Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
Nonsense.
No one is talking about setting up any sort of 'domestic arrangement.'
At issue is the states refusal to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment; where same-sex couples already possess that inalienable right, a right that cannot be denied by any government or referendum.
Equal Protection means equal justice under the law. That has nothing to do with marriage and is not protected under the 14th amendment. A private institution (Church, Mosque, Chapel, or Temple) can deny the right to facilitate in an marriage they disagree with. Anything otherwise is a direct violation of another's First Amendment right.
Just stop.
Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?
At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time
All men created equal.....what a liberal concept
Liberals believe in big government controlling everyone and dolling out special favors to privileged groups. Liberals believe the government should micromanage the economy and choose winners and losers.
Nonsense.
No one is talking about setting up any sort of 'domestic arrangement.'
At issue is the states’ refusal to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment; where same-sex couples already possess that inalienable right, a right that cannot be denied by any government or referendum.
Equal Protection means equal justice under the law. That has nothing to do with marriage and is not protected under the 14th amendment. A private institution (Church, Mosque, Chapel, or Temple) can deny the right to facilitate in an marriage they disagree with. Anything otherwise is a direct violation of another's First Amendment right.
Just stop.
Your problem is that once government recognizes one marital union they are obligated to recognize all (insert your bestiality, incest and pedophilia references here)
The government can't say they recognize one type of love and not another......equal protection under the laws
I posted the Federalist papers aka Madison,
Which is exactly why they compromised on the Senate. Originally they were going to allow Congressional Reps to select Senators, but decided on State Legislatures. Thus the State Gov't could be the watch dog of its own Senators.
They were very careful to apply as many checks .
Madison was just a clever lawyer for the colonial ruling class. Like all lawyers, his presentation of his case, his anti-democratic gibberish, was just a cover for what he didn't dare say where the public might hear about it, which was, "Hey, fellow flunkies, if we bribe the lower-level flunkies in the state legislatures with the privilege of choosing senators, then they'll ratify our bosses' game plan."
This represented the first time the Supreme court had determined whether the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution represented an independent grant of power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.[4] They found it did, thus setting the stage for massive increases in federal spending, and consequent power, during the latter half of the 20th century.
And here we are. The Great Liberal Leaders said that the original Constitution wasn't good enough, and in FDR's case if he didn't get his way with the courts he tried to change it.
Obama disrespected the SCOTUS in the State of the Union.
.
I just posted it, and the State Legislatures were clearly to have a check on the Senate and Gov't.
That was before we found out state legislatures were the PROBLEM lol. Now we know the Senate is the adults- check out the corrupt HOUSE we have...anyone in the world could tell you the problem is big money, the corrupt Pubs it's bought, and the lies they tell to the dupes....get serious, ignoramuses....check the Reaganist collapse of the nonrich and the country in order to pander to the greedy rich, the stupidest wars ever and the world depression...give up on the Rush/Levin etc etc BS.
It's a lot harder to corrupt the entire State Legislature to gain the vote of one Senator. It's a hell of a lot easier to buy off one man who has no one to answer to for 6 years.
The United States resists tyranny because it is large and diverse, and because it has a strong central government that is also,
by the democratic process that forms it, diverse.
Tyranny becomes more a danger the smaller the population gets that is governed. States rights and sovereignty don't prevent tyranny, they enable it.
All you've really done was replaced the Tyranny of a King with a much large group or specific groups of people. You've had a greater loss of autonomy the larger and more diverse the population has become.
That essentially is Tyranny.
No you don't. The Kings weren't elected.
Example: If you're the state of Alabama in the 1950's, you have institutionalized segregration, racism, discrimination in place, all of which are examples of tyranny of a minority,
because you have the majority government of the state of Alabama behind it.
In 1964, the big central government, with the majority support drawn from ALL the diverse states, not just Alabama, comes along and outlaws the practices.
Question:
was it the smaller government or the bigger government holding the power that was better able to end the tyranny over the colored minority in the state of Alabama?
GOPers, Libretardians, and Constitutionazis see us, the people, as a mob of zombies, howling and screeching, pounding on the doors of the legislative bribe-market! Mindlessly mumbling, we are a clear and present danger to the republic on which they stand and replace it with our horrifying democracy! Their mirrors are out to get them.
Paranoia creates the munchies. Got your plutocratic popcorn ready? Free Kool-Aid provided at the Supreme Court food court.
people in general we just see as NOT REQUIRING EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD TO BE ABOUT THEM INDIVIDUALLY.
Each state is like a labor union The purpose of a state's Senators is to act as union representatives for their state COLLECTIVELY, rather than as representatives of the people in the state individually. Since the people on a more individual basis already HAVE representation in the person of their Representatives to the House, .
The mistake of giving state legislatures the power to elect Senators was corrected by the 17th amendment. No doubt there were many good reasons why the people of that era wanted it. I'm not going to question their wisdom.
Yes, I'm sure you NEVER question the "wisdom" of the majority vote . . . until they vote for something you don't like, you frigging hypocrite. Go piss on someone else's leg and try to convince them it's raining.
The "wise majority" also voted for Prohibition, remember. I'll bet hard cash you would have "questioned their wisdom" on that one, had you been there. The majority in the states voted for restrictions on abortion, and I know for a fact that you applaud the overturning of THAT majority vote by a handful of unelected lawyers in black dresses, and ditto the consistent majority votes against "gay marriage"; so again, fucking spare us your sanctimonious bullshit lies about your reverence for the majority, okay? You may be stupid enough to believe the garbage that spews from your piehole, but you're the only one.
The "wise majority" also voted for Proposition 8, remember, denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, and supported overwhelmingly by conservatives.
When it comes to hypocrisy, you and others on the right are the majority holders.
I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.
At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.
I posted the Federalist papers aka Madison,
Which is exactly why they compromised on the Senate. Originally they were going to allow Congressional Reps to select Senators, but decided on State Legislatures. Thus the State Gov't could be the watch dog of its own Senators.
They were very careful to apply as many checks .
Madison was just a clever lawyer for the colonial ruling class. Like all lawyers, his presentation of his case, his anti-democratic gibberish, was just a cover for what he didn't dare say where the public might hear about it, which was, "Hey, fellow flunkies, if we bribe the lower-level flunkies in the state legislatures with the privilege of choosing senators, then they'll ratify our bosses' game plan."
Please provide evidence of this claim.
Yes. The electorate gives government the power to regulate marriage as it sees fit. As a consequence, the electorate gave the government the power to regulate which types of parties cannot marry.
The idea that a big central government can grant the liberty people seek through the democratic progress is false.
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up a domestic arrangement, but the Government already is in the business of licencing marriage. That is a barrier to entry by the state. It may be to protect individuals from creating any type of domestic arrangement, but ultimately it is a private institution which sanctions the union between two consenting adults (churches, chapels, etc). There is no reason why a private institution couldn't oversee the rules and regulations among licencing.
Yes. The electorate gives government the power to regulate marriage as it sees fit. As a consequence, the electorate gave the government the power to regulate which types of parties cannot marry.
The idea that a big central government can grant the liberty people seek through the democratic progress is false.
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
Nonsense.
No one is talking about setting up any sort of 'domestic arrangement.'
At issue is the states refusal to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment; where same-sex couples already possess that inalienable right, a right that cannot be denied by any government or referendum.
I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.
At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.
I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.
At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.
The majority can be wrong, but only the majority has the right to be wrong.
Under this insulting system, they pay for the mistakes of a tiny minority of well-connected politicians, who only suffer the slight harm of not getting re-elected.
There is no such thing as a tyranny of the majority, which is a contradiction. How can people tyrannize over themselves?
Who judges that the will of the people against a minority is irrational and tyrannical?
If it is, it is the duty of the minority to persuade the majority to a different opinion, not have it forced upon them and re-inforced when it is proven by high crime or whatever we are forced to stomach that the majority had been right all along. Giving authority to pre-owned politicians is like an orphan getting to choose his parents. Anyone with such contempt for the people to call them a mob or dependent children is a traitor and should be punished appropriately. If you consider to be an inferior herd, your swollen head is only fit for a guillotine.
I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.
At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.
We do not have majority rule
We have a majority electing representatives
The reason the founding fathers wanted Senators to be elected the states was to PREVENT THE CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN DC.
.
Each state has two senators. Whether directly elected or appointed, how does that effect the concentration of power in DC?
How many times does this have to be explained to you before you stop acting the fool and engage the argument?
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
Nonsense.
No one is talking about setting up any sort of 'domestic arrangement.'
At issue is the states refusal to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment; where same-sex couples already possess that inalienable right, a right that cannot be denied by any government or referendum.
Equal Protection means equal justice under the law. That has nothing to do with marriage and is not protected under the 14th amendment. A private institution (Church, Mosque, Chapel, or Temple) can deny the right to facilitate in an marriage they disagree with. Anything otherwise is a direct violation of another's First Amendment right.
Just stop.
It is enough to say that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of marriage, with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.
By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.
PERRY v. BROWN, Nos. 10?16696, 11?16577., February 07, 2012 - US 9th Circuit | FindLaw
