Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

a reply to: Phage

Let's quote the entire idea, shall we?

Loving v. Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

The decision was based on Skinner v. Oklahoma, which was a case in which Oklahoma attempted to use sterilization as a punishment. The exact wording of that decision, as it applies to Loving v. Virginia, is

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty.

No bolding this time; I don't want to hurt your eyeballs again.

The decision in Loving v. Virginia is based on, and therefore shares context with, the decision in Skinner v. Oklahoma. That context is there is a basic right to reproduce and a recognition that reproduction is socially expected to occur within the bounds of a marriage. The excerpt I posted indicates that the marriage itself is not a right, but a privilege which can be limited by governmental decree.

In other words, reproduction is a right, but marriage is not. Marriage is simply the vehicle for reproduction (or was between 1942 and 1967).

This here lawyerin' is hard stuff, ain't it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

In other words, reproduction is a right, but marriage is not. Marriage is simply the vehicle for reproduction (or was between 1942 and 1967).

Loving has nothing to do with reproduction. Loving expands on Skinner and says that marriage is a right.

But rights can, indeed be regulated. But that regulation must comply with the 14th. That was the main problem for Virginia. Virginia said the law did treat everyone equally. The Court did not agree, it is unconstitutional to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Didn't you say you had no problem with the decision?

a reply to: Liquesence

For anyone, or just transgender?

For anyone.

Hence, they don't have the equal right, based solely on how they identify.

No one has the right to use a particular restroom. Restrooms are provided as a convenience. However, there is a right to privacy when using a restroom.

When separate restrooms are provided, they are provided with the expectation that persons of the opposite gender will not enter, creating embarrassment and an intrusive invasion of privacy. Forcing a law that transgenders may use the restroom of the opposite biological gender destroys the purpose of separate restrooms and places a burden on those who provide them. It reduces the right of others to have the privacy the restrooms are designed to provide.

If a biological male transgender can use the ladies' room, then I as a biological male non-transgender should have the same right. That's equal rights. In this case, I do not believe anyone should have such rights.

He refused to say they had equal rights under law.

He also refused to say the sun rises in the east.

But they should enjoy the same equal rights, sans discrimination, by virtue of the Constitution. Period.

They do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So do you agree with the idea of limiting privilages just based on someone being different? No marriage for gay people, no military service for transgendered, no Social Security for blacks, and so on? Would you be ok with that?

Instead, how do you reconcile that with the concept of equal protection under the law that states the government can't discriminate for various reasons, which applies to all laws, and not simply rights?

Marriage is a state institution these days. I know the Christians like to think it's theirs... but it isn't, not outside the bounds of their church. Marriage is a union that offers legal and tax benefits to couples, such as having the right to determine your partners health care, or access to extra tax breaks, or to have someone who can choose to not confess against you in court, or who by default inherits your stuff in a catastrophe. These are things we're denying to committed couples just because of their gender, and that is wrong. The SCOTUS agreed.

If you disagree, perhaps your campaign shouldn't be against the SCOTUS, or for people who will hold it in contempt, but rather for the removal of those legal and financial benefits from marriage.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If a biological male transgender can use the ladies' room, then I as a biological male non-transgender should have the same right.

Until recently there were no laws about it and the transgendered were using restrooms of choice for the most part, seemingly without brouhaha. Come to think of it, are there any such laws still in existence? Me, I really have no desire to use the women's toilet.

But my goodness, this thread is wandering.

a reply to: Phage

Loving has nothing to do with reproduction. Loving expands on Skinner and says that marriage is a right.

Skinner v. Oklahoma has nothing to do with marriage. Skinner v. Oklahoma is the basis for Loving v. Virginia, and Loving v. Virginia specifically states that a state may regulate marriage using criminal penalties for non-approved marriages... rights cannot be regulated by criminal statutes thusly.

Marriage as defined in Skinner v. Oklahoma does not itself lead to procreation and is therefore not a violated right via sterilization. It cannot therefore mean that marriage is the indicated right which has been violated, but rather is the vehicle by which that right may be and is normally exercised. Skinner v. Oklahoma does not state marriage is a right.

Therefore, Loving v. Virginia cannot be taken to indicate marriage itself is a right.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank for your opinion your honor.

The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a right. Without ambiguity.

And more than once. Do you agree with this decision too?

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley , 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.

www.supremecourt.gov...

a reply to: Aazadan

So do you agree with the idea of limiting privilages just based on someone being different? No marriage for gay people, no military service for transgendered, no Social Security for blacks, and so on? Would you be ok with that?

With the sole caveat that doing so would not impose a special hardship on society, no, I do not agree with limiting privileges. You can look back through this thread to see my opinion on gay marriage; I have no issue with transgenders in the military as long as they do not present an issue to morale or a hardship on the military to accommodate them; the Social Security issue is plain silly.

