The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[kaz]

And PS what YOU claim the 14th amendment says is what is beyond pathetic and also incorrect. (I'd call it a LIE but I'm not that stooopid.)

I can't argue with you, you'll neg rep me. Bitch.

Oops, I shouldn't have said that, you'll neg rep me. What the hell, you're a bitch.

Aww boo hoo... Your argument here is nothing but a useless bitch!

We've never even encountered each other before and I negged you today because YOU went off topic and continually attacked me personally. (retard!)

I actually stopped engaging with you when you cried your little tears and neg repped me for disagreeing with you in a discussion. I've gotten into it with so many on the site over so many issues and only very few of you are too useless of a bitch to start negging people because you don't like what we're arguing.

My rep value means nothing to me. I appreciate very much when people positive rep me or thank me, but for the specific post that they did that for. I mean I don't care how many points I have. So your neg rep meant nothing other then to show what a completely useless bitch you are. I hope you're not married when you go all hateful bitch for a disagreement. No guy deserves you.

 

[kaz]

Just because it was cut from the post doesn't change the definition of "illegal":

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit​

I meant nothing by cutting it, you can't carry every point forward or the posts get massive. If you rob a bank, that is "unlawful, illlicit." If Mike goes to the government and want to marry Steve, you are told "no." It's not a violation of the law, it's just not recognized by the law as marriage.​

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit

Since it's not recognzied by the law, then it is illegal, i.e. unlawful - not within the scope of the law.

Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

So just to verify. You are in fact saying it's "illegal" for a ball to be red?​

 

[Valerie]

I can't argue with you, you'll neg rep me. Bitch.

Oops, I shouldn't have said that, you'll neg rep me. What the hell, you're a bitch.

Aww boo hoo... Your argument here is nothing but a useless bitch!

We've never even encountered each other before and I negged you today because YOU went off topic and continually attacked me personally. (retard!)

I actually stopped engaging with you when you cried your little tears and neg repped me for disagreeing with you in a discussion. I've gotten into it with so many on the site over so many issues and only very few of you are too useless of a bitch to start negging people because you don't like what we're arguing.

My rep value means nothing to me. I appreciate very much when people positive rep me or thank me, but for the specific post that they did that for. I mean I don't care how many points I have. So your neg rep meant nothing other then to show what a completely useless bitch you are. I hope you're not married when you go all hateful bitch for a disagreement. No guy deserves you.

What a bitter tool you are. I see how little it means to you too...

FTR - I am married with children and you can kiss my ass!






I made 2 posts this afternoon to no one in particular, addressed only to the topic itself.

You FAIL to address them properly without making things up and making personal attacks... I wonder if you're capable...?




My first post in this thread... Post #395

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gay-marriage-cant-be-used-14.html#post4011296



My second post in this thread... Post #396

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gay-marriage-cant-be-used-14.html#post4011341

 

[WorldWatcher]

I meant nothing by cutting it, you can't carry every point forward or the posts get massive. If you rob a bank, that is "unlawful, illlicit." If Mike goes to the government and want to marry Steve, you are told "no." It's not a violation of the law, it's just not recognized by the law as marriage.

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit

Since it's not recognzied by the law, then it is illegal, i.e. unlawful - not within the scope of the law.

Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

So just to verify. You are in fact saying it's "illegal" for a ball to be red?

If there is no law addressing that ball must be red or a law only authorizing use of blue balls. Then yes a red ball would be illegal, although I know of know law that would make having a red ball criminal (which is a different issue).

Let's say you have an NBA team playing a regular season game. The rules specify that the balls must be inflated to a specific PSI, they must be of a specified diameter, they must be constructed of leather, they must have groves and pebbling in a certain fashion, and they must be of a natural leather finish. In such a case it would be illegal to play with a red ball, yet playing with a red ball would not be criminal.


>>>>

 

[dustythedog]

Marriage should be between a Man & Woman. I think that if you want to be with another person of the same sex go ahead, but think ahead, go to an attorney,spell out who gets what when the relationship goes down the tube.If a church paster wants to marry you in the Name of God, then I don't think he has the laws of God in mind. Yes, I beleave gay marriage is sinful, but, so is lying, cheating, stealing,killing,ect
Dusty the Dog
P.S.
I've sniffed my share of tails,and the girls smell better!

 

[drsmith1072]

I've made claims that are absolutely true.

PROVE IT! Show HOW they are TRUE.

Laid out that Obama doesn't have a record to point to that shows he has a handle on the siuation. That nothing he's done, or failed to provide leadership on, shows he's had success getting the fiscal house in order. Shows that unemployment hasn't dropped. Shows that jobs creation is happening. Shows that he's tackled the meat and potato's that caused the downgrade he was warned of months ago.

