Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Take your pills, Sil. I know you are unhappy, but you are the one out of step. Most Americans support marriage equality, the millennials overwhelmingly so.

Then why are you afraid to let states regulate and vote on it?

And..

Have you seen the results in these polls?

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 893 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl Page 42 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because it is not the role of majoritarian democracy to vote on a constitutional issue that belongs to SCOTUS. The states have every right to hold non-binding referendums to reveal public will on the matter. None have.

Opposition to marriage equality fails to generate the outrage that does abortion even today.

The millennials will flee the GOP if it continues to oppose ME.

Oh thanks emperor Jakey. You'll allow us to vote in a non-binding way now? And why would you make a democratic vote on gay marriage "non-binding"? Could it be that you fear it might not go the way you'd hoped?

Yes, you've just revealed how you know the professed "popularity for gay marriage" isn't really true..

 

[JakeStarkey]

You learning to read again after the stroke?

The arguments are done, Sil. In two weeks SCOTUS will rule.

The court will not consider your silly cult nonsense, nor will it Keys' natural law nonsense.

I think it will be 7 to 2 for ME, with an outside of 5 to 4 majority, which would make it even sweeter for the good guys and gals in favor of civil rights.

 

[dcraelin]

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron

The abuse of words Adams talks about could also be extended to the redefinition of the word marriage that some want the court to do.


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How is tyranny of the majority an oxymoron? I don't think the definition of tyranny requires a minority be in control. I suppose it depends on what definition you use; tyranny can be defined as control by a single ruler, but that is certainly not the only definition of the word.

Both Adams and Henry disagree with you. lex majoris parti was a saying at Our founding....meaning that law of the majority should rule. Madison said majority rule was the Republican principle. see my picture gallery for more, specifically the Jefferson picture...he would also disagree with you.

You are not making your point that 'tyranny of the majority' is an oxymoron. One can believe in majority rule and still not think the terms are contradictory. I think you may be misconstruing my point.

I get what people think they're referring to when they use the term.....but it is like Adams says, sophistry and chicanery ...it is used to justify systems that give power to corrupt, elitist minorities. ...and it is at base an oxymoron.

Again, only an oxymoron if you define tyranny as being limited to a single ruler or small number in charge.

right, which is what the word Tyrant means...but it goes beyond that as Adams points out.

The phrase magnifies any problem with majority rule and minimizes what happens when systems are designed to stomp out majority rule......an inevitable drift towards corruption and elite rule.

 

[dcraelin]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

you may have a point. I believe policing powers are left to the states. which would maybe be similar to saying what your saying. I do fear the consequences on the law of these cases....the prop 8 case has maybe already set a poor example in denying standing to millions of Californians.

Why would Prop 8's simply saying "marriage is only legal between a man and a woman" set a poor example? It's California's current and binding standard for marriage. They have a right to set that standard if they're going to lose money in order to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (the only reason states are involved in marriage in the first place). A state wants kids to have both a father and a mother. So that state says "only a man and woman may marry to receive the benefits thereof". That's how incentives work.

What would be truly terrible and a miscarriage of justice (for children, who cannot vote, and who more than any other demographic depend on the SCOTUS to be supremely wise and forward thinking on this question of law), would be for the SCOTUS to cut the conversation off and set a mandate that states must incentivize motherless or fatherless "marriage". Check the OP of this thread for the details on the detriment to children of boys being raised without a father or girls being raised without a mother: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I said the prop 8 CASE,....wasnt clear enough I guess, I agree with you generally on prop 8. The ruling on it by SC was idiocy.

Well, I see you as a rare thinking person on these boards. And I would like to hear more from you by what you mean that the ruling on the Prop 8 case by SCOTUS was "idiocy". Maybe line that out exactly why here. I value your opinion.

I believe I have in another thread some time ago.

The case was a punt.....and hopefully wont have much precedential impact because of that...........but essentially denied court standing to millions of Californians.....very dangerous.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The California were not entitled standing was the issue.

 

[Skylar]

Take your pills, Sil. I know you are unhappy, but you are the one out of step. Most Americans support marriage equality, the millennials overwhelmingly so.

Then why are you afraid to let states regulate and vote on it?

People's rights aren't open to a vote. Remember the Windsor ruling:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

State laws are trumped by constitutional guarantees. Its that simple. Which is why you omit any mention of the above finding in Windsor virtually any time you cite the ruling. Because you believe that state laws should trump constitutional guarantees. And the court contradicts you.

Constitutional guarantees aren't up for a state vote.

Have you seen the results in these polls?

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 893 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl Page 42 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The poll you're citing doesn't ask if gay marriage should be legal. It asks if churches should be forced to perform gay marriages. Making the poll you just cited gloriously irrelevant to the legality of same sex marraige.

The Gallup poll that places same sex marriage support at 60% asks specifically about the legality of gay marriage.

You lose. Twice.

 

[Skylar]

Adams does seem to have changed his mind later in life..........I have a a pic by Mercy Otis Warren who once knew him well, expressing shock at this change.....he was right in his earlier life.

Adams correctly pointed out that the the injustice and inhumanity heaped upon the minority by the majority is on every page of history. And its certainly on ours. As every single one of the examples I cited demonstrates. It is entire possible for the majority to act tyrannically. And as Adams pointed out, pretty much inevitable unless checked. Madison made the same point using 'factions' as his vehicle in the federalist papers.

Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prevents the States from violating the rights of US citizens. Making the majority vote of the people of that State insufficient to violate federal protected constitutional guarantees. As the USSC has already found.

A lot.

So historically, logically, philosophically and legally.......the tyranny of the majority is not our system of government. As for the authenticity of the quote, I'll gladly show you links to its authenticity.

After you do the same for every one of your quotes. When the homework train comes to town, everybody rides!

ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.

Prove they're are in the source cited by your pictures. You can't provided a single link backing any of your quotes. Again, I'll be happy to show you my links when you show me yours. With evidence. I'm all about homework....once you've done your own. But I'm not providing a single link to any source to a person who won't back their own claims first.

And of course, you're still ignoring every example of the tyranny of the majority in our history, along with every example of it in the world's history. From slavery to Socrates, you either ignore them entirely or pretend they never existed. But its not like we have to ignore history just because you do.

Adams described the injustice and inhumanity of the majority heaped upon the minority as being on all pages of history. And he's right.

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

You picture isn't a source. Show me a link to the text. I'll gladly show you mine once you do. And you like Jefferson, huh?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

Want some more?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Law is always the tyrants will when it violates the rights of the individual. About as clear a contradiction of your claims as is possible.

You're literally advocating oppression per the standards of Jefferson. Literally ignoring the inhumanity and injustice the majority heaps upon the minority per Adams.. Where the majority can do....anything. Strip any right, take property, even take life with a simple 50% plus 1 vote. And even more laughably, insisting that the majority can't be tyrannical. \

And then there's the 14th amendment which forbids the state to violate the rights of US citizens. Which you summarily ignore as well. Again, just because you ignore everything inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean we're similarly obligated.

The source is right in the picture you dolt....founders online is a web source......

Then just post the link to the text and I'll do the same. But for some reason.....you keep giving me excuses why you can't.

I'm down with homework. As long as you do it first.

Henry speaks to your "historic examples" .....slavery was a system which generally was the minority over the majority.

Whites weren't the minority. They were the majority. And given that in almost all cases only whites could vote.....their vote was the 'vote of the majority'. And yet the vote of the majority was profoundly inhumane, injust and tyrannical. Explicitly contradicting your absurd and demonstrably false assertion that the majority can't be tyrannical.

Of course they can be.

As was anti-semetic laws, the Chinese exclusion act, anti gay legislation, anti Irish laws, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, segregation, etc.

All explicit contradictions of your nonsense thesis. And all ignored by you. But just because you ignore any contradiction of your beliefs doens't mean we're similarly obligated to pretend none of it happened. Which is why you fail.

Yes, Jefferson did have an out in unjust systems....rebellion... a little now and then was essential...but as my gallery pic of him shows,he thought the will of the majority was the only sure guardian of the rights of man..........

Jefferson obliterates your claims:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Any law that violates the rights of the individual is always the 'tyrant's will'.

You ignored that too. No rational person ever would. Keep running.

 

[dcraelin]

Adams does seem to have changed his mind later in life..........I have a a pic by Mercy Otis Warren who once knew him well, expressing shock at this change.....he was right in his earlier life.

Adams correctly pointed out that the the injustice and inhumanity heaped upon the minority by the majority is on every page of history. And its certainly on ours. As every single one of the examples I cited demonstrates. It is entire possible for the majority to act tyrannically. And as Adams pointed out, pretty much inevitable unless checked. Madison made the same point using 'factions' as his vehicle in the federalist papers.

Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prevents the States from violating the rights of US citizens. Making the majority vote of the people of that State insufficient to violate federal protected constitutional guarantees. As the USSC has already found.

A lot.

So historically, logically, philosophically and legally.......the tyranny of the majority is not our system of government. As for the authenticity of the quote, I'll gladly show you links to its authenticity.

After you do the same for every one of your quotes. When the homework train comes to town, everybody rides!

ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.

Prove they're are in the source cited by your pictures. You can't provided a single link backing any of your quotes. Again, I'll be happy to show you my links when you show me yours. With evidence. I'm all about homework....once you've done your own. But I'm not providing a single link to any source to a person who won't back their own claims first.

And of course, you're still ignoring every example of the tyranny of the majority in our history, along with every example of it in the world's history. From slavery to Socrates, you either ignore them entirely or pretend they never existed. But its not like we have to ignore history just because you do.

Adams described the injustice and inhumanity of the majority heaped upon the minority as being on all pages of history. And he's right.

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

You picture isn't a source. Show me a link to the text. I'll gladly show you mine once you do. And you like Jefferson, huh?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

Want some more?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Law is always the tyrants will when it violates the rights of the individual. About as clear a contradiction of your claims as is possible.

You're literally advocating oppression per the standards of Jefferson. Literally ignoring the inhumanity and injustice the majority heaps upon the minority per Adams.. Where the majority can do....anything. Strip any right, take property, even take life with a simple 50% plus 1 vote. And even more laughably, insisting that the majority can't be tyrannical. \

And then there's the 14th amendment which forbids the state to violate the rights of US citizens. Which you summarily ignore as well. Again, just because you ignore everything inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean we're similarly obligated.

The source is right in the picture you dolt....founders online is a web source......

Then just post the link to the text and I'll do the same. But for some reason.....you keep giving me excuses why you can't.

I'm down with homework. As long as you do it first.

Henry speaks to your "historic examples" .....slavery was a system which generally was the minority over the majority.

Whites weren't the minority. They were the majority. And given that in almost all cases only whites could vote.....their vote was the 'vote of the majority'. And yet the vote of the majority was profoundly inhumane, injust and tyrannical. Explicitly contradicting your absurd and demonstrably false assertion that the majority can't be tyrannical.

Of course they can be.

As was anti-semetic laws, the Chinese exclusion act, anti gay legislation, anti Irish laws, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, segregation, etc.

All explicit contradictions of your nonsense thesis. And all ignored by you. But just because you ignore any contradiction of your beliefs doens't mean we're similarly obligated to pretend none of it happened. Which is why you fail.

Yes, Jefferson did have an out in unjust systems....rebellion... a little now and then was essential...but as my gallery pic of him shows,he thought the will of the majority was the only sure guardian of the rights of man..........

Jefferson obliterates your claims:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Any law that violates the rights of the individual is always the 'tyrant's will'.

You ignored that too. No rational person ever would. Keep running.

Im not going to look it up for you...........the point on that is that it was always there...while your sources are not.

You pick out one supposed quote from Jefferson and I have shown many. here are some more Jefferson on Politics Government Majority Rule talking mostly about the duty to follow the will of the majority. lex majoris parti That without it rule by force becomes the option.

another I believe is 'lex majoris parti is the first principle of Republicanism but generally the last learned'

Whites were a minority in some southern states....white slaveholders were always a minority ...if a vote had been taken nationwide at the time of founding slavery would most likely have been outlawed, certainly if the vote granted slaves even the 3/5ths vote they were counted as for representation........it was the powerful MINORITY that perpetuated slavery.

and please quit comparing yourself to enslaved blacks.....no ones buying it.....especially not the blacks.

The US was this vaunted republic at the nations founding....with your precious court system.....what did it do for enslaved blacks??

yes there has been oppression of minorities by majorities in history ...preventing gay couples from getting the exact same piece of paper as married couples doesnt come near examples most think of.

