Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[ABikerSailor]

I see. So are you saying that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly list a certain right, then that right does not exist?

If that's the case, then why do we have a "right" to drive, or even fly in an airplane?

As a matter of fact, what is the "right" that lets you use the internet?

 

[PJC]

Regardless of the issue, the idea that government can overrule the people as "Unconstitutional" demonstrates that neither you nor the California courts know what a Constitution is.

Regardless of your erroneous assumption of what you think it demonstrates; the author of our Constitution himself: James Madison, stated:
“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

You’re saying that the statement made by James Madison, The Father of the US Constitution, demonstrates that he does not “know what a Constitution is.”
I’ll keep that in mind.

You're arguing a non-sequitor.

You need to research what constitutes a non-sequitur. You’re using the term erroneously.

A non-sequitur is a statement that appears unrelated to a statement that it follows.

Your statement was government cannot overrule the people (people in this context is the “majority of the people&#8221. Madison’s quote was addressing that very thing: tyranny of the majority, thus my rebuttal was unquestionably related to your statement; whether you agree with it or not is irrelevent, both statements were in fact related; hence there clearly is no way it could have been a non-sequitur.

Further, you’re making the claim that the only recourse Madison, Adams, and others of our founding fathers came up with to deter tyranny of the majority was only by making the United States a republic rather than a pure democracy. You are displaying very limited thinking in that regard.

No, our founding fathers came up with not just one way, but several ways to avoid the pitfalls of past governments. To avoid tyranny of the majority, whether it be tyranny of the popular majority or by elected representatives, they mandated that we have a system of checks and balances with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. If a law was enacted by the people (through their elected representatives), it could be found to be unconstitutional by judicial review. This judicial review which you seem to despise so much has been in existence since 1803 (Marbury v Madison), almost the entire history of our nation’s existence.

Madison again was not arguing that government can overrule the people in any way, shape or form.

Yes, actually he was. Our founding fathers, to include Madison were well aware of judicial review. Case in point: Marbury v Madison, 1803. The people (in this case, represented by their elected officials) enacted a law. This was the very first law to be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, thus the people were indeed overruled by the government (in this case by the judicial branch of the govt).

By "pure democracy" he was referring to why we are a republic, not a democracy.

Yes, he was and he was also clearly referring to tyranny of the majority as well. Thus, rather than all people voting on all issues all the time; we elect representatives to vote the will of the people. Those elected representatives can, and have been on numerous occasions, “overruled”, when, upon judicial review, the law was found to be unconstitutional.

But Madison and Adams totally did not believe that government could simply reject the will of the people. If you want to read their quotes, read their quotes on their severe distrust of government.

And we can read their quotes on a great many areas, as they spoke and wrote of many concepts. The will of the people voted for their representatives. Those elected representatives, in support of the people and doing the will of the people, enact a particular law. That law is later found to go against the Constitution upon judicial review. It is struck down because the US Constitution is the law of the land; all other laws are inferior to it. If you want to read their quotes, related to what we are discussing here, read their quotes on tyranny of the majority.

Your second flaw is that California by the way in a republic state is a component of the whole, Madison would have totally supported the people's ability to make their own laws.

Actually, no he wouldn’t have. Your fourth flaw here is making the irrational assumption that Madison was okay with Tyranny of the Majority if it was committed by an individual state.

Your California’s mandatory referendum is exactly the situation he was talking about.

Say California’s State Legislature passes the “Disarm Blacks” Act (mandating that Black people may not be allowed to have, own, carry, possess, or “bear” firearms) which then is signed by the Governor of California, proposing a state constitutional amendment, which is then submitted to the voters as a referendum at the next statewide election. Now, since only 6.6% of Californians are black they are in the distinct minority. So if more than 50% of the voters approve the referendum, the constitutional amendment is approved and goes into effect; denying black people their right to bear arms.

