Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage equality is about marriage.

Only Sil is talking about behaviors being regulated at a local level.

 

[dcraelin]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasised part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's whey they banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasized part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's why they banned Civil Unions.

Please don't try to re-write history, some of us were around when gays were banned from the military, states were passing anti-gay relationship laws, and the Federal government passed DOMA so that even if a State passed SSCM the Federal government wouldn't recognize it equally.



>>>>

Well what your talking about is the backlash against court rulings.....but the underlying laws are still there

I am not rewriting history

No I'm not talking about the "backlash" against court rulings, I'm talking about the underlying laws that denied any legal recogniztion to same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions) not just Civil Marriage.

Here is the State Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia (the State where I live):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice the denial of any legal recognition even if it's not Civil Marriage but something similar? Saying that amendments like this only denied Civil Marriage but not Civil Unions is attempting to rewrite history.


>>>>

that IS one of the backlash laws

It was passed due to people fearing the courts would impose their will over the will of the people. I would say the same thing of DOMA.

Whether or not it outlawed civil unions is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Whether it outlawed Civl Unions is very relevant to what I responded to which was to imply the laws passed did not preclude Civil Unions only Civil Marriages and that it was only about the use of the word "marriage".

As the text of the law I posted showed, it wasn't about just the use of the word "marriage" it was about any legal recognition for same-sex couples.

>>>>

ok, that is the kind of backlash you get when the courts interfere where they don't belong..... I would be less opposed to the court striking down just that provision of that law then. But my overall position is that this doesnt belong in the courts

 

[dcraelin]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

you may have a point. I believe policing powers are left to the states. which would maybe be similar to saying what your saying. I do fear the consequences on the law of these cases....the prop 8 case has maybe already set a poor example in denying standing to millions of Californians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasised part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's whey they banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

Emphasized part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's why they banned Civil Unions.

Please don't try to re-write history, some of us were around when gays were banned from the military, states were passing anti-gay relationship laws, and the Federal government passed DOMA so that even if a State passed SSCM the Federal government wouldn't recognize it equally.



>>>>

Well what your talking about is the backlash against court rulings.....but the underlying laws are still there

I am not rewriting history

No I'm not talking about the "backlash" against court rulings, I'm talking about the underlying laws that denied any legal recogniztion to same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions) not just Civil Marriage.

Here is the State Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia (the State where I live):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice the denial of any legal recognition even if it's not Civil Marriage but something similar? Saying that amendments like this only denied Civil Marriage but not Civil Unions is attempting to rewrite history.


>>>>

that IS one of the backlash laws

It was passed due to people fearing the courts would impose their will over the will of the people. I would say the same thing of DOMA.

Whether or not it outlawed civil unions is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Whether it outlawed Civl Unions is very relevant to what I responded to which was to imply the laws passed did not preclude Civil Unions only Civil Marriages and that it was only about the use of the word "marriage".

As the text of the law I posted showed, it wasn't about just the use of the word "marriage" it was about any legal recognition for same-sex couples.

>>>>

ok, that is the kind of backlash you get when the courts interfere where they don't belong..... I would be less opposed to the court striking down just that provision of that law then. But my overall position is that this doesnt belong in the courts

This doesn't 'belong in the courts' to the extent that had the states in question simply obeyed the 14th Amendment, and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would have been no reason for gay Americans adversely effected to file suit in Federal court in to begin with.

The states in question have only themselves to blame, they alone are responsible for this issue 'being in the courts.'

 

[dcraelin]

Emphasised part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's whey they banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

Well what your talking about is the backlash against court rulings.....but the underlying laws are still there

I am not rewriting history

No I'm not talking about the "backlash" against court rulings, I'm talking about the underlying laws that denied any legal recogniztion to same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions) not just Civil Marriage.

Here is the State Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia (the State where I live):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice the denial of any legal recognition even if it's not Civil Marriage but something similar? Saying that amendments like this only denied Civil Marriage but not Civil Unions is attempting to rewrite history.


