Heller Struck Down

[AtlasShrieked]

marriage is not a civil right. Each state has it's own laws regarding marriage. There is a reason why Vegas marraige laws are night and day from every other state. Again, Im a big fan of the liberty involved with the ninth too. And, I HOPE that gays get to be marriage longer than it takes California to sweep up the turd that blossomed there this summer. But, i'm just not willing to shit on the Constitution in order to "feel good" about policy. This is why I am helping Ravi undertand that the equal protection clause sprung strait out of an actual amendment instead of some assumed liberty despite the tenth amendment.

Why isn't marriage a civil right?

are you saying there is NO civil right to marriage?

btw, you're being a moron if you think I care about gay marriage in order to feel good.

 

[Shogun]

I don't care what the voters in California do. The racial elements of civil rights? I have no grapes.

But without a US Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and a settling of that conflict with other amendments if it comes to that, teh state laws will eventually be declared unconstitutional.

btw, there are no racial elements to rights...only the bigots say that there are and I think you misspoke.

Marriage isn't a civil right. maybe you should actually read DOMA real quick. Take a gander at Loving too while you are at it. Notice how the word RACE and 14th amendment are peppered throughout.


and no, I don't believe they will be declared unconstitutional since you have no constitutional source that suggests gay marriage is a civil right.


indeed, you clearly have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. Only ignorant people would assume that marriage is a civil right without actually considering the legal precedent beyond the same ole trite hippy wannabe bandwagon shit that appeals more to emotion than logic OR LAW.


But, hey, feel free to show me as the fool by posting your evidence... OR, sit there and bleed. your choice.

 

[Shogun]

Why isn't marriage a civil right?

are you saying there is NO civil right to marriage?

btw, you're being a moron if you think I care about gay marriage in order to feel good.

Yes, thats exactly what Im saying. MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. If you think it is feel free to post your evidence beyond jut saying it is. As convincing as your opinion is im afraid we've got a Constitution to abide by. Sucks, I know.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Marriage isn't a civil right. maybe you should actually read DOMA real quick. Take a gander at Loving too while you are at it. Notice how the word RACE and 14th amendment are peppered throughout.


and no, I don't believe they will be declared unconstitutional since you have no constitutional source that suggests gay marriage is a civil right.


indeed, you clearly have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. Only ignorant people would assume that marriage is a civil right without actually considering the legal precedent beyond the same ole trite hippy wannabe bandwagon shit that appeals more to emotion than logic OR LAW.


But, hey, feel free to show me as the fool by posting your evidence... OR, sit there and bleed. your choice.

you can keep framing it as a right to gay marriage, but is a right for marriage extended to gays that is being legally challenged just as the right to marriage of racially mixed couples was once challenged.

marriage as defined as a union between two consenting adults isn't being challenged by gays. what is being challenged is two gays being equal to a mixed sex couple.

of course sexual identity will be cited as race was, but there is no sex, sexual preference or color elements in rights.

maybe in your excitement to prove what a know-it-all you are you've misunderstood and misread other's posts?

clearly I know what I am talking about because I am speaking through logic ...and not emotion as you most definitely are.

 

[Shogun]

The difference being that there was a 14th amendment to base Loving from.


where is the same for gay rights?


LOGIC, eh? naw, bullshit is more like it. Again, if you have anything to offer besides predictable crap then feel free to post it. In case you are wondering, yes, this is a direct challenge to prove marriage, gay or otherwise, is a civil right.


dont get all bent outa shape that you can't fathom what the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT will prohibit the fed from doing for gay marriage what was done to inter-racial unions. Hell, PROVE ME WRONG, mr logic!


or, again, sit there and wallow in your own ignorant fucking worthless opinion.

 

[Shogun]

clearly I know what I am talking about because I am speaking through logic ...and not emotion as you most definitely are.






LOGIC, not emotion he says!

 

[Ravi]

Okay, Shog, most decency laws probably are unconstitutional. If you ever get permitted to have your way with yourself in public then anyone else is free to do the same. Because of the equal protection clause. It cannot just be limited to straight people.

Same with any type of license. You can't limit it to certain groups of people unless they are mentally incompetent or violate it's requirements.

 

[Shogun]

Okay, Shog, most decency laws probably are unconstitutional. If you ever get permitted to have your way with yourself in public then anyone else is free to do the same. Because of the equal protection clause. It cannot just be limited to straight people.

Same with any type of license. You can't limit it to certain groups of people unless they are mentally incompetent or violate it's requirements.

id love to see your evidence that certain groups cannot be limited in marraige licenses. Clearly, this nation is not about to open the polygamy box with that pandora logic so.. feel free to support your assumption.

 

[Ravi]

id love to see your evidence that certain groups cannot be limited in marraige licenses. Clearly, this nation is not about to open the polygamy box with that pandora logic so.. feel free to support your assumption.

I think laws against polygamy are also unconstitutional.

The trouble with enacting laws based on your moral viewpoint is you often end up being against the constitution.

 

[Shogun]

I think laws against polygamy are also unconstitutional.

The trouble with enacting laws based on your moral viewpoint is you often end up being against the constitution.

it's not my MORAL viewpoint. It's the CONSTITUTIONAL viewpoint.


but, AGAIN, feel free to cite your evidence otherwise. Simply calling me names and claiming something is unconstitutional really isn't all that impressive.

