No room for voters rights in this Country

[DiamondDave]

The real question is WHY SHOULDN’T THEY BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? I keep reading all these reasons why there is no need to allow them to marry but that is not the issue at all. The fact is that there needs to be a good reason to take away the ability for gays to marry and I have not seen ONE good answer to this. If gays are allowed to marry then there is ZERO affect on straight couples and that needs to be addressed. I still stick to my original statement though. I do not want to see the courts take this rout as they are not the lawmakers.

If you are against gay marriage then answer this one question – why should they not be allowed to marry?

Again

There is no 'right to marry'

They can be together all they want and I fully support having equal rights to joint returns, inheritance rights, etc.... but the fed has no business in the marriage business, PERIOD

I am not for changing the definition of marriage (even though places like dictionaries already have) to be any perverted bastardization of man and man, man and sheep, woman and woman, brother and sister, etc

How's that?

 

[Contumacious]

Unbelievable. Just no room for the democratic process when politically correct runs amock.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

Their rights do not depend on your vote. Their rights are not subject to majority rule.

.

 

[Ravi]

Unbelievable. Just no room for the democratic process when politically correct runs amock.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

Their rights do not depend on your vote. Their rights are not subject to majority rule.

.

Exactly.

 

[maineman]

So if we are a Govt. as Lincoln once said. of the people, by the peolpe and for the people, should not the will of the people be what is taken into consdieration here? Frankly I could care less on this issue, but it would seem to me a lot of energy is expended in making the case for individual freedoms by the same people so willing to argue they be taken away in matters such as healthcare, and all aspects of American life.

These laws it would seem to me are more like a Drivers license and as such they are a "privledge" and therefor a state can regulate them as they see fit. For example, if a person has epilepsy they are not allowed a license even though they have all the privledges under the constitution that every other American has because these are rules that are set by the states

Liberals are all for control as long as THEY get to decide who gets controlled.

you are happy with the idea of your rights being controlled by the majority of people voting?

 

[Yukon]

Liberals are all for control as long as THEY get to decide who gets controlled.

RetardedGaySgt,

Where would your homo community be if it weren't for Liberal Americans?

 

[DiamondDave]

Unbelievable. Just no room for the democratic process when politically correct runs amock.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

Their rights do not depend on your vote. Their rights are not subject to majority rule.

.

Exactly.

What you don't EXACTLY get is that there is no right to marry

 

[Navy1960]

Stare decisis (from the Latin phrase Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established") is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions.

In the United States, which uses a common law system in its federal courts and most of its state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts
Stare decisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as controlling precedent
Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While states such as Iowa have ruled that same -sex marriage violates their individual state constitutions, it does appear that this matter has to be resolved on the state level at least for now.

 

[bodecea]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Problem being that we aren't a Democracy. We're a Republic.

Democracy has very little to do with the courts.......unless you think stacking the State court or the Supreme court with enough votes to get what you want. But then again that's not exactly true Democracy.

I think we should just chuck the 5th - 8th amendment....they are inconvenient.

 

[Contumacious]

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

Their rights do not depend on your vote. Their rights are not subject to majority rule.

.

Exactly.

What you don't EXACTLY get is that there is no right to marry

Really?

Why?

.

 

[bodecea]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.

And I bet you have a real problem with the courts shooting down the "will of the people" who wanted Segregation, who wanted child labor, who wanted to not hire people if they weren't the right religion, who wanted to sexually harass their employees, who wanted to torture prisoners.

 

[bodecea]

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

Their rights do not depend on your vote. Their rights are not subject to majority rule.

.

Exactly.

What you don't EXACTLY get is that there is no right to marry

You might want to take that up with the Supreme Court who said in Loving v. Virginia that Marriage IS a fundamental right.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Go ahead and read up on the case......notice that Virginia tried to use religion in their argument too.

 

[Yukon]

Democracy works in America. Less than 30 % of the white population elected a Negro President. Democracy works,

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Problem being that we aren't a Democracy. We're a Republic.

Democracy has very little to do with the courts.......unless you think stacking the State court or the Supreme court with enough votes to get what you want. But then again that's not exactly true Democracy.

We're a democratic republic.

 

[Navy1960]

Exactly.

What you don't EXACTLY get is that there is no right to marry

You might want to take that up with the Supreme Court who said in Loving v. Virginia that Marriage IS a fundamental right.

