics. Very dangerous.
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:10 AM   #27
DF
Major
219
Rep
1,243
Posts

Drives: F23
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sherman Oaks

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
Except gays have never been disallowed to marry. Equal protection should not be considered, because they had been treated equally. Last month, last year, and ten years ago- gay men had the precisely equal access to marriage as a straight men. Without relying on equal protection it takes the issue away from the feds and to the states. This was a political decision/conclusion that was made by the court. Not based on law.. The modern court makes political decisions and then, after the fact, looks to the law to try to support the decisions. Whether the law supports those political decisions or not then becomes irrelevant.
Huh? Oh. You are in the camp gay people should marry straight people. Lulz
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:11 AM   #28
DF
Major
219
Rep
1,243
Posts

Drives: F23
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sherman Oaks

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
And this has nothing to do with how I feel about gay marriage. It was a bad decision, not based on law. It didn't start with this decision either. The court is and has been setting dangerous precedents that are dangerous for the long term viability of this country. The supreme court wss designed to be insulated from politics. Now they are nothing but a reflection of politics. Very dangerous.
Correct. It's not based on law. It's based on the constitution. The court has been consistent about equal protection. Read the 1967 decision. It was unanimous
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:18 AM   #29
iamwingman
Captain
483
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: m4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DF View Post
Huh? Oh. You are in the camp gay people should marry straight people. Lulz
I don't care who they marry. But facts are facts. They had the same rights as straight men. You can dance around it, but that doesn't change the fact. You just stated it. You don't want equality for the gay man, you want a new right. And that's what they got. A NEW right. I now have the right to marry a man, a right I didn't have previously. So by definition, we aren't talking about equal application of a previous right, we are talking about a NEW right. Which is fine with me. Just don't think it was based on law, and of course I mean the constitution when I say law. And again, just so you know, I don't have a problem with gay people marrying each other- never have. But it is a state issue.
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:19 AM   #30
iamwingman
Captain
483
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: m4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DF View Post
Correct. It's not based on law. It's based on the constitution. The court has been consistent about equal protection. Read the 1967 decision. It was unanimous
I know about equal protection. They were protected equally. Gay men had the same rights as straight men. FACT.
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:26 AM   #31
DF
Major
219
Rep
1,243
Posts

Drives: F23
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sherman Oaks

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
I know about equal protection. They were protected equally. Gay men had the same rights as straight men. FACT.
You are seriously hanging your hat on that? :rofl. Ok buddy. I'll leave you too it. Sorry about the gay marriage thing. The sting will be gone soon
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:30 AM   #32
iamwingman
Captain
483
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: m4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DF View Post
You are seriously hanging your hat on that? :rofl. Ok buddy. I'll leave you too it. Sorry about the gay marriage thing. The sting will be gone soon
Nice reasoned response. You are a small person. Small mind.
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:33 AM   #33
DF
Major
219
Rep
1,243
Posts

Drives: F23
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sherman Oaks

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
Nice reasoned response. You are a small person. Small mind.
Sorry. I can't respond to someone who says gay people always had the right to marry straight people as a tool against marriage equality. You are not very smart. Bit ill leave you too it. I know you are pissed off about it. But like I said you will get over it soon enough. It won't be that bad.

Enjoy your day
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:35 AM   #34
iamwingman
Captain
483
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: m4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DF View Post
Sorry. I can't respond to someone who says gay people always had the right to marry straight people as a tool against marriage equality. You are not very smart. Bit ill leave you too it. I know you are pissed off about it. But like I said you will get over it soon enough. It won't be that bad.
Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate how they were treated unequally.
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:38 AM   #35
iamwingman
Captain
483
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: m4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DF View Post
Sorry. I can't respond to someone who says gay people always had the right to marry straight people as a tool against marriage equality. You are not very smart. Bit ill leave you too it. I know you are pissed off about it. But like I said you will get over it soon enough. It won't be that bad.

Enjoy your day
And, BTW- you should try being reasoned rather than emotional. And, BTW- you should try not to be such a cliché driven stereotype.
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 10:43 AM   #36
DF
Major
219
Rep
1,243
Posts

Drives: F23
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sherman Oaks

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
And, BTW- you should try being reasoned rather than emotional. And, BTW- you should try not to be such a cliché driven stereotype.
Great advice. Thanks
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 02:41 PM   #37
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
601
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
Except gays have never been disallowed to marry. Equal protection should not be considered, because they had been treated equally. Last month, last year, and ten years ago- gay men had the precisely equal access to marriage as a straight men. Without relying on equal protection it takes the issue away from the feds and to the states. This was a political decision/conclusion that was made by the court. Not based on law.. The modern court makes political decisions and then, after the fact, looks to the law to try to support the decisions. Whether the law supports those political decisions or not then becomes irrelevant.
Are you being "semantic" (splitting hairs, if you will, because gay people have always been permitted to marry, just not marry one another) with that statement, or have you been living in a cave?
-- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...nverts/389273/

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2015, 02:43 PM   #38
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
601
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
And this has nothing to do with how I feel about gay marriage. It was a bad decision, not based on law. It didn't start with this decision either. The court is and has been setting dangerous precedents that are dangerous for the long term viability of this country. The supreme court wss designed to be insulated from politics. Now they are nothing but a reflection of politics. Very dangerous.
What aspects of the Court's design do you feel is flawed and how would you change the design to better insulate the Court form politics?

