Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[Skylar]

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document.

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

Marriage is a contract, one which is regulated by State legislatures.

Per the court marriage is a right. You say differently. I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one. As will the law.

The constitution gives no brook to the courts to override the State legislatures on this, except in the mind of judges who think they are there to right wrongs, not adjudicate laws. The best you can hope for constitutionally is to force one State to recognize another's gay marriage contract via full faith and credit (which I agree with).

Says you. As the USSC made ludicriously clear in Loving V. Virginia, state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees under the 14th amendment.

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Per you, the Federal Judiciary has no say in state marriage laws. Per the USSC and the 14th amendment, they do.

Once again, I'm gonna have to go with the Supreme Court on this one instead of you citing yourself.

So I guess you give the Court Citizens united, and would have left it alone when the court decided Plessey V. Fergueson, right?

I certainly consider the court a better source than you.

And its you v. the USSC that you're giving me.

 

[martybegan]

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document.

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

Marriage is a contract, one which is regulated by State legislatures.

Per the court marriage is a right. You say differently. I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one. As will the law.

The constitution gives no brook to the courts to override the State legislatures on this, except in the mind of judges who think they are there to right wrongs, not adjudicate laws. The best you can hope for constitutionally is to force one State to recognize another's gay marriage contract via full faith and credit (which I agree with).

Says you. As the USSC made ludicriously clear in Loving V. Virginia, state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees under the 14th amendment.

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Per you, the Federal Judiciary has no say in state marriage laws. Per the USSC and the 14th amendment, they do.

Once again, I'm gonna have to go with the Supreme Court on this one instead of you citing yourself.

So I guess you give the Court Citizens united, and would have left it alone when the court decided Plessey V. Fergueson, right?

I certainly consider the court a better source than you.

And its you v. the USSC that you're giving me.

So do you agree with the court's decision in Citizens united or not?

 

[Skylar]

Freedom is a hard thing. And that's why most who think they support it, really don't. Most only stand for Freedom when they feel it benefits them personally in some way. It's a 'To Hell with anyone else's Freedom' mentality for them. It's all about them. Gays have become too militant and are not respecting others' beliefs and rights. They're no longer the victim. They're the bully now.

I try to be consistent. Fred Phelps was a loathsome sack of shit. But I'd fight to protect his right to heckle funerals and bash gays. As unpopular speech is where actual freedom is tested.

 

[Skylar]

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

Marriage is a contract, one which is regulated by State legislatures.

Per the court marriage is a right. You say differently. I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one. As will the law.

The constitution gives no brook to the courts to override the State legislatures on this, except in the mind of judges who think they are there to right wrongs, not adjudicate laws. The best you can hope for constitutionally is to force one State to recognize another's gay marriage contract via full faith and credit (which I agree with).

Says you. As the USSC made ludicriously clear in Loving V. Virginia, state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees under the 14th amendment.

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Per you, the Federal Judiciary has no say in state marriage laws. Per the USSC and the 14th amendment, they do.

Once again, I'm gonna have to go with the Supreme Court on this one instead of you citing yourself.

So I guess you give the Court Citizens united, and would have left it alone when the court decided Plessey V. Fergueson, right?

I certainly consider the court a better source than you.

And its you v. the USSC that you're giving me.

So do you agree with the court's decision in Citizens united or not?

Nope. But I recognize it as authoritative. I don't have to agree with a ruling to recognize that it creates precedent, or that the federal judiciary has jurisdiction.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage is a contract, one which is regulated by State legislatures.

Per the court marriage is a right. You say differently. I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one. As will the law.

The constitution gives no brook to the courts to override the State legislatures on this, except in the mind of judges who think they are there to right wrongs, not adjudicate laws. The best you can hope for constitutionally is to force one State to recognize another's gay marriage contract via full faith and credit (which I agree with).

Says you. As the USSC made ludicriously clear in Loving V. Virginia, state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees under the 14th amendment.

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Per you, the Federal Judiciary has no say in state marriage laws. Per the USSC and the 14th amendment, they do.

Once again, I'm gonna have to go with the Supreme Court on this one instead of you citing yourself.

So I guess you give the Court Citizens united, and would have left it alone when the court decided Plessey V. Fergueson, right?

I certainly consider the court a better source than you.

And its you v. the USSC that you're giving me.

So do you agree with the court's decision in Citizens united or not?

Nope. But I recognize it as authoritative. I don't have to agree with a ruling to recognize that it creates precedent, or that the federal judiciary has jurisdiction.

