 |
Hello:
I TOLD you dozens, and dozens of times, that you can't vote away someones Constitutional rights. You didn't believe me, so you did it anyway. But, in the last two months alone, your efforts at banning gay marriage have been struck DOWN by federal judges in SIX states.
When are you gonna start listening to me??
excon
And they've all been stayed. It will go to SCOTUS.
Where is gay marriage stated in the Constitution?
They aren't listening Ex, so just relax, sit back, grab some popcorn, and roll yourself a fat doob. Enjoy the show because they are running out of stuff to look stupid about.
Jindal: GOP must "stop being the stupid party" | Watch the video - Yahoo TV
Then a year later, he gets a stupid as the rest of them,
Bobby Jindal Gives Up, Joins the 'Stupid Party' - The Daily Beast
Quote:
After four years of failed debuts on the national stage, Jindal hopes that this “war” against “elites” will give his political career meaning. And this might play well with conservatives who have a persecution complex. For everyone else—including most American believers—it falls flat.
Which is to say, if “Jindal 2016” were a race horse, I wouldn’t just hedge my bets—I’d buy shares in the glue factory.
Where is straight marriage in the constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
It isn't, it's not mentioned even once.Quote:
Where is straight marriage in the constitution?
So, we are now taking a prism to the Constitution and bending it our current beliefs. When the ACTUAL Constitution was written there were no open homosexuals. I get that this is about discrimination, and I'm not either for, nor against, gay marriage. I just don't see how the Constitution comes into play.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... You are going to whine about discrimination. I know that.
Hello J:
It's simple, really. If marriage didn't come with rights, then marriage would strictly BE a religious matter. But, it does. And, the 14th Amendment says, "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Quote:
I just don't see how the Constitution comes into play.
You get that, right?
excon
None of this brouha would be an issue if 200 years ago the states and federal government didn't adopt so many laws involving one's marital status but had rather adopted the same laws using "civil unions" instead. That way "marriage" would have stayed a religous concept and "civil union" would be the legal concept. But that shipped sailed years ago. So now we're stuck, like it or not, with "marriage" being used both for religous purposes and for legal purposes. And consequently we're arriving at a place where same sex couples must be allowed to marry so they may enjoy the same protections and benefits as straight couples. The only other solution is to abolish any and all benefits that the various governments afford to married persons - from tax status to inheritance rights to social security benefits to the rights make medical decisions - but that ain't gonna happen. So we're stuck - it's only a matter of time. But it shouldn't matter to any married person whether the gay couple living next door is legally married or not - it doesn't detract from your marriage and it causes you no burden - so stop yer whining!
ex, what your missing is that the law was clearly defined and then there has been this big explosion to blur the lines of that definition. Since we are a nation of law we need to define the law so boundries are created.
There was still the path of civil union and they as a group made a choice not to elevate it to the same status as what traditional married couples enjoyed. Instead they chose to redefine the law to fit their world. If we hold that concept high then you can see that all laws could be twisted and we would end up with no laws at all.
Kind of like POTUS does.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Ebaines has the right of this one. I have a piece of paper from the State that says my wife is my next of kin. Churches have been doing that since they were the State. Now we have Churches and a separate State. We still only have one piece of paper. This is the problem. As my wife just pointed out to me, the attempts at different pieces of paper have turned into bureaucratic revenue sources with eleventy seventeen hoops to jump through.
Possibly turning the process around and getting a "Wedding Certificate" or some such from the Churches would cause less hassle than "Civil Unions" from the State.
The US Constitution as it was actually written before judges who decided to write law, not merely rule on it, had a separation of State and Federal Government.
Marriage is not a Federal law, now is it a right for straight or gay people, It is merely a state law. The Federal government using the "equal protection" clause has ruled on many state laws, it has no business ruling on.
Actually by the Constitution the power of enacting any law not specifically covered under the Constitution is a right of the state.
So by the Constitution the state is correct in making such laws since there was never and still is no official protection status. Gay right advocates are trying and with success to use the equal right clause to get courts to rule against the will of the majority of the people.
The same aspect could be conceived with the new POT laws, legal now in one area, but now my rights are being restricted, in Georgia I can not legally buy and smoke pot. So why can I not sue, under the equal protection clause. Because the government will say that each state is free to pass and have its own laws, even if they conflict with other states
A majority of Americans don't care if gays can get married and file tax returns or any of the other legal rights granted under the federal law. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, and many states have gay marriage bans ruled unconstitutional.
Why is it surprising that gay people are demanding the same rights as any other American citizen? Since when did states rights trump federal rights? We fought that war already.