Marriage is a state institution these days. I know the Christians like to think it's theirs... but it isn't, not outside the bounds of their church. Marriage is a union that offers legal and tax benefits to couples, such as having the right to determine your partners health care, or access to extra tax breaks, or to have someone who can choose to not confess against you in court, or who by default inherits your stuff in a catastrophe. These are things we're denying to committed couples just because of their gender, and that is wrong. The SCOTUS agreed.

Again, read back through this thread if you want my idea on an equal solution for the marriage issue. We're far enough off topic; I see no need in posting it all again. I will state the following: Marriage belongs to religion in general. It is the violation of the First Amendment that allows governmental interference in a religious ceremony, and leads to the political issue itself.

And not one word of this entire subject is pertinent to whether or not Roy Moore is a sexual predator as claimed by the woman I believe is lying... other than providing ample evidence to anyone reading that the demonization of Moore is due not to an allegation, but to simple political opposition.

Thank you for helping to make that so clear.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

I believe we could go on all day, case by case, both rifling through legal libraries and accomplishing nothing.

But, I see no need to do so. I have accomplished my task already. I have laid out clear and detailed reasons why I believe Roy Moore is innocent of the charges levied against him by a lone accuser, and I have successfully, with your help of course, shown that the real issue those opposing Moore have is not with the allegations, but with his political positions.

Which, incidentally, is a very big deal if one is Russian... it's called 'interfering with an election' now-a-days.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Which, incidentally, is a very big deal if one is Russian... it's called 'interfering with an election' now-a-days.

Yes, a foreign government covertly meddling in our elections is, indeed, a big deal. Don't you think? After all, they are not subject to our legal system.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TheRedneck

Instead, how do you reconcile that with the concept of equal protection under the law that states the government can't discriminate for various reasons, which applies to all laws, and not simply rights?

There are still a lot of people in this country that believe in the "separate, but equal" bullcrap and wish it still existed. They're bitter and pissed that now they have to "share" the same privileges in the same ways as those who aren't like them.

Because to some people, others being equal feels like something is being taken away from them.

I was looking for the thread on wether or not Roy Moore is unjustly a cussed in a dirty tricks campaign by Dems and RINO'S but somehow stumbled into a gay marriage thread - can someone point me back to the thread? As this one seems mistitled.

I'm also trying to find the one about Doug Jones, baby killer?

a reply to: Phoenix

No, you found it... we just took a little detour. I used the old saying, "give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself with it."

Now what's this about Doug Jones being a baby-killer?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phoenix
Yeah. I pointed that out a couple of times.

It's cool. Go with the flow. Ride the tide. Don't be a salmon.

Emerson poll out after WAPO hit piece has Moore leading by 10 points.

This 10-point lead is important in that he is now at that 50 percent threshold,” he added. “When we add in the undecideds, he actually gets to 55 percent. And those in the political game understand that once you’re clear of the 50 percent threshold, you’re usually in a good position

Link

Alabama is not fooled!

I agree with link article that this is an attempt to suppress Moore voters so that dirty dems can play gotv on Dec 12th.

a reply to: Phoenix

Here's one that says otherwise, question #4 is interesting as is #8. But polls are fake. Everybody knows that.
winwithjmc.com...

a reply to: Phoenix

Doug Jones is pulling out the stops in his campaigning... he obviously wants to take advantage of this story. But I am hearing about the same thing many of the polls, including yours, show: most voters don't believe the allegations.

Incidentally, I took a phone poll about a month ago (don't remember the name of the organization conducting it, sorry). It started off sounding like a balanced poll, but when I got further in they would repeat something Jones said or something Moore said and ask if I agreed with it, then immediately ask if my position had changed during the call. It was obviously fishing for something that could change peoples minds so Jones could target on it.

They literally did that at least a dozen times. I was starting to actually get annoyed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Aazadan
Hannity's advertisers are starting to back out over his defense of Moore, and Hannity is basically the last one left in the media that's defending him.

Only leftist care anymore what the media has to say about things. They are liars and have made their bed with the real pedophiles as the Actors, producers, and other big wigs of show biz admit the accusations of misconduct that Moore's stuff is laughable when compared to people waking up with something being rammed in them if Kevin Spacey's stories are real and he admits they are.

a reply to: Justoneman

What do you think about the Republicans who have withdrawn their previous support of Moore?

a reply to: TheRedneck

All the issues on negative posters seems much ado about Moores stance on marriage and religous expression rather than the 40 year old claims of impropriety.

Seems "they" want voters to put in office someone that ardently supports the misnamed "Planned Parenthood" that should be called "Planned Infanticide" which also conveniently markets the body parts "so you don't have to"

I call it murder by state sanction, Jones supports it.

Being I'll never support murder I'll be voting Moore who has conviction.