Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
I can't beleive you are still argueing this.
Do me a favor, read the difference between the ruling in Lawerence V Texas and Log Cabin V USA
It's getting tiring to explain over and over again the huge differences.
There are plenty of cases, and this is one of them, of rights getting more and more broadened out due to court cases.
And yes.. civilian courts have forced changes in the military before.
|
Oh no! Did I disappoint you by continue to argue a point on an internet discussion board related to politics? My apologies!!! I am sorry that you are getting so tired of defending your point. Unfortunately though, sometimes when you go on a public forum and state your opinion as fact you will get called out on it. I understand that perhaps it is frustrating that you got caught this time when there's so many rampant transgressions all over the same discussion board. If it makes it any easier to accept, I singled out your comment initially because of a series of petty spelling errors. Feel free to dismiss my objections to your feeble argument as grounded in a childish annoyance at the use of the 'would of' construct.
That said, you are quite right that there is a huge difference between Lawrence Vs Texas and Log Cabin Vs USA. The first being a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, the second being a footnote in the story of the repeal of an unfortunate piece of legislation. You don't have to explain the difference, nor is it necessary to point out that the two cases are different. I know that they are, what I am not sure of though is if you realize the importance of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs Texas. Basically, it is widely accepted as being the legal precedence for almost all gay rights legislation, including the Log Cabin case which was filed as a direct consequence of the ruling. In fact, Lawrence Vs Texas is so groundbreaking that the full ramifications of the ruling are not yet known. For example it is not inconceivable that it will provide the precedence for legalizing gay marriage. By claiming that Log Cabin Vs USA would have set legal precedence relating to gay rights outside of what is already established by Lawrence Vs Texas you are going against most conventional understanding of what legal precedence means. Unless you can back that up with something substantial it remains a highly speculative claim.
Should you muster the strength to continue our exhausting discussion, I look forward to your reply. Rest assured that I will probably reply withing the fortnight should you choose the respond.
|
You know... I had a large chapter size arguement here explainging thigns simply... but I'm going to go at it from a much more simple way.
Lawrence V Texas didn't have first ammendment precedent. Still doesn't. This case would of had first ammendment precedent.
Why do I think this case had legal precedence? Plenty of reasons... as stated above... but to go for the simpliest reason.
The appelate specifically said that it created new legal precedence that no longer exists due to them vacating it.
"Because Log Cabin has stated its intention to
use the district court’s judgment collaterally, we will be clear:
It may not. Nor may its members or anyone else. We vacate
the district court’s judgment, injunction, opinions, orders, and
factual findings—indeed, all of its past rulings—to clear the
path completely for any future litigation." Those now-void
legal rulings and factual findings have no precedential, preclusive,
or binding effect."
I trust you find it substantial that the court that vacated the result acknowledged that such a ruling would of had precedential, perclusive and binding effects on future rulings before it was vacated?
Hell the concurrence even went a step further argueing that not only did it set new legal precedence for the 1st ammendment, it set up new precedence for the 14th ammendment going much further then Lawrence V Texas did.... and that new precedence was wrong based on past rulings.
"Lawrence held that the liberty interest protected by the due
process clause prohibits states from criminalizing private
homosexual conduct by consenting adults. 539 U.S. at 578.
Nothing in Lawrence establishes a general fundamental right
to engage in homosexual conduct. See, e.g., Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. 2005)
(“Lawrence . . . did notannounce . . . a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution,
for adults to engage in all manner of consensual sexual
conduct . . . .”); Lofton v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Children &
Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 817 (11th Cir. 2004) (“t is a
strained and ultimately incorrect reading of Lawrence to interpret
it to announce a new fundamental right.”)."
Concurrences have no impact legally, but worth noting that some judges see it that way. LCR vs USA established a general fudnamental right to engage in homsexual conduct that Lawrence didn't, according to this judge and previous rulings.
Now lets say this stands and spread.
Being homosexual is now a fundamental right. You know what else was ruled a fundamental right? Marriage. In Loving V. Virginia.
If you have a right to be gay,(and not descrimiated for it) and a right to be married. You clearly have a right to be gay married.
It's exactly Loving V Virginia all over again.
Heck, according to the concurrence Lawrence V Texas wasn't even a big factor in this case.
"539 U.S. at 578; see Lofton, 358 F.3d at 815 (“Lawrence’s
holding was that substantive due process does not permit a
state to impose a criminal prohibition on private consensual
homosexual conduct.”). The case did not address the military
context, did not establish a right to continued employment for
those engaged in proscribed conduct, and did not address how
homosexual conduct might be addressed outside a criminal
context. The opinion does not prescribe heightened scrutiny.
These limitations make clear that Lawrence does not establish
that a member of the armed forces has a constitutionally protected
right to engage in homosexual acts or to state that he
or she is a homosexual while continuing to serve in the military"
Worth noting incase DADT ever gets put back in... a judge like that may catch it. Now with no precedent they'd have to wiggle around.
Or when we finally get around to repealing DADT like policies for the transgendered. (Those are still around now.... and there is no precedent that similar reasons are unconsitutional.)
Now why doesn't Larence V Texas have any precedence on gay marriage... well because it said so.
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not
involve persons who might be injured or coerced or
who are situated in relationships where consent
might not easily be refused. It does not involve public
conduct or prostitution. It does not involve
whether the government must give formal recognition
to any relationship that homosexual persons
seek to enter."
|