Would that be constitutional or unconstitutional? (I’m referring of course to the US Constitution, not California Constitution)

This would be a perfect example of tyranny of the majority of which Madison spoke. A faction (in this case a racial faction, specifically the white faction), are united in a common passion or interest against gangs and crime; they unduly blame only black people for these woes. So they canvas door to door, enflaming the passions of their fellow Californians; they advertise on TV, in the newspaper, on the radio. They convince the majority of Californians to vote in favor of the referendum, sacrificing the weaker party (blacks). Those referenda could very easily be found to be “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property” if that security and those rights were belonging to minority factions.

Since quite obviously having a federal type government would not be able to prevent such as the above from transpiring, something else therefore must be utilized to check a tyranny of the majority situation of which Madison referred.

Again, as Madison said: “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

You're misapplying the Federal government with State rights, something Adams and Madison both strongly believed in.

Ah, I see, so Madison and Adams had no problem with Tyranny of the Majority as long as it occurred within each individual state, right? Just so long as the federal govt didn’t do it, eh?

You’re premise is irrational, sorry.

Power divided is power checked.

Yep, power divided amongst the executive, legislative, and judicial, helps check the power of any one entity.

I think your main beef is with judicial review. If so, you’re fighting a long ago lost battle. Judicial Review is a well settled doctrine and has existed for the vast majority of our govt history. The SCOTUS has held over 160 different laws to be unconstitutional since 1803.

The framers of our Constitution also were well aware and the majority were in favor, of judicial review.

For example; in Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote: “[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental....
[A]ccordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former....
[T]he courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.”

 

[PJC]

If that's the case, then why do we have a "right" to drive, or even fly in an airplane?

As a matter of fact, what is the "right" that lets you use the internet?

Exactly my point. nothing in the Constitution says that we have the right to have children either, so it must be a "privilege". Dang, there's probably thousands of things not listed in the Constitution that we do every day. apparently none of them are rights solely because they are not listed (enumerated) in the US Constitution.

Therein lies Flaylo's flaw. He totally blew off the 9th Amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It was pretty hard not to notice.


No it wouldn't be; as it was already done by the SCOTUS.


Wrong, it is a right, matter of fact it's a fundamental right. Look it up.


no, not overlap, i think you meant to say there is a multi-tiered spectrum; with one tier (the black-white one): on one end is all black, the other end is all caucasian; there are varying degrees in the middle.

Same thing with sexual orientation too.



No, it wouldn't, cause the SCOTUS already determined the 14th applies. See Loving v Virginia


Huuuh??? You're talking about an issue that was already decided years and years ago; they've already tried and succeeded in deeming that bans of interracial marriage are unconstitutional. so you're safe.

Please go read up on this stuff prior to opining.

The constitution doesn't list marriage as a right. Bullshit

So your position is that the Constitution is an enumerating document and that rights are not held by the people unless specifically mentioned in the Constitution?


Is that correct?



>>>>

 

[PJC]

Your argument is that being black (a biological condition) is different than gender (also a biological condition). I don't buy it.

I never argued that. Regardless of your gender, you can enter a man woman marriage.

You’re using the fallacy of special pleading/stacking the deck. You’re setting up the argument under your terms while ignoring the argument under the actual terms it was delivered. (that's where you stacked the deck).

You changed the argument from “Dependent upon your gender, you can enter into a marriage with a woman.” Or….
“Dependent upon your gender, you can enter into a marriage with a man.”

To an argument that was not stated: “Regardless of your gender, you can enter a man woman marriage.”

Your tactic also constitutes a straw man fallacy. Not logical at all.

What does gender being different than blacks have to do with anything I said? You seem like a decent, fair guy and pretty intelligent. One of my best buds is like you. We get in these discussions. You're thinking it's not "fair" because blacks didn't pick being black, we didn't pick our gender or our orientation. I agree in society with all that.

However, we're talking about the law. You're thinking politically along the wrong plane. You're taking your thoughts about "fairness" and thinking of government being an abiter of that.

No, you’re again changing his argument to something which is easier for you to rebut (straw man fallacy). He wasn’t speaking of fairness but of equal treatment under the law.

What you don't get, yet, you will one day,

You’re using a modified form of a statement of conversion fallacy. It implies that your debating opponent is simply young or naïve and will someday eventually become wise and intelligent like you are.

is that government is actually the threat. The best thing that government can do for blacks, women, gays, and the rest of us is leave us alone.

