How Is It Legal????

[The Rabbi]

If you are going to cite the Constitution, at least trey to get it right. The 9th Amendment concerns rights and specifically says they need not be enumerated to be held by people. The 10th Amendment says nothing about rights, but about powers.


>>>>

Yup, including the power of the states to pass laws restricting those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. You know, on subjects like marriage recognition.

Well, worked well for recognition of interracial marriage.


>>>>

Yet another false appeal to the civil rights movement.
Can you guys come up with anything better?

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope. That would infringe on the other rights to property. Nor can you kill or rape others for any reason.

There are no property rights in the constitution. That's why there's eminent domain.
The only item that specifically is accorded a right is a firearm.

Oh, my freaking God. Are you kidding me?! No property rights in the Constitution?!

Article I - the Founding Fathers establish copyright and patent laws to protect intellectual property.

Article I - the Founding Fathers establish piracy laws, also to protect property.

Article IV - the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to honor property records from other states.

Article IV - the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens doing business and owning land in other states.

And I haven't even GOTTEN to the Amendments.

Amendment III - Protects citizens from being forced to quarter troops in their homes.

Amendment IV - Protects property from unreasonable search and seizure.

Amendment VIII - Protects against excessive fines.

And this is in a document designed to deal with the FEDERAL government, which was never envisioned by our Founders as having much to do with personal property at all.

That's mostly wrong and none of it applies to "property rights" as we tend to use the term.
I believe it was understood that property rights were so fundamental they didnt need to be spelled out. Lord Macauley has a speech where he opines that property rights are the bedrock of a free society.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yup, including the power of the states to pass laws restricting those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. You know, on subjects like marriage recognition.

Well, worked well for recognition of interracial marriage.


>>>>

Yet another false appeal to the civil rights movement.
Can you guys come up with anything better?

Race = Biological
Genger = Biological

Looks like a good comparision to me and why change a winning strategy.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I didnt ask that, dumbshit.
I asked where it said that.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize your google was broken. Allow me...

Proverbs:

Be not among drunkards or among agluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.

The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.

and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.

Deuteronomy

and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

This has been Bible 101...

I see no mention that gluttony is a sin. I see it is a bad character trait from the first quote. The second quote you have no idea wtf you are talking about. So we can skip that.
So I ask again, I can show where homosexual acts are sins. Can you show equally where gluttony is a sin?

Are you serious? Gluttony has been called one of the seven deadly sins, not homosexuality. Prove away.

 

[zeke]

I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

Horseshit. Will of the people? Yea right. The will of the people is that ultra rich people should pay a higher tax rate than currently.

How is that going?

The will of the people only counts if the "will" is inline with a politicians "wish".

 

[Seawytch]

Any gay couple can have whatever ceremony they want and be married. I know of no state that bans that. If someone can produce a law that bans gay marriage then do it.

You, too, seem to be confused about the difference between religious and civil marriage. I've already stated that gays already have equal access to religious marriage, it's the legal, civil marriage we are prevented equal access to.

In other words, you want other people to sanction and approve the relationships. Sorry, you don't have a right to that, nor is there any "discrimination" involved.

Approve, no, recognize, yes. Just like heterosexual couples get their relationships recognized when they legally marry. They are recognized when they go to visit their spouse in the hospital, don't have to testify against them in court, don't lose their worldly possessions when one of them dies, get tax breaks, and on and on. You can take your approval and shove up your ass. I really don't care. I do want the cash and prizes though. That IS discrimination.

According to the SCOTUS, marriage is a right. What reasonable person standard are you using to deny me that fundamental right? What societal harm is there in allowing me to legally marry the non-familial, consenting adult partner of my choice?

See, that is the obstacle you must overcome if you want to continue to deny me and my family this equality. So far, the anti-marriage equality folks have failed miserably.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays aren't a minority. Any more than people with 6 toes are a minority. Actually less.

People with 6 toes ARE a minority. And given that gay people exist, which they do, the only way they could NOT be a minority is if they were a majority, which they aren't.

Big difference between being a minority and being a protected minority. Near as I can tell, that difference consists of how much time and money you've spent kissing the asses of halfwitted libs and making them feel like they're good people instead of morons.

Oh, you mean like gun owners in MO? The MO House just voted to make them a protected minority on par with race, religion, national origin, etc.

 

[KevinWestern]

Really? It baffles you why the government feels the need to set boundaries on what it does and doesn't recognize and sanction? THAT baffles you? Then you should shut the **** up and take your flatliner, I-dont'-understand-how-the-world-works ass somewhere else, because this isn't a kindergarten and you're wasting everyone's ******* time, you halfwitted loser.

I made the point that it's a double standard for the GOP to make the general claim that they're 'small government', while at the same time work to build a huge authoritarian government based on what's "right" and what's "wrong" from a specifically Christian point of view. It baffles me why people who want government out of their lives would buy into this.

But instead of posting a sane adult response (of why you disagree with me and maybe giving a few examples), you instead go off on a weird, insane, angry psycho-babble nonsense spree, which included telling me to "shut the **** up" and calling me a "halfwitted loser". Keepin' it classy Cecilie!



I think you need to (1) calm down (this is an important one), take a breather, then (2) try again and actually incorporate your brain into your response. Trust me, do those two things and you'll sound like a 'grown up' in no time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, worked well for recognition of interracial marriage.


>>>>

Yet another false appeal to the civil rights movement.
Can you guys come up with anything better?

Race = Biological
Genger = Biological

Looks like a good comparision to me and why change a winning strategy.


>>>>

Thanks for supporting my point.
Female is a gender. No female is barred from marrying any male she wants, with some exceptions.
Male is a gender. No male is barred from marrying any female he wants, with some exceptions.
There is no gender discrimination. There is no discrimination at all.
You have made my point better than I could. Thank you.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize your google was broken. Allow me...

Proverbs:

Be not among drunkards or among agluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.

The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.

and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.

Deuteronomy

and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

This has been Bible 101...

I see no mention that gluttony is a sin. I see it is a bad character trait from the first quote. The second quote you have no idea wtf you are talking about. So we can skip that.
So I ask again, I can show where homosexual acts are sins. Can you show equally where gluttony is a sin?

Are you serious? Gluttony has been called one of the seven deadly sins, not homosexuality. Prove away.

I didnt ask what it had been called. I asked for proof. You've failed to provide it and now you are being dishonest. Again.

 

[Full-Auto]

I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

Horseshit. Will of the people? Yea right. The will of the people is that ultra rich people should pay a higher tax rate than currently.

How is that going?

The will of the people only counts if the "will" is inline with a politicians "wish".

Thus the reason for our republic to keep idiots like you from emotional mandates.

 

[The Rabbi]

People with 6 toes ARE a minority. And given that gay people exist, which they do, the only way they could NOT be a minority is if they were a majority, which they aren't.

Big difference between being a minority and being a protected minority. Near as I can tell, that difference consists of how much time and money you've spent kissing the asses of halfwitted libs and making them feel like they're good people instead of morons.

Oh, you mean like gun owners in MO? The MO House just voted to make them a protected minority on par with race, religion, national origin, etc.

They are hardly on a par. Is there a quota of gun owners abusiness must hire? Are gun owners eligible for special programs?
No. Another lie from you.

 

[konradv]

Yet another false appeal to the civil rights movement.
Can you guys come up with anything better?

Race = Biological
Genger = Biological

Looks like a good comparision to me and why change a winning strategy.


>>>>

Thanks for supporting my point.
Female is a gender. No female is barred from marrying any male she wants, with some exceptions.
Male is a gender. No male is barred from marrying any female he wants, with some exceptions.
There is no gender discrimination. There is no discrimination at all.
You have made my point better than I could. Thank you.

No one is supporting your point. You don't seem to have one beyond "you must see everything my way", when all we're saying is "mind your own business". Why aren't you getting that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet another false appeal to the civil rights movement.
Can you guys come up with anything better?

Race = Biological
Genger = Biological

Looks like a good comparision to me and why change a winning strategy.


>>>>

Thanks for supporting my point.
Female is a gender. No female is barred from marrying any male she wants, with some exceptions.
Male is a gender. No male is barred from marrying any female he wants, with some exceptions.
There is no gender discrimination. There is no discrimination at all.

The point you appear to be trying to make, badly, is that the discrimination must be evaluated based on the individual. That is not the case. Colored people were allowed to marry other people, with some exceptions. Using your logic the SCOTUS would have found no discrimination occurred because colored people were allowed to marry

That logic failed then also.

So, from the following list please identify the characteristic which differentiates legally being able to Civilly Marriage:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

An honest answer is not hard to do.

You have made my point better than I could. Thank you.

No, your arguments are repeats of those tried before and which failed then and they are failing now.

The trend is toward equal recognition of Same-sex Civil Marriages, a trend likely to continue as the younger generation which does not hold the same bias as ours become more politically influential.

In 2000 and 2004 votes denying equal treatment of Same-sex Civil Marriage passed with 23%-76% margins of victory. The last two votes (CA Prop 8 and MA Question 1) were down to the point where a 2-3% shift in the vote would have changed the outcome and polls show a continued trend toward more acceptance. As a matter of fact the first successful "win" at the polls for equal treatment of same-sex couples, in terms of Civil Marriage, may happen this year in either Washington or Maine.



>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

Sure, marriage is not a right defined by the federal Constitution. If you read the document, you'll see "marriage" is not an enumerated power. Therefore, it is left to the states to decide if any definition, regulation, or laws are needed with regard to marriage.

Personally, I don't see why any government, federal or local, needs to know your nature of your personal relationship.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

Sure, marriage is not a right defined by the federal Constitution. If you read the document, you'll see "marriage" is not an enumerated power. Therefore, it is left to the states to decide if any definition, regulation, or laws are needed with regard to marriage.

You changed "right" to "power" from the post to your response.

Right's need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist.

Personally, I don't see why any government, federal or local, needs to know your nature of your personal relationship.

Tell that to a widow who, because she was Civilly Married to a spouse, and is allowed the transfer of property fully to her name without an inheritance tax on the 50% value transfer even with joint ownership. Or that widow that gets to claim the Spousal Exception (married rate) for the sale of a home after the death of a spouse so as not to pay taxes on the capital gains in excess of $500,000 instead of the single rate of $250,000.

Here is another, a child born to a couple that is Civilly Married automatically establishes that both members of the Civil Marriage are the legal parents of the child with no further paperwork other than the Civil Marriage License. Without government recognition of the Civil Marriage status, every father in the country (and mother in states that allow same-sex Civil Marriage) would have to go through formal adoption procedures to be considered the legal parent of that child.

Would you like a few more examples of the intertwinings of the law and legal recognition of establishing a family relationship where one did not exist in the past? I believe at last count there were 1,138 federal laws where Civil Marriage was a factor in government recognizing a legal relationship. Then add probably hundreds more for each individual state.'


>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

Sure, marriage is not a right defined by the federal Constitution. If you read the document, you'll see "marriage" is not an enumerated power. Therefore, it is left to the states to decide if any definition, regulation, or laws are needed with regard to marriage.

You changed "right" to "power" from the post to your response.

Right's need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist.

You are correct that rights needs not be specifically listed for them to exist. That does not change the fact that there is no authority under the Constitution to define or regulate the idea of marriage. Similarly, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to deny someone taking a piss in the morning.

Personally, I don't see why any government, federal or local, needs to know your nature of your personal relationship.

Tell that to a widow who, because she was Civilly Married to a spouse, and is allowed the transfer of property fully to her name without an inheritance tax on the 50% value transfer even with joint ownership. Or that widow that gets to claim the Spousal Exception (married rate) for the sale of a home after the death of a spouse so as not to pay taxes on the capital gains in excess of $500,000 instead of the single rate of $250,000.

There should be no subsidies/tax loopholes based on marriage. Problem solved.

Here is another, a child born to a couple that is Civilly Married automatically establishes that both members of the Civil Marriage are the legal parents of the child with no further paperwork other than the Civil Marriage License. Without government recognition of the Civil Marriage status, every father in the country (and mother in states that allow same-sex Civil Marriage) would have to go through formal adoption procedures to be considered the legal parent of that child.

First, this is a state, not a federal issue. Secondly, replace a civil marriage license with a "We're the parents of this child" license. Problem solved.

I believe at last count there were 1,138 federal laws where Civil Marriage was a factor in government recognizing a legal relationship. Then add probably hundreds more for each individual state.'

Add those to the tens of thousands of laws that need to be repealed. Problem solved.

 

[The Rabbi]

Race = Biological
Genger = Biological

Looks like a good comparision to me and why change a winning strategy.


>>>>

Thanks for supporting my point.
Female is a gender. No female is barred from marrying any male she wants, with some exceptions.
Male is a gender. No male is barred from marrying any female he wants, with some exceptions.
There is no gender discrimination. There is no discrimination at all.
You have made my point better than I could. Thank you.

No one is supporting your point. You don't seem to have one beyond "you must see everything my way", when all we're saying is "mind your own business". Why aren't you getting that?

Actually you are not saying that. If it were simply a matter of that, I wouldn't care. Gays can get married anywhere in any state they want currently. No one is stopping them
What you are saying is, We want both official recognition and more importantly financial incentives that straight people get for being married.
And that you cannot have.

 

[The Rabbi]

Race = Biological
Genger = Biological

Looks like a good comparision to me and why change a winning strategy.


>>>>

Thanks for supporting my point.
Female is a gender. No female is barred from marrying any male she wants, with some exceptions.
Male is a gender. No male is barred from marrying any female he wants, with some exceptions.
There is no gender discrimination. There is no discrimination at all.

The point you appear to be trying to make, badly, is that the discrimination must be evaluated based on the individual. That is not the case. Colored people were allowed to marry other people, with some exceptions. Using your logic the SCOTUS would have found no discrimination occurred because colored people were allowed to marry

That logic failed then also.

So, from the following list please identify the characteristic which differentiates legally being able to Civilly Marriage:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

An honest answer is not hard to do.

[

An honest answer is that civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation.
Thanks for again proving there is no discrimination based on sexual preference.
Boy you guys are really failing badly here. Your arguments seem to come down to: 1) We will overcome as soon as enough unelected judges are pressured into seeing it our way, or 2) it is just like civil rights all over again.
Both are failures. The first because it is empowers a judicial tyranny, which is not what the country was founded on. Second, because gays are not blacks and the parallels are simply not there.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

Sure, marriage is not a right defined by the federal Constitution. If you read the document, you'll see "marriage" is not an enumerated power. Therefore, it is left to the states to decide if any definition, regulation, or laws are needed with regard to marriage.

You changed "right" to "power" from the post to your response.

Right's need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist.

True. Neither is power. Actually:

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.

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.