The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[WorldWatcher]

I think it's pretty obvious.

If the states voters accept it, so be it!.......I don't fuckin' care.

And, if states voters don't have an option to vote on it, then it should not be recognized, period!

Sorry, it's not "pretty obvious" it actually appears to be dancing around with out having to answer a direct question.

I'm not asking about "state voters", you claimed that the federal government should get out of marriage and that it should be determined by the states. I agree, I think that the federal government should get out of it and the section of DOMA that bars with recognition of legal Civil Marriages under state law should be repealed.


Given you previous statement about getting the federal government out of Civil Marriage do you support the repeal of that section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing legal Civil Marriages under state law?


It's a direct question, why does providing a direct answer appear so difficult?


>>>>

I believe the fed government needs to stay out of marriage, PERIOD!

So, yes, I support the repeal.

Like I said, it comes down to what the states VOTERS want.....And if the voters cannot vote on whether or not to recognize deviant pervert marriage, then the state should never recognize it.

Ya' see, i'm hoping that here in this state, we can continue to win the war. If the perve's in this state want to go move to another state that recognizes it, GOOD!.......The less of 'em around here, the better!

Thank you for the answer.

Just to be clear I support the repeal of ALL of DOMA and it's replacement under Congress's Article IV Section "Full Faith & Credit Powers" with a law saying that States need not (although they can if they wish) recognize ANY Civil Marriage that conflicts with their own state laws. (The difference being "ANY" other state law instead of the current discriminatory one based on gender only.)



>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Asking a question in response to a question is NOT a valid response. Nice try though.

I was merely pointing out the OP's ignorance of the constitution..

The OP was assuming marriage was legally defined - it's not, hence it's a state issue until it is.

No it is not specifically defined in the constitution however, it is defined in law and recognized by the governemnt for tax purposes and spousal rights so it's not as if we are making new law out of nothing.

I do agree that it is an issue for states to decide but if their decision violates federal laws including the constitution (freedom of religion) then their decision should be struck down.

Where is it defined in law?

So now homosexual marriage is a religion??

Also, in what universe is an individual forbidden to manifest a civil contract that leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?

Oh yeah thats right - this whole debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with contract or marriage and EVERYTHING to do with activism.

You see, gays don't want the "right" of marriage - they want to fight the system or fight their enemy the conservative capitalists.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think it's pretty obvious.

If the states voters accept it, so be it!.......I don't fuckin' care.

And, if states voters don't have an option to vote on it, then it should not be recognized, period!

Sorry, it's not "pretty obvious" it actually appears to be dancing around with out having to answer a direct question.

I'm not asking about "state voters", you claimed that the federal government should get out of marriage and that it should be determined by the states. I agree, I think that the federal government should get out of it and the section of DOMA that bars with recognition of legal Civil Marriages under state law should be repealed.


Given you previous statement about getting the federal government out of Civil Marriage do you support the repeal of that section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing legal Civil Marriages under state law?


It's a direct question, why does providing a direct answer appear so difficult?


>>>>

DOMA A) is not a constitutional amendment and B) circumvents the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

1. Of course DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment, it is federal law enacted under Congress's authority under Article IV Section 1 and their power to define the "effects thereof" of public acts between the States.

2. "Circumvents the 10th"? Incorrect. Circumventing the 10th Amendment would involve imposing restrictions on States in regard to their own laws. However under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution Congress is specifically empowered to weigh in on public acts between States. (Whether a discriminatory law based on gender is in itself Constitutional is a different question all together. The fact that Congress is empowered to weigh on on public acts between States is irrefutable - from a Constitutional standpoint.)



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I was merely pointing out the OP's ignorance of the constitution..

The OP was assuming marriage was legally defined - it's not, hence it's a state issue until it is.

No it is not specifically defined in the constitution however, it is defined in law and recognized by the governemnt for tax purposes and spousal rights so it's not as if we are making new law out of nothing.

I do agree that it is an issue for states to decide but if their decision violates federal laws including the constitution (freedom of religion) then their decision should be struck down.

Where is it defined in law?

