GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[gekaap]

A federal law that defined marriage in all states and territories was ruled Constitutional, making the definition of marriage a federal issue, not a state one.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you actually know anything about the Reynolds case? It says nothing about the definition of marriage, or the federal government doing anything to define marriage. The case establishes that freedom of religion does not extend infinitely, and cannot be invoked as a defense for criminal conduct when there is a legitimate public interest served by the law prohibiting such conduct. For Reynolds, that meant that regardless of his religious beliefs he did not have a constitutionally protected right to have multiple wives when the government had a legitimate interest in outlawing polygamy.

At the time of the case Utah was a still only a territory and thus the federal government had legislative jurisdiction. Thus, the federal government acts in lieu of a non existent state government. The case does not define marriage for any purposes, beyond saying that marriage is a "civil contract."

Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.

[...]

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I never had a civil "RIGHT" to marry.

Show me where it says that marriage is a civil "RIGHT"?

You can't do it, just admit it.

Not one person up here has been able to produce written word that it is an absolute "RIGHT!"

So they turned you away when you went for a marriage license? Really?

LMAO!

Noooooooo, we filled out the application and went through the process. If marriage was a "RIGHT", there would be no process.

Christ, get a damn clue......Or produce the words that states that marriage is an absolute "RIGHT".

Loving v. Virginia
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Skinner v. Oklahoma
"But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man.

Zablocki v. Redhail
"In evaluating 245.10 (1), (4), (5) under the Equal Protection Clause, "we must first determine what burden of justification the classification created thereby must meet, by looking to the nature of the classification and the individual interests affected." Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required."

In re MARRIAGE CASES
"If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the
interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full
authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and
any similar institution, such as domestic partnership). In recognizing, however,
that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right..."

Varnum v. Brien
"This case, as with most other civil rights actions before it, implicates
these broad constitutional principles of governing."
<<SNIP>>
"The Iowa General Assembly has recognized the need to address
sexual-orientation-based discrimination by including sexual orientation as a
characteristic protected in the Iowa Civil Rights Act,"

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
"The history of constitutional law "is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557 (1996) (construing equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit categorical exclusion of women from public military institute). This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights."



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny thing about your fire in the theater example, even though it is often quoted as a reason to restrict free speech, it has never actually been codified. Regardless, content based speech is always, repeat always, unconstitutional. That makes your attempt to defend gekaap look as silly as he is for saying it in the first place.

Can you threaten the President? No, you cannot. Can the government restrict protest activity at a campaign rally to certain "free speech zones"? Yes, it can. Can you lie under oath? No, you cannot. Can you spread falsehoods about a person that tarnish their reputation knowing that what you're saying is false? No, you cannot.

Why is it you do not understand the difference between committing a criminal act and free speech? Why is it you do not understand that free speech zones are not based on content, or that they are usually not defined by the government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Making a contract is definately a civil right. Are the protections afforded under contract law restricted to a certain class?

How is making a contract a right? Can I force a person who does not want to do business with me to do so simply by throwing down a contract and claiming I have a right to make one?

As for the rest of your question, that is a separate issue, and they are only available to the parties of a contract. I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that makes them a separate class of people.

You don't have the right to expect another party to enter into a contract, true.

But the state cannot deny the protections afforded under the system of contract law. If I wanted to form a business with someone other than my exact socio-economic class or age or skin color or any other immutable condition, I have the right to do just that without restriction of the state. As long as I'm over 18 or 21, not a convicted felon and an American citizen, I have the right to ACCESS the protections of contract law.

Except if I'm all those things and also gay.

Then my right to access contract law is restricted.

Same sex marriage IS gay rights.

I'm not a gay man. I have no personal stake in this issue except as an American. The restrictions put upon sober, sane, taxpaying Americans all because of their sexual preference (which itself is not a crime) runs against what I believe this nation stands for: equal justice under the law.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I said government, not states.

States are part of the government, as are city, town, and county governments.

Federal law made bigamy illegal, even though Utah said it was legal.

Polygamy/Bigamy was never legal in any State.

1862 - The Morrill Act is passed and barred plural marriage in the Territories.

1890 - The Mormon Church renounced the practice.

1896 - Utah is admitted and becomes a State in the United States​

Original Constitution from the State of Utah submitted for Statehood

Article III
"No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

By order of the Convention, May 8th, 1895.​

Nope, polygamy/bigamy was never legal in the State of Utah.


>>>>

Believe it or not, I understand that states are governments. Since the point I was making concerned a federal law that overrode state laws I said the government because I was referring to the federal government.

As for your point about Utah, you should look back a little further in history, Utah was not always a state.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check the date on Reynolds v. United States and you will find the decision is from 1878. Polygamy was illegal in Utah (because of the Morrill Act outlawing Polygamy in the Territories. The case involved members of the LDS Church charged with bigamy as a crime and their appeal of that decision.

So since polygamy was illegal and the case challenged that law (and lost), I'm not sure why you would bring it up. Are you trying to say that polygamy was legal in Utah in 1878? It wasn't.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A federal law that defined marriage in all states and territories was ruled Constitutional, making the definition of marriage a federal issue, not a state one.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you actually know anything about the Reynolds case? It says nothing about the definition of marriage, or the federal government doing anything to define marriage. The case establishes that freedom of religion does not extend infinitely, and cannot be invoked as a defense for criminal conduct when there is a legitimate public interest served by the law prohibiting such conduct. For Reynolds, that meant that regardless of his religious beliefs he did not have a constitutionally protected right to have multiple wives when the government had a legitimate interest in outlawing polygamy.

At the time of the case Utah was a still only a territory and thus the federal government had legislative jurisdiction. Thus, the federal government acts in lieu of a non existent state government. The case does not define marriage for any purposes, beyond saying that marriage is a "civil contract."

Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.

[...]

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

Are you saying that when SCOTUS ruled that a law that said, in part, that:

Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years....

had absolutely nothing to with marriage?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

States are part of the government, as are city, town, and county governments.



Polygamy/Bigamy was never legal in any State.

1862 - The Morrill Act is passed and barred plural marriage in the Territories.

1890 - The Mormon Church renounced the practice.

1896 - Utah is admitted and becomes a State in the United States​

Original Constitution from the State of Utah submitted for Statehood

Article III
"No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

By order of the Convention, May 8th, 1895.​

Nope, polygamy/bigamy was never legal in the State of Utah.


>>>>

Believe it or not, I understand that states are governments. Since the point I was making concerned a federal law that overrode state laws I said the government because I was referring to the federal government.

As for your point about Utah, you should look back a little further in history, Utah was not always a state.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check the date on Reynolds v. United States and you will find the decision is from 1878. Polygamy was illegal in Utah (because of the Morrill Act outlawing Polygamy in the Territories. The case involved members of the LDS Church charged with bigamy as a crime and their appeal of that decision.

So since polygamy was illegal and the case challenged that law (and lost), I'm not sure why you would bring it. Are you trying to say that polygamy was legal in Utah in 1878? It wasn't.


>>>>

That does not change the fact that, before Utah became subject to US law polygamy was legal, does it?

 

[bodecea]

Believe it or not, I understand that states are governments. Since the point I was making concerned a federal law that overrode state laws I said the government because I was referring to the federal government.

As for your point about Utah, you should look back a little further in history, Utah was not always a state.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check the date on Reynolds v. United States and you will find the decision is from 1878. Polygamy was illegal in Utah (because of the Morrill Act outlawing Polygamy in the Territories. The case involved members of the LDS Church charged with bigamy as a crime and their appeal of that decision.

So since polygamy was illegal and the case challenged that law (and lost), I'm not sure why you would bring it. Are you trying to say that polygamy was legal in Utah in 1878? It wasn't.


>>>>

That does not change the fact that, before Utah became subject to US law polygamy was legal, does it?

No, the U.S considered it illegal and Mormons breaking the federal law.

 

[gekaap]

Why is it you do not understand the difference between committing a criminal act and free speech? Why is it you do not understand that free speech zones are not based on content, or that they are usually not defined by the government?

Why can you not understand that if it is a criminal act, then it is government intervention regarding your freedom of speech. That's the point. The simple fact that the government is involved does not mean that the issue is not a right. Heterosexual people enjoy the RIGHT to get married. That's a right that gay people do not have in most states. The fact that there are laws that limit that right does not make it any less a right, than your right to free speech, which is limited by certain laws that make things illegal (also limited by laws that do not make certain speech a crime but do establish civil liabilities, such as libel and slander laws).

 

[WorldWatcher]

Believe it or not, I understand that states are governments. Since the point I was making concerned a federal law that overrode state laws I said the government because I was referring to the federal government.

As for your point about Utah, you should look back a little further in history, Utah was not always a state.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check the date on Reynolds v. United States and you will find the decision is from 1878. Polygamy was illegal in Utah (because of the Morrill Act outlawing Polygamy in the Territories. The case involved members of the LDS Church charged with bigamy as a crime and their appeal of that decision.

So since polygamy was illegal and the case challenged that law (and lost), I'm not sure why you would bring it. Are you trying to say that polygamy was legal in Utah in 1878? It wasn't.


>>>>

That does not change the fact that, before Utah became subject to US law polygamy was legal, does it?

I'm not getting what you are saying here. In post #98 you said "Federal law made bigamy illegal, even though Utah said it was legal."

That has never been true.

1850 Utah becomes a Territory and polygamy is legal. However there was no federal law making polygamy illegal so that statement is false.

1862 the Morrill Act is passed. As a Territory Congress had ultimate authority over the laws of the Territory. Congress said polygamy was illegal, so polygamy was illegal in the Utah Territory. So that statement is false because it was illegal in the Utah Territory.

1896 - Utah Admitted to the Union and the Utah Constitution barred Polygamy. The Federal government outlawed polygamy but so did Utah, so again that statement was false.​

There never was a time where the federal government said polygamy was illegal and Utah (State or Territory) said it was legal.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Believe it or not, I understand that states are governments. Since the point I was making concerned a federal law that overrode state laws I said the government because I was referring to the federal government.

As for your point about Utah, you should look back a little further in history, Utah was not always a state.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check the date on Reynolds v. United States and you will find the decision is from 1878. Polygamy was illegal in Utah (because of the Morrill Act outlawing Polygamy in the Territories. The case involved members of the LDS Church charged with bigamy as a crime and their appeal of that decision.

So since polygamy was illegal and the case challenged that law (and lost), I'm not sure why you would bring it. Are you trying to say that polygamy was legal in Utah in 1878? It wasn't.


>>>>

That does not change the fact that, before Utah became subject to US law polygamy was legal, does it?

Correct polygamy was legal prior to 1862, however at the time Utah became subject to US Law (1950) there was no law barring polygamy in the Territories. So there was no conflict between federal and state law (Utah wasn't a State yet) nor federal and territorial law (as Congress sets the law for territories - when Congress passed the 1862 law polygamy was illegal in the territory hence the Reynolds case).

>>>>

 

[bodecea]

So they turned you away when you went for a marriage license? Really?

LMAO!

Noooooooo, we filled out the application and went through the process. If marriage was a "RIGHT", there would be no process.

Christ, get a damn clue......Or produce the words that states that marriage is an absolute "RIGHT".

Loving v. Virginia
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Skinner v. Oklahoma
"But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man.

Zablocki v. Redhail
"In evaluating 245.10 (1), (4), (5) under the Equal Protection Clause, "we must first determine what burden of justification the classification created thereby must meet, by looking to the nature of the classification and the individual interests affected." Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required."

In re MARRIAGE CASES
"If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the
interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full
authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and
any similar institution, such as domestic partnership). In recognizing, however,
that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right..."

Varnum v. Brien
"This case, as with most other civil rights actions before it, implicates
these broad constitutional principles of governing."
<<SNIP>>
"The Iowa General Assembly has recognized the need to address
sexual-orientation-based discrimination by including sexual orientation as a
characteristic protected in the Iowa Civil Rights Act,"

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
"The history of constitutional law "is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557 (1996) (construing equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit categorical exclusion of women from public military institute). This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights."



>>>>

Damn it! Spring the trap while he's not here!!!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is it you do not understand the difference between committing a criminal act and free speech? Why is it you do not understand that free speech zones are not based on content, or that they are usually not defined by the government?

Why can you not understand that if it is a criminal act, then it is government intervention regarding your freedom of speech. That's the point. The simple fact that the government is involved does not mean that the issue is not a right. Heterosexual people enjoy the RIGHT to get married. That's a right that gay people do not have in most states. The fact that there are laws that limit that right does not make it any less a right, than your right to free speech, which is limited by certain laws that make things illegal (also limited by laws that do not make certain speech a crime but do establish civil liabilities, such as libel and slander laws).

Because there is a difference between me swinging my arm and me breaking your nose with my fist. One is me exercising my rights,m the other is me infringing on yours. You can blather all you want, it does not change the simple fact that content based restrictions on speech are unconstitutional.

 

[gekaap]

Because there is a difference between me swinging my arm and me breaking your nose with my fist. One is me exercising my rights,m the other is me infringing on yours. You can blather all you want, it does not change the simple fact that content based restrictions on speech are unconstitutional.

And what do you call the illegality of threatening the President, if not a content based restriction?

Better yet, who cares? I'd really like you to get back to the origins of this side bar, which is the right to marriage. Why does the 10th amendment not apply regarding the right to marriage?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Check the date on Reynolds v. United States and you will find the decision is from 1878. Polygamy was illegal in Utah (because of the Morrill Act outlawing Polygamy in the Territories. The case involved members of the LDS Church charged with bigamy as a crime and their appeal of that decision.

So since polygamy was illegal and the case challenged that law (and lost), I'm not sure why you would bring it. Are you trying to say that polygamy was legal in Utah in 1878? It wasn't.


>>>>

That does not change the fact that, before Utah became subject to US law polygamy was legal, does it?

I'm not getting what you are saying here. In post #98 you said "Federal law made bigamy illegal, even though Utah said it was legal."

That has never been true.

1850 Utah becomes a Territory and polygamy is legal. However there was no federal law making polygamy illegal so that statement is false.

1862 the Morrill Act is passed. As a Territory Congress had ultimate authority over the laws of the Territory. Congress said polygamy was illegal, so polygamy was illegal in the Utah Territory. So that statement is false because it was illegal in the Utah Territory.

1896 - Utah Admitted to the Union and the Utah Constitution barred Polygamy. The Federal government outlawed polygamy but so did Utah, so again that statement was false.​

There never was a time where the federal government said polygamy was illegal and Utah (State or Territory) said it was legal.


>>>>

History can be very boring if you just look at dates.

When Utah applied to be a territory bigamy was not only legal, it was actively encouraged by the LDS church. A bunch of do gooders back east objected to the practice, so they passed a law that made it illegal. This made it necessary for Mormons to plan a strategy to challenge the law. The only way they could do this was if they joined the US, and refused to enforce the federal law. This eventually led to the Supreme Court decision I cited.

 

[gekaap]

When Utah applied to be a territory bigamy was not only legal, it was actively encouraged by the LDS church. A bunch of do gooders back east objected to the practice, so they passed a law that made it illegal. This made it necessary for Mormons to plan a strategy to challenge the law. The only way they could do this was if they joined the US, and refused to enforce the federal law. This eventually led to the Supreme Court decision I cited.

What? This isn't true. The Reynolds case is from nearly 20 years before Utah became a state. None of that makes any sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When Utah applied to be a territory bigamy was not only legal, it was actively encouraged by the LDS church. A bunch of do gooders back east objected to the practice, so they passed a law that made it illegal. This made it necessary for Mormons to plan a strategy to challenge the law. The only way they could do this was if they joined the US, and refused to enforce the federal law. This eventually led to the Supreme Court decision I cited.

What? This isn't true. The Reynolds case is from nearly 20 years before Utah became a state. None of that makes any sense.

Did you know that I am the one that first mentioned that it happened before Utah became a state?

 

[gekaap]

Did you know that I am the one that first mentioned that it happened before Utah became a state?

And then you turn around and say that they became a state so that they could challenge the law passed by Congress and that this case was the result of that. That's why I said you're not making any sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you know that I am the one that first mentioned that it happened before Utah became a state?

And then you turn around and say that they became a state so that they could challenge the law passed by Congress and that this case was the result of that. That's why I said you're not making any sense.

No I did not, I said they applied to become a territory and were saddled with the law.

 

[gekaap]

No I did not, I said they applied to become a territory and were saddled with the law.

Go back and re-read what you said. Whatever you were trying to say, it was not worded/structured very well.