Aaah, so in other words, not create laws such as DOMA in the first place, right? Because that is the situation here; they should have simply left gays alone and not enacted the law.

Your wanting to empower judges to implement "fair" without an actual basis in the law is the real threat.

your first flaw is assuming that the judges have not been empowered already with judicial review. They have been for at least 210 years. Your second flaw here is changing the phrase “equal treatment under the law” to a euphemism of “fair” in order to dampen the effect and more easily make your case. Your third flaw here is to assume there is no actual basis in the law; there is: the 14th Amendment.

That is Pandora's box. We don't need government in this at all. You're giving them an opening to do what they do, seize more power over our lives.

Slippery slope fallacy.

The best thing government can do for gays is leave them alone. They do that.

No, they do not. DOMA exists; that is a glaringly obvious fact proving that the government has not left gays alone. You’ve stated an error of fact.

My bud who you remind me of has started to realize that. Once you start asking government why instead of what, you start to unveil the real threat and recognize what they are doing. You'll get there.

You’re using the statement of conversion fallacy again.

Going to the south, the Jim Crow laws were government. BTW. The bus companies didn't want to segregate blacks. Government is the threat, not the solution.

Yep, and govt was the threat when they enacted DOMA. Time to remedy that particular threat.

 

[hazlnut]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Separate but equal....

Where have I heard that before?

 

[Seawytch]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Separate but equal....

Where have I heard that before?

In the annals of failed history.

 

[kaz]

You do know what a fallacy is, don't you?

I know what a dick is. If you want to see one, head for the closest mirror.

Deflection using an ad hominem fallacy.

So much for your claim of "logic". :rolleyes"

That wasn't deflection it was ad hominem. Buy a dictionary, dumb ass.

You're a tool. Which makes you dull. I'm trying to read your responses, but my head keeps hitting my desk in boredom. Even at the end of the semester, your teachers didn't know you were in their class, did they?

 

[kaz]

I see. So are you saying that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly list a certain right, then that right does not exist?

This is so twisted. You do this all the time, I've pointed out your silly logic before, Mr. Mediocrity. I'll do it one more time, but it's too dull to do it post by post.

The right to be left alone from the Federal government is implicitly all through the Constitution which limits Federal power to those enumerated in the document. It's also explicitly in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

You're misapplying that to be the right to demand something from the government. Government marriage, tax breaks and so on. So, if you were referring to the first category, of course it does. But as to your applying it to the second category, no, it doesn't.

Now you can find another nit to have a cow over or a silly logic twist while you post zero content.

 

[PJC]

I know what a dick is. If you want to see one, head for the closest mirror.

Deflection using an ad hominem fallacy.

So much for your claim of "logic". :rolleyes"

That wasn't deflection it was ad hominem. Buy a dictionary, dumb ass.

You have very limited thinking. It can be both a deflection and an ad hominem. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I have several dictionaries.....on the internet. I use 'em quite a bit too. Why would i want to waste money buying one?

"dumbass"? Ma???

Golly, another very well thought out and highly articulated ad hominem. Wowser!

Don't really have much in the way of logic or fact, do you my brother?

You're a tool.

Mmmm, yet another extremely original and quite stinging retort. yuk yuk yuk

Which makes you dull. I'm trying to read your responses, but my head keeps hitting my desk in boredom.

Ah, so you suffer from a short attention span, eh? What else of yours is short which you suffer from?

Even at the end of the semester, your teachers didn't know you were in their class, did they?

Hell, i can't remember that far back. Besides, i was stoned or drunk most of the time so even if i could remember that far back......

....i still couldn't remember.

Soooo....

...anything to post to the topic or did i swat your argument down sufficiently that you give up already?

 

[PJC]

I see. So are you saying that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly list a certain right, then that right does not exist?

This is so twisted. You do this all the time, I've pointed out your silly logic before, Mr. Mediocrity. I'll do it one more time, but it's too dull to do it post by post.

The right to be left alone from the Federal government is implicitly all through the Constitution which limits Federal power to those enumerated in the document. It's also explicitly in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

You're misapplying that to be the right to demand something from the government. Government marriage, tax breaks and so on. So, if you were referring to the first category, of course it does. But as to your applying it to the second category, no, it doesn't.

