State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[NYcarbineer]

Only in your opinion and it's not your authority to decide. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether equal protection applies.

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

True, and Rabbi is spinning his wheels. But what he's attempting to argue is what would happen if the state passed a law saying it refused to offer equal protection to gays wishing to marry, and state officials complied with state law?

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that it was impermissible for the state to deny equal protection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

 

[bendog]

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

True, and Rabbi is spinning his wheels. But what he's attempting to argue is what would happen if the state passed a law saying it refused to offer equal protection to gays wishing to marry, and state officials complied with state law?

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that it was impermissible for the state to deny equal protection.

Well, yes, I agree of course that what Rabbi suggests is illegal and even unconstitutional. But in Marbury v. Madison, the supreme court announced that is sometimes without power to the law. That is, the federal courts would not have the power to force the state to comply. Even if the DOJ sued the state, and courts enjoined the states from denying equal protection, the state could still refuse to comply.

Ultimately, it would come down to the federal govt using force, either with US Marshalls or troops.

 

[martybegan]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

The referees can't decide that the forward pass is illegal all of a sudden, on their own. The rulebook as to be changed for that.

and most pro sports are more like dictatorships than a democracy. Poor choice of comparison there, although most progressives do seem to like the hard handed fist of a dictator.

 

[Skylar]

It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

I'm pretty sure this argument was made in 1967 after the Loving decision. It didn't amount to much as the State doesn't have the authority to violate the rights of citizens. You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority. And as I remember, very inconsistently. As you were more than in favor of the McDonald V. Chicago decision where laws built on the state's sovereign authority were overruled by the Federal Courts.

So its clearly not state sovereignty that is your common denominator in your argument.

 

[bendog]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

The referees can't decide that the forward pass is illegal all of a sudden, on their own. The rulebook as to be changed for that.

and most pro sports are more like dictatorships than a democracy. Poor choice of comparison there, although most progressives do seem to like the hard handed fist of a dictator.

Marty brings up an interesting point, imo. Did the Sup Ct change the rule book, aka constitution and 14th amend, in finding DOMA illegal as to federal employees, and did the Circuits do the same in finding bans on same sex marriage unenforceable? Basically, the courts have found there is no rational argument for treating non-heteros differently in marriage from heteros.

If there was never any rational reason, then did the law change or was enforcement simply changed? I realize Marty and Rabbi would argue "it's for the children," but that argument was thoroughly discredited because there was no showing gays had no more negative impacts on child rearing than heteros.

 

[Skylar]

That's just absurd. The people put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

True, and Rabbi is spinning his wheels. But what he's attempting to argue is what would happen if the state passed a law saying it refused to offer equal protection to gays wishing to marry, and state officials complied with state law?

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that it was impermissible for the state to deny equal protection.

Well, yes, I agree of course that what Rabbi suggests is illegal and even unconstitutional. But in Marbury v. Madison, the supreme court announced that is sometimes without power to the law. That is, the federal courts would not have the power to force the state to comply. Even if the DOJ sued the state, and courts enjoined the states from denying equal protection, the state could still refuse to comply.

Until the passage of the 14th amendment, neither the Bill of Rights nor federal protections applied to the States. After the 14th (long after....around the turn of the century), the courts applied much of the bill of rights to the state, one provision at a time. The Federal government has every authority to protect the rights of its citizens. And enforce the abidance of those rights.

Ultimately, it would come down to the federal govt using force, either with US Marshalls or troops.

A similar State's Rights argument was made regarding segregation. In fact, its virtually identical. Ultimately, it came down to symbolic gestures like Wallace's standing in the school house doors.....and then stepping out of the way of integration. Actual uses of force are unnecessary. Implications of force all that is required. Hell, you wouldn't even need to go that far. Just withhold federal money from a State and the massive budget shortfalls would likely be enough to bring the majority of the state politicians into line.

 

[martybegan]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

The referees can't decide that the forward pass is illegal all of a sudden, on their own. The rulebook as to be changed for that.

and most pro sports are more like dictatorships than a democracy. Poor choice of comparison there, although most progressives do seem to like the hard handed fist of a dictator.

Marty brings up an interesting point, imo. Did the Sup Ct change the rule book, aka constitution and 14th amend, in finding DOMA illegal as to federal employees, and did the Circuits do the same in finding bans on same sex marriage unenforceable? Basically, the courts have found there is no rational argument for treating non-heteros differently in marriage from heteros.

If there was never any rational reason, then did the law change or was enforcement simply changed? I realize Marty and Rabbi would argue "it's for the children," but that argument was thoroughly discredited because there was no showing gays had no more negative impacts on child rearing than heteros.

I can give a rats ass about the children. My concern is solely that the courts have gone from interpreting law to creating law. They are changing the rule book, not interpreting the rules. We have an amendment process to change the rulebook if needed.

 

[Skylar]

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

The States absolutely do have the power to set rules for marriage.....as long as those rules don't violate the constitutional rights of its citizens. The federal government absolutely overturn any provision in state marriage laws that does so. As the courts did in the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967.

You can say 'they can't' all you like. History tells a very different story.

 

[Skylar]

I can give a rats ass about the children. My concern is solely that the courts have gone from interpreting law to creating law. They are changing the rule book, not interpreting the rules. We have an amendment process to change the rulebook if needed.

They've simply overturned unconstitutional restrictions in state marriage law. In terms of the exercise of federal power, the situation is identical to that of the Loving V. Virginia ruling in which the federal courts overruled unconstitutional restrictions in state marriage laws.

The federal judiciary not only has the authority to overturned unconstitutional legislation, they have a duty.

 

[bodecea]

Here is a link that may help the far left understand the Constitution:

The Constitution for Kids Kindergarten - 3rd Grade - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

A Short History
Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

In the religious world, marriage is almost exclusively the committed union between a single man and a single woman. Generally, the union is blessed or consecrated by a representative of the religion. An example is the presiding priest in a wedding ceremony. Marriage is found in all societies and religions, including the major religions of the West like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as those of the East like Buddhism and Hinduism.

In modern Christianity, marriage, and the love and sex that accompanies it, is seen as a blessing from God. Children are a prime goal of marriage, and continued marriage is of importance to the continuation of the faith as children are raised by devout parents.

Islam sees marriage as so important that it does not recognize the need for clerics to be celibate as in some Christian sects, such as Catholicism. The purpose of marriage in Islam is to provide company, to encourage love, to procreate, and to live in peace under the commands of Allah.

As one final example, Hindu marriage is also found in sacred texts. It is one of the sixteen essential rituals of a person's life. Married people have responsibilities to their parents, children, to guests, the community, and to the dead. Marriage is seen as a sacred duty.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I say get the government out of the business of "marriage".

There's where your problem is....you studied the U.S. Constitution based on 3rd grade texts.

Which is more than you ever did
Next.

What an informative retort......from the guy who thinks the Majority can vote on the rights of the Minority.

 

[Silhouette]

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that it was impermissible for the state to deny equal protection.

Oooh. Wikipedia eh? Did you write that page?

"deny equal protection" to whom specifically? Polygamists? No? Why not?

What an informative retort......from the guy who thinks the Majority can vote on the rights of the Minority.

Well, when it comes to behaviors the majority regulates them every day. When your behavior is repugnant to the majority you are subject to regulation. Cleoptomanic-Americans are discriminated against every day. Yet their compulsive behaviors they cannot control. What bigots the majority are, telling them they cannot realize their "ownership orientation"..

Next strawman anticipation "how does gay marriage hurt straight marriage!?"...

Answer: Gay marriage dissolves all marriage laws as they stand. Equal rights of a new extention based on behaviors means that you cannot disinclude polygamy and other types of consenting adults in love "marriages". How this hurts straight marriage and the children we want to incentivize being in them is that it waters down what marriage is. There no longer is an incentive to present children with the ideal arrangment for their mental health benefit.

That and "gay marriage" allows the barn door kicked open for gays to level lawsuits at not just secular but also religious-run orphanges...placing kids in the care of a subculture that gets 100% behind lewd gay sex acts as a matter of "pride" in front of kids down main street...they HOPE kids will be there and they even invite them to march alongside the S& M, bondage and fetish floats.

 

[bodecea]

Things have to be equal first.

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

Well said.

 

[bendog]

Marriage is not part of the Constitution, yet you seem to think it is..

Equal protection is, and once a state makes laws regarding marriage, those laws have to comply with the equal protection protected by the Constitution.

That's why banning interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

True, and Rabbi is spinning his wheels. But what he's attempting to argue is what would happen if the state passed a law saying it refused to offer equal protection to gays wishing to marry, and state officials complied with state law?

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that it was impermissible for the state to deny equal protection.

Well, yes, I agree of course that what Rabbi suggests is illegal and even unconstitutional. But in Marbury v. Madison, the supreme court announced that is sometimes without power to the law. That is, the federal courts would not have the power to force the state to comply. Even if the DOJ sued the state, and courts enjoined the states from denying equal protection, the state could still refuse to comply.

