• Attention All Comstar Customers, Due to unexpected interference by suspected Word of Blake operatives, the HPG systems update was *not* successful. No data was lost due to our careful and extensive backups; however, we will need to try again next weekend. Sincerely, Comstar Precentor Dune

SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Reaction score
22,763
West Virginia has effectively banned abortion outside of edge cases. As a side effect the law requires all abortions to be performed in a hospital by a doctor, instantly shuttering all abortion clinics even in those edge cases

 

Yinko

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Reaction score
3,054
West Virginia has effectively banned abortion outside of edge cases. As a side effect the law requires all abortions to be performed in a hospital by a doctor, instantly shuttering all abortion clinics even in those edge cases
I'd heard people talk about 'abortion clinics' before, but it never really occurred to me that they weren't hospitals, more just specialized gynecologists.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Reaction score
14,575
I'd heard people talk about 'abortion clinics' before, but it never really occurred to me that they weren't hospitals, more just specialized gynecologists.
Hospitals have stricter rules governing the movement of genetic material. A large percentage of revenue for some of these clinics appears to have come from selling genetic material from aborted fetuses under the table.

So, can't do that in a hospital.
 
Last edited:

Vyor

My influence grows!
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,088
Marriage equality is very, very different from abortion in regards to why the ruling happened. It was actually built on solid legal reasoning: we don't punish men for marrying women and we don't punish women for marrying men, so punishing a woman or man for marrying the same gender is discriminatory based on sex without an overriding interest(that being, the logic of segregated sports is the protection of women's health because a 300 pound guy tackling a 100 pound girl will kill her).
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
23,735
Marriage equality is very, very different from abortion in regards to why the ruling happened. It was actually built on solid legal reasoning: we don't punish men for marrying women and we don't punish women for marrying men, so punishing a woman or man for marrying the same gender is discriminatory based on sex without an overriding interest(that being, the logic of segregated sports is the protection of women's health because a 300 pound guy tackling a 100 pound girl will kill her).
No, the reason it's poor legal reasoning, is because until the LGBT activists got at it, marriage had a very clear definition, and that definition was one man, one woman.

They're not making a legal argument so much as they are forcing the word 'marriage' to have a different meaning.
 

Ixian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Reaction score
1,921
No, the reason it's poor legal reasoning, is because until the LGBT activists got at it, marriage had a very clear definition, and that definition was one man, one woman.

They're not making a legal argument so much as they are forcing the word 'marriage' to have a different meaning.
Honestly just should have called it a "Civil Union" or something, leaving all the main benefits of Marriage, joint taxes, able to vist in the hospital, power of attorney, and so on, while leaving out the religious aspects of a Marriage.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
11,456
Location
Before the Ninth Gate
No, the reason it's poor legal reasoning, is because until the LGBT activists got at it, marriage had a very clear definition, and that definition was one man, one woman.

They're not making a legal argument so much as they are forcing the word 'marriage' to have a different meaning.
What you've done isn't even legal reasoning. The legal reason is the government is recognizing a series of benefits that exist for opposite sex couples that don't exist for same sex couples. This discriminates based on sex, as the legality of a person's marriage to a woman depends completely on the sex of that person (this argument is basically straight from Bostock). Sex discrimination hits the Equal protection clause (as stated in Reed v Reed). And marriage (the name for the set of benefits) is one of the rights granted by it in Loving v Virginia.

It being called marriage barely matters at all, legally speaking. It's that it's government recognized. It shouldn't have been, but it was. And it being government recognized means that the government rules that control how marriage works and who can be married have to obey the constitution, whether or not that's traditional or according to a certain religion.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
23,735
It being called marriage barely matters at all, legally speaking. It's that it's government recognized. It shouldn't have been, but it was. And it being government recognized means that the government rules that control how marriage works and who can be married have to obey the constitution, whether or not that's traditional or according to a certain religion.
No, it's not.

If marriage is definitionally a committed relationship between a man and a woman, then there is no discrimination for not 'allowing' homosexuals to marriage, because by the definition of the word it is not possible.

'Civil union' laws were pushed for in some states, and that has a foot to stand on, but claiming this is discriminatory and violates the constitution?

That's basically claiming that not letting an ATV into a dog sled race is discrimination. By definition, it is a dog sled race, and it doesn't matter what you call the ATV, it's neither a dog nor a sled.

This fight has always been about trying to force the culture at large to change to fit the whims of the political left and their chosen activists. If it had just been about equality, they could have/would have just kept pushing civil unions, but they didn't, and the way that they've tried (and all too often succeeded) in ramming this into churches as well tells you plenty about it as well.

And if you want to argue 'but just because your religion defines a marriage as inherently heterosexual, doesn't mean other people have to agree!' (which is silly because it isn't just Christianity that uses this definition) then we get into one of the more profound aspects of the conflict.

Who gets to define words?

Because as soon as you let someone start doing that, you are opening the gateway to them having total power, because they can and will start to redefine any and every word they want to suit their wants and whims.

The left has been making a habit out of this; just look at how they've redefined racism, intolerance, pedophile, fascist, man, woman, I could go on.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
11,456
Location
Before the Ninth Gate
If marriage is definitionally a committed relationship between a man and a woman, then there is no discrimination for not 'allowing' homosexuals to marriage, because by the definition of the word it is not possible.
That's nice. It's still not legal reasoning. The government (both state and federal) eventually established something called marriage, and defined it (explicitly in DOMA, and before that implicitly/explicitly depending on when in history and what state). Now it doesn't matter how one would like to define marriage, but that government defined it. And they defined it as being between a man and a woman (that's DOMA). Unfortunately for you, that definition violates the constitution, so it was struck down.

That's basically claiming that not letting an ATV into a dog sled race is discrimination. By definition, it is a dog sled race, and it doesn't matter what you call the ATV, it's neither a dog nor a sled.
There's not a constitutional right to use an ATV in a dog sled race though. There's no equal protection issue: both competitors have an equal opportunity to participate in dog sled race. The dog sled race also presumably isn't run by government. And that's not even getting into how the ATV in the race has a direct negative impact on the dog sled racers, while gay marriage does not have a direct impact on straight marriages. Man, this analogy just falls apart everywhere.

Who gets to define words?
When it comes to legal definitions? The law does, which is a combination of Acts of Congress, but that is ultimately subject to the constitution. Unfortunately, the second marriage became a legal thing instead of just a religious thing, it became subject to the constitution, and the equal protection clause, which means that legally recognizing only opposite sex marriages is unconstitutional.

Because as soon as you let someone start doing that, you are opening the gateway to them having total power, because they can and will start to redefine any and every word they want to suit their wants and whims.

The left has been making a habit out of this; just look at how they've redefined racism, intolerance, pedophile, fascist, man, woman, I could go on.
Yes, good job, the constitution does have total power over how the government can define things and do things. That's the definition of how the US system works.

Equal protection under the law means you can't discriminate when the government hands out benefits. And discriminating against same sex couples is sex discrimination is unconstitutional discrimination.

Honestly we should just reverse Lawrence then ban sodomy, then arrest those who practice and support it.
Stack up and try then. See how that goes.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom