Legal Recognition of Same Sex Marriage Slippery Slope Fallacy

[Pop23]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

Because of the potential harm to potential offspring, there is empirical evidence and logical reasoning for an argument against opposite gender siblings marrying (or even having intercourse). Because same sex marriage is an equality under the law issue, then same sex gender sibling marrying would still be illegal.

You assume the opposite sex siblings are fertile. Fertile or not, still prohibited.

I see, separate but equal? Got it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

Because of the potential harm to potential offspring, there is empirical evidence and logical reasoning for an argument against opposite gender siblings marrying (or even having intercourse). Because same sex marriage is an equality under the law issue, then same sex gender sibling marrying would still be illegal.

That is a reason. However, there is equal and often greater potential harm to offspring from parents who carry genetic disorders such a cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. Yet I see no clamor to prevent the carriers of these genes from marrying. So either we should allow both or ban both - unless that is really not the reason.

 

[PratchettFan]

but if equal protection holds unlimited sway, then by that logic denying someone the "right" to marry just because they are siblings (or 1st cousins in some states) is unconsitutional.

Equal Protection doesn't hold unlimited sway.

Equal protection means that laws in general have to have a rational basis and equal application to all - if that case applies then the law is Constitutional.

However if the law targets a specific group for invidious or capricious reasons, the the rational basis test is not longer the standard - it then moves to strict scrutiny of the law and the government must show a compelling government interest to justify treating the targeted group differently. When it comes to gender based issued, the courts have used what is called "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" which falls somewhere between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny".


So, Equal Protection does not hold "unlimited sway" but the government is required to demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify not conforming to that standard.


>>>>

Ask most same sex marriage supporters, and you would not get the well reasoned response you provided. They would just spout "equal protection" and not understand the meaning of it.

Where we disagree is how the burden is placed on a given law, respecting the fact that said law was passed by the will of the people, and not say, by some executive fiat. To me there is no compelling reason consitutionally EITHER way on the issue of same sex marriage, the consitution does not ban it, nor does it grant it as a right. Therefore it reverts to the legislature to determine the nature of the government recognized legal contract, not the courts to impose thier will upon the rest of us.

I would tend to agree that courts are probably not the best venue for this issue, at this time. Eventually, it will be. The courts do not exist in a social vacuum.

I do understand equal protection and it is obvious to me that it is not being applied equally. However, the law also does not exist in a vacuum. Laws which reach beyond the willingness of the society are simply not viable. Which is why we are seeing those laws change now but did not see them change a couple of decades ago. We will eventually reach the point where the states which prohibit SSM will be in the minority and that is when I expect we will see a final move by the courts to complete the process. Just as happened with interracial marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

but if equal protection holds unlimited sway, then by that logic denying someone the "right" to marry just because they are siblings (or 1st cousins in some states) is unconsitutional.

Equal Protection doesn't hold unlimited sway.

Equal protection means that laws in general have to have a rational basis and equal application to all - if that case applies then the law is Constitutional.

However if the law targets a specific group for invidious or capricious reasons, the the rational basis test is not longer the standard - it then moves to strict scrutiny of the law and the government must show a compelling government interest to justify treating the targeted group differently. When it comes to gender based issued, the courts have used what is called "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" which falls somewhere between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny".


So, Equal Protection does not hold "unlimited sway" but the government is required to demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify not conforming to that standard.


>>>>

Ask most same sex marriage supporters, and you would not get the well reasoned response you provided. They would just spout "equal protection" and not understand the meaning of it.

Where we disagree is how the burden is placed on a given law, respecting the fact that said law was passed by the will of the people, and not say, by some executive fiat. To me there is no compelling reason consitutionally EITHER way on the issue of same sex marriage, the consitution does not ban it, nor does it grant it as a right. Therefore it reverts to the legislature to determine the nature of the government recognized legal contract, not the courts to impose thier will upon the rest of us.

I've never claimed that "marriage" is mentioned in the Constitution.

However the Constitution is not a list of rights granted to the people, and the 9th Amendment specifically points out that not all rights held by the people must be enumerated in that document for a right to exist.

However, the 14th Amendment clearly points out that States are barred from infringing on the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, cannot deny them due process, and cannot deny them the equal protection of the laws. As long as the laws passed by a State legislature conform to those requirements, then the legislature is functioning within it's Constitutional limitations. In general the courts are loath to overturn the laws of the legislature unless there is a clear and compelling reason for doing so. The result is that no single Judge even makes that decision as there is an appeals process which acts as a safe-guard against an individual rogue Judge functioning outside his/her capacity.