Now you can find another nit to have a cow over or a silly logic twist while you post zero content.

People who have a tendency to get perturbed at the drop of a hat and who display an over reliance on fallacies (especially ad hominem fallacies) usually also tend to not have much in the way of logic or fact to support their premises.

So your “vicious” barbs aside for the moment yuk yuk yuk…..

….are you claiming that marriage is not a right?

Simple yes or no will suffice here.

 

[kaz]

People who have a tendency to get perturbed at the drop of a hat and who display an over reliance on fallacies (especially ad hominem fallacies) usually also tend to not have much in the way of logic or fact to support their premises.

What a baby. Actually that you started right away with the insults said to me that fine, you wanted to have fun and insult each other. But no, you don't want that either. You're just a whiiinnnneeeer. Do you want some cheese to go with that?

….are you claiming that marriage is not a right?

Simple yes or no will suffice here.

Simple answer for a simpleton. Sorry, there isn't a "yes no" answer. The answer is only slightly longer and if you read posts while writing haughty responses to them, you'd know the answer already. Generally people by hippie mean they're liberal and easy going. Usually people with sticks up their asses like you don't chose to call themselves that.

Marriage? Absolutely. The government has no right to intrude in your personal right to pick who you chose to spend your life with.

Government Marriage? No. There is no "right" to demand recognition, validation, tax breaks or anything else from government or other people. You have the right to be left alone. You do not have the right do demand things.

I mean duh, how can you not have grasped that with endless bluster you write in response to my posts.

 

[PJC]

People who have a tendency to get perturbed at the drop of a hat and who display an over reliance on fallacies (especially ad hominem fallacies) usually also tend to not have much in the way of logic or fact to support their premises.

What a baby. Actually that you started right away with the insults said to me that fine, you wanted to have fun and insult each other. But no, you don't want that either. You're just a whiiinnnneeeer. Do you want some cheese to go with that?

You've misinterpreted again. you seem to have a habit of that. Nothing i said above could be misconstrued as whining unless someone was using dishonesty and spinning it as such. I have no problems whatsoever with insults...but at least make them intelligent, witty and something from later than the 3rd grade, my bruh.

….are you claiming that marriage is not a right?

Simple yes or no will suffice here.

Simple answer for a simpleton. Ad hominemSorry, there isn't a "yes no" answer. tap dancing The answer is only slightly longer and if you read posts while writing haughty responses to them, you'd know the answer already. another ad hominemGenerally people by hippie mean they're liberal and easy going. Usually people with sticks up their asses like you don't chose to call themselves that.another ad hominem, this time quite irrelevent)

Marriage? Absolutely. The government has no right to intrude in your personal right to pick who you chose to spend your life with.

Government Marriage? No. There is no "right" to demand recognition, validation, tax breaks or anything else from government or other people. You have the right to be left alone. You do not have the right do demand things.

I mean duh, how can you not have grasped that with endless bluster you write in response to my posts.

Golly...all that nonsense to simply say....

Yes. marriage is a right. (thank you for your beating around the bush answer).

Very good, now we're getting somewhere.

Can a right be arbitrarily limited? Can it be abridged for no reason? Simple Yes or no

(Of course, he's gonna beat around the bush yet again.)

and BTW, what's the difference between "government marriage" and marriage?

Who goes around saying: "Hey ya'll i just got government married!"

Or "Young whipper snapper, you done got my daughter knocked up, so's now you a'gonna get guvmint married or ah'll shoot ya with this here shotgun."

Or even, "Honey, will you government marry me?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

and BTW, what's the difference between "government marriage" and marriage?

Actually it's an important distinction. People that use the term "marriage" alone are often being (a) lazy, or (b) intentionally ambiguous so as to be able to "muddy the waters" in the discussion. Use of the term "marriage" by itself lacks definative context on exactly what you are speaking about - I try to provide that context in ever post so that those that read what I say know I'm speaking of Civil Marriage.

