32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[WorldWatcher]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

False, if someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they are heterosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered heterosexual.

If someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the same sex - they are homosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered homosexual.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Second false premise.

Behaviors are greatly protected rights. Religion is a behavior.

Concerning homosexuals, you are doubly incorrect as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas show.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

Then you disagree wrongly. The history of the courts shows them upholding rules AGAINST minorities probably as much or more so then "stepping in" to protect.

Not as much anymore. In most cases in say, the last 3 generations or so....if protecting the rights of minorities is on deck, they abstain from ruling or rule in favor of the minority rights. Ruling against them is no where near as common.
And since the modern judiciary is what we'll be dealing with in a gay marriage ruling, I think that the protection of minority rights from the majority is a distinct, perhaps even probable outcome. It all depends on Kennedy. Who has a thing for protecting gays from discrimination from State laws and for protecting States rights. So it could go either way....though I think Kennedy will ultimately side with gays. Especially since the idea seems to be taking such root across the nation.

The "rights" in our Constitution were AMENDMENTS passed by THE MAJORITY.

True enough. But the interpretation of the constitution is largely left to the courts. And of course, the bill of rights simply articulated rights that the founders insisted we already had. It didn't create rights. It codified them. And as the 9th amendment makes clear there are far more rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights.
The courts are the body most commonly used in articulating these 'unemumerated' rights. Like...the right to privacy. Or the right to self defense with a fire arm.

On Civil rights perhaps things have changed in last 3 generations,....but as I point out the Courts are still standing up for powerful financial interests, a minority....to the detriment of our nation.

you think Kennedy will "ultimately "side with the gays"".....Most gay groups, or the leading gay group anyway did NOT want a lawsuit against Prop8 in California...as recent books on the movement have shown. It was a small group of activists and some law firms that went forward WITHOUT the blessings of the movement.

SOME of the founders insisted we already had them......at least they insisted when pressured as to why they didnt want them in the Constitution itself....

 

[Skylar]

On Civil rights perhaps things have changed in last 3 generations,....but as I point out the Courts are still standing up for powerful financial interests, a minority....to the detriment of our nation.

Gay marriage doesn't seem like something that 'powerful financial interests' are going to have much concern with. This isn't a Citizens United, after all.

you think Kennedy will "ultimately "side with the gays"".....Most gay groups, or the leading gay group anyway did NOT want a lawsuit against Prop8 in California...as recent books on the movement have shown. It was a small group of activists and some law firms that went forward WITHOUT the blessings of the movement.

Prop 8 isn't being debated before the Supreme Court. Making what 'leading gay groups wanted against Prop 8 in California' pristinely irrelevant.

SOME of the founders insisted we already had them......at least they insisted when pressured as to why they didnt want them in the Constitution itself....

Very few argued against the idea of rights preceding the Bill of Rights. In fact the most common argument against the Bill of Rights was that codification would insinuate an exhaustive list. The 9th amendment was added to address this concern. And its a good thing it was added, as the Bill of Rights as an exhaustive list is argued to this day.

Hell, in this very thread with the 'show me gay marriage in the constitution' rhetoric.

 

[Silhouette]

On Civil rights perhaps things have changed in last 3 generations,....but as I point out the Courts are still standing up for powerful financial interests, a minority....to the detriment of our nation.

Gay marriage doesn't seem like something that 'powerful financial interests' are going to have much concern with. This isn't a Citizens United, after all.

you think Kennedy will "ultimately "side with the gays"".....Most gay groups, or the leading gay group anyway did NOT want a lawsuit against Prop8 in California...as recent books on the movement have shown. It was a small group of activists and some law firms that went forward WITHOUT the blessings of the movement.

Prop 8 isn't being debated before the Supreme Court. Making what 'leading gay groups wanted against Prop 8 in California' pristinely irrelevant.

SOME of the founders insisted we already had them......at least they insisted when pressured as to why they didnt want them in the Constitution itself....

Very few argued against the idea of rights preceding the Bill of Rights. In fact the most common argument against the Bill of Rights was that codification would insinuate an exhaustive list. The 9th amendment was added to address this concern. And its a good thing it was added, as the Bill of Rights as an exhaustive list is argued to this day.

Hell, in this very thread with the 'show me gay marriage in the constitution' rhetoric.

Isn't the "show me the gay marriage" part of the constitutional debate on gay marriage that matters. It's the "show me where a limited set of people practicing certain repugnant BEHAVIORS [that aren't a religion] objectionable to the majority get to escape democratic regulation of those behaviors by trying to pass them off as "intrinsic or racial qualities"...when they are flatly not.

The debate is "do some people who do certain things compulsively have rights to redefined the word "marriage" in such a way that is repugnant to the majority, without the majority having a say-so on the matter?"

Part 2 of that debate is: "whose civil rights matter more...children or people doing gay stuff"?

Unless of course you think that children aren't a part of the marriage conversation? Well? Do you?

 

[dcraelin]

On Civil rights perhaps things have changed in last 3 generations,....but as I point out the Courts are still standing up for powerful financial interests, a minority....to the detriment of our nation.

Gay marriage doesn't seem like something that 'powerful financial interests' are going to have much concern with. This isn't a Citizens United, after all.

It doesnt seem that way, and probably isnt, but the Prop 8 case outcome seems to have given precedent to denying standing to an entire state's voters. Before the case came to court powerful state interests WERE trying to cut back if not eliminate the states initiative and referendum procedures. Why DID the case go forward without approval of the leading gay organization?.....Olsen was paid something like 1.6 million for the case I think also.
And as I have pointed out in previous posts on this general subject.....The 14th amendment (never properly ratified) is where courts have taken the mistaken notion that Corporations are persons.

you think Kennedy will "ultimately "side with the gays"".....Most gay groups, or the leading gay group anyway did NOT want a lawsuit against Prop8 in California...as recent books on the movement have shown. It was a small group of activists and some law firms that went forward WITHOUT the blessings of the movement.

Prop 8 isn't being debated before the Supreme Court. Making what 'leading gay groups wanted against Prop 8 in California' pristinely irrelevant.

Well nothing is being debated now. But if something on gay marriage comes to the court then in a way the prop8 case will be before the court and will be relevant.

SOME of the founders insisted we already had them......at least they insisted when pressured as to why they didnt want them in the Constitution itself....

Very few argued against the idea of rights preceding the Bill of Rights. In fact the most common argument against the Bill of Rights was that codification would insinuate an exhaustive list. The 9th amendment was added to address this concern. And its a good thing it was added, as the Bill of Rights as an exhaustive list is argued to this day.
Hell, in this very thread with the 'show me gay marriage in the constitution' rhetoric.

I know that's what some said(codification would imply an exhaustive list)....but a major factor in spurring the Constitution was Shay's rebellion.....and I would argue that some founders probably wanted to disarm those folks...and were not really concerned about giving them the right to arms.

 

[Skylar]

Isn't the "show me the gay marriage" part of the constitutional debate on gay marriage that matters. It's the "show me where a limited set of people practicing certain repugnant BEHAVIORS [that aren't a religion] objectionable to the majority get to escape democratic regulation of those behaviors by trying to pass them off as "intrinsic or racial qualities"...when they are flatly not.

The majority doesn't have the right to deprive anyone of their fundamental rights without a very good reason. Marriage is a fundamental right. And that you find it 'repugnant' isn't a good reason.

You keep running into the same brick wall, again and again. Your feelings don't trump someone else's rights. You can't get around that.

The debate is "do some people who do certain things compulsively have rights to redefined the word "marriage" in such a way that is repugnant to the majority, without the majority having a say-so on the matter?"

Irrelevant. Their rights aren't dependant on whether or not you believe they do something compulsively. You need a good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

And you don't have one. Making your denial of rights arbitrary and without merit. Which is why so many courts have overruled so many gay marriage bans. There's just no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Part 2 of that debate is: "whose civil rights matter more...children or people doing gay stuff"?

Since no one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married, its irrelevant.

Unless of course you think that children aren't a part of the marriage conversation? Well? Do you?

Show me a single state that requires that a couple have children or has to have the ability to have children in order to get married. There is none. Nixing any plausible relevance.

Worse, you're contradicting yourself. Insisting that gays can't get married because they can't procreate. And then insisting that gays can't get married because its not good for their children.

Well, which is it? Those are mutually exclusive arguments. And both are invalid.

 

[Skylar]

Why DID the case go forward without approval of the leading gay organization?.....Olsen was paid something like 1.6 million for the case I think also.

Perhaps because 'leading gay organizations' don't define an individual's rights any more than leading anti-gay organizations do.

And as I have pointed out in previous posts on this general subject.....The 14th amendment (never properly ratified) is where courts have taken the mistaken notion that Corporations are persons.

The 14th amendment was never properly ratified according to who?

Well nothing is being debated now. But if something on gay marriage comes to the court then in a way the prop8 case will be before the court and will be relevant.

There are all sorts of cases on the constitutionality of gay marriage working their way through the courts. Prop 8 simply isn't one of them.

I know that's what some said(codification would imply an exhaustive list)....but a major factor in spurring the Constitution was Shay's rebellion.....and I would argue that some founders probably wanted to disarm those folks...and were not really concerned about giving them the right to arms.

I didn't see much supporting that in the debates in the constitutional convention.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Isn't the "show me the gay marriage" part of the constitutional debate on gay marriage that matters. It's the "show me where a limited set of people practicing certain repugnant BEHAVIORS [that aren't a religion] objectionable to the majority get to escape democratic regulation of those behaviors by trying to pass them off as "intrinsic or racial qualities"...when they are flatly not.

False as shown by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. While Lawrence was statutory law, Romer was an amendment to the Colorado Constitution Amendment that targeted homosexuals that was passed by general vote.

The amendment was found to be unconstitutional.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

DCraelin
Why DID the case go forward without approval of the leading gay organization?.....Olsen was paid something like 1.6 million for the case I think also.

???????????????????????---skylar didnt say this its just that I lost the damn quote in this great great editing system

No your right, the people of California or the nation as a whole should determine the "rights".
The couples that brought the case were hand picked by the lawyers according to books I referred to earlier. It seems the drivers in this case were not couples but the lawyers and their firms.

DCraelin--
And as I have pointed out in previous posts on this general subject.....The 14th amendment (never properly ratified) is where courts have taken the mistaken notion that Corporations are persons.

The 14th amendment was never properly ratified according to who?

Free, Sovereign, and Independent States: The Intended Meaning of the American Constitution Hardcover – May 4, 2009
by John Graham (Author), Laura Tesh (Foreword).....is one source
Charles Beard was one who saw part of the 14th written as a underhanded gift to the powerful corporations at the time....the railroads.

DCraelin-
Well nothing is being debated now. But if something on gay marriage comes to the court then in a way the prop8 case will be before the court and will be relevant.

There are all sorts of cases on the constitutionality of gay marriage working their way through the courts. Prop 8 simply isn't one of them.

I realize that...but I see the implications of it weighing on any future ruling the court may have on gay marriage. [/QUOTE]

DCraelin--
I know that's what some said(codification would imply an exhaustive list)....but a major factor in spurring the Constitution was Shay's rebellion.....and I would argue that some founders probably wanted to disarm those folks...and were not really concerned about giving them the right to arms.

I didn't see much supporting that in the debates in the constitutional convention.

The Convention was sworn to silence......only Madisons notes as I understand it go beyond official record ...they certainly wouldnt have wanted any talk of that getting out.

Damn quotes...gets confusing after a while...anyway....I think its relatively clear[/quote]

 

[Skylar]

No your right, the people of California or the nation as a whole should determine the "rights".
The couples that brought the case were hand picked by the lawyers according to books I referred to earlier. It seems the drivers in this case were not couples but the lawyers and their firms.

Kinda. The states can extend more rights than the federal government, and most do. But they can't extend less. The federally recognized rights stand as a baseline below which a given state may not tread.

Charles Beard was one who saw part of the 14th written as a underhanded gift to the powerful corporations at the time....the railroads.

Without the 14th amendment there would be no bill of rights limitations to the States. So I think there may be more to the 14th than a 'gift to the rail roads'.

I'm gonna have to go with the legal authorities on this one in recognizing that the 14th amendment is valid and ratified. As the constitution doesn't articulate how verification of the passage of an amendment is to be done. So the Secretary of State has acted in that role for hundreds of years. And that Secretary recognized that a sufficient number of states ratified the 14th amendment to pass it.

The Convention was sworn to silence......only Madisons notes as I understand it go beyond official record ...they certainly wouldnt have wanted any talk of that getting out.

Damn quotes...gets confusing after a while...anyway....I think its relatively clear

[/quote]

The notes are quite extensive. And they make no mention of what you do. And while I agree that if they wanted to deny the people fire arms because of Shay's rebellion, they'd probably want to keep that on the DL.....I don't see any evidence that they wanted to deny people fire arms because of Shay's rebellion.

 

[Silhouette]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

False, if someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they are heterosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered heterosexual.

If someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the same sex - they are homosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered homosexual.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Second false premise.

Behaviors are greatly protected rights. Religion is a behavior.

Concerning homosexuals, you are doubly incorrect as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas show.


>>>>

They are still behaviors no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig. And that crucial difference is key in this debate about LAW.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

False, if someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they are heterosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered heterosexual.

If someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the same sex - they are homosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered homosexual.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Second false premise.

Behaviors are greatly protected rights. Religion is a behavior.

Concerning homosexuals, you are doubly incorrect as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas show.


>>>>

They are still behaviors no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig. And that crucial difference is key in this debate about LAW.

The LAW protects homosexuals just like everyone else. They are included as "All Citizens" under the 14th Amendment.

See Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. You claim homosexuals are not protected by the LAW, those rulings prove you wrong.



>>>>

 

[Plasmaball]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

False, if someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they are heterosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered heterosexual.

If someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the same sex - they are homosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered homosexual.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Second false premise.

Behaviors are greatly protected rights. Religion is a behavior.

Concerning homosexuals, you are doubly incorrect as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas show.


>>>>

They are still behaviors no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig. And that crucial difference is key in this debate about LAW.

you can attempt to label it however you like. You are still wrong period.

 

[Skylar]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

False, if someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they are heterosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered heterosexual.

If someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the same sex - they are homosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered homosexual.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Second false premise.

Behaviors are greatly protected rights. Religion is a behavior.

Concerning homosexuals, you are doubly incorrect as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas show.


>>>>

They are still behaviors no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig. And that crucial difference is key in this debate about LAW.

The distinction you're drawing in the law simply doesn't exist. You've made it up, as you do most of your arguments. There's no requirement under the law that a gay person prove that their sexuality is innate rather than a choice. If you believe there is, by all means quote the law.

You'll find nothing, of course. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Worse for you, the USSC has already recognized gays and lesbians as a minority worthy of protection to such an extent that they overturned part of a State constitution to do it. You say that they aren't a protectable minority and their 'behavior' isn't a right.

The USSC contradictions you. Recognizing that yes they are a protectable minority. And recognizing no 'homosexual behavior isn't a right' babble that you've bleated for hours. Ending your argument twice. Remember, Silo....and this is quite important:

You don't know what you're talking about. You really don't.

 

[Silhouette]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

False, if someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they are heterosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered heterosexual.

If someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the same sex - they are homosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered homosexual.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Second false premise.

Behaviors are greatly protected rights. Religion is a behavior.

Concerning homosexuals, you are doubly incorrect as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas show.


>>>>

They are still behaviors no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig. And that crucial difference is key in this debate about LAW.

The LAW protects homosexuals just like everyone else. They are included as "All Citizens" under the 14th Amendment.

See Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. You claim homosexuals are not protected by the LAW, those rulings prove you wrong.



>>>>

The law protects blind people too. But it doesn't extend the privelege of driving to them. They don't qualify per the mandates of the majority. Their operating a motor vehicle is repugnant to the Will of the majority. And so they do not enjoy the same range of "rights" [priveleges actually] that other citizens do. You can feel sorry for them. But that still won't change the fact that they don't qualify for a driver's license.

And unlike people who do homosexuality, many blind people are actually "born that way" so their petition to be able to drive would carry more legal weight than LGBTers who petition to marry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your first false premise: "People ARE gay". The reality is that people DO gay.

False, if someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they are heterosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered heterosexual.

If someone has a sexual orientation to be attracted to someone of the same sex - they are homosexual. Someone does not have to "DO" sex to be considered homosexual.

Second false premise: "Behaviors have rights".

Second false premise.

Behaviors are greatly protected rights. Religion is a behavior.

Concerning homosexuals, you are doubly incorrect as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas show.


>>>>

They are still behaviors no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig. And that crucial difference is key in this debate about LAW.

The LAW protects homosexuals just like everyone else. They are included as "All Citizens" under the 14th Amendment.

See Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. You claim homosexuals are not protected by the LAW, those rulings prove you wrong.



>>>>

The law protects blind people too. But it doesn't extend the privelege of driving to them. They don't qualify per the mandates of the majority. Their operating a motor vehicle is repugnant to the Will of the majority. And so they do not enjoy the same range of "rights" [priveleges actually] that other citizens do. You can feel sorry for them. But that still won't change the fact that they don't qualify for a driver's license.

And unlike people who do homosexuality, many blind people are actually "born that way" so their petition to be able to drive would carry more legal weight than LGBTers who petition to marry.

Blind people cannot get a drivers license because a person unable to see presents a clear and present danger to other motor vehicle operators on public roads, therefore there is a compelling government interest in not having them operate a mutli-ton vehicle on public roads.

The fact remains that Constitutional protections are not removed from homosexuals (whether born that way or not) as they are still included in citizens of the United States: Romer v. Evans (14th Amendment), Lawrence v. Texas (14th Amendment) and Windsor v. United States (5th Amendment) prove you wrong.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Blind people cannot get a drivers license because a person unable to see presents a clear and present danger to other motor vehicle operators on public roads, therefore there is a compelling government interest in not having them operate a mutli-ton vehicle on public roads.

The fact remains that Constitutional protections are not removed from homosexuals (whether born that way or not) as they are still included in citizens of the United States: Romer v. Evans (14th Amendment), Lawrence v. Texas (14th Amendment) and Windsor v. United States (5th Amendment) prove you wrong.

Given that in Utah at least, the only people allowed to adopt are married people, allowing gays to marry would be an automatic "allowed to adopt". As you know any attempt to bar them from adopting after or if they access legal marriage would be met with a lawsuit and adoption agents would have their hands tied. Thereafter, children would be forced into homes where people like these below would be in charge of their wellbeing.

Gay marriage poses a clear and present danger to children:

 

[WorldWatcher]

Given that in Utah at least, the only people allowed to adopt are married people, allowing gays to marry would be an automatic "allowed to adopt".

Again, when it comes to the law you are incorrect.

FIrst, a homosexual is not barred from adoption in Utah. According to Utah law all single people are eligible to adopt and that includes homosexuals. Co-habitatting adults cannot adopt and that includes BOTH same-sex and different-sex couples.

Secondly, the placement with a Civilly Married couple (in the case of two-person adoption) is only a restriction placed on those children placed through a state agency. That does not limit private adoption.

Utah State Legislature


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Silhouette said: ↑

Given that in Utah at least, the only people allowed to adopt are married people, allowing gays to marry would be an automatic "allowed to adopt".

And?

Same-sex couples are perfectly capable of raising children, where such children are happy, healthy, and well-adjusted.

 

[Skylar]

he law protects blind people too. But it doesn't extend the privelege of driving to them. They don't qualify per the mandates of the majority. Their operating a motor vehicle is repugnant to the Will of the majority. And so they do not enjoy the same range of "rights" [priveleges actually] that other citizens do. You can feel sorry for them. But that still won't change the fact that they don't qualify for a driver's license.

Blind people can't meet a fundamental requirement of driving. There's no requirement of marriage that gay couples can't meet. Worse, a blind person driving is an immediate danger to the public. While a gay couple marrying really isn't. Depending on the couple there might be an immediate danger of dancing.