And just so ya know, I would stand 100% against a court forcing you to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex, therefore imposing Same-sex Marriage upon you.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Equal Protection doesn't hold unlimited sway.

Equal protection means that laws in general have to have a rational basis and equal application to all - if that case applies then the law is Constitutional.

However if the law targets a specific group for invidious or capricious reasons, the the rational basis test is not longer the standard - it then moves to strict scrutiny of the law and the government must show a compelling government interest to justify treating the targeted group differently. When it comes to gender based issued, the courts have used what is called "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" which falls somewhere between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny".


So, Equal Protection does not hold "unlimited sway" but the government is required to demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify not conforming to that standard.


>>>>

Ask most same sex marriage supporters, and you would not get the well reasoned response you provided. They would just spout "equal protection" and not understand the meaning of it.

Where we disagree is how the burden is placed on a given law, respecting the fact that said law was passed by the will of the people, and not say, by some executive fiat. To me there is no compelling reason consitutionally EITHER way on the issue of same sex marriage, the consitution does not ban it, nor does it grant it as a right. Therefore it reverts to the legislature to determine the nature of the government recognized legal contract, not the courts to impose thier will upon the rest of us.

I've never claimed that "marriage" is mentioned in the Constitution.

However the Constitution is not a list of rights granted to the people, and the 9th Amendment specifically points out that not all rights held by the people must be enumerated in that document for a right to exist.

However, the 14th Amendment clearly points out that States are barred from infringing on the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, cannot deny them due process, and cannot deny them the equal protection of the laws. As long as the laws passed by a State legislature conform to those requirements, then the legislature is functioning within it's Constitutional limitations. In general the courts are loath to overturn the laws of the legislature unless there is a clear and compelling reason for doing so. The result is that no single Judge even makes that decision as there is an appeals process which acts as a safe-guard against an individual rogue Judge functioning outside his/her capacity.

And just so ya know, I would stand 100% against a court forcing you to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex, therefore imposing Same-sex Marriage upon you.


>>>>

While the 9th does indeed not limit your rights to those listed in the consitution via amendment, it does not provide a mechanism for enshrining those rights in the constitution, and thus protecting them from the will of the people below the level of passing an amendment.

As a strict constructionist, if a right is not listed in the constitution, it is not a consitutionally protected right, and is thus up to the whims of the legislative process. It MAY become a consitutional right, if created via amendment.

And in a perfect world, the courts would be loathe to overturn the whims of the legislature. What you ignore is judical activism, where you get judges who see themselves more as legislators, and less as arbiters.

To me this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. It is about the perogative of the state legislatures to determine how they see ANY contract, as long as said ruling stricitly follows the flow down rights grated by the amendments, and imposed on the states by the 14th and 15 amdendment specifically, and strictly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would tend to agree that courts are probably not the best venue for this issue, at this time. Eventually, it will be. The courts do not exist in a social vacuum.

I do understand equal protection and it is obvious to me that it is not being applied equally. However, the law also does not exist in a vacuum. Laws which reach beyond the willingness of the society are simply not viable. Which is why we are seeing those laws change now but did not see them change a couple of decades ago. We will eventually reach the point where the states which prohibit SSM will be in the minority and that is when I expect we will see a final move by the courts to complete the process. Just as happened with interracial marriage.

I've said for a number of years now that the Prop 8 challenge, IMHO, was a tactical mistake in it's attempt to reach a strategic goal. Take for example Prop 8 (California, 2008) and Question 1 (Maine, 2009). In both cases Same-sex Civil Marriage lost at the polls, but the reaction and plan to repeal took two separate courses. Many at the time cautioned the pro-marriage equality supporters that the demonstrations and reactions to Prop 8 in the weeks following it's passage would have a negative impact. There was a split in the supporters on how to proceed - some felt that the court challenge was the way to go, other cautioned against that and instead recommended working toward a repeal.

The Prop 8 challenge in the courts was a roll of the dice and it was known ahead of time that ultimately and legal challenge was going to take years, which has been true. Prop 8 was passed in November 2008 and it is now before the SCOTUS and it's 2013. But even then, a ruling for Prop 8 at the SCOTUS level, would have devastating impact for the marriage equality movement for years and years, at least a generation. As the application of upholding Prop 8 by the SCOTUS would mean they would justify all States that had barred equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples. On the other side of the coin, even if Prop 8 were overturned, there would be negative reaction from the public (in a lot of circles) with the cry of "activist judges". Many though counseled to refrain from taking the court challenge route and look to the future and to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box in 2010 or 2012. Their voice was drowned out in the demonstrations and in the court challenge.

Now take Question 1 in Maine, passed in 2009. Both it and Prop 8 passed by very narrow margins. The marriage equality supporters though didn't hold large protests (not that there are enough people in Maine to hold one anyway razz. But what they did was accept the will of the people with honor, not "accept" as agree, but accept as in the process functioned correctly. What they did do then is start a grassroots campaign of conversations throughout the State to change the minds of those that were willing to listen so that they understood the impact of their vote. As a result, 3 years later the repeal of Question 1 was again on the ballot and marriage equality is now a reality in Maine.

I use the term "political capital" to describe the degree of positive impact. The political capital of repealing Prop 8 in the same way that Question 1 was repealed would have been politically HUGE in terms of overall perception. California has the largest state population of any state, passage of Same-sex Civil Marriage there at the ballot box would have expanded it in one fell swoop to over 10% of the population of the United States. Doing it by initiative would have had a long lasting positive impact. Doing it through the courts will only increase resentment by those who oppose marriage equality with more cries of "activist judges".

Not saying there wouldn't have been a point in the future when a court challenge might not have been more productive, I just don't see it as producing the desired results. Remember the first anti-miscegenation law was overturned by the CA Supreme Court in (IIRC) 1948, but it wasn't until 19 years later that the SCOTUS finally drove the last nail, but only after the number of states with anti-miscegenation had dropped to around 16.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ask most same sex marriage supporters, and you would not get the well reasoned response you provided. They would just spout "equal protection" and not understand the meaning of it.

Where we disagree is how the burden is placed on a given law, respecting the fact that said law was passed by the will of the people, and not say, by some executive fiat. To me there is no compelling reason consitutionally EITHER way on the issue of same sex marriage, the consitution does not ban it, nor does it grant it as a right. Therefore it reverts to the legislature to determine the nature of the government recognized legal contract, not the courts to impose thier will upon the rest of us.

I've never claimed that "marriage" is mentioned in the Constitution.

However the Constitution is not a list of rights granted to the people, and the 9th Amendment specifically points out that not all rights held by the people must be enumerated in that document for a right to exist.

However, the 14th Amendment clearly points out that States are barred from infringing on the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, cannot deny them due process, and cannot deny them the equal protection of the laws. As long as the laws passed by a State legislature conform to those requirements, then the legislature is functioning within it's Constitutional limitations. In general the courts are loath to overturn the laws of the legislature unless there is a clear and compelling reason for doing so. The result is that no single Judge even makes that decision as there is an appeals process which acts as a safe-guard against an individual rogue Judge functioning outside his/her capacity.

And just so ya know, I would stand 100% against a court forcing you to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex, therefore imposing Same-sex Marriage upon you.


>>>>

While the 9th does indeed not limit your rights to those listed in the consitution via amendment, it does not provide a mechanism for enshrining those rights in the constitution, and thus protecting them from the will of the people below the level of passing an amendment.

As a strict constructionist, if a right is not listed in the constitution, it is not a consitutionally protected right, and is thus up to the whims of the legislative process. It MAY become a consitutional right, if created via amendment.

And in a perfect world, the courts would be loathe to overturn the whims of the legislature. What you ignore is judical activism, where you get judges who see themselves more as legislators, and less as arbiters.

To me this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. It is about the perogative of the state legislatures to determine how they see ANY contract, as long as said ruling stricitly follows the flow down rights grated by the amendments, and imposed on the states by the 14th and 15 amdendment specifically, and strictly.

I guess that's fundamentally where our paradigms differ. You see rights as granted by the government, I see rights as inherently held by the people and the document being a restriction on how the government can restrict those rights.

Personally I have great trepidation regarding legislatures being able to restrict rights - to use your term - at their "whim".



One does have to wonder though, given another topic, just how supportive many would be at the "whims" of the government and supporting those actions. Like the whims of the government requiring background checks for all firearms. Or the whim of the government to eliminate high capacity magazines, remember magazines are not a firearm and are not mentioned in the Constitution. So from a strict constructionist point of view, they are subject the whims of the legislature. Then of course there would be huge support - from a strict constructionist point of view - for government restrictions on trans-fats and the size of the soda's you can drink.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

I've never claimed that "marriage" is mentioned in the Constitution.

