California Prop 8

[Common Sense]

Nope. There is no power in the US Constitution that makes this STATE amendment Unconstitutional. It is solely a State matter. And the State ruled it Constitutional.

So, do you agree with people voting to deny a right to a certain class of people?
How exactly is it constitutional to deny someone a fundmental right?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no fundamental right for same sex marriages. No discrimination and no injustice. The State has the right to make an Amendment that states JUST that. There is no AUTHORITY in the US Constitution to interfere in this State's business.

By the way dear, if it is a fundamental right for any two adults that love each other to marry, where do you stand on Incestuous marriages. Further why limit marriage to 2 people? What right have you to deny 3 or more loving people from the supposed fundamental right you speak of?

aha, see this is where your argument is flawed. the proposition was put forth to the people to amend the constitution to read that marriage is defined as between a man and woman only. before that, it was not stated anywhere in the state or federal constitution. thus there is actually no fundamental right for a man and woman to marry as well.

"In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Via the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment, the Supreme Court has held that some rights are so fundamental, that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose, and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.
While the recognition of such rights have changed over time, they are generally coterminous with the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Although some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are currently recognized as fundamental, others statements were included to restrict the government's permission with respect to the privileges granted by Citizens, or more clearly explain one of the many rights each Citizen was born with, declared in the preamble of the United States Bill of Rights. There are exceptions to these amendments; states are not required to obey the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury. Many states choose to have preliminary hearings instead of grand juries. While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including:
the right to privacy
the right to marriage
the right to procreation
the right to interstate travel"


so you actually do not have a written right to any of these things, yet the Constitution has been interpreted to afford you these rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

I do love how this post is right below where I stated I don't support those infringements. LOL

That would be because this is a REAL time board I posted that as you posted yours , which you know as well as I do. What next? Gonna claim a win and say the proof is I did not respond fast enough?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, do you agree with people voting to deny a right to a certain class of people?
How exactly is it constitutional to deny someone a fundmental right?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no fundamental right for same sex marriages. No discrimination and no injustice. The State has the right to make an Amendment that states JUST that. There is no AUTHORITY in the US Constitution to interfere in this State's business.

By the way dear, if it is a fundamental right for any two adults that love each other to marry, where do you stand on Incestuous marriages. Further why limit marriage to 2 people? What right have you to deny 3 or more loving people from the supposed fundamental right you speak of?

aha, see this is where your argument is flawed. the proposition was put forth to the people to amend the constitution to read that marriage is defined as between a man and woman only. before that, it was not stated anywhere in the state or federal constitution. thus there is actually no fundamental right for a man and woman to marry as well.

"In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Via the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment, the Supreme Court has held that some rights are so fundamental, that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose, and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.
While the recognition of such rights have changed over time, they are generally coterminous with the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Although some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are currently recognized as fundamental, others statements were included to restrict the government's permission with respect to the privileges granted by Citizens, or more clearly explain one of the many rights each Citizen was born with, declared in the preamble of the United States Bill of Rights. There are exceptions to these amendments; states are not required to obey the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury. Many states choose to have preliminary hearings instead of grand juries. While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including:
the right to privacy
the right to marriage
the right to procreation
the right to interstate travel"


so you actually do not have a written right to any of these things, yet the Constitution has been interpreted to afford you these rights.

So you support Incestuous Marriages and Polygamy?

 

[jillian]

The role of the constitution is to prevent goverment from taking away the rights in explicitly states (freedom of press, bear arms, jury trial etc.)

really? what about equal protection under the law? that's also specifically set forth in the constitution.

The goverment can always grant MORE rights, but cannot grant less than the constitution allows.

yes... but the constitution grants equal protection so no state can grant less than equal protection under the law.

Remember the only two things the constitution bans PEOPLE from doing explicitly is owning slaves, and brining booze into a state/county that is "dry."

the constitution doesn't keep anyone from bringing alcohol into a dry county. where aer you getting that from?

To me there is no right for or against gay marriage, or marriage in general in the constitution. At that point it becomes purely a legislative manner. Only upon going the amendment route does it become a consitutional matter.

would you have said there was no right to desegregation, too?

 

[Luissa]

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

I do love how this post is right below where I stated I don't support those infringements. LOL

That would be because this is a REAL time board I posted that as you posted yours , which you know as well as I do. What next? Gonna claim a win and say the proof is I did not respond fast enough?

