Hello:

NO! (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2)

I've been saying that for quite some time. I don't know WHY you DON'T believe me, but in this great country of ours, you just can't do that. If YOU have a right to DO something, that means EVERYBODY has that right, and that's the way it SHOULD be... Really... It's IN there.

excon

69,456,897 people voted for a guy who has taken away the church's first amendment rights.

G'morning, Steve:

That's a nice right wing spin... However, as we've established on the other thread, the church can BE a church if it chooses. It just can't BE a hospital and call it a church.

But, I want to know what you think about gay marriage BEING part and parcel of our society... Can you live with it, or like the Catholic church, you'll pick up your blocks and go home?

excon

I disagree on it being a right . This court could only make it's case if it redefined the historic definition of marriage .

Here is what NY courts have said regarding any canard of equal protection,due process, or the court's power to trample on the decisions of the Legislature on this issue :

"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.".......
"By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other. Women and men are treated alike — they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people o their own sex. "...."The cases before us present no occasion for this Court to debate whether the State Legislature should, as a matter of social welfare or sound public policy, extend marriage to same-sex couples. Our role is limited to assessing whether the current statutory scheme offends the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the New York constitution. Because it does not, we must affirm. Absent a constitutional violation, we may not disturb duly enacted statutes to, in effect, substitute another policy preference for that of the Legislature.

"...It would be inappropriate for us to interpret the Domestic Relations Law in a manner that virtually all conclude would not comport with legislative intent. There is no basis to conclude that, when the Legislature adopted the Domestic Relations Law more than a century ago, it contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage, much less intended to authorize it."http://www.prideagenda.org/Portals/0/pdfs/86-89opn06.pdf

Here in NY now we have a Gay Marriage law. I don't like it ;but at least I know it is the decision of the law makers ;and not the black robed oligarchs who are imposing rights divined out of thin air .

First of course it is not a right, nothing in the US constitution gives anyone a right to marry, gay , straight or plural.

This is just an example of the courts making law and acting illegally and outside of their intent.
For the court to make law, is more a dictatorship of the court.
Much better for the vote and will of the people, than the choice of a few people being forced on the majority

There is no basis to conclude that, when the Legislature adopted the Domestic Relations Law more than a century ago, it contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage, much less intended to authorize it.Hello tom:

True. So?

excon

First of course it is not a right, nothing in the US constitution gives anyone a right to marry, gay , straight or plural.

Much better for the vote and will of the people, than the choice of a few people being forced on the majorityHello Padre:

You hit the nail on the head.. Rights AREN'T very popular. If the Bill of Rights were brought up for a vote, it wouldn't pass... You KNOW that to be so.

It's also true, too, that marriage isn't mentioned... But, equal protection is. And, equal protection means that if YOU have the right to DO something, and that's marry a person of your choice, then EVERYBODY has that right...

Really... That's what the 14th Amendment says... You believe it, don't you?

excon

You forgot this part of my quote...

By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other. Women and men are treated alike — they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people o their own sex. "....

Sorry ;this is NOT an equal protection issue.

G'morning, Steve:

That's a nice right wing spin... However, as we've established on the other thread, the church can BE a church if it chooses. It just can't BE a hospital and call it a church.

No, that's only established in your mind.



But, I want to know what you think about gay marriage BEING part and parcel of our society... Can you live with it, or like the Catholic church, you'll pick up your blocks and go home?


I've always said gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else. You just want to redefine marriage just like you're trying to redefine the church. Precedence is on my side in both cases.

Speaking of shameless Obama power grabs...

Obama declares himself dictator of education (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-declares-himself-dictator-education/366961)


President Obama granted 10 states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee) waivers from the federal government's No Child Left Behind law today. The action will temporarily prevent schools in each states from suffering federal sanctions for not meeting reading and math standards by 2014.

Any time the federal government decreases its role in education should be a good thing. But that is not what Obama is doing. The Heritage Foundation's Lindsey Burke reports:


These are not simply waivers to provide relief to states from the onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind. These are conditions-based waivers, and the strings attached to this “relief” further tether states to Washington.
...
One of the most concerning conditions attached to the waivers is a requirement that states adopt common standards and tests or have their state university approve their standards. None of the waiver-approved states opted for the latter. The administration’s various carrots and sticks ($4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants and potential Title I dollars) had already pushed them to begin implementing the Common Core national standards and tests.

When national organizations and the Department of Education dictate standards and tests, they effectively control what can—and can’t--be taught in local schools. The degree to which these critical decisions are about to be centralized and nationalized is unprecedented in America.