However the Constitution is not a list of rights granted to the people, and the 9th Amendment specifically points out that not all rights held by the people must be enumerated in that document for a right to exist.

However, the 14th Amendment clearly points out that States are barred from infringing on the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, cannot deny them due process, and cannot deny them the equal protection of the laws. As long as the laws passed by a State legislature conform to those requirements, then the legislature is functioning within it's Constitutional limitations. In general the courts are loath to overturn the laws of the legislature unless there is a clear and compelling reason for doing so. The result is that no single Judge even makes that decision as there is an appeals process which acts as a safe-guard against an individual rogue Judge functioning outside his/her capacity.

And just so ya know, I would stand 100% against a court forcing you to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex, therefore imposing Same-sex Marriage upon you.


>>>>

While the 9th does indeed not limit your rights to those listed in the consitution via amendment, it does not provide a mechanism for enshrining those rights in the constitution, and thus protecting them from the will of the people below the level of passing an amendment.

As a strict constructionist, if a right is not listed in the constitution, it is not a consitutionally protected right, and is thus up to the whims of the legislative process. It MAY become a consitutional right, if created via amendment.

And in a perfect world, the courts would be loathe to overturn the whims of the legislature. What you ignore is judical activism, where you get judges who see themselves more as legislators, and less as arbiters.

To me this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. It is about the perogative of the state legislatures to determine how they see ANY contract, as long as said ruling stricitly follows the flow down rights grated by the amendments, and imposed on the states by the 14th and 15 amdendment specifically, and strictly.

I guess that's fundamentally where our paradigms differ. You see rights as granted by the government, I see rights as inherently held by the people and the document being a restriction on how the government can restrict those rights.

Personally I have great trepidation regarding legislatures being able to restrict rights - to use your term - at their "whim".



One does have to wonder though, given another topic, just how supportive many would be at the "whims" of the government and supporting those actions. Like the whims of the government requiring background checks for all firearms. Or the whim of the government to eliminate high capacity magazines, remember magazines are not a firearm and are not mentioned in the Constitution. So from a strict constructionist point of view, they are subject the whims of the legislature. Then of course there would be huge support - from a strict constructionist point of view - for government restrictions on trans-fats and the size of the soda's you can drink.


>>>>

It is not about rights in an absolute sense, but the ability of legislative bodies, and by extension the people they represent to pass laws as they see fit. I do agree that rights are inherent in the people, not the government. However the government is only barred from infringing on those rights listed in the consitution, in this case mostly the federal government, but by extension the state governments, via the 14th and 15th amendments. To truly add something as a consitutional right (not an inherent right) one has to amend the constituion to include it, which was the whole idea behind the bill of rights in the first place.

My trepdidations are for judical bodies that can create rights out of thin air, or loose interpretation of other concepts in the consitution. The issue there is they can delete rights just as easy as they can create them.

As for the firearms issue, the terms "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the document explicitly. Thus in order to even attempt to legislate on that topic, a much higher burden must be met. (the yelling fire in a crowded theatre arguement vis a vis the 1st amendment comes to mind) My main source of angst comes from those inconsistent with the document, when they seek to create rights that are not there, and squash rights that are already in.

Finally, when it comes to nanny state laws like trans fats and soda size, remember that these are often State issues, not Federal. A strict constructionist such as myself only looks to see if these follow the state consitution, as well as the pass throughs from the federal consitution. There is no right to a 32 oz soda, that I agree. Where the law failed however is that an executive branch (bloomberg) passed a regulation that the court found to be the domain of the legislature. THAT is against the NY constituion, and thus was properly stopped from going into effect.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

Strange that you are deluded about how this works. If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, like many of the people who support it argue, then there would be no legal way to deny marriage to anyone who wants it. Even Justice Kagan understands this, which is why she brought it up during the Proposition 8 oral arguments. A slippery slope is only a fallacy if you can't actually demonstrate the slope exists. Telling someone who is already sliding down the hill that the slope is not real because you have your eyes closed is absurd.

By the way, the fact that a left leaning Justice, who is probably gay, sees the slope you refuse to admit exists proves this is not a right right wing fallacy. It also destroys the entire foundation of your thread, and proves you don't have enough intelligence to discuss the issue.

Side note, the fact that no one responded to your thread is not evidence that you are brilliant.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No refutations?

Is my argument THAT strong?

Hm. Guess I win.

Not so fast, Mtnman. God will determine the fate of Amerigamohrah based on His word, not the decision of the politically correct.....

 

[PratchettFan]

I would tend to agree that courts are probably not the best venue for this issue, at this time. Eventually, it will be. The courts do not exist in a social vacuum.

I do understand equal protection and it is obvious to me that it is not being applied equally. However, the law also does not exist in a vacuum. Laws which reach beyond the willingness of the society are simply not viable. Which is why we are seeing those laws change now but did not see them change a couple of decades ago. We will eventually reach the point where the states which prohibit SSM will be in the minority and that is when I expect we will see a final move by the courts to complete the process. Just as happened with interracial marriage.

I've said for a number of years now that the Prop 8 challenge, IMHO, was a tactical mistake in it's attempt to reach a strategic goal. Take for example Prop 8 (California, 2008) and Question 1 (Maine, 2009). In both cases Same-sex Civil Marriage lost at the polls, but the reaction and plan to repeal took two separate courses. Many at the time cautioned the pro-marriage equality supporters that the demonstrations and reactions to Prop 8 in the weeks following it's passage would have a negative impact. There was a split in the supporters on how to proceed - some felt that the court challenge was the way to go, other cautioned against that and instead recommended working toward a repeal.

The Prop 8 challenge in the courts was a roll of the dice and it was known ahead of time that ultimately and legal challenge was going to take years, which has been true. Prop 8 was passed in November 2008 and it is now before the SCOTUS and it's 2013. But even then, a ruling for Prop 8 at the SCOTUS level, would have devastating impact for the marriage equality movement for years and years, at least a generation. As the application of upholding Prop 8 by the SCOTUS would mean they would justify all States that had barred equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples. On the other side of the coin, even if Prop 8 were overturned, there would be negative reaction from the public (in a lot of circles) with the cry of "activist judges". Many though counseled to refrain from taking the court challenge route and look to the future and to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box in 2010 or 2012. Their voice was drowned out in the demonstrations and in the court challenge.

Now take Question 1 in Maine, passed in 2009. Both it and Prop 8 passed by very narrow margins. The marriage equality supporters though didn't hold large protests (not that there are enough people in Maine to hold one anyway razz. But what they did was accept the will of the people with honor, not "accept" as agree, but accept as in the process functioned correctly. What they did do then is start a grassroots campaign of conversations throughout the State to change the minds of those that were willing to listen so that they understood the impact of their vote. As a result, 3 years later the repeal of Question 1 was again on the ballot and marriage equality is now a reality in Maine.

I use the term "political capital" to describe the degree of positive impact. The political capital of repealing Prop 8 in the same way that Question 1 was repealed would have been politically HUGE in terms of overall perception. California has the largest state population of any state, passage of Same-sex Civil Marriage there at the ballot box would have expanded it in one fell swoop to over 10% of the population of the United States. Doing it by initiative would have had a long lasting positive impact. Doing it through the courts will only increase resentment by those who oppose marriage equality with more cries of "activist judges".

Not saying there wouldn't have been a point in the future when a court challenge might not have been more productive, I just don't see it as producing the desired results. Remember the first anti-miscegenation law was overturned by the CA Supreme Court in (IIRC) 1948, but it wasn't until 19 years later that the SCOTUS finally drove the last nail, but only after the number of states with anti-miscegenation had dropped to around 16.


>>>>

There is certainly at lot of back and forth on this, which is always going to create political maneuvering. However, I see everything you are describing as just the ripples on the surface of the pond. They are just a reflection of the true changes which are happening in our society. Ultimately, it won't be activist judges or politicians which will create this change. It will be everyday people willing to come out of the closet and give a face to the people involved. IMO, "Will and Grace" has had a far greater impact upon this change than the SC ever will.

It's changing because for a growing percentage of the population it is no longer about "those queers" but it is about John in accounting - and he's a good guy. It's about realizing that your sister is gay, or your cousin, or your uncle. As people become real, they become people and not just some joke no one has to actually worry about. And with that change, the laws change. It is inevitable.

 

[PratchettFan]

While the 9th does indeed not limit your rights to those listed in the consitution via amendment, it does not provide a mechanism for enshrining those rights in the constitution, and thus protecting them from the will of the people below the level of passing an amendment.

