I find it very disturbing

[Redfish]

gay marriage is not a civil right. there is no mention of gay marriage in the constitution, its amendments, or the civil rights act of 1965. The only way to resolve it is via a constitutional amendment.

Any other attempted resolution will open the door for polygamy of all forms, sibling marriage, parent child marriage, and any other deviation humans can come up with.

why do you fear a vote of the people?

Marriage IS a civil right...you can pout about it all day long, but it is. Ergo, unless you've got some compelling legal reason why including gays in that civil right causes harm........the government cannot deny that civil right to gay citizens.

So....rant all you want. I'm sure, in some way, it makes you feel like you've got some say in this matter.

Using that logic then polygamy and sibling marriage are also civil rights. If a civil rights case can be made for two people of the same sex to marry then the exact same case can be made for 3 man and 4 women to marry. The legal and civil rights arguments are EXACTLY the same.

The only way is to have a constitutional amendment the limits marriage to two people who are not blood relatives.

So I ask you again, why do you fear a vote of the people?

Then, work through the courts to make your case.

my case has been made by 3000 years of human history, its you who needs to make your case. to the people, not the courts.

3000 years of human history. Oh yeah...let's do things they way they did it 3000 years ago. THAT's a selling argument, Redminnow.

yes it is a good and valid argument. 3000 years of human precedent is quite a valid argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

it hasn't. But if you think it has, lets put it to a vote in each state and let the people decide. Thats the way this democratic republic is supposed to work-------------the people, not a few unelected judges.

if you want national gay marriage then lets have a constitutional amendment to clear it up once and for all. put it to a vote and see if 38 states will ratify it. You claim to have a majority, so lets do it.

You want to put civil rights to a vote, eh? You've lost and you know it....and now you are flailing. Not to worry, gays having the right to marry will not take away any of your rights.

We shall have to wait and see. Whatever decision the SCOTUS comes up with will become law. It should be interesting.

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

SCOTUS can strike down laws.

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

 

[Redfish]

So you say. And why do you think the political will of the voters of the U.S. has changed? Maybe that's what you should be asking yourself....and why you are upset that a President would change to fit such a political will (as if that's a bad thing)

it hasn't. But if you think it has, lets put it to a vote in each state and let the people decide. Thats the way this democratic republic is supposed to work-------------the people, not a few unelected judges.

if you want national gay marriage then lets have a constitutional amendment to clear it up once and for all. put it to a vote and see if 38 states will ratify it. You claim to have a majority, so lets do it.

You want to put civil rights to a vote, eh? You've lost and you know it....and now you are flailing. Not to worry, gays having the right to marry will not take away any of your rights.

We shall have to wait and see. Whatever decision the SCOTUS comes up with will become law. It should be interesting.

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

Yes. That is in the Constitution.

Horseshit, only congress can MAKE law. SCOTUS only exists to determine if a law is in compliance with the constitution. SCOTUS cannot MAKE law.

 

[Redfish]

You want to put civil rights to a vote, eh? You've lost and you know it....and now you are flailing. Not to worry, gays having the right to marry will not take away any of your rights.

We shall have to wait and see. Whatever decision the SCOTUS comes up with will become law. It should be interesting.

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

SCOTUS can strike down laws.

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage IS a civil right...you can pout about it all day long, but it is. Ergo, unless you've got some compelling legal reason why including gays in that civil right causes harm........the government cannot deny that civil right to gay citizens.

So....rant all you want. I'm sure, in some way, it makes you feel like you've got some say in this matter.

Marriage is NOT a Civil Right. Just because some blockheaded Judge says it is, doesn't mean it is.

Dred Scott.

As to the harm/gays question, it is incumbent on your side to show that allowing gay marriage will NOT cause the harm you address.

The burden is on your side.

Here's what your side is doing wrong.....

This is a new phenomenon. Big time and a big, big way.

Maybe it isn't to you. Cool, I can understand that. But here's a clue -- Try looking outside your own little circle once in a while and understand how the rest of us live

We don't think about gays or gay marriage that much.

If we do, it's because we're forced to think about it.

So we will. We should think about it.

But here's what you're doing wrong......

It took us 5,000 years to end slavery.

It took another 5,000 years to end the poor treatment of women (and that isn't working too well everywhere)

It took 2,700 years to give women the vote.

And you want the world to grant your wish to change the way it thinks about gays in ten years?

You're pushing too hard. You're doing more harm to your cause than good. You may think you're winning small victories but you're not. You're setting your cause back by being bullying and aggressive.

Trust me. You better learn to slow down and savor each little victory as it comes

Marriage is most definitely a civil right as has been determined in several SCOTUS decisions. Not just one, but several. You may not like it, in this case....heck you may not have liked in the case of Loving v. Virginia....but it is. It's established case las.

Loving was interracial marriage, not two people of the same sex. Loving does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

Have you bothered to read the decision in that case? Here, let me quote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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.

Note the beginning.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then just what is it they are going to collaborate on?

Anything they want. Why do you ask?

Ok. Then the problem is solved. Nothing prevents people from collaborating.

If you say so. I seem to be missing your point.

I don't see how. You want people to be able to voluntarily collaborate and I am pointing out that nothing stops them from doing so. So it appears we have no issue. We are in agreement.

But I never claimed anything was stopping them from doing so, so I'm not clear what you're talking about. I assume you're going back to this post:

I really think we're discussing two fundamentally incompatible conceptions of government. And the main difference between the two is the nominal purpose. In my preferred conception, the purpose of government is to maximally protect our inalienable individual rights, leaving the people free to form the society they want through voluntary collaboration.

The fact that nothing prevents people from voluntarily collaborating was actually my point. I raised it in response to the implication that the job of government is to "manage" society and that without state mandates none of our goals for society can be realized.

Then clarify your point for me. I thought you were arguing for some kind of change, but that doesn't seem to be the case now.

 

[Redfish]

Marriage IS a civil right...you can pout about it all day long, but it is. Ergo, unless you've got some compelling legal reason why including gays in that civil right causes harm........the government cannot deny that civil right to gay citizens.

So....rant all you want. I'm sure, in some way, it makes you feel like you've got some say in this matter.

Marriage is NOT a Civil Right. Just because some blockheaded Judge says it is, doesn't mean it is.

Dred Scott.

As to the harm/gays question, it is incumbent on your side to show that allowing gay marriage will NOT cause the harm you address.

The burden is on your side.

Here's what your side is doing wrong.....

This is a new phenomenon. Big time and a big, big way.

Maybe it isn't to you. Cool, I can understand that. But here's a clue -- Try looking outside your own little circle once in a while and understand how the rest of us live

We don't think about gays or gay marriage that much.

If we do, it's because we're forced to think about it.

So we will. We should think about it.

But here's what you're doing wrong......

It took us 5,000 years to end slavery.

It took another 5,000 years to end the poor treatment of women (and that isn't working too well everywhere)

It took 2,700 years to give women the vote.

And you want the world to grant your wish to change the way it thinks about gays in ten years?

You're pushing too hard. You're doing more harm to your cause than good. You may think you're winning small victories but you're not. You're setting your cause back by being bullying and aggressive.

Trust me. You better learn to slow down and savor each little victory as it comes

Marriage is most definitely a civil right as has been determined in several SCOTUS decisions. Not just one, but several. You may not like it, in this case....heck you may not have liked in the case of Loving v. Virginia....but it is. It's established case las.

Loving was interracial marriage, not two people of the same sex. Loving does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

Have you bothered to read the decision in that case? Here, let me quote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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.

Note the beginning.

please highlight the words "gay" or "same sex" in that decision. That decision is about race, not homosexuality

 

[Old Rocks]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

 

[Redfish]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

No, seriously. Personally I oppose gay marriage, but I am quite willing to accept the will of a majority of US citizens on the matter. I just want the people to have the decision, not a few judges with an agenda.

I am perfectly willing to accept the will of the people, why aren't the gays equally willing?

 

[PratchettFan]

We shall have to wait and see. Whatever decision the SCOTUS comes up with will become law. It should be interesting.

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

SCOTUS can strike down laws.

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What civil rights were decided state by state at that level? Desegregation? Nope. The end of anti miscegenation laws? Nope.

A majority of the SCOTUS will decide Chickenfish.

Massachusetts outlawed Slavery (in its Constitution) before ANY of the European Powers.

Several other States had also outlawed slavery in their Constitutions before France or Britain or Spain.

The problem that caused the Civil War was that there was going to be enough Free States soon after 1860 that a Constitutional Amendment would have peacefully ended slavery but dimocrap scum in the South decided to attack Fort Sumter and secede from the Union rather than allow the process set up by the Founding Fathers to proceed.

It's how dimocrap scum work.

You just don't know history. Or much else, for that matter

Those wretched conservatives couldn't stomach such a change so they felt war was a better solution.
You're right. The answer lies in history. Just not in your understanding of it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

changing ones mind is totally different from putting forth two sets of lies for political gain. Obozo didn't change his mind, he changed his rhetoric to match what he thought was the political will of his contingency.

So you say. And why do you think the political will of the voters of the U.S. has changed? Maybe that's what you should be asking yourself....and why you are upset that a President would change to fit such a political will (as if that's a bad thing)

it hasn't. But if you think it has, lets put it to a vote in each state and let the people decide. Thats the way this democratic republic is supposed to work-------------the people, not a few unelected judges.

if you want national gay marriage then lets have a constitutional amendment to clear it up once and for all. put it to a vote and see if 38 states will ratify it. You claim to have a majority, so lets do it.

You want to put civil rights to a vote, eh? You've lost and you know it....and now you are flailing. Not to worry, gays having the right to marry will not take away any of your rights.

We shall have to wait and see. Whatever decision the SCOTUS comes up with will become law. It should be interesting.

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

What is the role of SCOTUS as you understand it?

 

[PratchettFan]

it hasn't. But if you think it has, lets put it to a vote in each state and let the people decide. Thats the way this democratic republic is supposed to work-------------the people, not a few unelected judges.

if you want national gay marriage then lets have a constitutional amendment to clear it up once and for all. put it to a vote and see if 38 states will ratify it. You claim to have a majority, so lets do it.

You want to put civil rights to a vote, eh? You've lost and you know it....and now you are flailing. Not to worry, gays having the right to marry will not take away any of your rights.

We shall have to wait and see. Whatever decision the SCOTUS comes up with will become law. It should be interesting.

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

Yes. That is in the Constitution.

Horseshit, only congress can MAKE law. SCOTUS only exists to determine if a law is in compliance with the constitution. SCOTUS cannot MAKE law.

You are certainly free to think that. That does not change the facts. If SCOTUS determined SSM marriage is protected under the Constitution, then it becomes protected. That will be the law. You can call it anything you like, it will change nothing.

 

[dblack]

Anything they want. Why do you ask?

Ok. Then the problem is solved. Nothing prevents people from collaborating.

If you say so. I seem to be missing your point.

I don't see how. You want people to be able to voluntarily collaborate and I am pointing out that nothing stops them from doing so. So it appears we have no issue. We are in agreement.

But I never claimed anything was stopping them from doing so, so I'm not clear what you're talking about. I assume you're going back to this post:

I really think we're discussing two fundamentally incompatible conceptions of government. And the main difference between the two is the nominal purpose. In my preferred conception, the purpose of government is to maximally protect our inalienable individual rights, leaving the people free to form the society they want through voluntary collaboration.

The fact that nothing prevents people from voluntarily collaborating was actually my point. I raised it in response to the implication that the job of government is to "manage" society and that without state mandates none of our goals for society can be realized.

Then clarify your point for me. I thought you were arguing for some kind of change, but that doesn't seem to be the case now.

I'm definitely arguing for a change. I don't believe government should be used to dictate what kind of society we, voluntarily, choose to create. If some people want to create a social safety net, or build a bridge, or start a school, etc... they are free to do so, but they shouldn't be allowed to use the power of government to force others to assist them. That's what I see wrong with the modern conception of government. It's back to the referee vs manager analogy. Government shouldn't be used as a tool to bully minorities. Indeed, it's main job should be to prevent that kind of bullying.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

No, seriously. Personally I oppose gay marriage, but I am quite willing to accept the will of a majority of US citizens on the matter. I just want the people to have the decision, not a few judges with an agenda.

I am perfectly willing to accept the will of the people, why aren't the gays equally willing?

Because that's not how it works Corky. It's NEVER worked that way.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. Then the problem is solved. Nothing prevents people from collaborating.

If you say so. I seem to be missing your point.

I don't see how. You want people to be able to voluntarily collaborate and I am pointing out that nothing stops them from doing so. So it appears we have no issue. We are in agreement.

But I never claimed anything was stopping them from doing so, so I'm not clear what you're talking about. I assume you're going back to this post:

I really think we're discussing two fundamentally incompatible conceptions of government. And the main difference between the two is the nominal purpose. In my preferred conception, the purpose of government is to maximally protect our inalienable individual rights, leaving the people free to form the society they want through voluntary collaboration.

The fact that nothing prevents people from voluntarily collaborating was actually my point. I raised it in response to the implication that the job of government is to "manage" society and that without state mandates none of our goals for society can be realized.

Then clarify your point for me. I thought you were arguing for some kind of change, but that doesn't seem to be the case now.

I'm definitely arguing for a change. I don't believe government should be used to dictate what kind of society we, voluntarily, choose to create. If some people want to create a social safety net, or build a bridge, or start a school, etc... they are free to do so, but they shouldn't be allowed to use the power of government to force others to assist them. That's what I see wrong with the modern conception of government. It's back to the referee vs manager analogy. Government shouldn't be used as a tool to bully minorities. Indeed, it's main job should be to prevent that kind of bullying.

And if as a result the bridge doesn't get built, there are no schools and people starve... what then?

There is a perfect example of this actually happening right now. My in-laws live in N. Carolina in a small community with 35 or 40 homes. The road into the community is privately owned and essentially the responsibility of the community. Currently it is almost impassable because there is no HOA which can force people to pony up the money to maintain it. So it is not maintained. It just continues to get worse, even though fixing it would be in the best interest of everyone. In listening to my father in law, the only reason this has not moved into bloodshed is because that would be illegal. It's a marvelous example of libertarianism in action.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage IS a civil right...you can pout about it all day long, but it is. Ergo, unless you've got some compelling legal reason why including gays in that civil right causes harm........the government cannot deny that civil right to gay citizens.

So....rant all you want. I'm sure, in some way, it makes you feel like you've got some say in this matter.

Marriage is NOT a Civil Right. Just because some blockheaded Judge says it is, doesn't mean it is.

Dred Scott.

As to the harm/gays question, it is incumbent on your side to show that allowing gay marriage will NOT cause the harm you address.

The burden is on your side.

Here's what your side is doing wrong.....

This is a new phenomenon. Big time and a big, big way.

Maybe it isn't to you. Cool, I can understand that. But here's a clue -- Try looking outside your own little circle once in a while and understand how the rest of us live

We don't think about gays or gay marriage that much.

If we do, it's because we're forced to think about it.

So we will. We should think about it.

But here's what you're doing wrong......

It took us 5,000 years to end slavery.

It took another 5,000 years to end the poor treatment of women (and that isn't working too well everywhere)

It took 2,700 years to give women the vote.

And you want the world to grant your wish to change the way it thinks about gays in ten years?

You're pushing too hard. You're doing more harm to your cause than good. You may think you're winning small victories but you're not. You're setting your cause back by being bullying and aggressive.

Trust me. You better learn to slow down and savor each little victory as it comes

Marriage is most definitely a civil right as has been determined in several SCOTUS decisions. Not just one, but several. You may not like it, in this case....heck you may not have liked in the case of Loving v. Virginia....but it is. It's established case las.

Loving was interracial marriage, not two people of the same sex. Loving does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

Have you bothered to read the decision in that case? Here, let me quote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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.

Note the beginning.

please highlight the words "gay" or "same sex" in that decision. That decision is about race, not homosexuality

I see the word Marriage...as in "one of the 'basic CIVIL RIGHTS of man'"...Now...it is up to the likes of you to PROVE that gay citizens should NOT be included in that "basic CIVIL RIGHT". Get it?

 

[bodecea]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

 

[Hutch Starskey]

it hasn't. But if you think it has, lets put it to a vote in each state and let the people decide. Thats the way this democratic republic is supposed to work-------------the people, not a few unelected judges.

if you want national gay marriage then lets have a constitutional amendment to clear it up once and for all. put it to a vote and see if 38 states will ratify it. You claim to have a majority, so lets do it.

You want to put civil rights to a vote, eh? You've lost and you know it....and now you are flailing. Not to worry, gays having the right to marry will not take away any of your rights.

We shall have to wait and see. Whatever decision the SCOTUS comes up with will become law. It should be interesting.

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

SCOTUS can strike down laws.

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Exactly! If SCOTUS rules a law constitutional than it stands as law and conversely can rule it unconstitutional and strike it down.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

The most beautiful thing about this is that it is one of the finest examples of the intelligent use of the first amendment I have ever seen. I really think an entire nation turned around in its attitudes because of gay pride parades. It was brilliant. I can't begin to express my level of admiration for the people who came up with it. Admittedly, there were other things as well and the Westboro Baptist Church can certainly take a bow for making the opposition look like idiots. The parades are what got it going. Those people truly deserve statues.