Apparently you haven't, the constitution doesn't say a lot of things, like you arn't allowed to succeed, but apparently these non provisions selectively remain states rights until there is federal legislation and then you get the challengesQuote:
Since when did states rights trump federal rights? We fought that war already.
there are no state 'rights' or National government 'rights' .Rights are reserved for the people . Governments only have powers ...in our case ,governments have enumerated powers derived from the consent of the governed. Now the left see's Brewer's veto of SB 1062 as a victory for gay rights . What it really was is a cave in to corporate pressure. I'm sure that makes the left proud . The fact is that 18 States AND the national government have variations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) . Arizona's rewrite of their already existing law just brought it closer to the existing national law....and that says nothing about businesses having permission to discriminate. All it said was that the business owner could use a religious liberty defense in cases where they were accused of discrimination. In other words ,the law protected the merchant's rights and did not legislate anyone else's rights away.
You mean the imperial courts . Even when the people of the state (like California) had a definition of marriage ,the imperial courts have overturned it . DOMA Sec 3 was ruled unconstitutional ;but Sec 2 (states have the power to define marriage ) was retained .Quote:
The Federal government using the "equal protection" clause has ruled on many state laws, it has no business ruling on.
So if a state votes to go back to banning inter racial marriage that's cool to I assume?
Hello again, tom;
It's true. But, if there are RIGHTS attached to marriage, the 14th Amendment comes into play. You CAN'T give ONE group of citizens RIGHTS, and deny them to another...Quote:
states have the power to define marriage
You get that, right?
excon
We should give the Mormons their rights to Polygamy back as well then... thats unconstitutionsal as well to keep them from having as many wives as they want.
It's their strongly held religious belief isn't it? You guys are big on YOUR religious beliefs. Not so much anyone else's. A harem of gay people would blow your mind wouldn't it? That's why I mentioned it. :)
That's odd because I was the one defending a Muslim photgrapher's right to refuse to shoot a gay wedding.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Don't worry, that will be next, along with NAMBLA's push to allow an old pervert to marry a 13 year old boy.Quote:
A harem of gay people would blow your mind wouldn't it? That's why I mentioned it. :)
No ,that was real discrimination. The definition of marriage is defined as between a man and women . As far as rights goes ,I have no issue with gay unions getting equal rights under the law as marriage rights. That satisfies the 14th amendment any way you slice and dice it . Marriage means much more than legal contracts .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, dad and tom:
Quote:
There was still the path of civil union and they as a group made a choice not to elevate it to the same status as what traditional married couples enjoyed. Instead they chose to redefine the law to fit their world.
"THEY" (as in gay people) didn't choose the path NOT to elevate civil unions to the same status as marriage.. It was the LEGISLATURES.. IF any of them had ACTUALLY passed laws that gave civil unions the SAME rights that marriage would have, civil unions MIGHT have worked. Certainly, there would be NO 14th Amendment challenge available... But, NONE of them, and that includes the FEDERAL legislature, DID that.Quote:
As far as rights goes ,I have no issue with gay unions getting equal rights under the law as marriage rights.
You wanted ALL the marbles, and now you got NONE. Bummer for you guys.
excon
"They" had their chance. So far as I remember it is still "we the people" that can make laws and vote for changes to the system. Are you saying that in skipping over that path and going through the courts it was the only choice they had or was it just another knife in societies back ? The gays have a specific agenda and they have been pressing it for some time.
Face it, the only way any minority EVER gets anything is to push their agenda and fight for their rights. Why are gays any different? The court is a good battle ground and acceptable venue for a fair fight. State legislatures sure ain't.
Gays are people too, but not covered under "WE the people"?
So changing a legal definition isnt a problem for you ? In doing so it opens a pandoras box. What you are left with is law without definition. If your comfortable with that then please dont try to define the laws to your eyes. Remember someone somewhere will always be hurt by some law. Why not just throw them all out?
Hello again, dad:
When they TOOK that path, the people voted it down. Therefore, the ONLY way was through the courts. You DO understand, don't you, that the people CANNOT vote out other peoples RIGHTS?? Hence, the title of my thread.Quote:
Are you saying that in skipping over that path and going through the courts it was the only choice they had or was it just another knife in societies back ? The gays have a specific agenda and they have been pressing it for some time.
Actually, I DON'T think you do. I dunno WHY. The 14th Amendment is crystal clear on the issue. That's why you're LOSING in the courts.
If their "agenda" was to achieve EQUALITY, then I SUPPORT it.
To your last point, whether society feels that the spread of freedom is a "knife" in their back, remains to be seen.
excon
Hello again, dad:
Nahhh... If the legal definition is WRONG, it MUST be changed... You know, like marijuana is legally defined as a schedule one drug, and EVERYBODY knows that's wrong.Quote:
So changing a legal definition isnt a problem for you ?
excon
So what it really boisl down to is that sexual orientation is above the law correct? The rights of others wasnt being denied it was being defined. The fact that the law was defined as marriage being between a man and a woman was a problem for them. Mow the way it is a marriage can be between any persons and anythings. Hope that works for you.