As a strict constructionist, if a right is not listed in the constitution, it is not a consitutionally protected right, and is thus up to the whims of the legislative process. It MAY become a consitutional right, if created via amendment.

And in a perfect world, the courts would be loathe to overturn the whims of the legislature. What you ignore is judical activism, where you get judges who see themselves more as legislators, and less as arbiters.

To me this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. It is about the perogative of the state legislatures to determine how they see ANY contract, as long as said ruling stricitly follows the flow down rights grated by the amendments, and imposed on the states by the 14th and 15 amdendment specifically, and strictly.

I guess that's fundamentally where our paradigms differ. You see rights as granted by the government, I see rights as inherently held by the people and the document being a restriction on how the government can restrict those rights.

Personally I have great trepidation regarding legislatures being able to restrict rights - to use your term - at their "whim".



One does have to wonder though, given another topic, just how supportive many would be at the "whims" of the government and supporting those actions. Like the whims of the government requiring background checks for all firearms. Or the whim of the government to eliminate high capacity magazines, remember magazines are not a firearm and are not mentioned in the Constitution. So from a strict constructionist point of view, they are subject the whims of the legislature. Then of course there would be huge support - from a strict constructionist point of view - for government restrictions on trans-fats and the size of the soda's you can drink.


>>>>

It is not about rights in an absolute sense, but the ability of legislative bodies, and by extension the people they represent to pass laws as they see fit. I do agree that rights are inherent in the people, not the government. However the government is only barred from infringing on those rights listed in the consitution, in this case mostly the federal government, but by extension the state governments, via the 14th and 15th amendments. To truly add something as a consitutional right (not an inherent right) one has to amend the constituion to include it, which was the whole idea behind the bill of rights in the first place.

My trepdidations are for judical bodies that can create rights out of thin air, or loose interpretation of other concepts in the consitution. The issue there is they can delete rights just as easy as they can create them.

As for the firearms issue, the terms "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the document explicitly. Thus in order to even attempt to legislate on that topic, a much higher burden must be met. (the yelling fire in a crowded theatre arguement vis a vis the 1st amendment comes to mind) My main source of angst comes from those inconsistent with the document, when they seek to create rights that are not there, and squash rights that are already in.

Finally, when it comes to nanny state laws like trans fats and soda size, remember that these are often State issues, not Federal. A strict constructionist such as myself only looks to see if these follow the state consitution, as well as the pass throughs from the federal consitution. There is no right to a 32 oz soda, that I agree. Where the law failed however is that an executive branch (bloomberg) passed a regulation that the court found to be the domain of the legislature. THAT is against the NY constituion, and thus was properly stopped from going into effect.

You make excellent points and I tend to agree with you. The true balance in any society is between the reality of a lot of people who have to live together without killing each other and to maximize the ability for people live as they choose. The 1st amendment protects our right to free speech - which extends to the written word. At the same time, I can't just take whatever you write and pass it off as my own under the 1st amendment - even though I don't think you will find copy rights in the Constitution.

I think that the balance will never be perfect and there are always going to people who are unhappy. I suspect that the real test for just how free we are is if the number of people on each side of the political spectrum who think they are be repressed are pretty much the same. If so, we are in good shape.

 

[Pop23]

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be no basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

The law prohibits the marriage of siblings (and other close biological family members), the gender composition of the couples is irrelevant to that section of the (various) laws.


>>>>

Those laws were established prior to the same gender laws being an issue. As with many things, a change in one law often changes many others.

The times they are a changing after all.

 

[MaryL]

This gets down to a basic question, what is wrong limiting marriage to an institution that encourages heterosexuals (that can reproduce the race) to create a healthy environment for their offspring? I still don't grasp how gays think they can equate themselves to heterosexuals. Both groups love and lust. Great! Homos AREN'T "like" Hetros, and the reason why is obvious. Instead of marriage, perhaps they get a pat on the back and a Happy Face sticker. I refuse to accept that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness or aberrant behavior, despite all the current popular claims otherwise. We in this culture are so knowledgeable when it comes to attending to all forms of mental illness, ADD in kids to Schizophrenia to Munchausen's syndrome by proxy to whatever. But NOW we blithely accept Homosexuality as the new normal without question? Something isn't adding up here. Mutual consent in a sex act, especially when those people share the same sexual/mental dysfunction, isn't an excuse to open the definition of marriage to people with the same perversion in my opinion. This more an issue about mass psychology and why gay marrige is so popular now rather than logic.