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2015, 06:10 AM   #39
Efthreeoh
Banned
United_States
3375
Rep
10,412
Posts

Drives: E90 & Z4 Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MARLAND

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DF View Post
I don't know if you are full of hatred. I tend to doubt it. But you are ignorant as it relates to that one post. And hypocritical. But I kinda dig it. It makes reading these threads more entertaining. But as you stated. Now that's it's over we can focus on other equally pressing governmental issues

Just because you brought it up and would find it ironic. I write for a living. I actually get paid to do it. I use an iPad at home without a key board and often don't catch the auto correct and am too lazy to go back and fix them. Go figure
A lot of people write for a living and actually get paid for it (redundant)...
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2015, 07:35 AM   #40
SoCal235
Private First Class
-16
Rep
166
Posts

Drives: M235
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwingman View Post
Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate how they were treated unequally.
Ok I'll bite. Imagine a situation where there are 2 women in a long-term relationship. One of those women falls ill and has to spend some time at the hospital. What if the hospital would not extend any of the visitation rights normally afforded to a family, because the 2 women aren't married.

Not a hypothetical, in fact the reality is far worse
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2015, 07:41 AM   #41
SoCal235
Private First Class
-16
Rep
166
Posts

Drives: M235
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwmsport View Post
Except, in times past, it was the church's job to marry people. Marriage isn't just a social status.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

We aren't called to celebrate sins. Celebrating same-sex marriage is celebrating sin.

As for America today, I believe it should be left up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow it. If your state doesn't allow it, move. Of course, little late for that now.
Can you please provide the part of the bible where marriage is strictly defined. What you presented is usually thought of as a condemnation of sex between 2 men.
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2015, 01:18 PM   #42
CreativeFuel
Private
CreativeFuel's Avatar
18
Rep
53
Posts

Drives: 2015 228i M Sport
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

State-recognized, legal marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. Therefore, there is no legal reason to ban same-sex marriage.

Saying gay men (or women) have always had the right to marry (people of the opposite sex) is a pretty ignorant stance to take.

Side note: The institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity or the bible.
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2015, 01:46 PM   #43
avantegardestyle
Captain
118
Rep
694
Posts

Drives: E90 ///M3 SG
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: East Side

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CreativeFuel View Post
State-recognized, legal marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. Therefore, there is no legal reason to ban same-sex marriage.

Saying gay men (or women) have always had the right to marry (people of the opposite sex) is a pretty ignorant stance to take.

Side note: The institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity or the bible.

it would be good if people took the time to think about the validly of their own arguments before trying to refute others.....

State recognized legal marriage has EVERYTHING to do with religion.
If this were not the case then we would have Zero lawsuits trying to force people of faith to provide services to same sex couples getting married when they disagree with the practice...

there are many same sex people who want to be married in Churches or by religious ministers and actually consider it discrimination if the church or it's ministers refuse to officiate the wedding.
It it has nothing to do with religion then same sex couples should be satisfied to be married in only Civil sermons by non religious marriage officers then.

the institution of marriage does not and cannot predate Christianity and the bible. the very premise upon which Christianity is built is that Christ is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and that the first wedding performed was done by God between the first man and woman created.
there is a significant difference between the writing of the bible as a document as opposed to the validity of its teachings as having their roots in as it says "THE BEGINNING"
the only way you can come to the conclusions in your argument is if you refuse to accept that Judaism is the foundation upon which Christianity was built and also refuse to accept that the God of the OT is the creator of the Universe.
one you accept those things then you statement becomes invalid.

And so that there is no issue, or mistake in my motives, I believe people are free to do as they please, doesn't mean ones actions are right.
Gay people are free to marry, but by the same token, the Church and people who disagree should be free to express their disagreement with the practice and be free to refuse to be a part of anything they find objectionable.
its the same argument that if I don't like a show I am free to turn of my TV or if I don't like a business i don't have to buy their products.

While I disagree with many things, i accept peoples freedom to do as they like, because I want to be free to do as i like and to express my disagreement with anything i do not support.
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2015, 01:58 PM   #44
Z K
Brigadier General
Z K's Avatar
United_States
952
Rep
4,215
Posts

Drives: E90 M3, B8.5 A4
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantegardestyle View Post
the institution of marriage does not and cannot predate Christianity and the bible. the very premise upon which Christianity is built is that Christ is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and that the first wedding performed was done by God between the first man and woman created.
there is a significant difference between the writing of the bible as a document as opposed to the validity of its teachings as having their roots in as it says "THE BEGINNING"
the only way you can come to the conclusions in your argument is if you refuse to accept that Judaism is the foundation upon which Christianity was built and also refuse to accept that the God of the OT is the creator of the Universe.
one you accept those things then you statement becomes invalid.
Wow... marriage definitely does predate the bible and religion as a whole. It predates recorded history! It happened as a way to structure things and keep people together to support offspring. It has nothing to do with religion at all!
__________________
Auto Detailing Enthusiast!
Appreciate 1
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST