The legislative branch. The liberal’s best friend takes away the will of the people

[JoeB131]

Race isn't being compared to orientation. Discrimination is being compared with discrimination.

Gays were not and have not been discriminated against. Again the comparison is not fitting you just want it to be that way.

Yes, gays were discriminated against, but the discriminators got their butts kicked by SCOTUS.

Actually, SCOTUS did the bare minimum they could do. They could have very well made gay marriage legal for the whole country. Instead, they whiffed at the ball with the Prop8 case, and just did the minimalist thing.

Not that I think this was a bad thing. Judge Walker overreached a bit in his initial ruling, and even the 9th circuit had to scale him back a bit.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is correct, but who? No CA Governor of either political stripe is gonna touch it. It's done. Gays will be marrying by the thousands in July.

Never said that they would BUT it is not decided by the SCOTUS. There is a difference.

Personally, I don’t think it mattered anyway and I actually did not want the court to decide on this. Why you might ask? Because the people were already doing it. I think that the debate would be better settled if the people finally woke up and did it themselves rather than the courts demanding that it was done. The courts were late to the table, people all over the damn country are passing gay rights bills on their own.

My point was exactly that
my intent was the judicial branch, not the legselative
good point
the will of the people have spoken

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

 

[Freewill]

Never said that they would BUT it is not decided by the SCOTUS. There is a difference.

Personally, I don’t think it mattered anyway and I actually did not want the court to decide on this. Why you might ask? Because the people were already doing it. I think that the debate would be better settled if the people finally woke up and did it themselves rather than the courts demanding that it was done. The courts were late to the table, people all over the damn country are passing gay rights bills on their own.

My point was exactly that
my intent was the judicial branch, not the legselative
good point
the will of the people have spoken

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

What document guarantees that two people of the same gender can marry? Where in all the documents of the Republic even mentions marriage? How does long standing law deny freedom when in fact gay marriage is a modern invention?

Everyone in the country has the right to marriage within parameters set by the STATE governments. Cousins can't marry by law. A man can not marry more then one woman by law. The point being society and the state sets the laws concerning marriage. The truth is that the gay community wasn't getting it done through the legislative process as laws are passed. When the people voted on the issue gay marriage was universally turn down, even in the liberal state of CA. The gay community can scream all they want about freedom and rights but they were denied NONE because they did not exist. Now we have the SCOTUS defeating laws that were legitimately passed something that Obama railed against when it came to Obamacare.

Setting aside the sexual aspect of gay marriage there is a HUGE economic impact. Could it be that the state of CA and its voters saw the economic impact and decided it was just too big? Of course that is highly probable for the state of CA but that ain't how the picture is painted.

It is a sad day when the SCOTUS makes law, such as when they ruled on Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade and now this.

 

[Freewill]

Race isn't being compared to orientation. Discrimination is being compared with discrimination.

Gays were not and have not been discriminated against. Again the comparison is not fitting you just want it to be that way.

Yes, gays were discriminated against, but the discriminators got their butts kicked by SCOTUS.

How were they discriminated against? Are first cousins discriminated against? Is NAMBLA discriminated against?

 

[FA_Q2]

Gays were not and have not been discriminated against. Again the comparison is not fitting you just want it to be that way.

Yes, gays were discriminated against, but the discriminators got their butts kicked by SCOTUS.

How were they discriminated against? Are first cousins discriminated against? Is NAMBLA discriminated against?

Yes first cousins are discriminated against and it is just as wrong. NAMBLA is not and that had been discussed a thousand times over. If you insist on bringing that misnomer up, then there is no more discussion possible. If not, we can continue.

It’s a contractual agreement. Period dot. There is no other state interest. In the same manner, the government cannot decide that a woman can’t buy a car from another woman. Basic contract. Multiple marriages are different as the contract that marriage entails does not work with more than 2 parties unless we change the ‘rights’ conveyed with marriage a great deal.

If person X wishes to enter into a mutual beneficial contract with person Y, the state has no right to intervene without just cause. It is not moral, icky, or any other of a thousand causes that the anto gay marriage crowd gives are nit ‘just causes.’ They are excuses.

You need to come up with at least ONE reason that gay’s should be barred from making that mutally agreed upon contract with each other.

 

[FA_Q2]

My point was exactly that
my intent was the judicial branch, not the legselative
good point
the will of the people have spoken

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

What document guarantees that two people of the same gender can marry? Where in all the documents of the Republic even mentions marriage? How does long standing law deny freedom when in fact gay marriage is a modern invention?

Everyone in the country has the right to marriage within parameters set by the STATE governments. Cousins can't marry by law. A man can not marry more then one woman by law. The point being society and the state sets the laws concerning marriage. The truth is that the gay community wasn't getting it done through the legislative process as laws are passed. When the people voted on the issue gay marriage was universally turn down, even in the liberal state of CA. The gay community can scream all they want about freedom and rights but they were denied NONE because they did not exist. Now we have the SCOTUS defeating laws that were legitimately passed something that Obama railed against when it came to Obamacare.

Setting aside the sexual aspect of gay marriage there is a HUGE economic impact. Could it be that the state of CA and its voters saw the economic impact and decided it was just too big? Of course that is highly probable for the state of CA but that ain't how the picture is painted.

It is a sad day when the SCOTUS makes law, such as when they ruled on Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade and now this.

Nothing guarantees anyone at all can marry. What document guarantees that I don’t take your children off the street and walk away with them?

You need to understand that the constitution is NOT a list of rights. That is a liberal mindset by the way. The constitution is a list of government can dos and the rights conveyed are NOT complete. IOW, even if nothing there states that you can do something that does not mean that you cannot do it.

The government has no right as per the fourteenth amendment to treat one person differently under the law than another. You are applying that law (the marriage laws) DIFFERENTLY based on the 2 people that wish to enter into that contract. That is a FACT, period. That fact you have to accept before you can begin to understand that problem here.

Then you also must see the ninth amendment. That is pretty clear here as well, just because there is no right in the constitution does not mean that it does not exist. Because of the ninth and fourteenth amendments, laws preventing gays from engaging in a mutual contract that is offered to those that are not gay (or are offered from 50 percent of the population to the other 50 percent) clearly do not stand up.

DO NOT fall into the trap where our rights suddenly need to be enumerated to exist. That assumes that if your right is NOT enumerated then the government has the ability to go in and violate you. That is a terrible road to go down and it is the cornerstone to modern governmental overreach. Look at what you really believe in as far as government goes and realize that opposing gay marriage has the same mentality and reasoning of those that you are diametrically opposed to in other areas.

 

[JRK]

Never said that they would BUT it is not decided by the SCOTUS. There is a difference.

Personally, I don’t think it mattered anyway and I actually did not want the court to decide on this. Why you might ask? Because the people were already doing it. I think that the debate would be better settled if the people finally woke up and did it themselves rather than the courts demanding that it was done. The courts were late to the table, people all over the damn country are passing gay rights bills on their own.

My point was exactly that
my intent was the judicial branch, not the legselative
good point
the will of the people have spoken

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

And I agree
No matter what the event, the will of the people "should" be heard
more and more each day that is taken away from us

 

[Seawytch]

What document guarantees that two people of the same gender can marry? Where in all the documents of the Republic even mentions marriage? How does long standing law deny freedom when in fact gay marriage is a modern invention?

It was the Supreme Court that declared, on at least three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right.

Women owning property within a marriage is modern invention. Non arranged marriages are a modern invention. Interracial marriage is a modern invention. Age of consent laws are a modern convention. There are a whole lot of "modern inventions" we took on when we broke away from Mother England.

Everyone in the country has the right to marriage within parameters set by the STATE governments.

Okay...13 states have done that for same sex couples, included them in their parameters.

Cousins can't marry by law.

And that's another one of dem dere "modern inventions". you was talkin' about.

Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the Civil War. However, according to Kansas anthropology professor Martin Ottenheimer, after the Civil War the main purpose of marriage prohibitions was increasingly seen less as maintaining the social order and upholding religious morality and more as safeguarding the creation of fit offspring. [...]

hese developments led to 13 states and territories passing cousin marriage prohibitions by the 1880s. Though contemporaneous, the eugenics movement did not play much of a direct role in the bans, and indeed George Louis Arner in 1908 considered the ban a clumsy and ineffective method of eugenics, which he thought would eventually be replaced by more refined techniques. Ottenheimer considers both the bans and eugenics to be "one of several reactions to the fear that American society might degenerate".[22] In any case, by the period up until the mid-1920s the number of bans had more than doubled.[7] Since that time, the only three states to add this prohibition have been Kentucky in 1943, Maine in 1985, and Texas in 2005. The NCCUSL unanimously recommended in 1970 that all such laws should be repealed, but no state has dropped its prohibition since the mid-1920s.

Wiki: Cousin Marriage

But not all states got rid of their prohibitions...

Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

A man can not marry more then one woman by law.

That is correct. They are welcome to try and fight for it and get it passed through State Legislature and have it challenged at the SCOTUS. Best of luck to them.

The point being society and the state sets the laws concerning marriage. The truth is that the gay community wasn't getting it done through the legislative process as laws are passed.

Now hold on there buckaroo, that isn't true. There have been quite a few states that have passed same sex marriage laws through legislation. Do you believe the Federal Government should treat those marriages differently than they treat legal marriages between heterosexuals? If you marry in Alabama isn't your marriage also legal in California? Well, my legal marriage in CA isn't legal in AL. Do you get why these things are being challenged in court? Do you have even just the smallest inkling of how Equal Protection applies?

When the people voted on the issue gay marriage was universally turn down, even in the liberal state of CA.

And interracial marriage would have been "turned down" if the people had voted on it. Should that have happened in 1965?(when the SCOTUS struck down all anti-miscegenation laws) Should the SCOTUS have just let the "will of the people" decide when blacks could marry whites?" How about when courts decided that women could own property inside of the marriage separate from her husband? What do you think would have happened if "the people" had voted on that? Keep in mind, those court cases occurred before women could vote.

The gay community can scream all they want about freedom and rights but they were denied NONE because they did not exist. Now we have the SCOTUS defeating laws that were legitimately passed something that Obama railed against when it came to Obamacare.

In Prop 8, rights already granted were taken away by a people's initiative. While the law was indeed "legitimately passed", the law itself was unconstitutional. It would be just as if the voters of CA passed any other unconstitutional initiative. There is a reason for the three, separate, branches of government and why we have a judicial system to challenges violations of our individual rights.

Setting aside the sexual aspect of gay marriage

Why was it even something you considered and had to set aside? Is the sexual aspect something you ponder upon a great deal?

there is a HUGE economic impact. Could it be that the state of CA and its voters saw the economic impact and decided it was just too big? Of course that is highly probable for the state of CA but that ain't how the picture is painted.

Yes, it will have an impact...a positive one by ALL reports and studies.

However, more than a decade of research by myself and other economists and analysis by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin suggests just the opposite: that state and federal budgets will actually get a positive boost if gay couples are allowed to marry. Any additional state and federal spending on benefits would be outweighed by savings from lower cash assistance and Medicaid spending. Moreover, many same-sex couples would also discover - unhappily, one imagines - the marriage penalty in the federal income tax system, resulting in a likely increase in tax revenue.

And here's something the government might consider in reckoning the bottom line with regard to legalizing gay marriage: Hundreds of thousands of excited couples would start planning weddings, generating at least $1.5 billion, by my calculations, in spending on flowers, cakes, bands, meals, photographers, hotels, tourism in general, suits and gowns (not to mention those one-off gowns for the members of the bridal party). And of course all those purchases generate millions in sales tax revenue for state and local governments.

The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage

Opening Marriage to Same-sex Couples in Washington Will Boost the State and Local Economy by $88 million

Extending marriage to same-sex couples will reduce the State’s public assistance expenditures. Just as married spouses are obligated to provide for one another’s basic needs, a same-sex spouse’s income and assets would be included in assessing an individual’s eligibility for means-tested public benefits after entering a marriage. This will reduce the number of people eligible for such benefits. We estimate that extending marriage to same-sex couples will save the State at least $3.4 million per year and as much as $7.3 million in its spending on public benefit programs, depending on how much discretion the State is granted to determine whether the income of same-sex spouses is included in Medicaid eligibility standards.

The Impact on Maine’s Budget of
Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry

And finally, if we had marriage equality on a national level...

CBO: The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages

The $9.5 Billion Gay Marriage Windfall

It is a sad day when the SCOTUS makes law, such as when they ruled on Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade and now this.

But when they make laws like money is speech and corporations are people, that's A-Okay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think you mean "the Judicial Branch".

Grammar School Civics Fail!

to say that Gays should be happy with "legal unions" is like saying black folks should have been perfectly happy with this...

It dispenses water, right?

What does that have to do with the will of the People?
and your right, that was a stuipd mistake on my part

Actually, the premise of your thread was your stupid mistake.

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy, its citizens subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 is proof of that.

When the people act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, either through the legislative process or referendum, it is the role and responsibility of the judiciary to invalidate those laws determined to be un-Constitutional.

Article. IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

That means the people do not have the authority to violate the civil liberties of a given class of persons in a state, even if that reflects the will of the majority; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence.

