Same Sex Marriage Passed in New York

[WorldWatcher]

In the case of loving v. virginia the reason wasnt some sense of morality, it was that the ruling went against the 15th amendment explicitly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Bans on an interracial contract (including marriage) are prohibited by this, and this alone.

Here is a link to the decision -->> Loving v. Virginia.


All I see is the 14th Equal Protection and Due Process, I seem to be missing the part where the 15th and voting is even mentioned. Would you please point it out for us.


Thank you in advance.

I dont see the right to gay marriage anywhere in the consitution as a fundemental right.

Does this mean you are of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for they to exist for the people?



>>>>

No, I see it as in the realm of law, not consitution. Again, the constitution is a restriction on what the government can do, via laws. To me anything that isnt strictly prevented in the consitution becomes up to legislation, and can go both ways.

I have no issue with NY legislating gay marriage, even though I dont see two same sex people being together as a marriage (according to my religous/moral views, some other chruch/temple/shack can have thier view on it). What I see is unintended consequences due to futher legal action by people who just can't realize they have won, and that they cannot change how people think.

Loving was a decision on the restriction of what government could do.


BTW - I pretty much agree. I don't support Public Accommodation law as they apply to private buisiness. Restrictions on the governments ability to discriminate and require equal treatment for all - no problem. However they should not apply to private business. No a government entity can be restricted from doing buisness with a discriminatory private business - but they should be free to service customers as they wish. If they don't want a government contract - good for them.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Step in what? I was wrong on the point of the decsion, it happens. What doesnt have to happen is you being a condescending prick.

Seems to me you were the one that mentioned rights not being listed in the Constitution.

I questioned you upon YOUR statement and suddenly I'm the prick?



Little defensive aren't you.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Step in what? I was wrong on the point of the decsion, it happens. What doesnt have to happen is you being a condescending prick.

Seems to me you were the one that mentioned rights not being listed in the Constitution.

I questioned you upon YOUR statement and suddenly I'm the prick?



Little defensive aren't you.


>>>>

Was waiting to be called defensive. I call it calling you out on being an arrogant ass.

I was incorrect on my view on loving. To me a ban on interracial marriage is a 15th amendment violation on its face. You dont have to go to the 14th, and in doing so you make it a weaker judgement.

I still challenge you to find the word marriage in the consitution.

 

[martybegan]

Here is a link to the decision -->> Loving v. Virginia.


All I see is the 14th Equal Protection and Due Process, I seem to be missing the part where the 15th and voting is even mentioned. Would you please point it out for us.


Thank you in advance.





Does this mean you are of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for they to exist for the people?



>>>>

No, I see it as in the realm of law, not consitution. Again, the constitution is a restriction on what the government can do, via laws. To me anything that isnt strictly prevented in the consitution becomes up to legislation, and can go both ways.

I have no issue with NY legislating gay marriage, even though I dont see two same sex people being together as a marriage (according to my religous/moral views, some other chruch/temple/shack can have thier view on it). What I see is unintended consequences due to futher legal action by people who just can't realize they have won, and that they cannot change how people think.

Loving was a decision on the restriction of what government could do.


BTW - I pretty much agree. I don't support Public Accommodation law as they apply to private buisiness. Restrictions on the governments ability to discriminate and require equal treatment for all - no problem. However they should not apply to private business. No a government entity can be restricted from doing buisness with a discriminatory private business - but they should be free to service customers as they wish. If they don't want a government contract - good for them.



>>>>

While I agree you can stop the government from dealing with a discrimintory agent with regards to business, the opposite cannot be true. The discrimintory agent should have the exact same access to government services a non discrimintrory agent should have, i.e. The government doesnt have to procure widget X from a discriminating private entity, but they cannot prevent said entity from using the roads.

 

[syrenn]

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

That is just it, religion has nothing to do with gays getting married. Who cares if they will be exempt or not.

Who cares or not?? Ya got what ya want so screw everyone else,you beg for respect but offer non in return?

hhmm... wanting respect and not giving any in return.... i think you should examine that one a bit.

No... gay people are not asking the religious to marry them. If the religious have a stick up their ass about it...i really don't care...they can apply for as many exemption as they want to NOT marry gay couples.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with religious organizations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 1st does not protect other people from religous types, it prevents the government from acknoledging X's religion as the government's religion. Remember the constitution is mostly about stopping government, not people.

The Establishment Clause protects the general public from ‘religious types’ in that it enjoins jurisdictions from codifying religious dogma to the detriment of those not practicing that religion.

And I think there will be lawsuits.

If so they’ll be placed on hold until Perry is sorted out.

I also have another theoretical for you. Say a christian denomination, that doesnt perform gay marriage, wants to use a state park for the ceremony. Couldnt someone sue them on the basis of the state allowing a discriminitory organiztion to use government controlled land, and therefore in violation of government equal rights legislation?