So now homosexual marriage is a religion??

Also, in what universe is an individual forbidden to manifest a civil contract that leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?

To answer the bolded question, that would be Virginia who in 2004 passed a Constitutional Amendment (section 15A) which specifically bars the State from recognizing contractual arrangement intending to duplicate the conditions associated with Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Actually, if you are forgetting that Amendments are part of the Constitution, that would account for the line about Income Taxes not being a "part" of the Constitution.

But I agree that "separation of church and state" is NOT in there. Neither is "marriage."

Yes, but Amendments cannot contradict other Amendments and our Fourth Amendment is quite clear... The Sixteenth Amendment is illegitimate.

How so?? The 4th guarantees against "UNREASONABLE" seizure and how is something that was ratified by the country (42 states by 1913) considered UNREASONABLE?

Please explain.

Because "reasonable" was never defined...

Reasonable is very subjective ..

Given the subject and nature of the Bill of Rights (not to mention the abundance of literature available of the period) one could assume the fathers were referring to tyrants and criminals.

In short one would have to have just cause, a warrant and due process would have to take place before the government could take ones assets to make restitution to those who were victimized by a crime committed and monetarily damaged by that said crime.

You should really realize how foolish you would sound 200 years ago.

Gay marriage and federal taxation would sound preposterous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh yeah thats right - this whole debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with contract or marriage and EVERYTHING to do with activism.

You see, gays don't want the "right" of marriage - they want to fight the system or fight their enemy the conservative capitalists.

?

It has nothing to do with ‘activism,’ or capitalists, for hat matter (???)

It has only to do with Americans’ equal access to marriage laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

 

[Mr.Nick]

No it is not specifically defined in the constitution however, it is defined in law and recognized by the governemnt for tax purposes and spousal rights so it's not as if we are making new law out of nothing.

I do agree that it is an issue for states to decide but if their decision violates federal laws including the constitution (freedom of religion) then their decision should be struck down.

Where is it defined in law?

So now homosexual marriage is a religion??

Also, in what universe is an individual forbidden to manifest a civil contract that leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?

To answer the bolded question, that would be Virginia who in 2004 passed a Constitutional Amendment (section 15A) which specifically bars the State from recognizing contractual arrangement intending to duplicate the conditions associated with Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Yep thats called the TENTH AMENDMENT...

 

[Seawytch]

[Personally, I think that gays should be allowed to get married. But win that fight at the ballot box, not the court house.

Interracial marriage wasn't "won" at the ballot box, but in the courts...many, many, many years before it actually HAD majority support.

See where it wasn't until after 1990 that interracial marriage enjoyed majority support? Guess when anti miscegenation laws were struck down? I won't keep you guessing...it was 1967.

Guess what, only a few states had those laws and they weren't really vigorously enforced.

Fact is, there was never a national movement opposing it. These laws were put on the books, people had largely forgotten they were there. Most people still don't marry outside their own race, anyway.

Again, when you win it at the ballot, it will be legitimate. Not until.

So what if only a few states still had the laws...they still HAD them. And when you look at the map...it sure looks like a lot.

Green - Before 1887
Yellow - 1948 to 1967
Red - 12 June 1967


They were obviously enforced or there would not have been a Supreme Court Case now would there?

Do you believe that the case should have never been heard by the Supreme Court and the issue should have waited a majority vote? There is a reason we don't vote on civil rights. Surely you've heard of "tyranny of the majority" haven't you?

Did you really say "most people don't want to marry outside their race"? And what point is THAT supposed to make? Besides, the number of interracial partnerships are surging...

It was only 40 years ago — on June 12, 1967 — that the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down a Virginia statute barring whites from marrying non-whites. The decision also overturned similar bans in 15 other states.

Since that landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling, the number of interracial marriages has soared; for example, black-white marriages increased from 65,000 in 1970 to 422,000 in 2005, according to Census Bureau figures. Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7% of America's 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2% in 1970.

Coupled with a steady flow of immigrants from all parts of the world, the surge of interracial marriages and multiracial children is producing a 21st century America more diverse than ever, with the potential to become less stratified by race.[...]

The boom in interracial marriages forced the federal government to change its procedures for the 2000 census, allowing Americans for the first time to identify themselves by more than one racial category.

About 6.8 million described themselves as multiracial — 2.4% of the population — adding statistical fuel to the ongoing debate over what race really means.

Kerry Ann Rockquemore, professor of African-American studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago, is the daughter of a black father and white mother, and says she is asked almost daily how she identifies herself.[...]

​

Interracial marriages surge across U.S.

And this article is from 2007.

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote, period.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where is it defined in law?

So now homosexual marriage is a religion??

Also, in what universe is an individual forbidden to manifest a civil contract that leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?

To answer the bolded question, that would be Virginia who in 2004 passed a Constitutional Amendment (section 15A) which specifically bars the State from recognizing contractual arrangement intending to duplicate the conditions associated with Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Yep thats called the TENTH AMENDMENT...

???

You asked were it was forbidden to create a civil contract which "leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?".

I provided one answer (since there are other States with the same provision, IIRC Wisconsin being one), the question appeared to be coached in a rhetorical fashion that such a condition could not exist. The fact is that it does.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sorry, it's not "pretty obvious" it actually appears to be dancing around with out having to answer a direct question.

I'm not asking about "state voters", you claimed that the federal government should get out of marriage and that it should be determined by the states. I agree, I think that the federal government should get out of it and the section of DOMA that bars with recognition of legal Civil Marriages under state law should be repealed.


Given you previous statement about getting the federal government out of Civil Marriage do you support the repeal of that section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing legal Civil Marriages under state law?


It's a direct question, why does providing a direct answer appear so difficult?


>>>>

DOMA A) is not a constitutional amendment and B) circumvents the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

1. Of course DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment, it is federal law enacted under Congress's authority under Article IV Section 1 and their power to define the "effects thereof" of public acts between the States.

2. "Circumvents the 10th"? Incorrect. Circumventing the 10th Amendment would involve imposing restrictions on States in regard to their own laws. However under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution Congress is specifically empowered to weigh in on public acts between States. (Whether a discriminatory law based on gender is in itself Constitutional is a different question all together. The fact that Congress is empowered to weigh on on public acts between States is irrefutable - from a Constitutional standpoint.)



>>>>

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

Do you know what that means?

How do you interpret that??

 

[Mr.Nick]

To answer the bolded question, that would be Virginia who in 2004 passed a Constitutional Amendment (section 15A) which specifically bars the State from recognizing contractual arrangement intending to duplicate the conditions associated with Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Yep thats called the TENTH AMENDMENT...

???

You asked were it was forbidden to create a civil contract which "leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?".

I provided one answer (since there are other States with the same provision, IIRC Wisconsin being one), the question appeared to be coached in a rhetorical fashion that such a condition could not exist. The fact is that it does.


>>>>

No you provided the wrong answer - the answer in which the states have no rights and the federal government is the rule of thumb.

That is NOT the correct answer.

The Tenth Amendment says NOTHING about "acts" and everything about CONSTITUTION.

So where the FUCK is the "marriage amendment?."

Is being a tyrant your hobby? because you clearly have no respect for the Bill of Rights.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Oh yeah thats right - this whole debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with contract or marriage and EVERYTHING to do with activism.

You see, gays don't want the "right" of marriage - they want to fight the system or fight their enemy the conservative capitalists.

?

It has nothing to do with ‘activism,’ or capitalists, for hat matter (???)

It has only to do with Americans’ equal access to marriage laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Really? then I suppose communism is just as justifiable as gay marriage then??

Geez I probably have less than you do... I suppose per the 14th Amendment I have the RIGHT to steal from you because it would only be equal no???

Please tell me how that is different from the gay marriage argument??

 

[WorldWatcher]

DOMA A) is not a constitutional amendment and B) circumvents the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

1. Of course DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment, it is federal law enacted under Congress's authority under Article IV Section 1 and their power to define the "effects thereof" of public acts between the States.