Now, why can't you address those issues, and prove me wrong on anything i've clamed?

Your spinning and deflecting only makes you look weak.

Now, prove me wrong.....Show us where he's been successful in turning this economy around. Show us the record that disputes my claims.

Funny, but I have yet to see even one Obamabot provide one.....Like you, it's nothing but spin and deflection, in an attempt to avoid his lack of leadership, and failings like the plague.

Saying it does NOT make it so. and the burden of proof is on YOU. I don't have to prove you wrong hypocrite. You have provided nothing of substance to back up your claims and I am fine with that. Are you? LOL

Next you will try to change the subject and then 4+ pages later you will be claiming that you already did prove it when you haven't.

You're a fuckin' joke, lmao!

Unemployment is 9.1%.....Job growth has not improved. Obama's failed on that front...FACT!....Unless you can show the record that states otherwiise.....Can you?

and yet in the presidential debate how many republicans stated that the federal government has NO role in job creation?? The truly sad fact is that they make this argument even as they try to hold obama accountable for the lack of something he has NO role in creating.

Obama did not balance the budget....Fact....prove otherwise.....can you?

Obana did not cut the debt, it exploded....FACT!....Prove otherwise....Can you?
Obama did not cut the deficit, once again, BOOOOOM!.....FACT!....Prove otherwise...Can you?

Obama did not rein in spending, he ramped it up....FACT!....Prove otherwise....Can You?

Food Stamp use has steadily risen....FACT....Prove otherwise......Can You?

The stimulus failed. Nothings changed, it's only getting worse.......FACT.....Prove otherwise.....Can you?

He rammed an unpopular albatross of a healthcare bill down our throats, that's panning out to be a future jobs kiiler, particularly among small business....Not to mention, the constitutional aspect where rulings that it is unconstitutional are coming down the pike, and aleady have come down the pike.......FACT!......Prove otherwise.......Can you?

The downgrade happened on his watch. He was warned it was coming months ago. He did nothing......It's on his ass, he's the president.......FACT!.....Prove otherwise.....Can you.

This is all being reported on every damn day....What do you do, just stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen to what's going on whenever Obama's failings are reported by left and right media?

Come on man, if i'm wrong, prove it......Quit deflecting and show us that record that proves me wrong.......Show us how he can prove his actions and leadership turned this economy around, and he is fully on top of things.

What are you affraid, the TRUTH?

Here is your original list and not the trimmed down altered one that you presented above.

Yeah, i've got everything I need:

9.1% unemployment

No record of tackling spending or borrowing.

No record of passing a budget.

No record of balancing the budget.

No record of tackling the debt.

No record of tackling the deficit.

Passing an unpopular healthcare bill, that is proving to be a future jobs killer, particularly for small business.

A failed stimulus.

Tiredly placing the blame on everybody else, but himself.

Not accepting responsibility.

No shovel ready jobs....In fact, just a few weeks ago it seemed to just be a big joke to him.

Number of food stamp recipients going through the roof.

And on and on and on.

Now where is your PROOF of your ORIGINAL list??

P.S. you telling me to prove you wrong does NOTHING to prove your own claims.

 

[drsmith1072]

There is no gateway argument here. Or maybe you are making one. I'm not for the legalization of pot, I'm for the legalization of all drugs because you should not be arrested for what's in your blood. I'm saying that if this is an all encompassing argument, that anyone can get married, then it should include incest. Its not a gateway argument, just let the states decide. Hell I even argued that the DOMA was unconstitutional (even though it gives a lot of 'conservatives' what they want).

Putting words into my mouth again. BTW I noticed that you failed to respond to your own words and show how and when you substantiated your claims. Imagine that. You are arguing that one should lead to the other and so on in a desperate attempt to make the "slippery slope" argument. Denying it even as you continue to amke such argument won;t change the fact that you are making "slippery slope" arguments.

Lets get this straight. A slipper slope argument is an argument in which one party threatens the other with terrible potential consequences if situation A happens. If A happens then OMG no B will happen. That is not the construct of my argument. I am not arguing that I don't want same sex marriage, I'm arguing that I want the states to be able to decide. I don't care if you marry your mom, hell keep it in the family. YOU are the one that is threatened by the slippery slope. In order for the slippery slope to apply, I would have to be presenting it in order to generate fear. Clearly I am not doing that. If there is anyone putting words into anyone's mouth it is you that are putting words into my mouth. I have never approached this from "I don't want same sex marriage because I don't want incest" hell, most states (37) have some variation or form of incest. The POINT is that the STATE gets to decide what it will consider a legal marriage and the federal government doesn't have a say in it.

Why bring up incest and polygamy at all considering they have no bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to same ssex marriage or not?

