Same Sex Marriage Passed in New York

[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.


>>>>

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

Well, yes I've been known to be an asshat and an arrogant ass. Usually by people that pull stuff out of the ass and I call them on it.

I was incorrect on my view on loving.

Agreed.

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.

The 15th Amendment ("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.") has nothing to do with Civil Marriage, it has to do with voting.

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

I never claimed that the word marriage is in the Constitution. I also did not try to imply that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the Constution - such as - asking people to find the word "marriage" in the Constitution.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

I agree.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

In general they probably won't even notice due to increased tourism associated with Same-sex couples vacationing in New York bringing in additional revenue. Unlike Massachusetts, New York does not have a residency requirement to receive a Civil Marriage license.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just as a bit of advice…

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

He's actually right, it is better form to manage your quotes to keep the links to the previous posts intact. People often read threads after they have been running for awhile and by leaving the quote function intact it provides the link chevrons that allow a reader to go back easily to review the context in which a given statement was provided.



>>>>

 

[Anachronism]

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.

I am the ONLY thing that is important in MY world. Welcome to the Ignore List.

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

That's not a positive in my mind.

In general they probably won't even notice due to increased tourism associated with Same-
sex couples vacationing in New York bringing in additional revenue. Unlike Massachusetts, New York does not have a residency requirement to receive a Civil Marriage license.

That's fine. If they don't value the money of decent people let them ignore us. If they prefer the monies of the underbelly of American society that's their decision to make.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well, yes I've been known to be an asshat and an arrogant ass. Usually by people that pull stuff out of the ass and I call them on it.





Agreed.

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.

The 15th Amendment ("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.") has nothing to do with Civil Marriage, it has to do with voting.

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

I never claimed that the word marriage is in the Constitution. I also did not try to imply that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the Constution - such as - asking people to find the word "marriage" in the Constitution.



>>>>

Dammit, i had both amendments open in windows next to each other and I crossed up the reading.

My mistake.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dammit, i had both amendments open in windows next to each other and I crossed up the reading.

My mistake.

Good enough. Anyone can make a mistake (heaven knows I have often enough).


Thank you.

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Especially not with the windfall that NY will be experiencing as a result of the ruling. There are BIG bucks in gay weddings.

The $9.5 Billion Gay Marriage Windfall

I don't think they will care much about one homophobe not buying ice cream.

 

[jillian]

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.

I'm well aware of your opinions and biases on the subject. But thanks for the reminder just the same.

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.

But whatcha gonna do?

and i am well aware of your biases which are inconsistent with constitutional construction and which are made obvious by your label "deviant rights activists".

but whatcha gonna do?

 

[manifold]

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.

I'm well aware of your opinions and biases on the subject. But thanks for the reminder just the same.

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.

But whatcha gonna do?

and i am well aware of your biases which are inconsistent with constitutional construction and which are made obvious by your label "deviant rights activists".

but whatcha gonna do?

Jump to conclusions fail. I support gay marriage.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[1751Texan]

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.

Well, yes I've been known to be an asshat and an arrogant ass. Usually by people that pull stuff out of the ass and I call them on it.





Agreed.

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.

The 15th Amendment ("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.") has nothing to do with Civil Marriage, it has to do with voting.

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

I never claimed that the word marriage is in the Constitution. I also did not try to imply that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the Constution - such as - asking people to find the word "marriage" in the Constitution.


>>>>

Marriage, much like driving[an auto] is not a right[per se], but a privilege offered and regulated by the state to its citizens...as the state offers these privileges and makes rules and regulations regarding these privilages...then that is when constitutional rights come into play to afford all those offederd this privialge equal protection under the law[14th amendment].

IMO, the state cannot offer this privilege[marraige] to one group of its citizens while restricting another. This would be analogus to the state restricting Homsexuals from driving because of religious beliefs.

Marriage is a legal contract that binds two indiviuals to enter into contracts with companies dealing with thier day to day affairs...(i.e.) Medical insurance and benefits, real property ownership, Taxes, Adoption, retirement/death benefits...ect. All these contracts are protected under Interstate Commerce and have nothing to do with one's religious beliefs. If one claims marriage is simply a religious ritual is not taking into account all the legal ramification of marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage, much like driving[an auto] is not a right[per se], but a privilege offered and regulated by the state to its citizens...as the state offers these privileges and makes rules and regulations regarding these privilages...then that is when constitutional rights come into play to afford all those offederd this privialge equal protection under the law[14th amendment].

".