Consequently, Proposition 8 was invalidated because it violated the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

It had nothing to do with liberals ‘taking away the “will” of he people,’ as advocates of Proposition 8 have only themselves to blame.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My point was exactly that
my intent was the judicial branch, not the legselative
good point
the will of the people have spoken

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

And I agree
No matter what the event, the will of the people "should" be heard
more and more each day that is taken away from us

The reason neo-cons and social traditionalists lose major elections is the consequence of their poor choices leading to electoral consequences. The American people "hear" you and say "no".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My point was exactly that
my intent was the judicial branch, not the legselative
good point
the will of the people have spoken

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

And I agree
No matter what the event, the will of the people "should" be heard
more and more each day that is taken away from us

Nonsense.

Nothing is being ‘taken away,’ as the people never possessed the authority to violate citizens’ civil liberties to begin with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gay marriage does not violate JRK's civil and religious liberties.

 

[thanatos144]

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

And I agree
No matter what the event, the will of the people "should" be heard
more and more each day that is taken away from us

Nonsense.

Nothing is being ‘taken away,’ as the people never possessed the authority to violate citizens’ civil liberties to begin with.

sucking dick does not give one special civil liberties

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And I agree
No matter what the event, the will of the people "should" be heard
more and more each day that is taken away from us

Nonsense.

Nothing is being ‘taken away,’ as the people never possessed the authority to violate citizens’ civil liberties to begin with.

sucking dick does not give one special civil liberties

Welcome to my nightmare

Indeed not, and no one ever said it did. And no one, including homosexuals, possess ‘special liberties.’

But same-sex couples do enjoy the same civil liberties as everyone else: the right to equal protection of the law, and the right to access their state’s marriage law, as equals among every other resident of their state.

Same-sex couples have always possessed this right, since before the advent of the Republic, the issue now concerns only states that refuse the acknowledge that fact.

 

[JRK]

Nonsense.

Nothing is being ‘taken away,’ as the people never possessed the authority to violate citizens’ civil liberties to begin with.

sucking dick does not give one special civil liberties

Welcome to my nightmare

Indeed not, and no one ever said it did. And no one, including homosexuals, possess ‘special liberties.’

But same-sex couples do enjoy the same civil liberties as everyone else: the right to equal protection of the law, and the right to access their state’s marriage law, as equals among every other resident of their state.

Same-sex couples have always possessed this right, since before the advent of the Republic, the issue now concerns only states that refuse the acknowledge that fact.

One man
One woman
Not 2 men, one woman
Not 2 women, one man
not cousins
not brother-sister

now your telling me that same sex has this right that these people do not?

 

[JRK]

We differ quite a bit though in that I think that if the people failed the SCOTUS would HAVE to step in. Fundamentally, we were treating 2 adults differently based on sex. I cannot square that with the 14th no matter how I try.

So far, not one single accurate argument against allowing gays has arisen. I want to see the people do it because I want the country to accept that fact. With the court, there are going to be more that see this as activism rather than the general and correct course that should be taken.

As a firm believer in freedom, I am forced to acknowledge and support the freedom of those that do things I am not supportive of. Though I have no ill will against homosexuals, I certainly do not have a ‘dog’ in this race as I am not one.

And I agree
No matter what the event, the will of the people "should" be heard
more and more each day that is taken away from us

Nonsense.

Nothing is being ‘taken away,’ as the people never possessed the authority to violate citizens’ civil liberties to begin with.

The will of the people in CA. have been taken away
they stated there will through a vote and that was taken away
It is that simple

 

[JakeStarkey]

sucking dick does not give one special civil liberties

Welcome to my nightmare

Indeed not, and no one ever said it did. And no one, including homosexuals, possess ‘special liberties.’

But same-sex couples do enjoy the same civil liberties as everyone else: the right to equal protection of the law, and the right to access their state’s marriage law, as equals among every other resident of their state.

Same-sex couples have always possessed this right, since before the advent of the Republic, the issue now concerns only states that refuse the acknowledge that fact.

One man
One woman
Not 2 men, one woman
Not 2 women, one man
not cousins
not brother-sister

now your telling me that same sex has this right that these people do not?

As long as monogamy remains the law (one man, one women, or two of the same sex), then, no, those who wish polygyny and polyandry do not have the same right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The will of the people in CA. have been taken away
they stated there will through a vote and that was taken away
It is that simple

It is simple if the CA voters decided to put JRK in slavery and in the artichoke fields, the vote would be unconstitutional.

JRK, you have lost no civil or religious liberty.

 

[JRK]

Jake, your on ignore for ever by so many
why waste your time?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that is why you answer me, JRK? Your civil and religious liberty is not harmed. The youth and middle generations no longer believe in neo-conservatism. The great majority of America repudiates evangelical social traditionalism.

The day has passed for your side of the party.