Yet you apply a differing standard against opinion, basically saying "the court says so, so it must be right". Here you go for nuance and say the court is wrong, but you recognize its authority. So in my case I'm wrong because of "appeal to authority", but in your case, you can say the court is wrong, but you are right just because you recognize the court has standing?

 

[JFK_USA]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

If it violated my religion to pay taxes, can the government force my participation in that activity? Yes it can.

 

[Skylar]

Per the court marriage is a right. You say differently. I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one. As will the law.

Says you. As the USSC made ludicriously clear in Loving V. Virginia, state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees under the 14th amendment.

Per you, the Federal Judiciary has no say in state marriage laws. Per the USSC and the 14th amendment, they do.

Once again, I'm gonna have to go with the Supreme Court on this one instead of you citing yourself.

So I guess you give the Court Citizens united, and would have left it alone when the court decided Plessey V. Fergueson, right?

I certainly consider the court a better source than you.

And its you v. the USSC that you're giving me.

So do you agree with the court's decision in Citizens united or not?

Nope. But I recognize it as authoritative. I don't have to agree with a ruling to recognize that it creates precedent, or that the federal judiciary has jurisdiction.

Yet you apply a differing standard against opinion, basically saying "the court says so, so it must be right".

More accurately, you're giving me two options: you citing yourself. Or the USSC citing precedent.

I find the USSC to be a more relevant, more authoritative, more knowledgeable source than I do you. So basically, I'm saying 'The court said so, and they're a better source than Marty'.

And then there is practicality of it. Binding precedent is immediately relevant to the actual law and actual legal definitions. Your opinion really isn't.

Here you go for nuance and say the court is wrong, but you recognize its authority.

I've argued for authority and jurisdiction. You've argued against both. I'm explicitly contradicting you. That's not particularly nuanced.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The OP is a perfect example of the distortion, selective morality, misrepresentation of the Bible, and confused logic that is common among liberals.

As liberals usually do, when it comes to the Bible, the OP cherry picks a few cases from a period in the Bible (a certain period in the Old Testament) when God admittedly had to use harsh laws because of the depraved state of the people, but it ignores everything else the Bible says on those issues.

After grossly distorting what the Bible teaches about slavery, punishment for sin, etc., the OP then makes the ludicrous argument that since the Bible (supposedly) condones mutilation for certain sins and since Christians don't complain about not being able to mutilate certain sinners, they should not care if they are forced to host or service gay weddings! I literally laughed my head off when I read that, but, seriously, it's a truly sad, pathetic, and twisted argument.

The OP becomes downright laughable when it seeks to portray American Christians as the almighty majority that has nothing to fear or complain about. It's as if the OP hopes we don't know, or have forgotten, about the numerous anti-Christian court rulings handed down over the last 50 years that have imposed the will of a small minority on everyone else.

When it comes to the present issue of forcing religious vendors to host or service gay weddings against their will, the OP opines that, gee, all they're being asked to do is make money off people whose lifestyle they don't like, and so they should take the money! Oh, really? Then why did the pro-gay rights baker in Colorado refuse to bake a cake with Bible verses on it? Why? Because the baker found the verses offensive. But, wait, gee, why didn't the baker just make money off someone whose lifestyle she doesn't like? Instead, the baker strenuously objected, even when threatened with legal action. I guess she cared more about not baking a cake that she found offensive than she did about making money.

The OP ignores the fact that some religious vendors care more about honoring their faith than they do about making money off hosting/servicing gay weddings, just as the liberal baker in Colorado cared more about honoring her liberal morals than she did about making money.

The OP simply avoids the central point that in America no one should have the "right" to force another person to host or service a ceremony that they find offensive. Serving someone a meal in your restaurant does not involve supporting a ceremony, nor does renting them a hotel room, or providing them with medical care, etc. But hosting or servicing a gay wedding constitutes asking people to facilitate/enable a ceremony.

 

[bripat9643]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

If it violated my religion to pay taxes, can the government force my participation in that activity? Yes it can.

This is about rights, not the law. The government does plenty of things no government should ever do, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[bendog]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

 

[bripat9643]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

The SC isn't authorized to determine what our "fundamental rights" are, so anything it says on the matter is a non sequitur.

 

[Seawytch]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

The SC isn't authorized to determine what our "fundamental rights" are, so anything it says on the matter is a non sequitur.

Says you citing you. Actual case history says differently.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

The SC isn't authorized to determine what our "fundamental rights" are, so anything it says on the matter is a non sequitur.

Says you. The court can certainly recognize fundamental rights and protect them. And those rights need not be enumerated, as made ludicriously clear by the 9th amendment and the founder's discussion on the matter in the constitutional convention.