The changing of classifications of drugs has a long recorded history in this country and it is clearly defined. Many drugs have had it changed well before pot. The problem with pot was that it had a economic affect and that is why they went after it. It was legal up until the 1920's.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Can you cite that law please?Quote:
The fact that the law was defined as marriage being between a man and a woman
Changing the definition of marriage may make you mad, but doesn't hurt you. Also by definition, marriage doesn't work so good half the time. Even with the monetary benefit.
Admit it. You don't want gays or any other minority to have what you have, without YOUR permission. Then you can holler how bad they are and define them to stroke your own ego, and keep 'em out of YOUR society. How can you be mad when anybody fights for their rights? That's the American way... sue the suckers.
Fighting change may slow it down, but won't stop it.
Look up DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act )Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Plus many states followed suit and added simaler laws to their books.
So if my Church were to disappear or my favorite bakery would go out of business then thats not a direct harm to me now is it? Lets face it. Im for eaqual rights when those rights belong to a acceptable way of running a society. I may object to it and am free to speak my mind about it. But I grow tired of expanding rights where they do not belong. It is killing off society.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, dad:
Let's take 'em one at a time.
1. Well, of course, you went off the deep end. Gay marriage being legal does NOT mean you can marry your desk. (Psssst, it takes BOTH people to agree to a contract.) Your HORSE can't agree. Your DESK can't agree. CHILDREN can't agree.. Only another PERSON can agree.
2. Sexual orientation is NOT the issue... EQUAL rights is the issue. Like I said earlier, if you'd GIVEN gay's the exact same rights you give to married people and called it CIVIL UNIONS, nobody would have changed the definition of marriage.. You HAD your chance to DO that. You blew it.
3. The fact that the law defines marijuana as a schedule one drug, DOES cause a problem for ME, and it should for YOU too.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
1) Without definition then yes an adult can marry a child. Also an adult can marry an animal if they choose. Is your only basis for marriage that being a legal contract like buying a car?
2) Nothing was blown on my part. Can you show where anywhere in the U.S. they had a vote on granting civil unions the same rights? They didnt bother trying to redefine the definition and responsibilities of civil unions. Somehow they skipped right over it.
3) I didnt define nor vote on the laws surrounding marijuana. I actually beleive all drugs should be legal. Right now as it stands the police profit more then the drug dealers on the "War on Drugs" and are very smug about it. It is in the systems hands and they arent likely to let it go anytime soon without a revolution of voter turn out in mass.
Hello again, dad:
First off, I dunno who THEY are. I fought for gay rights, and I'm NOT gay. But, I guess I'm included in "they". But, you're NOT talking about me.. You're talking about what you THINK gay people think. I'll bet you learned how gay people think in CHURCH... That's NOT a good place to learn your politics.
You're just FLAT OUT WRONG on your assertion that we can now marry our refrigerator.. Here's the law, but I'm embarrassed that I have to explain it to an adult person. No MATTER how marriage is defined, a CONTRACT is CLEARLY defined, and your refrigerator CAN'T sign a contract, and they can't buy a car either...
excon
I only speak from the experience point of observation. I saw it early on in the aids crisis. From there it has branched into a movement. From redeining marriage then you could also eliminate the need for a mutual contract. That is simaler thing as an arranged marriage. If the government holds no interest in marriage then all laws surrounding its definition can and should be changed. Isnt that how the system is suppose to work?
I dont get my news from drudge. I have many sources including personal ones. I know how media works. There is a tendency to twist what is news and spit it out as truth.
Hello again, dad:
Yeah... I removed the reference to Drudge.. You didn't deserve it.
I dunno WHAT you're saying that we can do NOW that we couldn't before... In legal terms, a marriage hasn't changed a bit.. Not one iota. What's CHANGED is the people who can AVAIL themselves of it.
You know, like letting black people go to integrated schools, did NOT change a school into something else. What changed, was the people who could AVAIL themselves of it.
excon
What Im saying is that it opened the door for change. That change goes well beyond its original intention. Right now there are some legal restrictions on an adult marrying a child. But those restrictions are only minor ones (no pun intended). In changing of the law the marriage contract is very limited in its scope of protection. It will go where it will as it has been let out to any definition that a person feels it should be. Isnt that part of the 14th amendments pursuit of happiness? I find it rather ironic that in todays day and time where government has been sneeking into all aspects of our lives (supposedly for our own good) that they have backed down on one of the most basic interpritations of the law. When you leave the doors open sooner or later someone is bound to walk through it.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 PM. |