Governments do not protect rights

[Redfish]

You sure you want to vote on it now?

Yes, and if a majority of US citizens want it, fine. I may not agree, but I will accept the will of the majority, will you?

I already explained that I don't believe Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and showed you why. You seem to think that the Judge was wrong in ruling on Loving v Virginia, and think we should have continued to prevent the "races from mixing" for another 27 years. I don't. I think that is WHY we have a Supreme Court, so that they tyranny of the majority does not trample the rights of the minority.

And no, of course I wouldn't "accept" a majority ruling that preventing me from marrying my partner. That's why they are called Civil Rights struggles not Civil Rights give up and go home. The "majority" tried to invalidate my marriage in California (a judge said they couldn't) so I'm still married in my state, but nobody else like me can be. (which is why Prop 8 will be struck down by the SCOTUS).

What we will "accept" is full marriage equality. If you want to change ALL marriage to civil unions to accomplish that, go ahead and try. I'll take the more efficient route.

the crux of this is that you think gay marriage is a "civil" right. I do not.

you talk about the tyranny of the majority, but you forget that the tyranny of the minority is why this country was founded in the first place.

but we are going in circles and I am not going to waste more time with you.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote. would you want SCOTUS deciding it if SCOTUS was made up of 9 conservatives?

Yes I would as long as they were deciding based on LAW and PRECEDENT. Still haven't come up with that societal harm I see.

Societal harm is in the mind of each individual, many believe that the degradation of the traditional family has harmed our society.

Thats why the PEOPLE should vote on these things. Thats the way this country works.

You really want to go there? You want to put an assault weapons ban up for a majority vote? A ban on large capacity magazines?

No, it's "not the way the country works". Civil rights aren't a popularity contest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you are correct of course. thats why I continue to challenge the LGBT members on this forum when they claim that they have "a fundamental right" to gay marriage.

NO, they don't. the only rights any of us have are the rights granted by society in general. The language in the constitution sets up judeo/christian principles as the basis for our rights

It's not us that claim it, it's the Supreme Court that stated it...on at least three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967) - You're familiar with that one, I'm sure. Are you familiar with how society felt about interracial marriage at the time? Are you aware that society didn't approve of these relationships by a majority until the 1990s? Are you also aware that those who were opposed to these relationships tried to use "Judeo/Christian principles" to keep anti-miscegenation laws in place? (A JUDGE even tried....seriously, tried to use the bible to justify keeping races separate) Again, you know how that turned out.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) - This one was about Wisconsin requiring people with previous marriages to prove they could financially support both their previous and future spouse before they could get married. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was "a fundamental right".

Turner v Safley (1987) - This one was about a Missouri law prohibiting convicts from marrying. The SCOTUS did not find it "reasonable".

(BTW, you can Wiki all of these cases if you don't believe my summation of them)

So, when "the gheys" talk about there being a fundamental right to marriage, it's because there is...as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to sort this kind of thing out.

Now, the current challenge is to whether this fundamental right applies to gay and lesbian couples. Those that do not wish to extend this fundamental right to gay and lesbian couples, must come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. They must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them.

Can you?

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

So it was wrong, from your point of view, that the Supreme Court was able to overturn the Chicago handgun ban, if the majority of that city wanted it.

 

[Redfish]

It's not us that claim it, it's the Supreme Court that stated it...on at least three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967) - You're familiar with that one, I'm sure. Are you familiar with how society felt about interracial marriage at the time? Are you aware that society didn't approve of these relationships by a majority until the 1990s? Are you also aware that those who were opposed to these relationships tried to use "Judeo/Christian principles" to keep anti-miscegenation laws in place? (A JUDGE even tried....seriously, tried to use the bible to justify keeping races separate) Again, you know how that turned out.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) - This one was about Wisconsin requiring people with previous marriages to prove they could financially support both their previous and future spouse before they could get married. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was "a fundamental right".

Turner v Safley (1987) - This one was about a Missouri law prohibiting convicts from marrying. The SCOTUS did not find it "reasonable".

(BTW, you can Wiki all of these cases if you don't believe my summation of them)

So, when "the gheys" talk about there being a fundamental right to marriage, it's because there is...as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to sort this kind of thing out.

Now, the current challenge is to whether this fundamental right applies to gay and lesbian couples. Those that do not wish to extend this fundamental right to gay and lesbian couples, must come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. They must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them.

Can you?

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

So it was wrong, from your point of view, that the Supreme Court was able to overturn the Chicago handgun ban, if the majority of that city wanted it.

No, but its not the same thing. the right to bear arms is in the constitution. the right to gay marriage is not.

things not addressed in the constitution should be voted on by the people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote. would you want SCOTUS deciding it if SCOTUS was made up of 9 conservatives?

Yes I would as long as they were deciding based on LAW and PRECEDENT. Still haven't come up with that societal harm I see.

Societal harm is in the mind of each individual, many believe that the degradation of the traditional family has harmed our society.

Thats why the PEOPLE should vote on these things. Thats the way this country works.

The people did vote. They voted to form a nation governed by the US Constitution. They voted for the presidents and senators who put the judges on the Supreme Court. The Court is composed of the People's representatives to whom the authority to interpret the US Constitution has been delegated.

 

[Redfish]

Yes I would as long as they were deciding based on LAW and PRECEDENT. Still haven't come up with that societal harm I see.

Societal harm is in the mind of each individual, many believe that the degradation of the traditional family has harmed our society.

Thats why the PEOPLE should vote on these things. Thats the way this country works.

You really want to go there? You want to put an assault weapons ban up for a majority vote? A ban on large capacity magazines?

No, it's "not the way the country works". Civil rights aren't a popularity contest.

again, you are trying to equate rights called out in the constitution to "rights" that some minority may claim title to. Its not the same thing by any strech of the imagination,.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

So it was wrong, from your point of view, that the Supreme Court was able to overturn the Chicago handgun ban, if the majority of that city wanted it.

No, but its not the same thing. the right to bear arms is in the constitution. the right to gay marriage is not.

things not addressed in the constitution should be voted on by the people.

Ah, so you want referendum when it suits your agenda, and you want the Court to decide when that suits your agenda.

You are not the one who gets to decide whether gay marriage is a constitutional right, btw. That is a power held by the Court.

 

[Redfish]

So it was wrong, from your point of view, that the Supreme Court was able to overturn the Chicago handgun ban, if the majority of that city wanted it.

No, but its not the same thing. the right to bear arms is in the constitution. the right to gay marriage is not.

things not addressed in the constitution should be voted on by the people.

Ah, so you want referendum when it suits your agenda, and you want the Court to decide when that suits your agenda.

You are not the one who gets to decide whether gay marriage is a constitutional right, btw. That is a power held by the Court.

geez, what a disengenuous post^^^

the rights that are in the constitution are clear. no court can create a right that is not listed in the constitution. they can try to create an interpretation that satisifes some minority opinion, but they cannot create new rigtht.

but if you can show me the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage a right, I will concede defeat.

 

[Seawytch]

No, but its not the same thing. the right to bear arms is in the constitution. the right to gay marriage is not.

things not addressed in the constitution should be voted on by the people.

Ah, so you want referendum when it suits your agenda, and you want the Court to decide when that suits your agenda.

You are not the one who gets to decide whether gay marriage is a constitutional right, btw. That is a power held by the Court.

geez, what a disengenuous post^^^

the rights that are in the constitution are clear. no court can create a right that is not listed in the constitution. they can try to create an interpretation that satisifes some minority opinion, but they cannot create new rigtht.

but if you can show me the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage a right, I will concede defeat.

Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Redfish]

Ah, so you want referendum when it suits your agenda, and you want the Court to decide when that suits your agenda.

You are not the one who gets to decide whether gay marriage is a constitutional right, btw. That is a power held by the Court.

geez, what a disengenuous post^^^

the rights that are in the constitution are clear. no court can create a right that is not listed in the constitution. they can try to create an interpretation that satisifes some minority opinion, but they cannot create new rigtht.

but if you can show me the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage a right, I will concede defeat.

Equal Protection Clause.

funny, I don't see gay marriage anywhere in that or any other clause. you already have equal rights under the law. But the law is not required to condone your lifestyle.

You and your GLBT butt buddies want the government to mandate, under penalty of jail, the thoughts of the citizens relative to this issue.

Do whatever you and your girlfriend want to do in the bedroom, but don't pass a law that requires that I condone it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, but its not the same thing. the right to bear arms is in the constitution. the right to gay marriage is not.

things not addressed in the constitution should be voted on by the people.

Ah, so you want referendum when it suits your agenda, and you want the Court to decide when that suits your agenda.

You are not the one who gets to decide whether gay marriage is a constitutional right, btw. That is a power held by the Court.

geez, what a disengenuous post^^^

the rights that are in the constitution are clear. no court can create a right that is not listed in the constitution. they can try to create an interpretation that satisifes some minority opinion, but they cannot create new rigtht.

but if you can show me the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage a right, I will concede defeat.

Griswold v Connecticut upheld the privacy right of a married couple to use contraception on Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. There is no such right otherwise 'listed' in the Constitution.

The court either 'created' the right of privacy, or they applied a right that was already there despite not being explicitly identified using the word 'privacy'.

Which is it?

 

[Redfish]

Ah, so you want referendum when it suits your agenda, and you want the Court to decide when that suits your agenda.

You are not the one who gets to decide whether gay marriage is a constitutional right, btw. That is a power held by the Court.

geez, what a disengenuous post^^^

the rights that are in the constitution are clear. no court can create a right that is not listed in the constitution. they can try to create an interpretation that satisifes some minority opinion, but they cannot create new rigtht.

but if you can show me the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage a right, I will concede defeat.

Griswold v Connecticut upheld the privacy right of a married couple to use contraception on Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. There is no such right otherwise 'listed' in the Constitution.

The court either 'created' the right of privacy, or they applied a right that was already there despite not being explicitly identified using the word 'privacy'.

Which is it?

first of all, its none of the govt's business if a couple uses contraception or not. this was a stupid case that had nothing to do with contraception or privacy

gay marriage should not be a federal issue. again, its none of the govt's business who marries who, the states should decide what types of unions they sanction, and that decision should be made by a referendum of the citizens of that state.

are you advocating legislation from the bench? do you want judges MAKING our laws?

 

[NYcarbineer]

geez, what a disengenuous post^^^

the rights that are in the constitution are clear. no court can create a right that is not listed in the constitution. they can try to create an interpretation that satisifes some minority opinion, but they cannot create new rigtht.

but if you can show me the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage a right, I will concede defeat.

Equal Protection Clause.

funny, I don't see gay marriage anywhere in that or any other clause. you already have equal rights under the law. But the law is not required to condone your lifestyle.

You and your GLBT butt buddies want the government to mandate, under penalty of jail, the thoughts of the citizens relative to this issue.

Do whatever you and your girlfriend want to do in the bedroom, but don't pass a law that requires that I condone it.

If a state is going to recognize marriage as a legal civil union, they cannot then discriminate against gays by denying them that marriage. There are no material differences between a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage that are sufficient to justify making one a legal union and denying the other the same status.

 

[Redfish]

Equal Protection Clause.

funny, I don't see gay marriage anywhere in that or any other clause. you already have equal rights under the law. But the law is not required to condone your lifestyle.

You and your GLBT butt buddies want the government to mandate, under penalty of jail, the thoughts of the citizens relative to this issue.

Do whatever you and your girlfriend want to do in the bedroom, but don't pass a law that requires that I condone it.

If a state is going to recognize marriage as a legal civil union, they cannot then discriminate against gays by denying them that marriage. There are no material differences between a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage that are sufficient to justify making one a legal union and denying the other the same status.

sorry, but a majority of the people on earth disagree with that, a majority of the people on earth see gay marriage as an aberration or a sin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

geez, what a disengenuous post^^^

the rights that are in the constitution are clear. no court can create a right that is not listed in the constitution. they can try to create an interpretation that satisifes some minority opinion, but they cannot create new rigtht.

but if you can show me the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage a right, I will concede defeat.

Griswold v Connecticut upheld the privacy right of a married couple to use contraception on Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. There is no such right otherwise 'listed' in the Constitution.

The court either 'created' the right of privacy, or they applied a right that was already there despite not being explicitly identified using the word 'privacy'.

Which is it?

first of all, its none of the govt's business if a couple uses contraception or not. this was a stupid case that had nothing to do with contraception or privacy

gay marriage should not be a federal issue. again, its none of the govt's business who marries who, the states should decide what types of unions they sanction, and that decision should be made by a referendum of the citizens of that state.

are you advocating legislation from the bench? do you want judges MAKING our laws?

You are acknowledging the right of privacy as a fundamental right?

 

[Redfish]

Griswold v Connecticut upheld the privacy right of a married couple to use contraception on Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. There is no such right otherwise 'listed' in the Constitution.

The court either 'created' the right of privacy, or they applied a right that was already there despite not being explicitly identified using the word 'privacy'.

Which is it?

first of all, its none of the govt's business if a couple uses contraception or not. this was a stupid case that had nothing to do with contraception or privacy

gay marriage should not be a federal issue. again, its none of the govt's business who marries who, the states should decide what types of unions they sanction, and that decision should be made by a referendum of the citizens of that state.

are you advocating legislation from the bench? do you want judges MAKING our laws?

You are acknowledging the right of privacy as a fundamental right?

define "fundamental" in the context you use it in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

funny, I don't see gay marriage anywhere in that or any other clause. you already have equal rights under the law. But the law is not required to condone your lifestyle.

You and your GLBT butt buddies want the government to mandate, under penalty of jail, the thoughts of the citizens relative to this issue.

Do whatever you and your girlfriend want to do in the bedroom, but don't pass a law that requires that I condone it.

If a state is going to recognize marriage as a legal civil union, they cannot then discriminate against gays by denying them that marriage. There are no material differences between a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage that are sufficient to justify making one a legal union and denying the other the same status.

sorry, but a majority of the people on earth disagree with that, a majority of the people on earth see gay marriage as an aberration or a sin.

That claim whether true or not is not relevant to this discussion.

 

[Redfish]

If a state is going to recognize marriage as a legal civil union, they cannot then discriminate against gays by denying them that marriage. There are no material differences between a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage that are sufficient to justify making one a legal union and denying the other the same status.

sorry, but a majority of the people on earth disagree with that, a majority of the people on earth see gay marriage as an aberration or a sin.

That claim whether true or not is not relevant to this discussion.

OH, but it is quite relevant----------you are advocating that a minority view be forced on the majority. is that not tyranny?

 

[Londoner]

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights. Let me show you what hapens when the government sets out to protect us.

We needed the Right to stand up to the Patriot Act as Ron Paul did. Instead, the Right supported the Bush administration aggressively.

When a government asks for broad and sweeping surveillance powers, as Bush did, the Right needs to question whether or not the government is competent and honest enough to wield that power.

The reason Libertarians don't want to give government more power to listen to our phone calls and collect data on our purchases and internet use is NOT because they don't care about national security, it's because Libertarians believe government does not have the competence to manage increased power.

We need the Right to stand up to government when their team is in office.

Instead, the Right became facile cheerleaders of their party when it destroyed the Constitution, specifically its role in protecting citizens from an overbearing government.

When Bush and the Republican Congress passed Medicare Part D, which was the largest expansion of entitlement spending since LBJ, we needed the Rightwing voter to stand up in opposition. But they were nowhere to be found. In fact, the Rightwing voter has zero information on Medicare Part D. The Rightwing voter has never done a comparative analysis of the costs of Medicare Part D versus the costs of ObamaCare. If they had done this, they would be shocked.

Turn off Limbaugh/Beck/Savage/Hannity/Levine/FOX and start analyzing policy.

The Soviet Union used national security as an excuse to increase warrentless surveillance of the domestic population. Research the ways in which Reagan and Bush used the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism to increase the federal power to watch Americans and intervene in the destiny of the states and you will understand that your party has created the biggest government of all. The fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about is scary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

first of all, its none of the govt's business if a couple uses contraception or not. this was a stupid case that had nothing to do with contraception or privacy

gay marriage should not be a federal issue. again, its none of the govt's business who marries who, the states should decide what types of unions they sanction, and that decision should be made by a referendum of the citizens of that state.

are you advocating legislation from the bench? do you want judges MAKING our laws?

You are acknowledging the right of privacy as a fundamental right?

define "fundamental" in the context you use it in.

Fundamental rights are those rights that in America that cannot be infringed by law unless that law can pass the strict scrutiny tests of judicial review.