>>>>

that IS one of the backlash laws

It was passed due to people fearing the courts would impose their will over the will of the people. I would say the same thing of DOMA.

Whether or not it outlawed civil unions is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Whether it outlawed Civl Unions is very relevant to what I responded to which was to imply the laws passed did not preclude Civil Unions only Civil Marriages and that it was only about the use of the word "marriage".

As the text of the law I posted showed, it wasn't about just the use of the word "marriage" it was about any legal recognition for same-sex couples.

>>>>

ok, that is the kind of backlash you get when the courts interfere where they don't belong..... I would be less opposed to the court striking down just that provision of that law then. But my overall position is that this doesnt belong in the courts

This doesn't 'belong in the courts' to the extent that had the states in question simply obeyed the 14th Amendment, and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would have been no reason for gay Americans adversely effected to file suit in Federal court in to begin with.

The states in question have only themselves to blame, they alone are responsible for this issue 'being in the courts.'

wrong

 

[dcraelin]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron

The abuse of words Adams talks about could also be extended to the redefinition of the word marriage that some want the court to do.


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Montrovant]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

Actually, various behaviors have been given protections. Religious practices, sexual practices (not merely homosexuals, but actual actions which can be homo- or heterosexual), or how about the most basic protections afforded by the constitution? Free speech is about an action, speech. The second amendment is about protecting the right of individuals to own and carry firearms. Are these things not actions protected by the federal government and, in particular, the courts?

You continue to, as Skylar has pointed out repeatedly, create your own standards of law and precedence and expect both those of us reading and the courts to abide by those created standards. Neither the federal, state, nor local governments of this nation need follow whatever standards you have decided pertain to a given issue. This is particularly true when your made-up standards contradict those already in place.

 

[Montrovant]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron

The abuse of words Adams talks about could also be extended to the redefinition of the word marriage that some want the court to do.


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How is tyranny of the majority an oxymoron? I don't think the definition of tyranny requires a minority be in control. I suppose it depends on what definition you use; tyranny can be defined as control by a single ruler, but that is certainly not the only definition of the word.

 

[dcraelin]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron

The abuse of words Adams talks about could also be extended to the redefinition of the word marriage that some want the court to do.


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How is tyranny of the majority an oxymoron? I don't think the definition of tyranny requires a minority be in control. I suppose it depends on what definition you use; tyranny can be defined as control by a single ruler, but that is certainly not the only definition of the word.

Both Adams and Henry disagree with you. lex majoris parti was a saying at Our founding....meaning that law of the majority should rule. Madison said majority rule was the Republican principle. see my picture gallery for more, specifically the Jefferson picture...he would also disagree with you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Do you find that one of those things would be deciding fetish behaviors suddenly have rights and are no longer subject to local regulation as all other behaviors are? It seems that if I wanted the static status that race currently enjoys, being an inborn trait, I'd first have to prove that a sexual attraction of one woman to another woman who carries all the masculine traits of a man, (bulldyke) for example, was "an inborn trait, permanent and never waivered" in order to gain a static legal "class" distinction.

ie: there is nothing they can point to in order to create an entire class for "LGBT" that people could definitively hang their hat on as a fixed quality. How can we give class status to a behavior or limited group of them that we do not fully understand? There are many other fetish behaviors that can/will claim they are "inborn" and therefore legally as deserving as "LGBT" if the precedent is set without them meeting the burden of proof.

And if you don't believe the choices made by LGBT Americans aren't entitled to Constitutional protections, read Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[Skylar]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Tell that to Socrates. Its entire possible to have democratic tyranny. All tyranny is is the arbitrary and unrestrained excercise of power. If the majority have such power, unrestrained by any checks or rights of the individual, they can act for injustice and inhumanity against the minority.

Says who? Says John Adams, your source:

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...

John Adams

Adams recognized this as being demonstrated on 'every page of history'. And in our own nation's history we see it again. From slavery to Jim Crow laws to poll taxes to segregation to interracial marriage bans to the execution of gays to anti-semetic legislation to the Chinese Exclusion act, our own history is rampant with what is being described by Adams.

Any concentration of power will be abused unless checked. And giving any majority- no matter how slim- unrestrined power to do....anything, violate any right, take any freedom, abrogate any liberty, is tyrannical. The rights of the individuals were protected from government power. With the Amendment, the supreme act of authority of our constitutional system requiring 75% super majorities passed through disparate state legislatures. An act so insanely difficult that its been managed little more than a dozen times since the passage of the Bill of Rights.

The idea that the majority is incapable of acting tyrannically is the purest weapons grade bullshit. Of course they are. And history is rife with them doing exactly that.

We have no need of more of the same regarding gays.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Mayo Clinic's data on sexual abuse is sound. The CDC's information on the epidemic of gay men having been sexually abused as boys is sound. The mechanisms of classical conditioning explain your "switches getting thrown" theory...which is not innate by the way idadunno; it;s learned.

Two lesbians can never be a father to a child. Two gay men can never be a mother to a child. These are all physical hurdles that can't be climbed by your argument.

Also, in the lipstick lesbian example I gave, how little do we still know about this behavioral cult if they know so little about themselves. If a womans is attracted to all-things masculine in her partner, then she is heterosexual; or at the very least closeted heterosexual. With the incomplete umbrella of wavering sexual fetishes from year to year, how is it we can give them a static status in order to "grant them rights, priveleges etc".

The difference between behaviors and an innate static state like race or gender is the difference between night and day.

Wrong.

The protected liberty of choice is entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No I'm not talking about the "backlash" against court rulings, I'm talking about the underlying laws that denied any legal recogniztion to same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions) not just Civil Marriage.

Here is the State Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia (the State where I live):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice the denial of any legal recognition even if it's not Civil Marriage but something similar? Saying that amendments like this only denied Civil Marriage but not Civil Unions is attempting to rewrite history.


>>>>

that IS one of the backlash laws

It was passed due to people fearing the courts would impose their will over the will of the people. I would say the same thing of DOMA.

Whether or not it outlawed civil unions is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Whether it outlawed Civl Unions is very relevant to what I responded to which was to imply the laws passed did not preclude Civil Unions only Civil Marriages and that it was only about the use of the word "marriage".

As the text of the law I posted showed, it wasn't about just the use of the word "marriage" it was about any legal recognition for same-sex couples.

>>>>

ok, that is the kind of backlash you get when the courts interfere where they don't belong..... I would be less opposed to the court striking down just that provision of that law then. But my overall position is that this doesnt belong in the courts

This doesn't 'belong in the courts' to the extent that had the states in question simply obeyed the 14th Amendment, and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would have been no reason for gay Americans adversely effected to file suit in Federal court in to begin with.

The states in question have only themselves to blame, they alone are responsible for this issue 'being in the courts.'

wrong

Indeed, you are wrong. The states are responsible to federal courts when they violate constitutional protections. Those protections have been removed from the states in 1868, rightfully so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

" Its entire possible to have democratic tyranny."

What does anyone think but that Hamas' government is a majoritarian democratic tyranny. Such can, and will, happen without commitment and enforcement of minority rights.

 

[dcraelin]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Tell that to Socrates. Its entire possible to have democratic tyranny. All tyranny is the arbitrary and unrestrained excercise of power. If the majority have such power, unrestrained by any checks or rights of the individual, they can act for injustice and inhumanity against the minority.

Says who? Says John Adams, your source:

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...

John Adams

Adams recognized this as being demonstrated on 'every page of history'. And in our own nation's history we see it again. From slavery to Jim Crow laws to poll taxes to segregation to interracial marriage bans to the execution of gays to anti-semetic legislation to the Chinese Exclusion act, our own history is rampant with what is being described by Adams.

Any concentration of power will be abused unless checked. And giving any majority- no matter how slim- unrestrined power to do....anything, violate any right, take any freedom, abrogate any liberty, is tyrannical. The rights of the individuals were protected from government power. With the Amendment, the supreme act of authority of our constitutional system requiring 75% super majorities passed through disparate state legislatures. An act so insanely difficult that its been managed little more than a dozen times since the passage of the Bill of Rights.