The only REAL pupose for bringing it up is to deter people from arguing in favor of same sex marriage based on how you and others are trying to equate support for same sex marriage to support for incest and polygamy. It's a lame scare tactic and has NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not. Please stay on topic.

repeated the claim with no substance as per usual. That is how you have presented your "argument" throughout this thread. You make a statement and then go into other types of relationship you think should be allowed instead of addressing how the 14th does not apply.

How much study have you done with regards to original intent in the Constitution? Just curious what your background is on it. Have you read Madison's notes? Jefferson's letters? It is not assumed that the federal government has authority, it is assumed that it does NOT have authority until the States grant such an authority. In fact, without the guarantee that there would be a bill of rights there would have been no Constitution ratified. Of the original 12 proposed 10 were ratified. The States created the federal government to grant certain authority to a central power and they did not approach the idea of ratification with the intention of granting the federal government all powers not listed in the Constitution.That is what the 10th amendment is all about. That is what the enumeration of powers is all about.

Madison?? He wrote the 14th amendment?? Really?? The fact is that madison was dead long before the 14th amendment was ratified so what are you abbling about now? Please explain what you believe the 14th amendment does. BTW your rant still did NOTHING to substantiate your previous claim.

again with your BS definitoin of discriminating. I have asked for the source of the definition multiple times and you have failed to provide one every time you were asked. Why is that? How is limiting something, like marriage, to only a few people not discrimination??

Why don't we look at that the authors of the 14th amendment used as their basis for discrimination?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude[/b

Ok so how does that define discrimination and how does that defend your choice of words?? I see that it talks about the right to vote but it does not say that that is the only accepted definition of discrimination. You presume too much now where is your substance??

Now before you go all "the definition has changed" on me, that is not sufficient. You must look at what the authors agreed to. Original intent is important, in fact, it is paramount. Take for example the 19th amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Same right and new definition of discrimination. If you want to apply a new definition of a protected class you should outline it in the Constitution.

Nice spin but cherry picking from the constitution to talk about voting rights does not define discrimination.
The fact that they had to focus on those specific forms of discrimination says more about how obstinant our ancestors were to the point that they had to have a special amendment put in place to specifically tell them how bassackwards they were in spite of the fact that the rights affrorded and protected by the constitution already applied to every human being. That is the same now but you like so many others are so bassackwards that you are demanding that an amendment be written and ratified to specifically tell you that equal treatment must be afforded to those who should already have that equal treatement without question.

Why do you have to be told what to think instead of just doing what is just and fair??

 

[drsmith1072]

Instead of telling me how wrong I am, why don't you tell me WHY I am wrong? (hint: you might look to stare decisis -- by the way its a dumb precedent but its your best argument)

Are you mental?? I said no such thing or made no such argument. I clearly said "instead of just SAYING it how about you show HOW and WHY. So please learn to read.

that is your problem you seem to see you "telling" someone something as substantiating your argument when it is NOT.

You assume the Constitution tells us what the federal government cannot do... the Constitution tells us what the federal government can do. If there is going to be a federal intervention then it should be in the form of an amendment. If 75% of the states cannot agree to give the authority to the federal government then it doesn't have the authority.

I assumed no such thing. Again why do you have to be told that others should be treated equally??

is that supposed to make sense??

There is no "everyone must be able to marry anyone they choose" protection.

but that is not what you said. LOL However, why do you need to be specifically told what to do?? Equal protection under the law is pretty simple in that the law should apply equally to all citizens therfore any law that does not apply equally to some is therefore a violation of the 14th mendment. It really is that simple.

i'm sorry but when you go out of your way to make shite up and attribute it to me so you can frame my argument and create counterpoints to things I never said so you can claim I am wrong based on your works of fiction that goes above and beyond mere disagreement.

I'm not going out of my way to make shit up. I have never said "you said". I have tried to draw a logical conclusion to what you are saying... If you say A + 1 = 5 and I assume A = 4 then I am saying so. Maybe I should just ask for clarification instead of telling you what I think you're saying. When I say things like "if you say this about same sex marriage then you must also consider it for incestuous marriage" I'm not saying "you said xxx" I'm saying that the logical conclusion of your first statement is the second. You saying "you're making a slippery slope argument" however, is putting words in my mouth. Here, let me revise it and ask the question: How do you draw the distinction between telling someone they cannot marry someone of the same gender and telling someone they cannot marry someone of the same branch of the family tree? I can only assume that when you say that the reason is because you find incest to be objectionable but same sex marriage to be acceptable. If that is not the case then please explain, other than social acceptability, why the two are different.

I have already shown examples do I need to show them again?? You have had a habit of trying to put words into my mouth so you could base a personal attack on your work of fiction.

I sense that your argument is that two people of the same sex can marry someone because you want them to be able to and you don't care what the argument used is.

A man should be able to marry another man because frogs have no hair, there you go my friend. Problem solved.
Mike

and here

Before you give me the "gay people aren't the same as incest, incest is disgusting"... YOU find someone who is incestuious as disgusting as some people find gay people. I'm not arguing because I care either way, I'd rather see the state the hell out of the institution of marriage, but before I see that I want to see the correct use of an amendment.

So how are you not trying to put words into my mouth?? I never mentioned incest or polygamy other than to argue that they do not apply and yet on several occasion you have tried to create a position out of thin air and attribute it to me so you could counter an argumnet that I never made.

 

[drsmith1072]

You claim it's not the intention but that is the only intention available because they have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not. Throwing them in only serves to muddy the waters, obfuscate, confuse the debate by introducing topics that have no bearing but only serve to distract.

See. How is that not putting words in my mouth. Aren't you doing the same thing? You're really asking for me to show you how I don't see it that way. Who gets to decide what the intent of the message is? The sender or the receiver? Seriously man... it is NOT a gateway argument.

When there is only one possible intent in the real world then there is no need for an assumption to be made. Explain what other intent there could be. Please, show HOW the topic of incest or polygamy has any bearing on whether the 14th amendment appiles to same sex marriage or not.
I have asked you to show this several times over and you have failed every time. so please explain HOW.

Then your NEW "gateway" argument is even more absurd and a strawman. No one is arguing that the states licenses don't count or that they should be replaced by federal licenses. The argumnet is that they should only be issued fairly and equally.

It is not a straw man argument. If you are saying that individual states do not have the authority to determine what the eligibility requirements are to constitute a license then why bother to have a state license? Now look, if you are going to define sexual orientation as a protected class then do so in the Constitution. That is part of the reason an amendment, one way or the other, would make sense. Put the whole argument to bed once and for all.

Yes it is a strawman. You are trying to define my postion based on a work of fiction because no one has argued that the states should not issue licenses or that the fed should issue all licenses. That is a position that you created and are falsely attributing to others out of sheer desperation. Once again you try to put words into my mouth.

If you allow preference (sexual or otherwise) to become a protected class though, then you do start down a slipper slope argument don't you? Race/sex are external features, hard to NOT notice them. Preference? Because Steve likes Barry suddenly he has some sort of protection? That is what you are asserting.

I'm not throwing them in to muddy the waters. I'm throwing them in because I see them as the same. You are telling a person who they can and cannot marry -- I fail to see the difference.

No that is NOT what I am asserting but thanks once again for trying to put words into my mouth.
BTW the belief that you "SEE them as the SAME" (but apparently not all marriages are the same) is not a valid argument nor does it show how they, incest and polygamy, have any bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or not.
That is the topic and all other sidebar BS is nothing but a deflection tactics by those who can't come up with a valid argument as to WHY the 14th amendment does not apply to same sex marriages.

The sad thing is that even though you see the inequality again putting words in my mouth you still argue against applying equality claiming that the 14th doesn't apply while failing to show how. A married opposite sex couple has certian rights and priveledges that same sex partners do not have or qualify for so how is that NOT a violation of the 14th amendment?

You are exactly right about the bolded part. I am FINE with that statement. The solution is not to interfere with the states actions, it is to pare back the federal actions. Stop the tax loopholes for married people. The 14th amendment isn't violated by the definition of marriage, it is violated by the tax laws period. End the rights and privileges for married people period. I've advocated that almost this entire thread.

So now you agree that the 14th applies in order to argue in favor of removing the fed even though you have previously argued that it did not apply at all?? Contradict yourself much?? BTW the states have laws that only apply to straight married couples as well which means as individuals they are protected under the law while same sex couples are not offered that equal protection so how can that be remedied by removal of the fed?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I've read it. I just disagree. I agree that we should not discriminate against single people (or people without children though).

Mike

So you disagree with the 14th amendment?? It clearly speaks and applies to all citizens not couples therefore if one citizen has more protections than another based solely on a relationship then that is not rqual protection under the law.

 

[kaz]

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit

Since it's not recognzied by the law, then it is illegal, i.e. unlawful - not within the scope of the law.

Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

So just to verify. You are in fact saying it's "illegal" for a ball to be red?

If there is no law addressing that ball must be red or a law only authorizing use of blue balls. Then yes a red ball would be illegal, although I know of know law that would make having a red ball criminal (which is a different issue).

Let's say you have an NBA team playing a regular season game. The rules specify that the balls must be inflated to a specific PSI, they must be of a specified diameter, they must be constructed of leather, they must have groves and pebbling in a certain fashion, and they must be of a natural leather finish. In such a case it would be illegal to play with a red ball, yet playing with a red ball would not be criminal.


>>>>

The NBA can't make anything criminal, or illegal.

Illegal means "against the law," it doesn't mean not sanctioned by the law. Gay marriage isn't illegal, it's just not recognized as marriage.

I'd like to have no marriage recognized by law. But I realize the majority of Americans are going to have to go along with me on that. I would not want a self appointed dictator to force my view on everyone. You want gay marriage to be the law, but you are happy with a self appointed dictator forcing it on us.

The Left in this country believe that majority vote is justification for plundering someone's wealth and democracy should be bypassed entirely when it comes to forcing their values on us all. The Democratic party does not respect individuals, they are a direct threat to liberty.

 

[drsmith1072]

One more note about why I want an amendment. Ideally, I would have an amendment that would have government out of marriage entirely but if I can't get that there should be an amendment to finally create some sort of consensus. Part of the reason an amendment is so hard to pass is that the founding fathers was the belief that if you couldn't get 3/4 the states to agree to give the federal government a specific power then it was not something necessary. Tuller worked in the 20th century to change the amendment process to a simple majority but failed because even as late as the early 1900's it was understood why we had this process and he never achieved his goals. I think you are proposing an informal amendment which is fundamentally contrary to the idea of a Constitutional Republic. If you are going to allow a change in culture to change the limits of government without explicit permission from the states then there really is no need for the Constitution or Constitutional amendments.

DrS when we disagree I think largely it results from a fundamental disagreement on the limits and reasons for the Constitution. There are times that it definitely doesn't work in my favor as far as what I would like to see in a society. The net result though, is that we have a federal government that is (supposed to be) limited in power. Changing the meaning of the Constitution with the times is a dangerous precedent that we set a long time ago and it opens up debates like this one because in reality our privileges should (and I believe are for the most part) protected. Things like the patriot act are allowed to happen because the citizenship of this country did not hold their representatives to the oaths they took upon entering office. The net result of our failure to function as a Constitutional Republic are the discussions we're having right at this minute. We should not be attempting to weave and dodge our way into making the Constitution stretch to make it fit our desires; that precedent is what got us to where we are at. We should have dealt with the issues at the state level and required of our government that if they were going to take an authority (FDA/EPA - etc) that they get permission from the States. What you would find if we had held them accountable to that is that the things we need (some sort of FDA/EPA) would be included but we wouldn't have the redundancies (USDA) and usurpations of our liberties. This matter would best be settled by an amendment and until it is it should be handled at the state level because sexuality is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, neither is marriage mentioned in the BoR or anywhere in the C.

The fact that we had to force a portion of this country to accept that all men and women are created equal and should be afforded the same rights through the amendment process when it should have been obvious to accept is not something to be proud of or long for. Having an amendment to force some in this country to accept what is just and equal only speaks to how little we have actually advanced as a society and a country.

Oh and please stop trying to redefine my argument to fit your needs even as you try to accuse me of " attempting to weave and dodge (y)our way into making the Constitution stretch to make it fit (y)our desires". Thanks for the hypocrisy and the dishonesty but how about you actually try discussing arguments and statements I have actually made instead of making shite up as you go along for a change?

 

[drsmith1072]

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

Mississippi's Amendment 1 was on the ballot in 2004 as a result of Same-sex Civil Marriage becoming legal in Massachusetts. The ballot initiatitives in 2000 & 2004 resulting in the slew of anti-same-sex Civil Marriage laws were placed on the ballots by social authoritarians wanting to block equal treatment of same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws and not placed there by supporters reading the polls. (In fact I can't think of any marriage initiative to date placed on the ballot by supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage, it's always been opponents. I think Maine will be the first next year if they make the cutoff of signatures.)

There were no polls in 2004 showing that a majority (or even a plurality) of Americans supported Same-sex Civil Marriage. The first national polls showing such didn't occur until 2011. Years AFTER Mississippi voted.

The trend lines are unmistakable, support for Same-sex Civil Marriage is growing, opposition to Same-sex Civil Marriage is declining. While "86%" is touted because of the high number, the reality is that the last two votes on Same-sex Civil Marriage would have had a different outcome with only a 2-3% change in voter response. Maine will be interesting to watch next year. In 2009 Maine's Question 1 blocked Civil Marriage equality after being passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. The measure passed by only 2.75%. With the trend being toward more acceptance of Same-sex Civil Marriage it will be interesting to see if they have a shot at in 2012 of becoming the first State to approve of Same-sex Civil Marriage at the ballot box.

That would be a major game changer.



>>>>

In Mississippi gay marriage will always be voted down, these were the people of the state who voted against gay marriage, the people, not social authoritarians voting, don't side step, its funny how the polls never match the votes.

How does 86% of mississippi that chose to vote at that time translate into "most Americans?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

So just to verify. You are in fact saying it's "illegal" for a ball to be red?