 

[martybegan]

I guess that's fundamentally where our paradigms differ. You see rights as granted by the government, I see rights as inherently held by the people and the document being a restriction on how the government can restrict those rights.

Personally I have great trepidation regarding legislatures being able to restrict rights - to use your term - at their "whim".



One does have to wonder though, given another topic, just how supportive many would be at the "whims" of the government and supporting those actions. Like the whims of the government requiring background checks for all firearms. Or the whim of the government to eliminate high capacity magazines, remember magazines are not a firearm and are not mentioned in the Constitution. So from a strict constructionist point of view, they are subject the whims of the legislature. Then of course there would be huge support - from a strict constructionist point of view - for government restrictions on trans-fats and the size of the soda's you can drink.


>>>>

It is not about rights in an absolute sense, but the ability of legislative bodies, and by extension the people they represent to pass laws as they see fit. I do agree that rights are inherent in the people, not the government. However the government is only barred from infringing on those rights listed in the consitution, in this case mostly the federal government, but by extension the state governments, via the 14th and 15th amendments. To truly add something as a consitutional right (not an inherent right) one has to amend the constituion to include it, which was the whole idea behind the bill of rights in the first place.

My trepdidations are for judical bodies that can create rights out of thin air, or loose interpretation of other concepts in the consitution. The issue there is they can delete rights just as easy as they can create them.

As for the firearms issue, the terms "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the document explicitly. Thus in order to even attempt to legislate on that topic, a much higher burden must be met. (the yelling fire in a crowded theatre arguement vis a vis the 1st amendment comes to mind) My main source of angst comes from those inconsistent with the document, when they seek to create rights that are not there, and squash rights that are already in.

Finally, when it comes to nanny state laws like trans fats and soda size, remember that these are often State issues, not Federal. A strict constructionist such as myself only looks to see if these follow the state consitution, as well as the pass throughs from the federal consitution. There is no right to a 32 oz soda, that I agree. Where the law failed however is that an executive branch (bloomberg) passed a regulation that the court found to be the domain of the legislature. THAT is against the NY constituion, and thus was properly stopped from going into effect.

You make excellent points and I tend to agree with you. The true balance in any society is between the reality of a lot of people who have to live together without killing each other and to maximize the ability for people live as they choose. The 1st amendment protects our right to free speech - which extends to the written word. At the same time, I can't just take whatever you write and pass it off as my own under the 1st amendment - even though I don't think you will find copy rights in the Constitution.

I think that the balance will never be perfect and there are always going to people who are unhappy. I suspect that the real test for just how free we are is if the number of people on each side of the political spectrum who think they are be repressed are pretty much the same. If so, we are in good shape.

Plagarism is a civil matter between two parties, not a criminal offense, and thus really isnt covered by the consitution.

 

[PratchettFan]

This gets down to a basic question, what is wrong limiting marriage to an institution that encourages heterosexuals (that can reproduce the race) to create a healthy environment for their offspring? I still don't grasp how gays think they can equate themselves to heterosexuals. Both groups love and lust. Great! Homos AREN'T "like" Hetros, and the reason why is obvious. Instead of marriage, perhaps they get a pat on the back and a Happy Face sticker. I refuse to accept that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness or aberrant behavior, despite all the current popular claims otherwise. We in this culture are so knowledgeable when it comes to attending to all forms of mental illness, ADD in kids to Schizophrenia to Munchausen's syndrome by proxy to whatever. But NOW we blithely accept Homosexuality as the new normal without question? Something isn't adding up here. Mutual consent in a sex act, especially when those people share the same sexual/mental dysfunction, isn't an excuse to open the definition of marriage to people with the same perversion in my opinion. This more an issue about mass psychology and why gay marrige is so popular now rather than logic.

Your position has nothing to do with logic.

 

[PratchettFan]

It is not about rights in an absolute sense, but the ability of legislative bodies, and by extension the people they represent to pass laws as they see fit. I do agree that rights are inherent in the people, not the government. However the government is only barred from infringing on those rights listed in the consitution, in this case mostly the federal government, but by extension the state governments, via the 14th and 15th amendments. To truly add something as a consitutional right (not an inherent right) one has to amend the constituion to include it, which was the whole idea behind the bill of rights in the first place.

My trepdidations are for judical bodies that can create rights out of thin air, or loose interpretation of other concepts in the consitution. The issue there is they can delete rights just as easy as they can create them.

