Nevada Hospital Denies Gay Couple Visitation As Partner Has Pregnancy Complications

A weak precedent that will be challenged in the cases headed to the Supreme Court.

 

Basic, 14th amendment Constitutional law..... IF marriage to someone of the opposite sex were a fundamental right or If you want to give privileged status to homosexuals, because they are homosexuals.

 

And they will lose. No SCOTUS justice is going to put their John Hancock on an instrument of law that sets precedent for human behaviors [just a select few sexually deviant ones] to gain special status equal to race, religion or gender.

If they did that, they'd open the worst Pandora's Box imaginable to sifting out what other behaviors could then come forward to attain special recognition by whining really loud until they get their way.

Penal and civil codes address behaviors, GLBT included. The 14th Amendment addresses protection of race, religion, gender [not sexual-attraction, but actual plumbing] and country of origin.

In other words, and THIS IS KEY SO PAY ATTENTION: GLBTS WILL HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT THEIR BEHAVIORS ARE GENETIC. If they are found to be mere behaviors picked up along the way; as mountains of evidence points to, GLBTs are out of luck. And what's really neat about that is, this will force the deepest, most open conversation about what makes GLBTs tick. It will draw in psychologists who are now sitting in the fetal position sucking their thumbs, knowing the door will soon be knocked on for their explanation of what went down in the 1970s and how science itself was hijacked by a militant political movement...whose hallmark is avoiding introspection at all costs..lol..

Should be interesting watching this thing come full circle like this. Thankfully, mistakes can be undone.

 

You just lied again. You never used consenting adults in your original argument. It was only equal protection under the law. Now that its been exposed and who can expose it you are trying to rewrite the 14th amendment to include consenting adults to deny your new "right". Stop lying about what the 14th amendment says.

 

...

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*) big text = big balls mirght

 

Its a strong precedent. Thats why the gay judge in California couldnt even aknowledge its existance.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2006)In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected claims by Nebraska citizen organizations that the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage offended the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, among other provisions.[23] While Baker did not appear in the court's Fourteenth Amendment analysis, the court's opinion did note in its concluding passage:

Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint.
..........

Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005)Two Florida women who married in Massachusetts claimed that Florida's marriage statutes and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment (and implicitly the Fifth Amendment),[25] among other claims. The judge dismissed the claims against the U.S. Attorney General in part because Baker controlled: "The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."[26]
......

US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2012)Citing Baker as controlling as to state classifications related to marriage, the court noted in deciding Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that, "Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, 'gay rights' claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), [footnote omitted] but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal 'prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.' Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

 

Then understand the history of the argument you stepped into. Its your own fault for not researching it properly.

And it failed. The proof is your running away from it when it was given to you the first time.

Your interpretation means nothing. I cited actual instances where it has been applied. Which you still don't have the courage to admit.

Wrong again. My opinion of it means nothing. He quoted exactly from the 14th amendment he believed made his argument.

How many times are you going to duck it?

STOP LYING. I never said it was a definition.

Still lying about what I said I see. I ONLY cited the racial and gender descriptions that the Supremee Court actually ruled on making it LAW. I said this already and you lacked the courage to address it then and you are doing it again. Painfully predictable.

Which means nothing if the Supreme Court has made it law. Your sad attempt to parse the wording doesn't change the facts of case law decided.

Its called fact. If the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this new interpretation by liberal judges it isn't law. Do you even understand how the Supreme Court works and why its there?

You want to assign "consenting adults" to the 14th amendment where it doesn't exist and you want to run from the strict ruling Robot used for his argument instead of simply admitting his lazy general interpretation opens the floodgates to everyone.

Then stop pretending it applies.

The subject is Robot's claim of why gay marriage should be legal based on "equal protection under the law" You once again cowardly want to run away from his argument and try to shift it to mine because you now lack the courage to defend it once its been exposed.

IT WASN'T ADDRESSED TO YOU. YOU INSERTED YOURSELF. YOU set the tone between US. Stop LYING and show some personal responsibility.

Not for a second. You continue to duck the argument you jumped in to defend trying to widen the definition when you were educated on what you were actually defending.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

Equal protection assumes consenting adult because in the context of contract law that is what is required. So I most certainly DID use "consenting adults" in my original argument.

 

It's not a strong precedent. While the court's dismissal without hearing of an automatic appeal under the governing law of the time created a precedent by default, it's application is much more limited in scope than the precedents that arise from a decision based on a full hearing of a case. This kind of case is no longer automatically appealed to the Supreme Court. There has been significant change in the law in the intervening decades, with the decriminalization of same-sex behavior, the passage of DOMA, recognition by some states of same-sex marriages as marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships, state amendments banning the recognition of same-sex marriages, the expansion of local and state anti-discrimination laws to cover orientation, etc. Baker would not be a precedent for a DOMA challenge at all, since it's a federal and not a state law. The Baker ruling would also only apply to a case nearly identical to the original case.

You can proclaim Baker to be a strong precedent all you like, but doing so won't make it so.

 

What is a strong precedent is local ordinances trumping federal ones when it comes to regulating BEHAVIORS.

 

Your implied demand that I have to research every argument on the matter made by your or Bow to the Robots is unreasonable. If it wasn't said in this thread, then it's not part of this discussion.

Nor does your arrogant dismissiveness.

No, you did nothing more in this thread, in this conversation, than state which groups it had been applied to. You didn't provide any citation to the actual cases. Anyway, this is insignificant and pointless, since I haven't disputed the ways in which the law has been applied.

