Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Stay expires Aug. 18 and gay marriages can recommence —unless 9th Circuit stays rulin at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Coyote If the federal government should not be involved in marriage, isn't leaving it as a state ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:46 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,528
Thanks: 1,084
Thanked 3,821 Times in 2,587 Posts
Default Re: Stay expires Aug. 18 and gay marriages can recommence —unless 9th Circuit stays r

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
If the federal government should not be involved in marriage, isn't leaving it as a state issue going to create a patchwork quilt of marriage laws where some marriages are recognized in some places and not in others?
I'd much rather have the states decide for themselves. Isn't that what the Constitution was all about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
Personally - I think all marriages should be "civil unions" and the determination of "marriage" can be made by individual religious institutions.

The less government involvement, the better.
Reply With Quote
  #92 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2010, 03:01 PM
Master of all I survey
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Gender: Male
Posts: 7
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: Stay expires Aug. 18 and gay marriages can recommence —unless 9th Circuit stays r

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat View Post
I will acquiesce to your point about state involvement ( but I do so grudgingly) as I believe in states rights.
I believe in states' rights as well, so I don't understand that "grudgingly" part.
__________________
Quote:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Reply With Quote
  #93 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2010, 03:28 PM
bfd's Avatar
bfd bfd is offline
Looking for a fief
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in life
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,570
Thanks: 1,031
Thanked 424 Times in 319 Posts
Default Re: Stay expires Aug. 18 and gay marriages can recommence —unless 9th Circuit stays r

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Great!

So you oppose making homosexuals a second class citizen then, right?



Again, this makes a clear case for demanding the law be neutral between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.
Currently, the law favors heterosexual couples.



Do you understand what truly happened there with that?
Do you understand the difference between legislation which creates TWO DIFFERENT LEVELS of rights for two different groups of people (such as in Colorado's amendment case)...

... and situations where a "class" is observed REQUIRING EQUALITY WITHIN THAT CLASS???

You're trying to use commentary on the first to refute a situation of the second.
Illogical and absurd!

When I talk about a "protected class", it references classifications like race, gender, religion, sexual orientation...
That means that EVERY RACE is equal to EVERY OTHER race.
That means that EVERY RELIGION is equal to EVERY OTHER religion
That means that the male gender is equal to the female gender.
That also means that gays are equal to straights.



I bold-faced the part you need to combine with the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment requires that when discriminating against rights, a legitimate state interest MUST be shown to justify that discrimination.

There is EXPLICITLY a POWER PROHIBITED to the states in the 14th amendment, in that states are PROHIBITED from discriminating against people in issues of rights without a legitimate state interest.
You are talking in circles. You say that the proof is given of class and not of class in the next breath. The constitution does not provide a class system, it is what the revolution was fought over. Feudalism. The 14th amendment does not trump the 10th. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from an over reaching government.
Reply With Quote
  #94 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2010, 10:44 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,316 Times in 9,287 Posts
Post Re: Stay expires Aug. 18 and gay marriages can recommence —unless 9th Circuit stays r

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfd View Post
You are talking in circles. You say that the proof is given of class and not of class in the next breath.
You are making the mistake of assuming one reference to "class" somehow means the exact same thing as another reference to "class"...



Quote:
Originally Posted by bfd
The constitution does not provide a class system, it is what the revolution was fought over.
If you would listen and THINK about it, what I am describing is an effort to REMOVE classes of different stature.

Take for example the 14th amendment application regarding RACE.
By reviewing RACE in the 14th amendment application regarding a "class", WHICH RACE is elevated above another?
Answer? NONE!

It helps ensure ALL races are treated equally.

You are mistakenly assuming that just because the word "class" is there that some group is elevated above another.
An absurd assumption.

Perhaps you can explain WHICH GROUP is supposedly elevated above another in the constitutional application involving protections regarding "classes"...


Quote:
Originally Posted by bfd
The 14th amendment does not trump the 10th. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from an over reaching government.
The 14th amendment is a PART OF the application of the 10th.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ergo, when the constitution is EXPLICITLY amended to forbid a state the right to discriminate against rights without a legitimate state interest, then OBVIOUSLY that right is not "reserved" to the state!
In fact, such a power is obviously EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED to the state.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #95 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2010, 02:51 PM
Xolo's Avatar
I'm stickin' to the union
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 1966
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,635
Thanks: 907
Thanked 899 Times in 663 Posts
Default Re: Stay expires Aug. 18 and gay marriages can recommence —unless 9th Circuit stays r

Hi
I completely agree with you in principle, but the word "race" has been knocked down by physical anthropologists and others. The conclusion is, "there is no race but the human race" (and maybe "the rat race". Now the word is Ethnicity.