Even worse, nothing in federal law grants Obama the power to issue these conditional waivers. He is unilaterally rewriting federal education policy through selective enforcement. The American Enterprise Institute's Frederick Hess tells the Christian Science Monitor: "NCLB, for all its flaws, was crafted by the US Congress … [but] these waivers impose a raft of new federal requirements that were never endorsed by the legislative branch. Once this administration opens this door, it’s hard to imagine future administrations not building on this precedent."

And last year The Brookings Institution wrote:


It is one thing for an administration to grant waivers to states to respond to unrealistic conditions on the ground or to allow experimentation and innovation. ... The NCLB waiver authority does not grant the secretary of education the right to impose any conditions he considers appropriate on states seeking waivers, nor is there any history of such a wholesale executive branch rewrite of federal law through use of the waiver authority.

Considering how epically unpopular Obamacare is, this whole sale abuse of a waiver process to fundamentally rewrite federal policy may not be the precedent Obama wants to set.

Laws, what laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws.

He changed to law to " Only Some Children Left Behind".

I'm confused however. During his address he praised these states for excellence and coming up with new innovative ways and higher benchmarks than NCLB .
"We offered every state the same deal," ....."We said, if you're willing to set higher, more honest standards than the ones that were set by No Child Left Behind, then we're going to give you the flexibility to meet those standards. We want high standards, and we'll give you flexibility in return."
I live close enough to Jersey to know this isn't the case... unless you consider that the Governor has been kicking some teacher's union butt and demanding accountabilty from them.

Also interesting is that New Mexico was the only state that was denied .

Here's the bottom line on Federal interference in Education.
1979 Dept of Education established.
1983 federal report on education called “A Nation at Risk"
1991 “America 2000”
1994 “Goals 2000”
2001 “No Child Left Behind”
And now “Race to the Top”'

Seen any improvement yet ? Maybe the Federal Government isn't good at running the nations schools??

Seen any improvement yet ? Maybe the Federal Government isn't good at running the nations schools ????

It's all a shameless power grab.

Hello:

NO! (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2)

I've been saying that for quite some time. I dunno WHY you DON'T believe me, but in this great country of ours, you just can't do that. If YOU have a right to DO something, that means EVERYBODY has that right, and that's the way it SHOULD be... Really... It's IN there.

excon


Hi ex,

After all of the discussion going on in the 'Churches' thread the answer to your question just hit me.

No, they carn't take your rights away, but what they seem to be trying to do is change the status of your rights.

Corporate personhood relates to what corporations OUGHT to do. This means that corporations operate within the law, I e what the law PRESCRIBES. The other position is what you referr to as, "it's IN there". Other names for this might be ,what is the case, or a DESCRIPTIVE explanation.

THe Constitution is an, 'it's IN there' document. It doesn't really matter what term you employ(descriptive, is) it all means the same thing. It means that people have certain inalienable, absolute rights that are unchanged and unmoved by circumstances.

For this purpose I call the Constitution a DESCRIPTIVE document. It all means the same thing. Men have these rights are are not subject to the whim of the legal interpretation by "black robed oligarchs" ( as Tom would say) who think that rights can change depending on the circumstances.

This is where the idea of corporate personhood gets interesting. Well,from my point of view anyway.

A corporation normally operates under prescriptive laws. Hower they have something better. Not only do they have a foot in the prescriptive camp they also have a foot in the descriptive camp. This is because a corporation can also claim some rights afforded to a person under the "it's IN there"

The trend, though accident or design seems to using corporate personhood in reverse (for the want of a better explanation).

By taking some of these absolute rights and giving them a prescriptive definition your rights now have a foot in both camps. For example, you can argue that universal health care is not a absolute right but by making this right prescriptive it makes it possible to argue legally that this is a right all citizens OUGHT to have.

Tut

People don't lose rights when they assemble in association. A corporation is not a person in that they are a breathing carbon entity ,but clearly they have rights and standing under the law. ( Dartmouth College v. Woodward)(Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railway )

It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he'd like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/Shapiro-JMLR-vol44-n4-2011.pdf

People don't lose rights when they assemble in association. A corporation is not a person in that they are a breathing carbon entity ,but clearly they have rights and standing under the law. ( Dartmouth College v. Woodward)(Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railway )

http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/Shapiro-JMLR-vol44-n4-2011.pdf

Hi Tom,

As you can see from my previous reference to corporate personhood I was struggling for a way to explain my idea.

Nonetheless, I am saying that if you accept corporate personhood as a quasi legal definition( I am assuming you do) then you cannot complain when an administration takes your descriptive rights and tries to make them prescriptive.