While that may be your opinion, the SCOTUS holds a different one. They have declared, on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right, not a "privilege".

 

[martybegan]

Marriage, much like driving[an auto] is not a right[per se], but a privilege offered and regulated by the state to its citizens...as the state offers these privileges and makes rules and regulations regarding these privilages...then that is when constitutional rights come into play to afford all those offederd this privialge equal protection under the law[14th amendment].

".

While that may be your opinion, the SCOTUS holds a different one. They have declared, on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right, not a "privilege".

Years ago the SCOTUS also held that seperate but equal was just dandy (that whole plessy vs. fergeson thing). That is the ultimate example that jurists are fallable, and that using them as an example of final truth is a grave over-estimation.

 

[1751Texan]

Marriage, much like driving[an auto] is not a right[per se], but a privilege offered and regulated by the state to its citizens...as the state offers these privileges and makes rules and regulations regarding these privilages...then that is when constitutional rights come into play to afford all those offederd this privialge equal protection under the law[14th amendment].

".

While that may be your opinion, the SCOTUS holds a different one. They have declared, on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right, not a "privilege".

Yet on the issue of same sex marriage, they[USSC] declined the appeal in Baker v. Neslon[1972] and upheld the Minnesota SC's ruling on same sex marriage. In doing so, the Court has left marriage a state's right; and at this point, a state can regulate marriage much they do Driver's licences. If a "fundamental right" is not universal, it not much of a "right".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage, much like driving[an auto] is not a right[per se], but a privilege offered and regulated by the state to its citizens...as the state offers these privileges and makes rules and regulations regarding these privilages...then that is when constitutional rights come into play to afford all those offederd this privialge equal protection under the law[14th amendment].

".

While that may be your opinion, the SCOTUS holds a different one. They have declared, on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right, not a "privilege".

Yet on the issue of same sex marriage, they[USSC] declined the appeal in Baker v. Neslon[1972] and upheld the Minnesota SC's ruling on same sex marriage. In doing so, the Court has left marriage a state's right; and at this point, a state can regulate marriage much they do Driver's licences. If a "fundamental right" is not universal, it not much of a "right".

Baker v. Nelson by declining a case does not overrule the fact that the SCOTUS overruled state law in 1967 with an actual decision in Loving v. Virginia. That precedent shows that while marriage is a function of the State, they must still conduct that function in a Constitutional manner.

Now, Baker did set legal precedence for the legal landscape at the time (i.e. 1972). At that time homosexual conduct was illegal and subject to criminal prosecution in many (if not most) States, that was overturned in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. In addition in 1972 there was no federal law on Same-sex Civil Marriages (hence the lack of a federal question), however in 1996 the DOMA was passed into federal law.

The legal landscape is not the same as it was in 1972 when Baker v. Nelson was denied a SCOTUS hearing, now there are definitely federal questions such as: can a right once granted be taken away (Prop 8), the federal government not recognizing some legal Civil Marriages but not others from the same State, was Congress acting within the scope of a valid Full Faith and Credit action when it discriminated against legal Civil Marriages based on gender.



The SCOTUS will eventually have to weigh in.



>>>>

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Good for NY. I don't think the government should have the right to restrict anybody's rights to marriage based on their sexuality. Now I think religions/churches should absolutely be allowed to refuse to marry two people. But the government granting one set of Americans rights, and restricting another isn't acceptable in my opinion.

 

[WillowTree]

Good for NY. I don't think the government should have the right to restrict anybody's rights to marriage based on their sexuality. Now I think religions/churches should absolutely be allowed to refuse to marry two people. But the government granting one set of Americans rights, and restricting another isn't acceptable in my opinion.

What rights to restrict does the government have then? Maybe I'd like two men and a woman to marry.. Works for me. What right do you have to stop me as long as we all consent and it makes us happy?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Good for NY. I don't think the government should have the right to restrict anybody's rights to marriage based on their sexuality. Now I think religions/churches should absolutely be allowed to refuse to marry two people. But the government granting one set of Americans rights, and restricting another isn't acceptable in my opinion.

What rights to restrict does the government have then? Maybe I'd like two men and a woman to marry.. Works for me. What right do you have to stop me as long as we all consent and it makes us happy?

I clearly said based on their sexuality-not based on the amount of people getting married. I assumed you were able to read.

 

[Seawytch]

The SCOTUS will eventually have to weigh in.



>>>>

Indeed they will...and if they rule on precedent (like they're supposed to) they can rule no other way but for marriage equality for gays and lesbians.