Until the passage of the 14th amendment, neither the Bill of Rights nor federal protections applied to the States. After the 14th (long after....around the turn of the century), the courts applied much of the bill of rights to the state, one provision at a time. The Federal government has every authority to protect the rights of its citizens. And enforce the abidance of those rights.

Ultimately, it would come down to the federal govt using force, either with US Marshalls or troops.

A similar State's Rights argument was made regarding segregation. In fact, its virtually identical. Ultimately, it came down to symbolic gestures like Wallace's standing in the school house doors.....and then stepping out of the way of integration. Actual uses of force are unnecessary. Implications of force all that is required. Hell, you wouldn't even need to go that far. Just withhold federal money from a State and the massive budget shortfalls would likely be enough to bring the majority of the state politicians into line.

Well, yes, but what I was asking in reference to Rabbi and Marty's assertion that the courts are changing the constitution was: did Loving actually announce new law in saying states couldn't ban bi-racial marriage OR did the courts finally, and belatedly, acknowledge the laws were based on bigotry rather than legitimate purpose?

 

[bodecea]

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that it was impermissible for the state to deny equal protection.

Oooh. Wikipedia eh? Did you write that page?

"deny equal protection" to whom specifically? Polygamists? No? Why not?

If you are familiar with Wikipedia, you know that there are links to the actual case file/decision if you are not too lazy to click on them.

 

[bodecea]

This is about people being equal, not things.

People are equal, what isn't equal is the marriages some are seeking.

That's not yours to decide. That is why we have a Court to interpret the Constitution.

You don't let the fans decide whether the player was in or out of bounds. That decision belongs to the referees.

The referees can't decide that the forward pass is illegal all of a sudden, on their own. The rulebook as to be changed for that.

and most pro sports are more like dictatorships than a democracy. Poor choice of comparison there, although most progressives do seem to like the hard handed fist of a dictator.

Marty brings up an interesting point, imo. Did the Sup Ct change the rule book, aka constitution and 14th amend, in finding DOMA illegal as to federal employees, and did the Circuits do the same in finding bans on same sex marriage unenforceable? Basically, the courts have found there is no rational argument for treating non-heteros differently in marriage from heteros.

If there was never any rational reason, then did the law change or was enforcement simply changed? I realize Marty and Rabbi would argue "it's for the children," but that argument was thoroughly discredited because there was no showing gays had no more negative impacts on child rearing than heteros.

I can give a rats ass about the children. My concern is solely that the courts have gone from interpreting law to creating law. They are changing the rule book, not interpreting the rules. We have an amendment process to change the rulebook if needed.

What is the statute number or name of the new law they created? All laws are recorded and numbered.

 

[Skylar]

What an informative retort......from the guy who thinks the Majority can vote on the rights of the Minority.

But only if we're talking about rights he doesn't like. If these are rights he does like.....the State has no right to infringe them.

Consistency, it seems, is not a terribly useful trait when arguing conservative positions.

 

[Skylar]

Well, yes, but what I was asking in reference to Rabbi and Marty's assertion that the courts are changing the constitution was: did Loving actually announce new law in saying states couldn't ban bi-racial marriage OR did the courts finally, and belatedly, acknowledge the laws were based on bigotry rather than legitimate purpose?

I'd say neither. The courts overruled a law that was unconstitutional. As they were intended to do.

 

[Skylar]

Well, when it comes to behaviors the majority regulates them every day. When your behavior is repugnant to the majority you are subject to regulation. Cleoptomanic-Americans are discriminated against every day. Yet their compulsive behaviors they cannot control. What bigots the majority is telling them they cannot realize their "ownership orientation"..

Your 'behavior' standard is blithering nonsense. Its not a legal standard for protecting rights. Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. And they're protected just the same.

You keep making up non-existent standards based on pseudo-legal nonsense and then insisting that the courts are bound by whatever you imagine.

They're really not.

 

[Silhouette]

But only if we're talking about rights he doesn't like. If these are rights he does like.....the State has no right to infringe them.

Consistency, it seems, is not a terribly useful trait when arguing conservative positions.

The state DOES have a right to regulate behaviors. Are you talking about gay sex/polygamy behaviors/choices or actual physical race?

Yes, republicans seem to be behind self-extermination by moving the bar on the political spectrum on this issue [and the children raised under the ilk of people who will follow along behind it in herd-think] so far to the left within their own party that it will be a matter of a few short years befor all the registered voters think that all erstwhile conservative ideas are something along the line of the dodo bird or the steam donkey.

Hard to rally a herd that you opened the door to the corral to and who all balled up over into the neighbor's pasture..