When the anthropologists first started studying "race" at the beginning of the 20th century, they fully expected the category would work to divide people up by shade of skin and maybe woolly hair or blue eyes. But as they probed, it became more and more impossible to make clean categories of race, even without counting 1/2 breeds. So then during the 50's they decided race was not a good tool to sort out humans, they dropped it by the 60's and use ethnicity to describe differences in groups. It is all about genes, human genes, and how they get passed down, mixed, die off,(just the genes, not the people)

They even have a science of tracing genes back to various ethnic groups, so for around $100, you can have your genes traced back to their ethnic origins. It is far from complete, but some amazing and fascinating work has been done.
__________________
Quote:
The holdings of the rich are not legitimate if they are acquired through competition from which others are excluded, and made possible by laws that are shaped by the rich for the benefit of the rich. In these ways, economic inequality can undermine the conditions of its own legitimacy.”
T M Scanlon http://ideas.ted.com/the-4-biggest-r...d-for-society/
Reply With Quote
  #96 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2010, 12:31 PM
lurch907's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,078
Thanks: 1,067
Thanked 3,748 Times in 2,051 Posts
Default Re: Stay expires Aug. 18 and gay marriages can recommence —unless 9th Circuit stays r

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The funny thing is that as of yet, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY counter-explanation as to how, CONSTITUTIONALLY, interracial marriage should have been recognized as constitutionally protected...
As I already told you, I would be happy to discuss the merits of the Loving decision, in another thread, as case law and basic logic tell us it is not relevent to this discussion.

Quote:
I have already responded to those statements, demonstrating the flaws in the arguments presented.
Wrong, what you did was offer your opinion on the case law. What you didn't do was offer any evidence, case law, documents or learned opinions to back your statements. Sorry Foundit, but you can't just disagree with something and hope it goes away. You'll notice that when I have disagreed with you or with case law you have presented I have backed my claim with judicial opinion, and the wording of the constitution.

Quote:
Are you seeking a means to change the topic?
I'm not interested.
Your the one who seems to want to change the topic to race, I've had to bring you back to relevance several times.

Quote:
As I have already explained, the first amendment doesn't say "freedom of religion" either but the concept is undeniably there.
I already agreed that the 1st doesn't say that. "Freedom of religion" is a massive simplification and is actually a falsification since we are in no way free to practice religion in any way we want. If we did have "freedom of religion" I could claim to be an Aztec and perform human sacrifice.
the 1st ammendment doesn't say "freedom of religion" hence we don't have it. Likewise, the 14th doesn't even elude to a "legitimate states interest", hence any attempt to claim one is a misinterpretation.
You do understand that the "legitimate states interest" falacy causes rights to be denied not protected, right?

Quote:
The precedent of legitimate state interest is undeniable.
legitimate state interest - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The basis of legitimate state interest is clear.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have never claimed that the "legitimate states interest" claim wasn't supported by case law. However, unlike you, when I have disagreed with case law I have given an actual argument supported by evidence to back my disagreement. As is the case here. The best argument against the "legitimate states interest" claim is to simply read the 14th ammendment.

Quote:
There is nothing in the actual wording of the constitution which supports your pretense that marriage cannot be a recognized constitutionally protected right.
In fact, the 9th amendment clearly demonstrates that your essential argument (non-enumeration) is a false one!
I'm begining to think you didn't even read my post. I never said anything to imply that I thought marriage cannot be recognized as a constitutional right. On the contrary, it can be if it is "retained by the people". Clearly same-sex marriage is not a right retained by the people of this country, as is evidenced by the plethora of votes and constitutional ammendments to the contrary.

Quote:
The capability of the people to WANT a discrimination does not suddenly mean a right no longer exists.
For a right to "no longer exist" it would have to exist in the first place.

Quote:
One of the things some people like you can't seem to grasp is that when a majority WANTS to honor a right, then that right needs no protection.
To CLAIM it is protected in that case is an empty claim.
It is the case where a majority wants to DISCRIMINATE against that right whereby protection is truly proven.
For any of this to be relevant you would have to establish that same-sex marriage is a right. A claim you have utterly failed to prove.

Quote:
The people voted on whether or not they wanted gay marriage.
They NEVER voted that marriage was not a right...
Correct, they specificly voted that a same-sex marriage wasn't a right.

Quote:
Show where interracial marriage is protected...
Oh yeah. You can't.
You want to ignore all the protections you would remove by such a move...
I can, I just won't do it here since this is a same-sex marriage thread not a inter-racial marriage thread. Please try to stay on topic.

Quote:
By the claims put forth by you and the minority, the 9th amendment would be meaningless.
Wrong, by the claims I have put forth the 9th would mean exactly what it says.

Quote:
Which rights are those?

(Note for the crowd, this is where Lurch907 is either going to drop the issue or try to start dancing double-time...
Cause you see, "those rights not enumerated" would be those rights not listed in the constitution. Like marriage.
But Lurch907 doesn't want to respect the right of marriage...
So HOW is he going to put forth the existence of rights not listed in the constitution, but distinguish it so he can still deny marriage rights...)
Ah yes, a Foundit favorite, where he tries to predict the future instead of trying to argue something on its merits. The ninth ammendment clearly protects rights not enumerated in the constitution yet retained by the people. The people have clearly retained the right of a man and woman to marry, while not retaining the right to same-sex marriage.

Quote:
You fail to grasp how this works.
Marriage IS a right.
That is established.
Whether certain forms of marriage are protected from discrimination by the constitution is a separate question.
You almost got it with this one. Marriage, as a generalization, is not a right. But, certain types of marriage have been retained by the people as a right.

Most of the rest of your post was irrelevant rehash or things I've already addressed above. Please try to restict your next post to relevant issues (hint: racial issues are not relevant).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
9th, and, aug, can, circuit, expires, gay, marriages, recommence, rulin, stay, stays, —unless

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0