Something like this will happen sooner or later.

Anyone can sue for almost any reason – gaining standing is another issue. And a judge may indeed throw out such a suit because of the religious exemption: where there’s no discrimination, there’s no violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Of course I can see why deviant rights activists prefer the judicial remedy. Giving authority to the legislature to decide the issue undermines the argument that it's a fundamental right.

You may see but you don’t understand. The NY Assembly is merely conforming to the Constitution and the rule of law – as all legislative bodies are required to do. By doing so they acknowledge the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Constitutional case law establishing the right to marry. Judicial review occurs only when a legislative body passes a measure in violation of the Constitution. In theory judicial review need never occur should legislative bodies simply follow the Constitution.

I still challenge you to find the word marriage in the consitution.

When the Supreme Court rules on a Constitutional issue, that ruling becomes part of Constitutional case law and consequently part of the Constitution:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Loving v Virginia (1967)

The word ‘marriage’ is therefore in the Constitution.

 

[gautama]

I don't give a ripe you anyone marries,your pet pig will do,but don't expect nor demand that churches perform ceremonies against their will. Tolerance and equality works both ways.

You can't marry your pig. Pigs cannot give consent.

Riva, the Demented Diva:

So, following your logic ...... if a pedophile can get the consent of a three yr old .....then everything is honky dory, huh.

 

[gautama]

Good for NY. Glad they got it done without 'legislating' from the bench.

enforcing a fundamental right like marriage isn't "legislating from the bench" any more than ruling that inter-racial marriage couldn't be prohibited was.

Jillian the Pissalian,

" ......a fundamental right like marriage......"

Words have meaning, you LIEberrhoidal crunt.

The word "marriage" is a millenia established ritual between MAN and WOMAN that results in humans reproducing themselves.

"MARRIAGE" doesn't mean licentious fucking between anyone outside of the established parameters.

Arbitrarily calling "marriage" a "fundamental right" between any humanoids regardless of gender is acceptable PC crap ....... but it violates the established meaning of the word "marriage".

This is something the LIEberrhoidal or perverted mind will never understand.

 

[Anachronism]

Just add New York to the list of states that I will attempt to avoid doing business in. I sent a note this morning canceling my plans to attend a pistol match in New York State next month. it WAS going to be 3 nights hotel, food, match registration, etc....

POOF!!! All gone up in smoke.

 

[Mr Natural]

Just add New York to the list of states that I will attempt to avoid doing business in. I sent a note this morning canceling my plans to attend a pistol match in New York State next month. it WAS going to be 3 nights hotel, food, match registration, etc....

POOF!!! All gone up in smoke.

Good!

Stay the hell out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just add New York to the list of states that I will attempt to avoid doing business in. I sent a note this morning canceling my plans to attend a pistol match in New York State next month. it WAS going to be 3 nights hotel, food, match registration, etc....

POOF!!! All gone up in smoke.

You realize you’ll soon need to leave the country, yes? Where to go is the problem, of course – as the world becomes more modern each day. You’re more in need of a time machine than a passport.

On a personal note, no state’s political actions would keep me from participating in a pistol match or any other firearm related event – your Second Amendment purity is consequently suspect.

 

[Anachronism]

How will NY businesses like it when people like me start telling them we can no longer do business with them because of the political climate in their home state? I know the Ben & Jerry's rep was shocked when I told them I could no longer support their products for a similar reason.

 

[martybegan]

The 1st does not protect other people from religous types, it prevents the government from acknoledging X's religion as the government's religion. Remember the constitution is mostly about stopping government, not people.

The Establishment Clause protects the general public from ‘religious types’ in that it enjoins jurisdictions from codifying religious dogma to the detriment of those not practicing that religion.

And I think there will be lawsuits.

If so they’ll be placed on hold until Perry is sorted out.



Anyone can sue for almost any reason – gaining standing is another issue. And a judge may indeed throw out such a suit because of the religious exemption: where there’s no discrimination, there’s no violation of anti-discrimination laws.



You may see but you don’t understand. The NY Assembly is merely conforming to the Constitution and the rule of law – as all legislative bodies are required to do. By doing so they acknowledge the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Constitutional case law establishing the right to marry. Judicial review occurs only when a legislative body passes a measure in violation of the Constitution. In theory judicial review need never occur should legislative bodies simply follow the Constitution.

I still challenge you to find the word marriage in the consitution.

When the Supreme Court rules on a Constitutional issue, that ruling becomes part of Constitutional case law and consequently part of the Constitution:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Loving v Virginia (1967)

The word ‘marriage’ is therefore in the Constitution.