The 14th amendment was coerced, some think at least partially written, underhandedly, as a benefit to the powerful railroad corporations of the day. Since its passage the Supreme Court has used it to advance the interests of the powerful by granting corporate person-hood through it. If the court rules in your favor using the 14th it will further ingrain this poorly written and perhaps corrupt amendment into "jurisprudence".

The poorly thought out, (and not supported by gay leadership in California) prop 8 suit has the possibility of severely damaging our founding principle of republican/democratic rule. you are so wrapped up in this one issue that you fail to see the damage this suit could bring in other areas of the law.

now, I have said all this to you before..........you have come up with two maybe legitimate quotes.....but otherwise you always say the same thing..................so I think this will be the last time I bother responding to you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, only an oxymoron if you define tyranny as being limited to a single ruler or small number in charge.

You mean like just 9 people in DC shutting down the conversation and mandating fatherless or motherless "marriages" against the will of the majority in the sovereign states...before anyone really understands, as just one example of many red flags, why lipstick "lesbians" are attracted to all the trappings of masculinity?

That type of tyranny? Like the tyranny of a cult coercively manipulating just 9 powerful people in DC to get their dogma mainstreamed right into the schools and boyscout troops of children without the consent of the governed?

This is consistent with your usual ignorance.

The Supreme Court is not 'passing judgment' on the 'merits' of homosexuality; the Court is reviewing the decision of the Sixth Circuit's ruling reversing six Federal courts' decisions consistent with accepted, settled 14th Amendment jurisprudence well over a century old.

In essence the Supreme Court will be reviewing the validity of all 65 Federal courts which have held that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, that decision has already been made: as a fact of law measures disallowing same-sex couples to marry violate the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

The Supreme Court – the final appellate Court in the Federal judiciary – will be reviewing the merits of the arguments, facts, evidence, and application of relevant case law to determine if the Six Circuit erred in its ruling, having nothing whatsoever to do with 'dogma,' tyranny,' or 'cults.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no review on homosexuality, only on the 14th Amendment and how it applies to marriage as a civil right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Adams correctly pointed out that the the injustice and inhumanity heaped upon the minority by the majority is on every page of history. And its certainly on ours. As every single one of the examples I cited demonstrates. It is entire possible for the majority to act tyrannically. And as Adams pointed out, pretty much inevitable unless checked. Madison made the same point using 'factions' as his vehicle in the federalist papers.

Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prevents the States from violating the rights of US citizens. Making the majority vote of the people of that State insufficient to violate federal protected constitutional guarantees. As the USSC has already found.

A lot.

So historically, logically, philosophically and legally.......the tyranny of the majority is not our system of government. As for the authenticity of the quote, I'll gladly show you links to its authenticity.

After you do the same for every one of your quotes. When the homework train comes to town, everybody rides!

ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.

Prove they're are in the source cited by your pictures. You can't provided a single link backing any of your quotes. Again, I'll be happy to show you my links when you show me yours. With evidence. I'm all about homework....once you've done your own. But I'm not providing a single link to any source to a person who won't back their own claims first.

And of course, you're still ignoring every example of the tyranny of the majority in our history, along with every example of it in the world's history. From slavery to Socrates, you either ignore them entirely or pretend they never existed. But its not like we have to ignore history just because you do.

Adams described the injustice and inhumanity of the majority heaped upon the minority as being on all pages of history. And he's right.

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

You picture isn't a source. Show me a link to the text. I'll gladly show you mine once you do. And you like Jefferson, huh?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

Want some more?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Law is always the tyrants will when it violates the rights of the individual. About as clear a contradiction of your claims as is possible.

You're literally advocating oppression per the standards of Jefferson. Literally ignoring the inhumanity and injustice the majority heaps upon the minority per Adams.. Where the majority can do....anything. Strip any right, take property, even take life with a simple 50% plus 1 vote. And even more laughably, insisting that the majority can't be tyrannical. \

And then there's the 14th amendment which forbids the state to violate the rights of US citizens. Which you summarily ignore as well. Again, just because you ignore everything inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean we're similarly obligated.

The source is right in the picture you dolt....founders online is a web source......

Then just post the link to the text and I'll do the same. But for some reason.....you keep giving me excuses why you can't.

I'm down with homework. As long as you do it first.

Henry speaks to your "historic examples" .....slavery was a system which generally was the minority over the majority.

Whites weren't the minority. They were the majority. And given that in almost all cases only whites could vote.....their vote was the 'vote of the majority'. And yet the vote of the majority was profoundly inhumane, injust and tyrannical. Explicitly contradicting your absurd and demonstrably false assertion that the majority can't be tyrannical.

Of course they can be.

As was anti-semetic laws, the Chinese exclusion act, anti gay legislation, anti Irish laws, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, segregation, etc.

All explicit contradictions of your nonsense thesis. And all ignored by you. But just because you ignore any contradiction of your beliefs doens't mean we're similarly obligated to pretend none of it happened. Which is why you fail.

Yes, Jefferson did have an out in unjust systems....rebellion... a little now and then was essential...but as my gallery pic of him shows,he thought the will of the majority was the only sure guardian of the rights of man..........

Jefferson obliterates your claims:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Any law that violates the rights of the individual is always the 'tyrant's will'.

You ignored that too. No rational person ever would. Keep running.

Im not going to look it up for you...........the point on that is that it was always there...while your sources are not.

You pick out one supposed quote from Jefferson and I have shown many. here are some more Jefferson on Politics Government Majority Rule talking mostly about the duty to follow the will of the majority. lex majoris parti That without it rule by force becomes the option.

another I believe is 'lex majoris parti is the first principle of Republicanism but generally the last learned'

Whites were a minority in some southern states....white slaveholders were always a minority ...if a vote had been taken nationwide at the time of founding slavery would most likely have been outlawed, certainly if the vote granted slaves even the 3/5ths vote they were counted as for representation........it was the powerful MINORITY that perpetuated slavery.

and please quit comparing yourself to enslaved blacks.....no ones buying it.....especially not the blacks.

The US was this vaunted republic at the nations founding....with your precious court system.....what did it do for enslaved blacks??

yes there has been oppression of minorities by majorities in history ...preventing gay couples from getting the exact same piece of paper as married couples doesnt come near examples most think of.

The 14th amendment was coerced, some think at least partially written, underhandedly, as a benefit to the powerful railroad corporations of the day. Since its passage the Supreme Court has used it to advance the interests of the powerful by granting corporate person-hood through it. If the court rules in your favor using the 14th it will further ingrain this poorly written and perhaps corrupt amendment into "jurisprudence".

The poorly thought out, (and not supported by gay leadership in California) prop 8 suit has the possibility of severely damaging our founding principle of republican/democratic rule. you are so wrapped up in this one issue that you fail to see the damage this suit could bring in other areas of the law.

now, I have said all this to you before..........you have come up with two maybe legitimate quotes.....but otherwise you always say the same thing..................so I think this will be the last time I bother responding to you.

And it has all been said to you before that you're wrong.

The following facts are settled and beyond dispute:

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law; one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and the states have no authority whatsoever to determine who will or will not have his civil rights. (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette)

Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings Federal courts are supreme – binding on all the states and local jurisdictions. (Cooper v. Aaron)

Gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections (Romer v. Evans.)

Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice, their right to privacy and self determination immune from attack by the states, where whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant. (Lawrence v. Texas)

As a result of these facts beyond dispute, to seek to discriminate based on sexual orientation is likewise repugnant to the Constitution, as it is to seek to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin.

The only appropriate, relevant response on your part, therefore, is to either cite where the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Barnette, Cooper, Romer, and Lawrence, or acknowledge that you are wrong as a fact of Constitutional law, law you may not like or agree with for personal, subjective reasons, but the settled and accepted law of the land nonetheless.

 

[Skylar]

[
Im not going to look it up for you...........the point on that is that it was always there...while your sources are not.

You demanded LINKS to my sources. I'm demanding nothing less from you. And you have nothing but excuses why you can't.

You are not exempt from your own standards. If you want assign homework, you need to be willing to do it. And you aren't. So you don't get to demand links from anyone.

You pick out one supposed quote from Jefferson and I have shown many. here are some more Jefferson on Politics Government Majority Rule talking mostly about the duty to follow the will of the majority. lex majoris parti That without it rule by force becomes the option.

Finally a link.