Tut

yes I can... because in no instance does the constitution say what the government must do regarding rights(it does give the government limited powers that are necessary to secure the nation) ;but the amendments say clearly what the government shall not do.

In the case of the contraceptive mandates ;the problem is in the mandates ;especially ones that violate religious liberty ,and not in the availablilty of contraception . But removing the religion from the equation ;the government still has no authority to force anyone to buy any product or service just because they exist.

In the case of corporate "personhood" the only real question is not whether a corporation is one . The honest debate would be if money = speech.(Buckley v. Valeo... “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money,” .)So according to the ruling , restricting campaign spending means restricting political speech. The First Amendment required that political speech be unfettered, so the same was required for political spending.

It seems to me you have a law that you can make mean anything you want it to mean. That surely was not the original intention which was to set limits on government

yes I can ...because in no instance does the constitution say what the government must do regarding rights(it does give the government limited powers that are necessary to secure the nation) ;but the amendments say clearly what the govenment shall not do.
.

Hi Tom,

Yes, this is because rights are an absolute. But isn't that the problem? Does it say anywhere in the Constitution that a government can't give a word such as 'religion' a quasi meaning? It is still an absolute but also has a particular meaning in a particular situation.

I got this idea from Steve who was bitterly complaining ( and rightly so) about the administration redefining religion for insurances purposes.

Tut

Yes Steve is right . What you call prescriptive. ;I call audacious ,unconstitutional chutzpa .
What Obamessiah has decreed from above is that a religions work only happens inside the confined spaces of the edifice used for worship. All their other ministries are not .

So Tom if I understand this new definition, ministry is not religion, religion is confined to the practice of worship.

I wonder then what does a minister think he is doing? Public service serving the administration?

Under that definition it's a safe assumption... according to the Gospel of Obama... religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are “social services” properly rendered up unto Caesar. . . .
Therefore: To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they're doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.
Charles Krauthammer: The gospel according to Obama (http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/charles-krauthammer/charles-krauthammer-the-gospel-according-to-obama/article_0a18f6b3-baca-5319-b339-c432591dd07e.html)

Well we all know what happened to leviathan don't we. It doesn't pay to test God

Yes Steve is right . What you call prescriptive. ;I call audacious ,unconstitutional chutzpa .


Hi Tom,

Yes, But it may well end up being legal chutzpa. By redifing what the word religion means for insurance purposes may result in it being constitutional. Your not worried about that?

Tut

Hi again Tom,

Let me run this past you (or anyone else) again but in a slightly different way.

In the link you provided earlier you show how SCOTUS came to the decision that an individual doesn't lose their rights by becoming part of a corporation,

Whay can't this administration, or any future administration for that matter, argue along the same lines? That is to say, a person doesn't lose their religious rights by becoming part of an insurance company.

Tut

Tut

You are asking the legal profession to use logic, now that is a stretch too far, they would just say it's a hypothetical

person doesn't lose their religious rights by becoming part of an insurance company.


This goes back to the mandates . To date if a person did or didn't want contraceptive coverage due to moral objections they could opt out of their employer's provided plan and seek their own . If a religious institution did not want such coverage they could pool with other like minded organizations and craft their own policies.
It is mandates that are really the issue here .

This goes back to the mandates . To date if a person did or didn't want contraceptive coverage due to moral objections they could opt out of their employer's provided plan and seek their own . If a religious institution did not want such coverage they could pool with other like minded organizations and craft their own policies.
It is mandates that are really the issue here .

Hi Tom,

I think Ex was right when he said you guys have won the discussion. I also think this was especially true of the moral aspect. However, if it all boils down to mandates then unfortunately it is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Tut

Tom as far as I'm aware no one has made contraception mandatory, so if those wanting the service simply make the appropriate arrangements in respect of insurance and payment, as reasonable people do, there is no need for anyone to get their knickers in a knot

Clearly you intentionally are distorting what I wrote. I did not say contraception was mandatory .I said coverage for "free " contraception was made mandatory . (To date if a person did or didn't want contraceptive coverage..... )

As I said Tom there is no reason for anyone to get their knickers in a knot

as i said Tom there is no reason for anyone to get their knickers in a knot

Yes there is, I will not be forced to pay for abortifacients and watch my religious rights be undermined without a fight.

As I said before Tom these things are not mandatory. When you take out health insurance Tom you use it in a manner which is pertinent to your circumstance. I don't doubt they offer many benefits you would not avail yourself of. You are objecting to your government regulating the range of benefits and yes certain procedures performed by the medical profession are anathema but that argument was lost long ago. We do not live in a world regulated by church doctrine

This is the same tired argument that taxation pays for loafers, just hung on a different hook. Isn't it time you grew up and became part of society