If there is no law addressing that ball must be red or a law only authorizing use of blue balls. Then yes a red ball would be illegal, although I know of know law that would make having a red ball criminal (which is a different issue).

Let's say you have an NBA team playing a regular season game. The rules specify that the balls must be inflated to a specific PSI, they must be of a specified diameter, they must be constructed of leather, they must have groves and pebbling in a certain fashion, and they must be of a natural leather finish. In such a case it would be illegal to play with a red ball, yet playing with a red ball would not be criminal.


>>>>

The NBA can't make anything criminal, or illegal.

Illegal means "against the law," it doesn't mean not sanctioned by the law. Gay marriage isn't illegal, it's just not recognized as marriage.

Not it doesn't I've repeatedly posted the definition of "illegal".

Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit

Since it's not recognized by the law, then it is illegal, i.e. unlawful - not within the scope of the law.

Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

I'd like to have no marriage recognized by law.

Not likely to happen once you start telling people of all the benefits of Civil Marriage that will disappear if there is no Civil Marriage recognized under the law. Spouses wouldn't be able to inherit property tax free, a surviving spouse would much higher tax burden on the sale of a home, spouses would not qualify to be buried next to their veteran spouse in National Cemeteries, A father would have no rights at birth by being the spouse of the mother - they would have to go through expensive adoption proceedings, there would be no spousal privilege in courts of law, there would be no sponsoring a spouse for immigration purposes, etc, etc.

But I realize the majority of Americans are going to have to go along with me on that.

Not likely.

I would not want a self appointed dictator to force my view on everyone.

Good.

You want gay marriage to be the law, but you are happy with a self appointed dictator forcing it on us.

Where did you get that idea?

The majority of legal entities allowing for Same-sex Civil Marriage have achieved it through the Republican form of government as they were passed by legislative action.

No "dictator" in this country has imposed Same-sex Civil Marriage on anyone.

The Left in this country believe that majority vote is justification for plundering someone's wealth and democracy should be bypassed entirely when it comes to forcing their values on us all.

You might want to pay attention to these threads a little more. The ones that clamor for a vote are the ones that want to use the majority to deny equal treatment under the law to same-sex couples. (Well they do not because they have won at the ballot box, but the margins have gotten much closer. Expect the call of "Let them vote" to disappear once Same-sex Civil Marriage wins at the ballot box.)

The Democratic party does not respect individuals, they are a direct threat to liberty.

That's why I've been a Republican since 1978, since I respect individuals. I respect the right of couples not to be discriminated against by the government because of gender.



>>>>

 

[drsmith1072]

Marriage isn't a civil right and stop comparing faggot marriage to interracial marriage, one was blatantly discriminatory while the other isn't. Your logic is voting is good if it goes in your favor and no good if it doesn't.

No they are both discriminatory. Especially in the tone of the people opposing it.

You made it perfectly obvious that you have left any pretense of a logical argument behind and are going on sheer bile here.

A law that defines marriage as being between a man and woman isn't discriminatory, telling specifically that they cannot marry a person of a different race is.

Oh and this will make it about the fourth time that I have asked you to cite a link to this definition of discrimination that you keep posting it and I guess this will be the fourth failure by you to provide it. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Hey, we had this boards most infamous lezbo sporting a California flag with rainbow colors in her avatar. Obviously thinking that this is some kind o' gay state.......Completely ignorant of the fact that the gay marriage BS has been rejected twice by the voters, and will be again.

It's a states issue period. Let the perv's move to NY if they want to play their twisted game of Ozzie and Ozzie, or Harriet and Harriet.....Whatever their twisted case may be.

Fortunately the Constitution and Supreme Court disagree with you. Because our rights are inalienable, and per the rule of law, the majority may not decide who will and who will not have his rights; one’s rights are not subject to majority approval.

The 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, it enjoins the states from violating the rights of their citizens and denying them equal access to, and equal protection of, the law.

Consequently this it’s not a ‘states’ rights’ issue, the states have no authority to preempt citizens’ rights, it is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause, the 14th Amendment, and Constitutional case law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

See in support: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

The 14th Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights. If it does I challenge you to make the case. Don't spout some case that was decided a decade ago, I'd love to see you make the case from the original document. It is virtually impossible uless you use several generations of perversions of the amendment. As late as the 80's (of the 1800's) the SCOTUS determined that the first and second amendments did not incorporate the first and second amendments to the states. In Gitlow v. NY, the court case usually regarded as the jumping off point for the incorporation doctrine, suddenly they decided to. In fact they come out and say:


.. and later in the opinion...

We do not regard the incidental statement in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 543 , 42 S. Ct. 516, 27 A. L. R. 27, that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question.

And what is the incidental statement they have determined is not determinative of this question?