And Jefferson makes it very clear that the rule of government is limited by rights of the individual.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson on Politics Government Majority Rule

Its listed right there in your source. But you'll ignore it just the same. As you insist that there are no limits. That the majority can do anything it wants to the minority. That a 50% plus 1 vote can strip the minority of any right, any property, any freedom, even life itself. And this concept is rejected by your own source as 'oppression'.

And yet you ignore it.

Want another?

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

Again, your own source. And you'll ignore Jefferson again.

You have no retort for the Jefferson quote. You have no rational argument against. You simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Just as you did Socrates. Just you did John Adams' affirmation that the inhumanity and injustice of the majority heaped upon the minority is written on every page of history.

And worst of all....the quote you won't touch with a 10 foot pole:

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Any law that violates the rights of the individual is ALWAYS the tyrant's will. Yet you insist that there can be no violation.

You're clearly wrong. Which is why you ignore Jefferson's quote. Why you pretend it doesn't exist. Why you won't address it.

But why would I or anyone else ignore any of it?

Whites were a minority in some southern states....white slaveholders were always a minority ...if a vote had been taken nationwide at the time of founding slavery would most likely have been outlawed, certainly if the vote granted slaves even the 3/5ths vote they were counted as for representation........it was the powerful MINORITY that perpetuated slavery.

Bullshit. Whites were not a minority in the US. And in the 1790 census, the one most relevant to the US constitution, they weren't the minority in ANY state.

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Show us which southern state had more slaves than white in 1790. And show us any time in our nation's history where there were more blacks than whites. You'll find that neither was true. Which means by your own standards, whites are the majority. Worse, the 'will of the majority' cited by Jefferson was the vote of whites. Essentially the only people allowed to vote. You're contradicting your own source. And contradicted by your sources.

And ignoring all of it. And all of history. And Jefferson. And Adams. And legal precedent. And the Bill of Rights. And every example of the majority tyrannizing the minority, acts of inhumanity and injustice that John Adams affirmed was on 'every page of history'.

No rational person would ignore what you do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are not a majoritarian democracy like Hamas rules Gaza.

We must protect the minority if we are going to protect all of us.

 

[Skylar]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

you may have a point. I believe policing powers are left to the states. which would maybe be similar to saying what your saying. I do fear the consequences on the law of these cases....the prop 8 case has maybe already set a poor example in denying standing to millions of Californians.

Why would Prop 8's simply saying "marriage is only legal between a man and a woman" set a poor example? It's California's current and binding standard for marriage. They have a right to set that standard if they're going to lose money in order to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (the only reason states are involved in marriage in the first place). A state wants kids to have both a father and a mother. So that state says "only a man and woman may marry to receive the benefits thereof". That's how incentives work.

What would be truly terrible and a miscarriage of justice (for children, who cannot vote, and who more than any other demographic depend on the SCOTUS to be supremely wise and forward thinking on this question of law), would be for the SCOTUS to cut the conversation off and set a mandate that states must incentivize motherless or fatherless "marriage". Check the OP of this thread for the details on the detriment to children of boys being raised without a father or girls being raised without a mother: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I said the prop 8 CASE,....wasnt clear enough I guess, I agree with you generally on prop 8. The ruling on it by SC was idiocy.

Prop 8 violated constitutional guaranties under the 14th amendment. The other grand hole in your argument. As that amendment makes it ridiculously clear that the states may not violate the privileges and immunities of any US citizen. Nor apply their law unequally.

Yet you still insist that a simple majority vote can do both. Obviously you're wrong.

Constitutional guarantees cannot be simply voted away with a simple majority vote. Not under the Bill of Rights. Not under the 14th amendment. Not under the constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned, and worse considering this particular question of law, may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC"..

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion:

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Bigotry in the name of religion.

Let the record reflect that the use of the word bigotry, is by definition: Bigotry.

Go figure... right?

 

[Skylar]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned, and worse considering this particular question of law, may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC"..

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion:

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Bigotry in the name of religion.

Let the record reflect that the use of the word bigotry, is by definition: Bigotry.

Let the record reflect that you have no idea what you're talking about. And have repeatedly insisted that whatever definitions of words you make up are more authoritative than the dictionary.

Your imagination is not an objective standard of anything, my little Relativist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

...that actually sounds prejudiced. Has that ever occured to you? And I'm the bigot?