"Marriage" actually exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is that bond established under the authorization of a religious institution. One need not obtain a Civil Marriage to be religiously married. A couple (man+woman, man+man, or woman+woman) can go to the religious institution of their choice and be "married", however without the license, that marriage is not recognized under the law. Religious Marriage is already available to everyone, in every state (same-sex or different-sex couples) equally, you just have to find a religious institution to perform the ceremony.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is that action granted and recognized under the law which creates a new legal status for those involved. Couples can be "religiously married" with not civil component. Couples can be "civilly married" with no religious component. But Civil Marriage must exist for the interaction between the couple and the government in treating them as one family unit that did not exist before.​

>>>>

 

[kaz]

and BTW, what's the difference between "government marriage" and marriage?

Actually it's an important distinction. People that use the term "marriage" alone are often being (a) lazy, or (b) intentionally ambiguous so as to be able to "muddy the waters" in the discussion. Use of the term "marriage" by itself lacks definative context on exactly what you are speaking about - I try to provide that context in ever post so that those that read what I say know I'm speaking of Civil Marriage.

"Marriage" actually exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is that bond established under the authorization of a religious institution. One need not obtain a Civil Marriage to be religiously married. A couple (man+woman, man+man, or woman+woman) can go to the religious institution of their choice and be "married", however without the license, that marriage is not recognized under the law. Religious Marriage is already available to everyone, in every state (same-sex or different-sex couples) equally, you just have to find a religious institution to perform the ceremony.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is that action granted and recognized under the law which creates a new legal status for those involved. Couples can be "religiously married" with not civil component. Couples can be "civilly married" with no religious component. But Civil Marriage must exist for the interaction between the couple and the government in treating them as one family unit that did not exist before.​

>>>>

I have nothing to add. You addressed his question perfectly.

 

[Seawytch]

and BTW, what's the difference between "government marriage" and marriage?

Actually it's an important distinction. People that use the term "marriage" alone are often being (a) lazy, or (b) intentionally ambiguous so as to be able to "muddy the waters" in the discussion. Use of the term "marriage" by itself lacks definative context on exactly what you are speaking about - I try to provide that context in ever post so that those that read what I say know I'm speaking of Civil Marriage.

"Marriage" actually exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is that bond established under the authorization of a religious institution. One need not obtain a Civil Marriage to be religiously married. A couple (man+woman, man+man, or woman+woman) can go to the religious institution of their choice and be "married", however without the license, that marriage is not recognized under the law. Religious Marriage is already available to everyone, in every state (same-sex or different-sex couples) equally, you just have to find a religious institution to perform the ceremony.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is that action granted and recognized under the law which creates a new legal status for those involved. Couples can be "religiously married" with not civil component. Couples can be "civilly married" with no religious component. But Civil Marriage must exist for the interaction between the couple and the government in treating them as one family unit that did not exist before.​

>>>>

For me the biggie is that one should be allowed to discriminate based on my orientation, the other not.

 

[bodecea]

I know what a dick is. If you want to see one, head for the closest mirror.

Deflection using an ad hominem fallacy.

So much for your claim of "logic". :rolleyes"

That wasn't deflection it was ad hominem. Buy a dictionary, dumb ass.

You're a tool. Which makes you dull. I'm trying to read your responses, but my head keeps hitting my desk in boredom. Even at the end of the semester, your teachers didn't know you were in their class, did they?

You deflected BY using a ad hominem. It was very clearly said. And was quite correct.

 

[kaz]

Deflection using an ad hominem fallacy.

So much for your claim of "logic". :rolleyes"

That wasn't deflection it was ad hominem. Buy a dictionary, dumb ass.

You're a tool. Which makes you dull. I'm trying to read your responses, but my head keeps hitting my desk in boredom. Even at the end of the semester, your teachers didn't know you were in their class, did they?

You deflected BY using a ad hominem. It was very clearly said. And was quite correct.

I know, I was mocking the angry hippie for doing that. Which of course he didn't get. Though ad hominem is a far more descriptive word of what I did. Basically any fallacy is deflection since it's not addressing the real point, which means while accurate it's very non-descriptive when you say other fallacies are "deflection."

 

[logical4u]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

 

[LittleNipper]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.