The precise question presented, and the only question which we can consider under this writ of error, then is, whether the statute, as construed and applied in this case, by the State courts, deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

They give no justification, no reason, they are just not regarding it as valid. It seems pretty clear. And this brings us to the problem with case law. As you go farther and farther into the future you begin to amass a library that encompases just about every view possible. For almost 60 years it was understood that equal application of the law without regard for race (as a protection for former slaves) was the point of the the Amendment. It was not meant to alter the course of history or to restrict the states from doing anything to ordinary citizens. The authors of the 14th were clearly fearful that the states would use race or status as a freed slave in discriminatory fashion. There was never an intention to suddenly alter the relationship between the people and the states. That was understood for sixty years. As late as 1890 the courts were declaring those arguments in their arguments explicitly. There is no clear definition for the chagne to the incorporation other than a Justice's whim which should not be sufficient to change the meaning of a law.

Mike

Uh how does this case law apply to the discussion??

According to your own argument and citation the courts decided "that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question.

Their argument is clear in that they clearly states that their decision is specific to "this question" about the "statute" in question.

the only question which we can consider under this writ of error, then is, whether the statute, as construed and applied in this case, by the State courts, deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So how does that have anything to do with the current discussion?

 

[Texanmike]

One more note about why I want an amendment. Ideally, I would have an amendment that would have government out of marriage entirely but if I can't get that there should be an amendment to finally create some sort of consensus. Part of the reason an amendment is so hard to pass is that the founding fathers was the belief that if you couldn't get 3/4 the states to agree to give the federal government a specific power then it was not something necessary. Tuller worked in the 20th century to change the amendment process to a simple majority but failed because even as late as the early 1900's it was understood why we had this process and he never achieved his goals. I think you are proposing an informal amendment which is fundamentally contrary to the idea of a Constitutional Republic. If you are going to allow a change in culture to change the limits of government without explicit permission from the states then there really is no need for the Constitution or Constitutional amendments.

DrS when we disagree I think largely it results from a fundamental disagreement on the limits and reasons for the Constitution. There are times that it definitely doesn't work in my favor as far as what I would like to see in a society. The net result though, is that we have a federal government that is (supposed to be) limited in power. Changing the meaning of the Constitution with the times is a dangerous precedent that we set a long time ago and it opens up debates like this one because in reality our privileges should (and I believe are for the most part) protected. Things like the patriot act are allowed to happen because the citizenship of this country did not hold their representatives to the oaths they took upon entering office. The net result of our failure to function as a Constitutional Republic are the discussions we're having right at this minute. We should not be attempting to weave and dodge our way into making the Constitution stretch to make it fit our desires; that precedent is what got us to where we are at. We should have dealt with the issues at the state level and required of our government that if they were going to take an authority (FDA/EPA - etc) that they get permission from the States. What you would find if we had held them accountable to that is that the things we need (some sort of FDA/EPA) would be included but we wouldn't have the redundancies (USDA) and usurpations of our liberties. This matter would best be settled by an amendment and until it is it should be handled at the state level because sexuality is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, neither is marriage mentioned in the BoR or anywhere in the C.

The fact that we had to force a portion of this country to accept that all men and women are created equal and should be afforded the same rights through the amendment process when it should have been obvious to accept is not something to be proud of or long for. Having an amendment to force some in this country to accept what is just and equal only speaks to how little we have actually advanced as a society and a country.

Oh and please stop trying to redefine my argument to fit your needs even as you try to accuse me of " attempting to weave and dodge (y)our way into making the Constitution stretch to make it fit (y)our desires". Thanks for the hypocrisy and the dishonesty but how about you actually try discussing arguments and statements I have actually made instead of making shite up as you go along for a change?

I find your arguments every bit as inadequate as you find mine and I find that you do not actually want to discuss anything but would rather demand that I prove every point I make. When I offer evidence you say something like "that's not true" with no factual basis. If you had actually read what I've said you would see why I make the argument but that's not what you do. I showed how case law should not apply, because the courts could go back and find any decision they want over the last 235 years but you ignored that point and spoke about the specific case. You are either ignorant or your are being obtuse and I have chosen to just not engage you in the conversation. I just figured I would save you from having to type anymore. You are quite welcome.

Mike

 

[drsmith1072]

One more note about why I want an amendment. Ideally, I would have an amendment that would have government out of marriage entirely but if I can't get that there should be an amendment to finally create some sort of consensus. Part of the reason an amendment is so hard to pass is that the founding fathers was the belief that if you couldn't get 3/4 the states to agree to give the federal government a specific power then it was not something necessary. Tuller worked in the 20th century to change the amendment process to a simple majority but failed because even as late as the early 1900's it was understood why we had this process and he never achieved his goals. I think you are proposing an informal amendment which is fundamentally contrary to the idea of a Constitutional Republic. If you are going to allow a change in culture to change the limits of government without explicit permission from the states then there really is no need for the Constitution or Constitutional amendments.