And if you're going to disagree with his interpretation of the 14th, then your opinion of how the 14th works and why you think it shows him to be in error is relevant. It's not a one-sided conversation.

I have addressed it to the extent it merits. If you're unsatisfied with the answers, tough (*)(*)(*)(*).

Facts of case law which I haven't disputed, so this is false framing. Again, you are begging the question, since the debate isn't over the question of whether or not the Supreme Court has applied the clause to same-sex couples' claims that they deserve equal protection under the law regarding their marriages. It hasn't. The debate is over the question of whether or not the clause can be applied to those claims, and this will be argued before the Supreme Court if it grants cert to any one of several cases headed up the chain. Your argument is essentially "it doesn't apply because it has never been applied by the Supreme Court", which is an answer to a question that was never asked.

Still begging the question, now with a strawman. I didn't say it was settled law with a Supreme Court ruling behind it. No one has.

Prior to the court's rulings on cases involving race and gender, they were not included in the law, either. They still don't appear in the wording of the amendment. They are only covered as a matter of case law. So claiming that "it's not in there" with regard to same-sex couples' marriages is disingenuous. It's avoidance of the actual argument, substituting a strawman in its place.

And no, I will not admit that the generalization that is the actual wording in the amendment itself, that "nor deny to any person within its [the state's] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" opens the floodgates to everyone. There are no floodgates to open and nothing for me to admit, because the amendment, as worded, says "ANY PERSON". It applies to everyone. But the "equal protection of the laws" does not mean that the law has to make everyone equals. It does not mean that because one set of people enjoy marriage recognition that the government must recognize every relationship asserted to be deserving of marriage recognition. The protection of the law only extends to those who fit the requirements of eligibility. The center of the dispute here is whether those eligibility requirements create a classification for a suspect purpose; inserting a barrier in the law whose actual purpose is to target a disfavored group for exclusion without being rationally related to forwarding a legitimate interest of government. The mere appearance of "equality" in the law cannot survive these fatal flaws.

I've done nothing of the sort. You don't get to pretend that this is a one-sided debate in which your opinion of not only his argument - but of the law he's using to make that argument - should be treated as irrelevant.

I'm not here to debate Robot's argument. I'm here to challenge your response to his argument, which I've done. Dismissing that challenge as if the only valid thing to debate were someone else' opinion and not yours, is mere avoidance.

The idea that your tone with someone else doesn't set the stage for other people's responses to you is bunch of horse(*)(*)(*)(*). But fine, I'll concede that I entered the argument with you in a manner that mocked your mocking of Bow to the Robots. Satisfied? I cannot think of an instance where you have EVER been civil toward me (nor any other opponent for that matter) the whole time I've been on the forum. So your pretense of innocence in this is laughable.

Anyway, I've had enough of your BS. You can have the distinction of being the first person to end up back on my ignore list after I recently cleared it out. So don't waste your time responding.

 

those 2 things are what sizes it up well


we're talking about who someone likes to diddle and creating a new race if they diddle differently than 98.3% of the population

 

All irrelevant because we werent talking about DOMA, we were speaking about this alleged constitutional right to same sex marriage.

 

I think when I say "behaviors" people don't really sit down and think about that hard enough. Imagine, just forget about sexual activity for one second [assuming LGBTs are capable of that...goes to the whole mental issue if you identify yourself and create an entire subculture as a type of sex you practice]. What if the Supreme Court actually said, "yeah, we have evidence or at least suspect that these people are only a cohesive unit due to their behavior, but we're going to give them special ranking anyway". And let's say they do so because Gay Agenda attorneys convince SCOTUS that their behavior is "reflexive" and not under their conscious control. After all, that is the only argument they could make to sway SCOTUS that a behavior needs special consideration.

Imagine then all the other reflexive, not-consciously controlled behaviors that then could also plead for special status equal to race? It boggles the mind the range of subconscious behaviors a human is capable of. And this is what SCOTUS must consider. They operate with the looming piano of precedent hanging over their heads at all times. If any court was uber-aware of setting the wrong precedent, it must be the Supreme Court.

So, Gay Agenda folks, good luck with that. Because part of the hearing on gay marriage etc. is going to be a deep, thorough and exhaustive PUBLIC EXAMINATION of what makes GLBTs tick. And that very thing was what you tried to keep from happening back in the 1970s when you broke into the APA convention, siezed the microphone and demanded/blackmailed your way off the DSM, or else. And why did you do that? Because you were not OK with medical professionals examining what makes you tick.

And the coup comes full circle. I await the hearings at the Supreme Court with great anticipation, I can assure you.

 

Huh? What are you trying to say here?

 

Now you're stooping to pretending you don't know that behaviors are different from race, creed, gender or country of origin? Do you think pretending to not understand will somehow win the SCOTUS case your ilk threatens to push? Will you storm the halls of the Supreme Court, jamming fire exits open with wood, grab the gavel away from them and DEMAND marraige privelege?

Don't think so. Not this time.

Are y'all planning on blackmailing ["zapping"] a supreme court justice or three into "finding for GLBT"? Careful, that's liable to land you in federal prison. It may work with Jon Stewart but at the federal level, it's a whole other ball of wax.

No, this time you're going to have to present an actual case, maintain civil decorum and withstand the gruelling scrutiny of what is at the heart of GLBT behaviors as your case is examined with a scanning electron microscope. Have fun with that: when you're hallmark is denial-of-mental-issues...