Here:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead and read up on the case......notice that Virginia tried to use religion in their argument too.

Loving V. Virginia

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.

The controlling precedent however in this matter bodecca is not Loving v. Virginia, it is Baker v. Nelson and as such until such time as the Court takes the matter up once again , the matter resides in the hands of the individual states. (see my previous post) In fact several cases have attempted to reach the USSC as recently as 2004 and all have been turned back to the states citing Baker v. Nelson.

 

[FA_Q2]

Again

There is no 'right to marry'

They can be together all they want and I fully support having equal rights to joint returns, inheritance rights, etc.... but the fed has no business in the marriage business, PERIOD

I am not for changing the definition of marriage (even though places like dictionaries already have) to be any perverted bastardization of man and man, man and sheep, woman and woman, brother and sister, etc

How's that?

Terrible as you did not answer the question. I did not state that there was any right to marry at all, just looking for a reason to NOT allow the marriage. There is no ‘changing the definition’ as you stated it. As a matter of fact, most states did not start defining it as a man and woman until this became an issue. California actually changed the definition in prop 8 to not include gay couples as it did not mention the sex of the parties before. Again – why not allow the gays to get married?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What you don't EXACTLY get is that there is no right to marry

You might want to take that up with the Supreme Court who said in Loving v. Virginia that Marriage IS a fundamental right.

Here:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead and read up on the case......notice that Virginia tried to use religion in their argument too.

Loving V. Virginia

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.

The controlling precedent however in this matter bodecca is not Loving v. Virginia, it is Baker v. Nelson and as such until such time as the Court takes the matter up once again , the matter resides in the hands of the individual states. (see my previous post) In fact several cases have attempted to reach the USSC as recently as 2004 and all have been turned back to the states citing Baker v. Nelson.

It's a 14th amendment case. And the train has left the station. No mater what side wins which battles, the war will be one by freedom.

 

[Navy1960]

Dev, there is not doubt it's a 14th Amendment case, it's been presented that way for a very long time now. What I was pointing out though, is that individual states may rule on the matter differently as they apply to their own individual state constitutions until such time as the Supreme Court sets a new controlling precedent. In the current controlling precedent though, which is Baker v. Nelson these marriage laws such as with prop 8 in California do not violate the 14th Amendment.


Baker v. Nelson
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
untitled

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dev, there is not doubt it's a 14th Amendment case, it's been presented that way for a very long time now. What I was pointing out though, is that individual states may rule on the matter differently as they apply to their own individual state constitutions until such time as the Supreme Court sets a new controlling precedent.

I stand corrected. I knew better, but got stuck on posts.

In the current controlling precedent though, which is Baker v. Nelson these marriage laws such as with prop 8 in California do not violate the 14th Amendment.


Baker v. Nelson
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
untitled

This will be decided soon enough.

It is the proponents of laws and petitions like Prop. 8 who have opened the door to legal arguments defining marriage as a basic right. Rights: separate but equal?

The definition of marriage is not on trial, even though others here will argue that, just as they will argue Bush wasn't a conservative and Obama is a socialist, as is Bernanke.

14th amendment
Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NAvy 1960:

here is an argument you ignore:

Baker v. Nelson was a very early same-sex marriage case pitting two gay student activists from the University of Minnesota against the clerk of the county court in Minneapolis. The activists wanted to get married and applied for a license. The clerk said no, on the grounds that they were two men, not a man and a woman.

The case went to court, and the activists lost at every stage, all the way up to the Minnesota supreme court and beyond.

The U.S. Supreme Court, for its part, refused to hear the case, citing a lack of a "substantial federal question.'' - http://www.advocate.com/

Is it a substantial fed question yet? It is in federal court.

 

[DiamondDave]

Exactly.

What you don't EXACTLY get is that there is no right to marry

You might want to take that up with the Supreme Court who said in Loving v. Virginia that Marriage IS a fundamental right.

Here:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead and read up on the case......notice that Virginia tried to use religion in their argument too.

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.

Can't happen in a 'gay' relationship

Sorry.. no right to marry that is protected

Also note that the case was about a law based on race based legal restrictions

The government is not saying that you do not have the right to be with whomever you wish, nor are people opposed to 'gay marriage'.... merely that it simply is not marriage and that government should be out of the marriage business... just as you do not get to have the government declare you a llama because it is your 'pursuit of happiness' to want to be considered one.....