Just as a bit of advice, try to refernce the person being quoted, or you lump all your quotes into one mish mash... i.e. someone who recognizes me from first few quotes may think the "deviant" quote belonged to me as well. its poor form not to reference the person.

And just because something is in a court judgement does NOT make it part of the consitution. Only amendments can do that. it becomes part of the INTERPRETATION of the constitution, not part of the document itself.

 

[Anachronism]

You realize you’ll soon need to leave the country, yes? Where to go is the problem, of course – as the world becomes more modern each day. You’re more in need of a time machine than a passport.

You're right that it's getting tough to find any decent place to live in the US. That's why I'm looking to move out of New England in short order. Eventually it will probably end up being to Saudi Arabia.

On a personal note, no state’s political actions would keep me from participating in a pistol match or any other firearm related event – your Second Amendment purity is consequently suspect.

if I'd wanted your opinion on my second amendment credentials I would have asked. Welcome to the Ignore List.

 

[Mr Natural]

How will NY businesses like it when people like me start telling them we can no longer do business with them because of the political climate in their home state? I know the Ben & Jerry's rep was shocked when I told them I could no longer support their products for a similar reason.

Yeah, I'll bet they were broken hearted

 

[Anachronism]

Yeah, I'll bet they were broken hearted

Broken-hearted enough to offer me free product, which I turned down. Their phone rep indicated I wasn't the first such call they'd received.

 

[Mr Natural]

Yeah, I'll bet they were broken hearted

Broken-hearted enough to offer me free product, which I turned down. Their phone rep indicated I wasn't the first such call they'd received.

Yeah, I'm sure they had a whole list of psychotics calling with the same complaint.

Here's some advice, Bub: put your ego on hold; you're not that important.

 

[Political Junky]

Well, I must say a hearty "congrats" to NY. It's also nice to know that my marriage is recognized in another state. The number of people living under marriage equality has doubled.

The tide is turning and marriage equality across the US isn't far behind...

The number of gay people in the US who can marry just doubled with this vote. Congratulations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just as a bit of advice…

The idea, not the poster, is all that matters.

And just because something is in a court judgement does NOT make it part of the consitution. Only amendments can do that. it becomes part of the INTERPRETATION of the constitution, not part of the document itself.

[T]he Supreme Court has exercised this important power of declaring statutes unconstitutional ever since Marshall established the precedent in 1803, and it is now as much a part of the working American Constitution as the provision that Senators shall be chosen for six years or that the President may veto bills sent to him by Congress.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution

The Constitution is therefore comprised of the Founding Document proper, the Amendments, and the subsequent Constitutional case law as determined by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the functionality of the Articles or Amendments wouldn’t be known without judicial interpretation, consequently that interpretation becomes part of the Constitution.

For example, nowhere in the Second Amendment do we find the word ‘individual,’ yet the Court ruled in District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that the Second Amend protects an individual right to possess a firearm as opposed to a collective right. Therefore the word ‘individual’ is in the Second Amend and the Second Amendment is indeed part of the Constitution:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

As an interesting and telling aside, I’ve yet to have any conservative take issue that the word ‘individual’ is not now in the Second Amendment or Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Just as a bit of advice…

The idea, not the poster, is all that matters.

And just because something is in a court judgement does NOT make it part of the consitution. Only amendments can do that. it becomes part of the INTERPRETATION of the constitution, not part of the document itself.

[T]he Supreme Court has exercised this important power of declaring statutes unconstitutional ever since Marshall established the precedent in 1803, and it is now as much a part of the working American Constitution as the provision that Senators shall be chosen for six years or that the President may veto bills sent to him by Congress.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution

The Constitution is therefore comprised of the Founding Document proper, the Amendments, and the subsequent Constitutional case law as determined by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the functionality of the Articles or Amendments wouldn’t be known without judicial interpretation, consequently that interpretation becomes part of the Constitution.

For example, nowhere in the Second Amendment do we find the word ‘individual,’ yet the Court ruled in District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that the Second Amend protects an individual right to possess a firearm as opposed to a collective right. Therefore the word ‘individual’ is in the Second Amend and the Second Amendment is indeed part of the Constitution:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

As an interesting and telling aside, I’ve yet to have any conservative take issue that the word ‘individual’ is not now in the Second Amendment or Constitution.

Maybe its not important to you, but it is important to the people being quoted. here is MY RULE. dont quote me unless you attribute the quote TO me.

Second, unless the court descion is somehow the same as an amendment, it does NOT become part of the consitution, it becomes an intepretation, which can be changed WITHOUT and amendment.

Even though I agree with heller I know that the word individual has not been added. The 2nd amendment still reads the same way, it hasnt changed, just our perception of it.

Again, the consitution can only be changed, detracted from, or added to via amendment.