The idea that the majority is incapable of acting tyrannically is the purest weapons grade bullshit. Of course they are. And history is rife with them doing exactly that.

We have no need of more of the same regarding gays.

Socrates is probably a made up person and example.........I think I have read that before

Adams does seem to have changed his mind later in life..........I have a a pic by Mercy Otis Warren who once knew him well, expressing shock at this change.....he was right in his earlier life.

I have never seen this extensive of quote from him on it tho...and question your quotes authenticity

even in this tho he does hedge a bit by saying ...."If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively," use of "nation collectively" would seem to be acknowledging the total majorities right to rule.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Democratic majoritarianism ended with the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Adams does seem to have changed his mind later in life..........I have a a pic by Mercy Otis Warren who once knew him well, expressing shock at this change.....he was right in his earlier life.

Adams correctly pointed out that the the injustice and inhumanity heaped upon the minority by the majority is on every page of history. And its certainly on ours. As every single one of the examples I cited demonstrates. It is entire possible for the majority to act tyrannically. And as Adams pointed out, pretty much inevitable unless checked. Madison made the same point using 'factions' as his vehicle in the federalist papers.

Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prevents the States from violating the rights of US citizens. Making the majority vote of the people of that State insufficient to violate federal protected constitutional guarantees. As the USSC has already found.

A lot.

So historically, logically, philosophically and legally.......the tyranny of the majority is not our system of government. As for the authenticity of the quote, I'll gladly show you links to its authenticity.

After you do the same for every one of your quotes. When the homework train comes to town, everybody rides!

 

[Skylar]

" Its entire possible to have democratic tyranny."

What does anyone think but that Hamas' government is a majoritarian democratic tyranny. Such can, and will, happen without commitment and enforcement of minority rights.

Of course it will. You'll notice that Dcraelin doesn't even touch the numerous examples of the majority doing exactly that. Instead denying that Socrates even existed or denying the validity of the quote.

Its the historic examples that prove Adams correct and demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that the majority can't act tyrannically. Not only can it, it already has.

A lot.

 

[dcraelin]

Adams does seem to have changed his mind later in life..........I have a a pic by Mercy Otis Warren who once knew him well, expressing shock at this change.....he was right in his earlier life.

Adams correctly pointed out that the the injustice and inhumanity heaped upon the minority by the majority is on every page of history. And its certainly on ours. As every single one of the examples I cited demonstrates. It is entire possible for the majority to act tyrannically. And as Adams pointed out, pretty much inevitable unless checked. Madison made the same point using 'factions' as his vehicle in the federalist papers.

Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prevents the States from violating the rights of US citizens. Making the majority vote of the people of that State insufficient to violate federal protected constitutional guarantees. As the USSC has already found.

A lot.

So historically, logically, philosophically and legally.......the tyranny of the majority is not our system of government. As for the authenticity of the quote, I'll gladly show you links to its authenticity.

After you do the same for every one of your quotes. When the homework train comes to town, everybody rides!

ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.

"Tyranny of the majority" is an idiots phrase

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.


jefferson on MtRushmore w quotes by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only an uneducated guy would think the tyranny of the majority is an oxymoron.

 

[Montrovant]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron

The abuse of words Adams talks about could also be extended to the redefinition of the word marriage that some want the court to do.


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How is tyranny of the majority an oxymoron? I don't think the definition of tyranny requires a minority be in control. I suppose it depends on what definition you use; tyranny can be defined as control by a single ruler, but that is certainly not the only definition of the word.

Both Adams and Henry disagree with you. lex majoris parti was a saying at Our founding....meaning that law of the majority should rule. Madison said majority rule was the Republican principle. see my picture gallery for more, specifically the Jefferson picture...he would also disagree with you.

You are not making your point that 'tyranny of the majority' is an oxymoron. One can believe in majority rule and still not think the terms are contradictory. I think you may be misconstruing my point.