Actually I will, because you asked why I didn't support something when you had no proof I didn't support it nor had you waited for me to answer the question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do love how this post is right below where I stated I don't support those infringements. LOL

That would be because this is a REAL time board I posted that as you posted yours , which you know as well as I do. What next? Gonna claim a win and say the proof is I did not respond fast enough?

Actually I will, because you asked why I didn't support something when you had no proof I didn't support it nor had you waited for me to answer the question.

Keep proving your ignorance.

 

[jillian]

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

marriage is not NOW a fundamental right. it IS and HAS BEEN a fundamental right.

but feel free to take it up with Justice Warren.

Loving v. Virginia

So you oppose bans on Incestuous Marriages and you support Polygamy?

why do loons always go to the extremes?

non-issue... respond to the fact that you got it wrong and marriage is a fundamental right.

 

[Luissa]

That would be because this is a REAL time board I posted that as you posted yours , which you know as well as I do. What next? Gonna claim a win and say the proof is I did not respond fast enough?

Actually I will, because you asked why I didn't support something when you had no proof I didn't support it nor had you waited for me to answer the question.

Keep proving your ignorance.

Actually, I just proved yours.

And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

Maybe you should wait for someone to answer a question, before assuming what they believe in.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian ignoring a question she feels uncomfortable answering. Running away as usual. It is simple, if Gays have a fundamental right to marry why do not Incestuous adults have that right? And why isn't polygamy legal?

 

[Common Sense]

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

marriage is not NOW a fundamental right. it IS and HAS BEEN a fundamental right.

but feel free to take it up with Justice Warren.

Loving v. Virginia

So you oppose bans on Incestuous Marriages and you support Polygamy?

if the prop 8 ban is ruled constitutional, you could see these bans brought to court and challenged as unconstitutional, because the overall basis for them is their immorality. which currently is much of basis for the ban on gay marriage.

im not saying i agree with incestuous marriage or polygamy personally, but as a legal argument there is a case for them based upon discrimination.

i think the major problem here is that people can not separate their personal or religious views here for the legal views.

 

[Luissa]

Jillian ignoring a question she feels uncomfortable answering. Running away as usual. It is simple, if Gays have a fundamental right to marry why do not Incestuous adults have that right? And why isn't polygamy legal?

Why don't you just answer the question for her?
I also don't see you answering her questions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian ignoring a question she feels uncomfortable answering. Running away as usual. It is simple, if Gays have a fundamental right to marry why do not Incestuous adults have that right? And why isn't polygamy legal?

Why don't you just answer the question for her?
I also don't see you answering her questions.

I already answered, I do not believe that Gay marriage is marriage at all. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus no fundamental right is denied gays. Further as I have stated several times in this thread alone, there is no power in the US Constitution that grants the Federal Government to intervene in a State's business when that business does not violate the US Constitution.

You won't get an answer from Jillian though. She did however answer a while back. She is opposed to Incestuous Marriages and Polygamy. In other words she is a hypocrite.

 

[jillian]

Jillian ignoring a question she feels uncomfortable answering. Running away as usual. It is simple, if Gays have a fundamental right to marry why do not Incestuous adults have that right? And why isn't polygamy legal?

what on earth are you babbling about? you didn't respond to me. lol..

come on, you got it wrong. now address the issue appropriately.

your issues are non-issues. i don't feel uncomfortable at all. i think you're absurd for not acknowledging that you got it wrong and addressing the issue from there.

marriage is a fundamental right.

discuss.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Marriage IS a Fundamental right and as pointed out no where defined as who can marry whom, then supporting Gay marriage but opposing Incestuous marriages and Polygamy is a major hypocrisy. Jillian and others claim that they oppose defining it as a man and a woman because that discriminates against gays. And they do not believe it is right for the majority to dictate to the minority their morals. BUT she and those others are perfectly fine DICTATING THEIR morals on incest and polygamy on others.

 

[jillian]

I already answered, I do not believe that Gay marriage is marriage at all. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus no fundamental right is denied gays. Further as I have stated several times in this thread alone, there is no power in the US Constitution that grants the Federal Government to intervene in a State's business when that business does not violate the US Constitution.

You won't get an answer from Jillian though. She did however answer a while back. She is opposed to Incestuous Marriages and Polygamy. In other words she is a hypocrite.

so gay marriage is not marriage because you say it's not marriage. that's the most circuitous argument i've ever heard.

and where aer earth are you getting that the feds can't tell states what to do?

are you serious?