2. "Circumvents the 10th"? Incorrect. Circumventing the 10th Amendment would involve imposing restrictions on States in regard to their own laws. However under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution Congress is specifically empowered to weigh in on public acts between States. (Whether a discriminatory law based on gender is in itself Constitutional is a different question all together. The fact that Congress is empowered to weigh on on public acts between States is irrefutable - from a Constitutional standpoint.)



>>>>

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

Do you know what that means?

Yes I do, do you?

How do you interpret that??

I means that if an issue is not addressed elsewhere in the Constitution, then the States have the power to address it themselves in laws applicable to their States. (Notice I use the terms "powers" correctly instead of the lazy "states rights" as States don't have rights, States have powers.)

Now here is an important point, notice the first part "The powers not delegated to the United States", well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution specifically empowers Congress to address the interaction of public acts between States. As such it is a power specifically delegated to the United States.

The danger is that to current DOMA will be overturned in the SCOTUS because it was obviously passed as a capricious and invidious law targeting one group to deny them equal protection and due process under the law. Whether the SCOTUS will find Congress must comply with the 14th's provisions is up in the air, however their is a very good possibility that an argument can be made that it violates the Due Process provisions of Article V (which is binding on Congress). As I said I support a total repeal of the current DOMA, the recognition of all legal Civil Marriage just as the federal government did for 230 years, and it's replacement with a law passed by Congress under it's Article IV Section 1 powers to provide that States are not required to recognize all ANY Civil Marriage that conflicts with their own laws (although they can if they wish) instead of one that is discriminatory based on gender.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yep thats called the TENTH AMENDMENT...

???

You asked were it was forbidden to create a civil contract which "leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?".

I provided one answer (since there are other States with the same provision, IIRC Wisconsin being one), the question appeared to be coached in a rhetorical fashion that such a condition could not exist. The fact is that it does.


>>>>

No you provided the wrong answer - the answer in which the states have no rights and the federal government is the rule of thumb.

That is NOT the correct answer.

I provided an answer to the question you asked. If you don't want to hear (or read) the answer then you shouldn't ask such a question.

The Tenth Amendment says NOTHING about "acts" and everything about CONSTITUTION.

I have no idea what the point of this sentence is unless it is to express indignation.

The 10th Amendment only applies to areas not enumerated in other parts of the Constitution as power delegated to the United States government. Article IV Section 1 specifically delegates the power to the United States Congress the power to determine the "effects thereof" of public acts (which Civil Marriage is one) between the States.

If you are going to attempt to use Constutional arguments you should try reading the whole thing instead of trying to apply one mantra ("The 10th", "The 10th") for everything.

So where the FUCK is the "marriage amendment?."

I believe the "Marriage Amendment" (one to Constitutionally define Civil Marriage as one man and one woman") has failed to pass multiple times in the Congress.

Is being a tyrant your hobby? because you clearly have no respect for the Bill of Rights.

Translation = Someone is making me look silly so time to switch to personal attacks.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Well I'm out for the night.

G'night all.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

1. Of course DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment, it is federal law enacted under Congress's authority under Article IV Section 1 and their power to define the "effects thereof" of public acts between the States.

2. "Circumvents the 10th"? Incorrect. Circumventing the 10th Amendment would involve imposing restrictions on States in regard to their own laws. However under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution Congress is specifically empowered to weigh in on public acts between States. (Whether a discriminatory law based on gender is in itself Constitutional is a different question all together. The fact that Congress is empowered to weigh on on public acts between States is irrefutable - from a Constitutional standpoint.)



>>>>

Do you know what that means?

Yes I do, do you?

How do you interpret that??

I means that if an issue is not addressed elsewhere in the Constitution, then the States have the power to address it themselves in laws applicable to their States. (Notice I use the terms "powers" correctly instead of the lazy "states rights" as States don't have rights, States have powers.)

Now here is an important point, notice the first part "The powers not delegated to the United States", well I had to be the bearer of bad news but Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution specifically empowers Congress to address the interaction of public acts between States. As such it is a power specifically delegated to the United States.

The danger is that to current DOMA will be overturned in the SCOTUS because it was obviously passed as a capricious and invidious law targeting one group to deny them equal protection and due process under the law. Whether the SCOTUS will find Congress must comply with the 14th's provisions is up in the air, however their is a very good possibility that an argument can be made that it violates the Due Process provisions of Article V (which is binding on Congress). As I said I support a total repeal of the current DOMA, the recognition of all legal Civil Marriage just as the federal government did for 230 years, and it's replacement with a law passed by Congress under it's Article IV Section 1 powers to provide that States are not required to recognize all ANY Civil Marriage that conflicts with their own laws (although they can if they wish) instead of one that is discriminatory based on gender.



>>>>

Do you know what a constitution is?

Are you aware that our constitution has 27 amendments? are you aware that not one of them asserts what the sexuality of a marriage should be?

So how the FUCK does that not fall under the Tenth Amendment?

What don't understand about:

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

 

[Mr.Nick]

???

You asked were it was forbidden to create a civil contract which "leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?".

I provided one answer (since there are other States with the same provision, IIRC Wisconsin being one), the question appeared to be coached in a rhetorical fashion that such a condition could not exist. The fact is that it does.


>>>>

No you provided the wrong answer - the answer in which the states have no rights and the federal government is the rule of thumb.

That is NOT the correct answer.

I provided an answer to the question you asked. If you don't want to hear (or read) the answer then you shouldn't ask such a question.



I have no idea what the point of this sentence is unless it is to express indignation.

The 10th Amendment only applies to areas not enumerated in other parts of the Constitution as power delegated to the United States government. Article IV Section 1 specifically delegates the power to the United States Congress the power to determine the "effects thereof" of public acts (which Civil Marriage is one) between the States.

If you are going to attempt to use Constutional arguments you should try reading the whole thing instead of trying to apply one mantra ("The 10th", "The 10th") for everything.

So where the FUCK is the "marriage amendment?."

I believe the "Marriage Amendment" (one to Constitutionally define Civil Marriage as one man and one woman") has failed to pass multiple times in the Congress.

Is being a tyrant your hobby? because you clearly have no respect for the Bill of Rights.

Translation = Someone is making me look silly so time to switch to personal attacks.



>>>>

Wow since you claim to understand the Tenth Amendment, we have found a winner no matter how hardheaded, stubborn or tricky you believe you are.

I suppose this means the majority is opposed to gay marriage then no??

Do we currently live in a direct democracy, democratic republic or both??

I think the Tenth answers that question now doesn't it??

Now given the fact states have continually put civil unions on the fucking ballot - what makes you believe this is a "federal government" issue???

If it was a fed issue I would suppose states would be forbidden to add such a proposition to their ballots an gays would be getting divorced by now?

 

[Flaylo]

Oh yeah thats right - this whole debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with contract or marriage and EVERYTHING to do with activism.

You see, gays don't want the "right" of marriage - they want to fight the system or fight their enemy the conservative capitalists.

?

It has nothing to do with ‘activism,’ or capitalists, for hat matter (???)

It has only to do with Americans’ equal access to marriage laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment mentions nothing about equal access to marriage laws.

 

[Flaylo]

Afraid that the courts disagree with you

Forget about the fourteenth amendment. The tenth amendment is key in homosexual marriage debate.

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

Also, not one single homosexual marriage case has cited the US Constitution--all have cited state constitutions. I would love, absolutely love for the Supreme Court to rule on homosexual marriage. Gay rights organizations are afraid of a Supreme Court ruling.

That's great and all but when state law (prohibiting freedom of religion) violates federal law (religious freedom) who wins?

Gays are not arguing for gay marriage on religious grounds, thats a strawman since homosexuality is not a religion.

 

[Flaylo]

I can - in what amendment is marriage of any kind outlined as a right PERIOD??

Asking a question in response to a question is NOT a valid response. Nice try though.

I was merely pointing out the OP's ignorance of the constitution..

The OP was assuming marriage was legally defined - it's not, hence it's a state issue until it is.

I never stated that marriage was legally defined in the Constitution, it can't be and it isn't a right.