Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

Southern Man said:
No the opponent was Watkins, otherwise the case would have been called "Torcaso v. Maryland".
Click to expand...

Clayton K. WATKINS was the clerk of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County Maryland. Since the case started in MD and then was taken higher, the case was listed as Torcaso v. Watkins. But the resources of the state were behind Watkins.


You keep arguing minutae when the facts of many cases show your stance to be wrong. YOu can have your opinion, and you can believe the judges are wrong, but the law of the land says you cannot require a religious belief as a requirement for holding public office.
 
Southern Man said:
I don't think you have proof that Watkins was given the full resources of the State of Maryland.
Click to expand...

Proof? Do you think that a case involving a major decision by the Maryland courts would be ignored by the state when it went to the US Supreme Court? Losing this case was a major slap against Maryland. Do you actually believe that they didn't put the necessary resources behind their case?


Also, considering the decision was unanimous, do you think additional resources would have mattered?

Reading the decision and statements of the justices, there was no "wiggle room" in their choices. Having more resources behind the case for Maryland would not have mattered.
 
You have yet to prove that Maryland mounted a defense, never mind budgeted adequate resources. No doubt the ACLU or some other anti-American or Atheist group funded your guy.
 
Southern Man said:
You have yet to prove that Maryland mounted a defense, never mind budgeted adequate resources. No doubt the ACLU or some other anti-American or Atheist group funded your guy.
Click to expand...

The case went to the US Supreme Court. Do you think they ignored the case? When the state is being taken to the highest court in the nation, they are not going to leave it to chance. Losing is an embarrassment to the state gov't.

They presented their case as best they could, and lost in a unanimous decision. Your "you haven't proved they budgeted adequate resources" is a dodge, nothing more.

And this precedent shows that NC's laws are not enforceable. Its not a matter of how much of the state's resources are made available, its whether the state has a case. Since the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the 1st Amendment does apply to state governments, there is no reason to believe they would rule any differently if NC tried it.
 
Its not am embarrassment for liberal leaders to lose such a case; in fact they have every incentive to do so. Maryland's an extremely liberal State.
 
Look, WB, it's like arguing with a 5 year old about Santa Claus, it doesn't do you much good even if you win.
 
Southern Man said:
Its not am embarrassment for liberal leaders to lose such a case; in fact they have every incentive to do so. Maryland's an extremely liberal State.
Click to expand...

Oh please! Your argument is now that the state is a liberal state, so they refused to put resources behind the case so that they would lose?


If this were an unusual decision from SCOTUS you might almost have a point (although I would still think it is more partisan hostility than honest debate).

But SCOTUS has ruled the same way numerous time on very similar cases.

I know admitting you are wrong is very difficult for you, but in this case it would be less embarrassing than the arguments you have presented.
 
Southern Man said:
This doesn't address my question at all. Period.
Click to expand...
Except it does. It clearly states that the SCOTUS found against the state. It will again. And it doesn't matter how much you think NC will throw at it, they (NC) do not enforce it because of this ruling.

In this case individual rights trump the State and they, thankfully, always will.
 
Southern Man said:
That's not my argument, but it is justification for my question that you so far have failed to answer.
Click to expand...
Again, this is like a 5 year old pretending that it is "santa magic" that allows him to go up and down a 6 inch pipe. It's just a waste of time working to "prove" that santa magic isn't real, just like your dream of a North Carolina Christian Hegemony is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top