Now... the Article which said that legalizing the pretense of marriage by homosexuals cohabiting with deviants of the same gender, had produced in Canada, the collective regulation wherein any public profession whatsoever against such, was considered injurious intent, thus was considered a form of assault and as such stripped Canadians of any means to exercise their God-given right to speak freely.

And that same individual, was in a discussion set upon that article, declaring that such could never happen in the US, yet there it is... stating in unambiguous terms that to contest the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality was axiomatically hate of the sexually abnormal, thus on some level a threat to the degenerate.

Huh...

What can be made of THAT?

 

[Skylar]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

...that actually sounds prejudiced. Has that ever occured to you? And I'm the bigot?

Now... the Article which said that legalizing the pretense of marriage by homosexuals cohabiting with deviants of the same gender, had produced in Canada, the collective regulation wherein any public profession whatsoever against such, was considered injurious intent, thus was considered a form of assault and as such stripped Canadians of any means to exercise their God-given right to speak freely.

And that same individual, was in a discussion set upon that article, declaring that such could never happen in the US, yet there it is... stating in unambiguous terms that to contest the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality was axiomatically hate of the sexually abnormal, thus on some level a threat to the degenerate.

You seem confused. The right to free speech is a prohibition of government restriction. Not an insulation of disagreement for your fellow citizens. Someone can disagree with you....and you still have every right to say what you will.

Negating your entire argument. And demonstrating yet again that you don't have the first clue what 'rights' are. As there is no such thing as a 'right' never to be disagreed with. Remember, you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about.

Secondly, you've called gays 'despised', 'abhorred' and 'loathed'. Demonstrating unambiguously hatred of gays. Worse, you called for the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'. Acts of industrial scale murder that would encompass millions of American citizens. And yet you're still able to post such hateful vitriol.

Just not without people telling you how batshit crazy it is.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You seem confused.

ROFLMNAO! I just adore the sweeter Irony.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

Would you please provide a copy of one of these contracts?

I am specifically looking for the essential elements which must exist in any contract for such to bind one to another.

A marriage requires license... thus only those who are qualified within the scope of that license are qualified for such.

What is the basis of the license?

If Marriage is available to anyone for any reason... then what would be the purpose of a license?

(Reader, you're going to find that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will come to advise you that the notion of 'license' itself is being challenged here. Thus in order to qualify individuals of the same gender to 'marry', the ANSA must delude the concept of marriage itself, to that which is roughly meaningless, even as they walk the tightrope to prevent you from realizing that such is the case.)

Consider this as you wait for the non-responsive response to come, since the ANSA has come, how many times have you heard 'What business does government have to be involved in Marriage?'.

Which means, what business do you and I have in establishing standards?

What Business do you and I have in the viability of our selves, our families, our neighborhood, our community, our state and our nation?

The Cult ANSA is that only THEY have any business deciding what marriage means and they represent at most 3% of the population.

So in effect, if you live in a community with 100 people, the odds are that 3 of them are ANSA... now in your own experience, would you say that 3 people in your community have a right to determine the standards of your community?

ANSA says 'of course not, because we are the majority'.

But every time the issue is voted on, ANSA is no where NEAR a majority... which is why ANSA has to use the judicial system to overturn the LAW that established the marriage standard, to which ANSA's response is, "The Majority has no right to determine the rights of the minority...".

Which is true... but the majority does have the right to establish the standards by which we must all abide. And we do that through LEGISLATION.

Understand, that homosexuals are not being told that they cannot marry. Homosexuals are being told that to marry, they must do so with a person of the opposite gender; just like EVERYONE ELSE.

They'll tell you that the JUDICIARY decided that THAT is not true, because 'Legislation used to say that blacks could not marry whites'; which is true.

But "Black" or the genetic composition which produces black people, is NOT BEHAVIOR... Homosexuality IS BEHAVIOR, which has absolutely NO GENETIC component.

We... each of us have a serious interests in the standards of behavior we accept and we do not accept. And we sometimes make mistakes in what we decide is behavior worthy of accepting.

And Reader, we made a huge mistake when we decided to lift the laws forbidding sodomy... because that sent the signal that we no longer had an interests in setting standards for all manner of things, not the least of which is marriage.

Now let's wait and see if the ANSA comes... and how they'll shape it, given the argument which exposes their pat response as deceitful drivel.)