 

[Ravi]

Not entirely true. But if something is deemed to be a fundamental right then the State has a high burden of proof to meet if they're going to limit the right.

Please explain how you see this in regard to the CA ruling.

 

[Ravi]

it's not my MORAL viewpoint. It's the CONSTITUTIONAL viewpoint.


but, AGAIN, feel free to cite your evidence otherwise. Simply calling me names and claiming something is unconstitutional really isn't all that impressive.

How is it the constitutional viewpoint?

 

[Shogun]

How is it the constitutional viewpoint?

The 10th Amendment and Defense of Marriage Act clearly stipulates the role of the fed regarding a state's right to limit the observation of marriage.


10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states



This is what we call evidence, Ravi.

 

[jillian]

it's not my MORAL viewpoint. It's the CONSTITUTIONAL viewpoint.


but, AGAIN, feel free to cite your evidence otherwise. Simply calling me names and claiming something is unconstitutional really isn't all that impressive.

Because *you* said so?!?!?! lol... you mean as opposed to Constitutional scholars??

What were you saying about logic?

 

[Shogun]

Because *you* said so?!?!?! lol... you mean as opposed to Constitutional scholars??

What were you saying about logic?

Your passive aggressive posts sure are lacking in any kind of evidence after I dive bombed your Loving link, eh Jillian?

Indeed, tell me about all those constituional scholars that have kept a growing number of states from amending their state constitutions. You seem to think that being a lawyer gives you some special lens with which to exclusively view our government. If you've got more to add besides the shit talking Im READY to see it.




I mean, far be it for me to point out that, outside of a link to Loving, you haven't provided shit as evidence... Gosh, the NY state bar exam must be a multiple guess test of less than 15 questions..

 

[jillian]

Your passive aggressive posts sure are lacking in any kind of evidence after I dive bombed your Loving link, eh Jillian?

Indeed, tell me about all those constituional scholars that have kept a growing number of states from amending their state constitutions. You seem to think that being a lawyer gives you some special lens with which to exclusively view our government. If you've got more to add besides the shit talking Im READY to see it.

See, you can't even figure out when you dive bomb or when what you post to is irrelevant.

Try reading Atlas' post to you... there is no gender, racial or sexual component to the FUNDAMENTAL right of marriage.

Let me teach you a little bit about how a Constitutional case should be read (of course, I'm not an expert, but I'd say I've had a few more minutes of education in the area than you have).

1. If something is found to be a fundamental right, any law limiting that right is subject to strict scrutiny. That means government must have a really good reason for limiting the right.

1.a. When dealing with suspect classifications in laws (particularly those governing fundamental rights) there is an even higher burder to justify any intrusion on the right.

2. Marriage has been found to be a fundamental right. (go back and read Loving, because THAT is the proposition for which is stands).

3. Race, gender and sexuality are suspect when they are singled out for limitation of any right.

Conclusion: One may not single out homosexuals in order to deny them the fundamental right of marriage recognized for the rest of us, regardless of race, religion, etc.

And THAT is how one analyzes a constitutional issue with LOGIC and not emotion.

 

[jillian]

and psssssssssst... Shogie... the whole point of the Constitution is that some idiot with his/her own biases can't deny someone a right to marry because they don't like them and think they should be discriminated against.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

The difference being that there was a 14th amendment to base Loving from.

Loving, a case argued over discriminatory laws and the right of marriage?

wkipedia quote from the court decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

where is the same for gay rights?

I'll give you a clue: no one is arguing gays do not have rights as gay citizens or persons.

do you get IT yet?

the right that mixed race couples fought for was the right to be treated as equally as same race couples in being allowed to marry...two consenting adults in a civil ceremony recognized by the state. The legal issue was not so much about race as it was about the right of two people to be treated as equally as any other two people and the right for them to marry.

LOGIC, eh? naw, bullshit is more like it. Again, if you have anything to offer besides predictable crap then feel free to post it. In case you are wondering, yes, this is a direct challenge to prove marriage, gay or otherwise, is a civil right.

marriage is a right.

if you had actually read what you say you've read you'd see the Loving case you keep referring to says just that.

so go f*ck a duck you stupid f*ck


the challenge was one before you got your big yap closed all the way.

dont get all bent outa shape that you can't fathom what the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT will prohibit the fed from doing for gay marriage what was done to inter-racial unions. Hell, PROVE ME WRONG, mr logic!

see the above ^

DOMA cannot grant or deny a civil right. DOMA is NOT a constitutional amendment.

or, again, sit there and wallow in your own ignorant fucking worthless opinion.

do you practice in front of a mirror in your mind? want to borrow my Travis avatar?

 

[Ninja]

This is what you whacko anti-gunners asked for by not knowing when to stop, by attempting to pass radical anti-gun measure after radical anti-gun measure, while attempting to sugarcoat your fascist agenda as "common sense."

Fuck everyone who disagrees with this decision. You are all enemies of the Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

The 10th Amendment and Defense of Marriage Act clearly stipulates the role of the fed regarding a state's right to limit the observation of marriage.


10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states



This is what we call evidence, Ravi.

I don't buy it because my read on the constitution is it does not give us rights, it protects certain rights while the rest are assumed. I can't be the only person that thinks this. DOMA, IMO, is also unconstitutional. The Tenth doesn't give the states the right to deny civil rights.