The BoR articulates SOME rights. But not all of them. Enumeration didn't create rights. It merely enumerated them. Folks like Marty are exactly why some founders opposed a Bill of Rights. As they feared that some unenlightened soul would assume that only those rights that were enumerated actually existed. The 9th amendment was something of a compromise, explicitly contradicting this assertion.

And the founders were wise to include it. As Marty and those who think like him demonstrate with their profound misunderstanding of the relationship of the BoR and the existence of rights.

 

[bendog]

The classification of rights are really unimportant. The right to contract was at one time more "fundamental" or protected than now. The more important concept, imo, is the degree of "scrutiny" that courts apply to different situations. In the present discussion, it is when can laws prevent marriage between consenting adult. (note I left out the number of consenting adults, because I think polygamy will be in issue, again, though the supreme court did not decide polygamy under a equal protection theory. Rather, the Mormon said he had to have mult wives to worship in his faith! yikes. Count me outta that one LOL)

But over and over again, states cannot come up with ANY reason, big or litte, to ban same sex marriage. States cannot site to anything that can be scientifically proven to benefit the state, or children.

As to marriage as a fundamental right, it's only "fundamental" because the Founders obviously believed a white man and white woman could marry. We'd been marrying even before the magna carta, and even before England was a country. The categories of who can marry has just expanded over time because states have had to justify limitations.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

The SC isn't authorized to determine what our "fundamental rights" are, so anything it says on the matter is a non sequitur.

Says you citing you. Actual case history says differently.

No... Case History does not.

 

[bendog]

This is simply silly. The BoR does not mention voting. Does anyone really doubt that voting was fundamental right in the minds of the Founders? That was what the whole shindig was really about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The OP is a perfect example of the distortion, selective morality, misrepresentation of the Bible, and confused logic that is common among liberals.

As liberals usually do, when it comes to the Bible, the OP cherry picks a few cases from a period in the Bible (a certain period in the Old Testament) when God admittedly had to use harsh laws because of the depraved state of the people, but it ignores everything else the Bible says on those issues.

Thus explaining the Left's reticence in accepting the law of God. It deals them out.

Yeah... it turns out that God represents the Antithesis of the Ideological Left, which is nothing more than the means by which Evil is advanced politically.

Take any example of Leftist advocacy.

They're said to be the defenders of Minorities... particularly the po' blacks. Now prior to the Left picking up the Black Standard... the Average Black family had 2.5 kids, a mother and father in the home, wherein the Father earned an average income positioning the family in the lower strata of the middle class and the children would maintain an average 2.8 - 3.1 GPA, with average likelihood of graduating from High School of over 90%. Average black employment was among the highest in the United States. Very few black families were sustain below the national poverty level.

Since the Left claimed to grant them "RIGHTS", but only of the 'civil' variety... There is no average for the black family in the US, with whatever stands for such being an embarrassment to the species. With virtually zero black families having two parents in the home, which have an average of 4.3 children and the potential for graduating from high school at 55%, move those stats into population centers and the chance of graduating High School being less than 30%. Today, with the help of the Ideological Left the US Black culture is nearly ENTIRELY impoverished... with the worst employment rate in the United States.

Would ya care to take a look at 'the children' that the Left have adopted under their protective breast? Highest suicide rate ON EARTH! Gender confusion, rampant illicit drug use and they're hard at the pushing blacks out of their employment status.

Women? ROFLMNAO! They're literally murdering the children they have conceived ... in their WOMB!

And men... well fuck, just read this forum and you point out the one's you think are males... and chances are that half of those are butch British lesbians.

So yeah... The Ideological Left is EVIL ON PARADE!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Does anyone really doubt that voting was fundamental right in the minds of the Founders?

Well to be honest, to be a voter when the constitution was ratified you had to be a white male landowner to be able to vote.

Many types of people were excluded from voting back then.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Does anyone really doubt that voting was fundamental right in the minds of the Founders?

Well to be honest, to be a voter when the constitution was ratified you had to be a white male landowner to be able to vote.

Many types of people were excluded from voting back then.


>>>>

Not necessarily true. Voting was set, as it is today, by the states. They determined what qualifed one to vote. Because voting is a right. And any right not given explicitly to the fed.gov is reserved to the states. Like marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Maybe you should start by reading the Ninth Amendment.

Well Ok... Let's do so...

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ok, now find for us in the 9th amendment the right to force people to accept the stripping of the natural standards of marriage, which hold that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and which otherwise requires people who reject the normalization of sexual deviancy, to participate in the celebration of sexual deviancy.

Again for your edification:

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.