As for the firearms issue, the terms "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the document explicitly. Thus in order to even attempt to legislate on that topic, a much higher burden must be met. (the yelling fire in a crowded theatre arguement vis a vis the 1st amendment comes to mind) My main source of angst comes from those inconsistent with the document, when they seek to create rights that are not there, and squash rights that are already in.

Finally, when it comes to nanny state laws like trans fats and soda size, remember that these are often State issues, not Federal. A strict constructionist such as myself only looks to see if these follow the state consitution, as well as the pass throughs from the federal consitution. There is no right to a 32 oz soda, that I agree. Where the law failed however is that an executive branch (bloomberg) passed a regulation that the court found to be the domain of the legislature. THAT is against the NY constituion, and thus was properly stopped from going into effect.

You make excellent points and I tend to agree with you. The true balance in any society is between the reality of a lot of people who have to live together without killing each other and to maximize the ability for people live as they choose. The 1st amendment protects our right to free speech - which extends to the written word. At the same time, I can't just take whatever you write and pass it off as my own under the 1st amendment - even though I don't think you will find copy rights in the Constitution.

I think that the balance will never be perfect and there are always going to people who are unhappy. I suspect that the real test for just how free we are is if the number of people on each side of the political spectrum who think they are be repressed are pretty much the same. If so, we are in good shape.

Plagarism is a civil matter between two parties, not a criminal offense, and thus really isnt covered by the consitution.

You're wrong. Infringement of copyright laws can carry a 5 year prison sentence and up to $250,000 fine per offense. It is a criminal offense and yet still is not mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

You make excellent points and I tend to agree with you. The true balance in any society is between the reality of a lot of people who have to live together without killing each other and to maximize the ability for people live as they choose. The 1st amendment protects our right to free speech - which extends to the written word. At the same time, I can't just take whatever you write and pass it off as my own under the 1st amendment - even though I don't think you will find copy rights in the Constitution.

I think that the balance will never be perfect and there are always going to people who are unhappy. I suspect that the real test for just how free we are is if the number of people on each side of the political spectrum who think they are be repressed are pretty much the same. If so, we are in good shape.

Plagarism is a civil matter between two parties, not a criminal offense, and thus really isnt covered by the consitution.

You're wrong. Infringement of copyright laws can carry a 5 year prison sentence and up to $250,000 fine per offense. It is a criminal offense and yet still is not mentioned in the Constitution.

When was the last time someone was accused, or better yet, convicted of that that didnt involve movie copying for viewing, and not claiming work as your own?

And when something is NOT mentioned in the consitution, then States can legislate it with impunity.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And when something is NOT mentioned in the consitution, then States can legislate it with impunity.

Premise:
If something is not mentioned in the Federal Constitution, States can legislate it with impunity.

Fact:
A. The 14th Amendment bans states from infringing on the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, denying them due process under the law, and denying them the equal protection under the law without a compelling government interest.
B. In 1967 (IIRC) 16 States barred Civil Marriage between whites and coloreds.
C. The Lovings challenged the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Result:
The law was struck down because the treatment of the couple was unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
States can establish laws concerning Civil Marriage, but only if those laws are Constitutional, States cannot apply unconstitutional laws to it's citizens denying them the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, denying them due process under the law, and denying them the equal protection under the law without a compelling government interest.



Sorry Marty, that is reality.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

And when something is NOT mentioned in the consitution, then States can legislate it with impunity.

Premise:
If something is not mentioned in the Federal Constitution, States can legislate it with impunity.

Fact:
A. The 14th Amendment bans states from infringing on the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, denying them due process under the law, and denying them the equal protection under the law without a compelling government interest.
B. In 1967 (IIRC) 16 States barred Civil Marriage between whites and coloreds.
C. The Lovings challenged the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Result:
The law was struck down because the treatment of the couple was unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
States can establish laws concerning Civil Marriage, but only if those laws are Constitutional, States cannot apply unconstitutional laws to it's citizens denying them the privileges and immunities of it's citizens, denying them due process under the law, and denying them the equal protection under the law without a compelling government interest.



Sorry Marty, that is reality.


>>>>

Loving was proper as it was a CRIMINAL ban on mixed race marriage, and because it was a heterosexual marriage, there is no difference between a mixed race and a same race heterosexual marriage. Same sex marriage is not, and thats where we differ.

The privlidges and immunities of citizens of the US are only the ones mandated in the constituion. We can add to those, but only via amendment.