Brown v Board of Ed
Roe v Wade



the only hypocrite here is you.

personally, as to polygamy, if it isn't slavery of women (you know, like 14 year olds being forced to marry 50 year old men) who cares? there was multiple marriage in the bible. you should appreciate that.

as to incest... not an issue... never going to happen. as a society, we don't condone sexual abuse.

get a grip

and admit you're wrong and move on.

no one will think less of you for saying you screwed up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian ignoring a question she feels uncomfortable answering. Running away as usual. It is simple, if Gays have a fundamental right to marry why do not Incestuous adults have that right? And why isn't polygamy legal?

what on earth are you babbling about? you didn't respond to me. lol..

come on, you got it wrong. now address the issue appropriately.

your issues are non-issues. i don't feel uncomfortable at all. i think you're absurd for not acknowledging that you got it wrong and addressing the issue from there.

marriage is a fundamental right.

discuss.

In Western culture for the past 3000 years marriage has been solely between a man and a woman. Even the men loving Greeks did not condone gay marriage. Nor did the royals during the feudal reign even though several of them were gay. NONE of the major religions of the West recognizes gay marriage either.

 

[jillian]

If Marriage IS a Fundamental right and as pointed out no where defined as who can marry whom, then supporting Gay marriage but opposing Incestuous marriages and Polygamy is a major hypocrisy. Jillian and others claim that they oppose defining it as a man and a woman because that discriminates against gays. And they do not believe it is right for the majority to dictate to the minority their morals. BUT she and those others are perfectly fine DICTATING THEIR morals on incest and polygamy on others.

not IF marriage is a fundamental right ... IS a fundamental right.

what on earth are you babbling about nutter?

move on and admit you were wrong.

 

[martybegan]

So, do you agree with people voting to deny a right to a certain class of people?
How exactly is it constitutional to deny someone a fundmental right?

We deny certian classes of people rights all the time, via due process. Criminals are denied the right to vote, and during incarceration the right to freedom.

The role of the constitution is to prevent goverment from taking away the rights in explicitly states (freedom of press, bear arms, jury trial etc.) The goverment can always grant MORE rights, but cannot grant less than the constitution allows. Remember the only two things the constitution bans PEOPLE from doing explicitly is owning slaves, and brining booze into a state/county that is "dry."

To me there is no right for or against gay marriage, or marriage in general in the constitution. At that point it becomes purely a legislative manner. Only upon going the amendment route does it become a consitutional matter.

Through due process.
Which is a little different than denying a group of people a fundmental right.

The due process is using a constitutional amendment saying that Gay Marriage is illegal. The only rights you have explicitly are those given in the constitution. if the constitution is changed, the rights go "poof."

And the right is only fundemental in your viewpoint, not the laws. As a previous person stated the case of Love vs. Virgina did state that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional, but again that was for man/women marriage, and that the use of race as a determining factor only was unconstitutional. It still kept laws against gay/polygamous/incentuous/bestial/blow up toy marriage on the books.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have 3000 years of History and law, you have the opinion of a couple gays.

 

[Luissa]

We deny certian classes of people rights all the time, via due process. Criminals are denied the right to vote, and during incarceration the right to freedom.

The role of the constitution is to prevent goverment from taking away the rights in explicitly states (freedom of press, bear arms, jury trial etc.) The goverment can always grant MORE rights, but cannot grant less than the constitution allows. Remember the only two things the constitution bans PEOPLE from doing explicitly is owning slaves, and brining booze into a state/county that is "dry."

To me there is no right for or against gay marriage, or marriage in general in the constitution. At that point it becomes purely a legislative manner. Only upon going the amendment route does it become a consitutional matter.

Through due process.
Which is a little different than denying a group of people a fundmental right.

The due process is using a constitutional amendment saying that Gay Marriage is illegal. The only rights you have explicitly are those given in the constitution. if the constitution is changed, the rights go "poof."

And the right is only fundemental in your viewpoint, not the laws. As a previous person stated the case of Love vs. Virgina did state that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional, but again that was for man/women marriage, and that the use of race as a determining factor only was unconstitutional. It still kept laws against gay/polygamous/incentuous/bestial/blow up toy marriage on the books.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man

fundamental freedom

cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia