How Is It Legal????

[WorldWatcher]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

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.


>>>>

 

[Malakai]

Also, since some have commented on my statement about people using their religion to decide their vote, I'll explain.

For the most part, I have not heard people argue against gay marriage with much other than their religion as their reason for opposing it, and homosexuality in general. So, if that's their reason for opposing it, they really shouldn't be voting on laws and rights. Now, I realize that there is no way to enforce that, and certainly people are entitled to their opinions, it just strikes me as very wrong.

Again, thanks to Dragon for simply giving a straight answer.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

The constitution mainly deals with the Federal government. State governments are dealt with via their individual state constitutions, and their own laws. Referendums, generally, are enacted measures in law that allow an act of the legislature to be brought before the people of the state before the law would take effect. It maintains accountability to the people, and helps prevent the state government from becoming too overbearing. No system of government is perfect, but referendums are an important tool to help keep civil power being inherently vested in the people, and preserve the condition of government at the will of the governed.

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 first amendment does not in any way impede a voter from voting on a referendum, or candidate for office, based on religious influence or motivation. It deals with limitations upon government to infringe upon people's right to follow whatever religion the choose, don't choose, or feel so compelled to do.

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.

The courts have ruled that marriage is a right. However, what you fail to understand is that rights are not absolute. The government has the authority infringe upon any right you may possess. The question is how much limitation is placed on them to infringe upon that right. Due process is essentially the affirmation of the rule of law in the workings of the government. It doesn't really make much sense to say that people voting in a referendum constitutes a due process violation. And to say that anyone is being denied their day in court is completely false. Any person who feels that their rights are being violated by state laws prohibiting gay marriage is free to bring a lawsuit to challenge that law. In Iowa, such a lawsuit was successful, and resulted in homosexuals being deemed a protected class for discrimination purposes, and the state prohibition against gay marriage being struck down.

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

Listen, I want you to understand that I fully support gay marriage. It's been recently been made legal in my state, and I'm very happy for that. If it goes to a referendum (I'm inclined to think that won't happen at this point) then I will be there at the polls to vote in favor of the law. But your entire approach to rallying against such prohibitions is entirely flawed.

 

[Dragon]

Can we for once have a discussion of gay marriage without dragging the canard of civil rights into this? Can the proponents be honest enough to admit that whatever the merits of their case, hitching it to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is dishonest?

No, because it's not. Both struggles were cases of a minority being subject to second-class status, discrimination, and improperly unequal treatment. There really is no significant difference at all.

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.

 

[Malakai]

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.

The constitution mainly deals with the Federal government. State governments are dealt with via their individual state constitutions, and their own laws. Referendums, generally, are enacted measures in law that allow an act of the legislature to be brought before the people of the state before the law would take effect. It maintains accountability to the people, and helps prevent the state government from becoming too overbearing. No system of government is perfect, but referendums are an important tool to help keep civil power being inherently vested in the people, and preserve the condition of government at the will of the governed.

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 first amendment does not in any way impede a voter from voting on a referendum, or candidate for office, based on religious influence or motivation. It deals with limitations upon government to infringe upon people's right to follow whatever religion the choose, don't choose, or feel so compelled to do.

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.

The courts have ruled that marriage is a right. However, what you fail to understand is that rights are not absolute. The government has the authority infringe upon any right you may possess. The question is how much limitation is placed on them to infringe upon that right. Due process is essentially the affirmation of the rule of law in the workings of the government. It doesn't really make much sense to say that people voting in a referendum constitutes a due process violation. And to say that anyone is being denied their day in court is completely false. Any person who feels that their rights are being violated by state laws prohibiting gay marriage is free to bring a lawsuit to challenge that law. In Iowa, such a lawsuit was successful, and resulted in homosexuals being deemed a protected class for discrimination purposes, and the state prohibition against gay marriage being struck down.

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

Listen, I want you to understand that I fully support gay marriage. It's been recently been made legal in my state, and I'm very happy for that. If it goes to a referendum (I'm inclined to think that won't happen at this point) then I will be there at the polls to vote in favor of the law. But your entire approach to rallying against such prohibitions is entirely flawed.

Thanks for explaining everything. I can see how my arguments are flawed. I take it you live in Maryland, which is where I grew up. However, I now live just across the state line in PA and can do nothing in regards to what Maryland may put to a vote.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

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

 

[dblack]

Actually, let's get something clear here: "Gays want people to accept them" IS true, and that is why civil unions, even if they provided all the legal benefits of marriage (which they don't -- in fact, marriage at present doesn't provide all the benefits of marriage for same-sex couples), would not be sufficient.

I suspect you're just trying to provoke righties here, but this really isn't the point. Most of the gays I know don't want to use gay marriage as a wedge for social engineering - they actually want the equal legal rights. In fact, they want to avoid the connection you're trying to make, because they recognize the futility of using legislation to pursue such goals. You can't pass a law to make people like you.

The reasons civil unions aren't considered sufficient (by some), even if they grant the same legal benefits, is that a large portion of our secondary, private business practices piggyback on the state's definition of marriage - insurance being one of the most prominent. But even if gay marriage were the law of land, those very same institutions could change their policies if they wished (ie insurance companies could choose to only recognize married partners of the opposite sex).

I'm sure there are activists with the goals you're claiming, that want to use gay marriage as a wedge issue to 'transform' social acceptance of gays. But they're barking up the wrong tree, and asking for even more intrusive, oppressive government. They'll stir more resistance than acceptance if that's their game.

 

[dblack]

Ah, there's the answer I was looking for. Thank you for explaining it and not derailing the thread into a debate.

Heh... you seriously consider turning a thread into a 'debate' a derailment? On a political board??

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

How did that work out for Black (or African-Americans) again?

Agreed. If it was a pure democracy and everything was voted on blacks would probably still be disenfranchised and segregated in the army.

But over time ignorance and hate (which is all this is) is usually overcome and it is found out that the "liberal" ideas were right to begin with.

That's what we're seeing happening with the (non-) issue of "gay marriage". Problem is, R's believe they have the right to decide who is equal under the law and who is not and the two things they love the most are meddling peeping in bedroom windows. They also believe in their own version of sharia law - laws based on religion.

If we're not careful, the R's will pass a whole hell of a lot of laws to take away personal freedoms, especially anything associated with ... SEX.

 

[g5000]

There is no right to same sex marriage.

There is a right to equal protection under the law. And that is the right being violated.

If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

The "will of the people" in Maryland was to ban handguns unless you could prove your life was in danger.

Last week, the Supreme Court was wise enough to point out the people of Maryland cannot violate the RIGHTS of the people, and overturned the "will of the people" handgun ban.

I did not hear you screaming about "the will of the people" then. Or the 10th amendment. Or activist judges. Or liberals.


People like you are very selective when it comes to protecting Constitutional rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Lemme help you out, Punkin. For something to "trample the Constitution", it would first have to APPEAR in the Constitution. Marriage doesn't. At all. The fact that you and others can prattle on witlessly about how something is a "right" doesn't make it one, and CERTAINLY doesn't make it a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.

And by the way, while you're busy being "shocked and horrified" at the very idea that people might VOTE on which "rights" we do and don't recognize because you somehow believe the Constitution precludes such things, you might want to consider that the Constitution itself, and the REAL rights it enshrines and protects, was voted into existence. We have a long history of voting to decide what is and isn't a protected right, and no history whatsoever of sanctimonious dipshits simply declaring their existence whether others agree or not.

That explain it to you, or are you just going to come back with more juvenile babble about how it's "not fair" and "mean" and "shouldn't be that way"?

 

[g5000]

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?

Lemme help you out, Punkin. For something to "trample the Constitution", it would first have to APPEAR in the Constitution. Marriage doesn't. At all. The fact that you and others can prattle on witlessly about how something is a "right" doesn't make it one, and CERTAINLY doesn't make it a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.

And by the way, while you're busy being "shocked and horrified" at the very idea that people might VOTE on which "rights" we do and don't recognize because you somehow believe the Constitution precludes such things, you might want to consider that the Constitution itself, and the REAL rights it enshrines and protects, was voted into existence. We have a long history of voting to decide what is and isn't a protected right, and no history whatsoever of sanctimonious dipshits simply declaring their existence whether others agree or not.

That explain it to you, or are you just going to come back with more juvenile babble about how it's "not fair" and "mean" and "shouldn't be that way"?

Let me help you out, sweet'ums. State and federal laws provide a great many cash and prizes to married people. Our country has a history that if two people are in a particular hated group, they are excluded from equal protection of those state and federal laws for no other reason than that they are hated by bigots. This exclusion is a violation of the 14th amendment.

People like you used to say marriage was between people of the same color, and forbade people of opposite colors to marry for no other reason than hatred.

Now you are discriminating based on gender. You are saying they must be opposite sexes to get married and cannot be the same sex.

I'm sure your kind were once demanding "liberals" show them where black-white marriages could be find in the Constitution, snickering amongst themselves thinking they were being all clever like, but what they were really doing was exposing their ignorance of the document of which they claimed to be knowledgeable.

 

[KevinWestern]

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

Gays are a minority, I think about 3% of the population (maybe? not sure on the number).

 

[kwc57]

Youre presuming a right exists to begin with.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - some American long ago

And yet we still have laws that prohibit people from certain activities. Go figure!

 

[KevinWestern]

And yet we still have laws that prohibit people from certain activities. Go figure!

The thing that completely and utterly baffles my mind is: why is it the main party that professes "Small Government" the same party that wants to use government to tell two consenting adults that they can't get married, because a certain form of bedroom activity is immoral and incorrect. Using the government to define what is proper and improper bedroom activity when it comes to the realm of sex between two consenting adults is highly intrusive, HUGE government, as in the government's so big it's in my bedroom.

As a proponent of small government, wouldn't you want the individual to have the freedom to decide whether or not they should be allowed to spend their life with another consenting adult, instead of having to use the government to nanny-sit you and make sure you're living a "good Christian life"?

It just completely baffles me.

 

[Seawytch]

Can we for once have a discussion of gay marriage without dragging the canard of civil rights into this? Can the proponents be honest enough to admit that whatever the merits of their case, hitching it to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is dishonest?

No, because it's not. Both struggles were cases of a minority being subject to second-class status, discrimination, and improperly unequal treatment. There really is no significant difference at all.

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

They are a minority and if you tried to keep six toed people from marrying, we would be having the same discussion.

 

[FuelRod]

No, because it's not. Both struggles were cases of a minority being subject to second-class status, discrimination, and improperly unequal treatment. There really is no significant difference at all.

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

They are a minority and if you tried to keep six toed people from marrying, we would be having the same discussion.

Six toed people can marry all they want. They just shouldn't have children.

 

[Dante]

Doesn't it just piss you off to know that, somewhere out there, despite how obviously correct your morals are, there's someone -still- allowed to do shit that you disapprove of? GRRRR!

Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time. - H.L. Mencken

 

[Dante]

Youre presuming a right exists to begin with.

"Man is born free and he is everywhere in chains" because of people like you.

All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken

 

[Dante]

Can we for once have a discussion of gay marriage without dragging the canard of civil rights into this? Can the proponents be honest enough to admit that whatever the merits of their case, hitching it to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is dishonest?

considering the courts have ruled on the issue being a civil rights issue, you really need to take your hate out of your mouth and put it back in your arse where your faith demands it be. that way you can stay uncomfortable in your smug attitudes about the lives of others.