Governments do not protect rights

[Derideo_Te]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

are you saying that the USA is not based on majority rule? does a majority elect the president? does a majority decide on local bond issues? can a majority change the constitution?

the problem that some of you libs have is that you don't like the majority view of some issues---------to that I say Tough Shit, if you don't like the way we choose to live, LEAVE.

Ah, now I see the problem. You seem to think that America is a democracy. Let me let you in on a little secret: we are not. America is a constitutional republic. IOW, we do not allow the majority to oppress the minority. That is a form of tyranny like any other form.

Correct.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence; and one’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule.

This is a purely rhetorical question but why are voices of reason and sanity like yours so few and far between in forums like these?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think freedom should include the freedom to take away someone else's freedom to marry solely on the basis of their skin color?

LOLOL. Best post of the week.

Legal marriage is nothing more, or less, than government intrusion into the bedroom of consenting adults. Why would anyone support that at all?

Nonsense.

Marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. The 14th Amendment requires all citizens have access to state laws, including marriage law, absent a compelling reason predicated on fact.

Many on the right seem to incorrectly perceive marriage as an independent entity misappropriated by the state, when in fact contractual marriage law is a creation of the state, and is indeed a contract between and among the state and the couple entering into the marriage partnership.

Religious marriage as conceived and administered by private religious organizations is not part of the issue, as equal protection jurisprudence applies only to lawmaking bodies.

Nonsense?

Marriage might be disguised as contract law, but it is not a contract. The government has always decided who can get married and who cannot. Even Loving did nothing to stop that, all it di was declare that skin color was not a reason to prevent people from getting married. The state can still prevent it if they declare you are too closely related, even if their is no scientific evidence, which means there is no compelling public need, that this is a problem. They can also deny it based on previous marital status, being incarcerated, even if you are not convicted, and whatever else strikes their fancy.

By the way, did you notice that the only person that mentioned religion, the left, and/or the right in this discussion was you? Can you explain how you bringing up something that I did not mention proves I think it is an issue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah, now I see the problem. You seem to think that America is a democracy. Let me let you in on a little secret: we are not. America is a constitutional republic. IOW, we do not allow the majority to oppress the minority. That is a form of tyranny like any other form.

Correct.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence; and one’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule.

This is a purely rhetorical question but why are voices of reason and sanity like yours so few and far between in forums like these?

If he is the voice of sanity and reason why did he feel a need to attack the right about religion when no one in this thread mentioned religion? Have you considered the possibility that you are simply wrong, and that is why none of this makes sense to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

Hmmm, you once said rights cannot be limited, so, I guess your own wrong answer to your own question would be 'no'.

As I have pointed out to you, more than once, there is a difference between rights and entitlements. Voting is an entitlement, not a right.

You can say it a million times and it's not going to come true, but don't let me stop you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

Hmmm, you once said rights cannot be limited, so, I guess your own wrong answer to your own question would be 'no'.

As I have pointed out to you, more than once, there is a difference between rights and entitlements. Voting is an entitlement, not a right.

The sheer stupendous ignorance of that statement is incredible. Under that idiocy the 2nd amendment is just as much of an "entitlement". Quantum-windbag is utterly clueless.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Correct.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence; and one’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule.

This is a purely rhetorical question but why are voices of reason and sanity like yours so few and far between in forums like these?

If he is the voice of sanity and reason why did he feel a need to attack the right about religion when no one in this thread mentioned religion? Have you considered the possibility that you are simply wrong, and that is why none of this makes sense to you?

It is becoming ever more apparent that you are the voice of insanity. Have a nice day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmm, you once said rights cannot be limited, so, I guess your own wrong answer to your own question would be 'no'.

As I have pointed out to you, more than once, there is a difference between rights and entitlements. Voting is an entitlement, not a right.

The sheer stupendous ignorance of that statement is incredible. Under that idiocy the 2nd amendment is just as much of an "entitlement". Quantum-windbag is utterly clueless.

Only if you don't understand the difference between left and oranges.