DrS when we disagree I think largely it results from a fundamental disagreement on the limits and reasons for the Constitution. There are times that it definitely doesn't work in my favor as far as what I would like to see in a society. The net result though, is that we have a federal government that is (supposed to be) limited in power. Changing the meaning of the Constitution with the times is a dangerous precedent that we set a long time ago and it opens up debates like this one because in reality our privileges should (and I believe are for the most part) protected. Things like the patriot act are allowed to happen because the citizenship of this country did not hold their representatives to the oaths they took upon entering office. The net result of our failure to function as a Constitutional Republic are the discussions we're having right at this minute. We should not be attempting to weave and dodge our way into making the Constitution stretch to make it fit our desires; that precedent is what got us to where we are at. We should have dealt with the issues at the state level and required of our government that if they were going to take an authority (FDA/EPA - etc) that they get permission from the States. What you would find if we had held them accountable to that is that the things we need (some sort of FDA/EPA) would be included but we wouldn't have the redundancies (USDA) and usurpations of our liberties. This matter would best be settled by an amendment and until it is it should be handled at the state level because sexuality is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, neither is marriage mentioned in the BoR or anywhere in the C.

The fact that we had to force a portion of this country to accept that all men and women are created equal and should be afforded the same rights through the amendment process when it should have been obvious to accept is not something to be proud of or long for. Having an amendment to force some in this country to accept what is just and equal only speaks to how little we have actually advanced as a society and a country.

Oh and please stop trying to redefine my argument to fit your needs even as you try to accuse me of " attempting to weave and dodge (y)our way into making the Constitution stretch to make it fit (y)our desires". Thanks for the hypocrisy and the dishonesty but how about you actually try discussing arguments and statements I have actually made instead of making shite up as you go along for a change?

I find your arguments every bit as inadequate as you find mine

Funny but yours are worthless and even though I responded to every moronic sidestepping attempt to change the subject that you presented you turn tail and run instead of discussing the issues that you brought up.

and I find that you do not actually want to discuss anything

once again you try oh so desperately to put words into my mouth rather than discuss what i have actually said.

but would rather demand that I prove every point I make.

The fact that you fail to substantiante your points has NOTHING to do with me.

When I offer evidence you say something like "that's not true" with no factual basis.

The only attempt to made to offer proof was your attetmpt to cite case law in which the decision states it is dealing only with the question that was asked about the SPECIFIC statute in question. Therefore it did NOT apply to any discussion about whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or not.

If you had actually read what I've said you would see why I make the argument but that's not what you do.

I have read and responded to every moronic point that you have tried to make including your previous longwinded rant that i had to split into three posts to respond to and your response was to RUN AWAY instead of discuss the issue.

I showed how case law should not apply, because the courts could go back and find any decision they want over the last 235 years but you ignored that point and spoke about the specific case. You are either ignorant or your are being obtuse and I have chosen to just not engage you in the conversation. I just figured I would save you from having to type anymore. You are quite welcome.

Mike

You "showed" nothing of the kind. You really should learn the difference between merely MAKING a claim while failing to substantiate it (what you do) and actually SHOWING HOW a claim is true through the act of substantiating it. Furthermore, I responded to your CLAIMS about prior case law and IF you had the ability to understand what you cited you would have seen that it does not apply to this discussion and based on the content of what you quoted but failed to grasp it only applied to the decision about the specific statute that was in question.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4017270-post435.html

You lose AGAIN and your cowardice as you ran away from my response to your previous and extremely longwinded post and your current personal attack as you turn tail and run instead of discussing the issues show that to be the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You want gay marriage to be the law, but you are happy with a self appointed dictator forcing it on us.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage and its laws as written by the states. The only issue is will some states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws per the 14 Amendment.

Consequently nothing is being ‘forced’ on anyone, since we all agree that all Americans are equal and entitled to equal access to the laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

However I do agree with you that it would be some time before Mississippi would pass Same-sex Civil Marriage at the ballot box.

They don’t need to, the state’s existing marriage laws are what same-sex couples are allowed to access.

A law that defines marriage as being between a man and woman isn't discriminatory…

It is if it disallows same-sex couples access to marriage laws.

This same sex civil marriage BS about inequality on became an issue when homosexuality became more accepted. Race is *NOT* biological, its social and there is no disrimination based on gender.

Any class of persons might be discriminated against, the consequence as to their inclusion in that class is irrelevant.

 

[Gadawg73]

All this wasted time on a NON ISSUE, gay marriage.
If rednecks like me can get along and accept gay couples as loving each other and wanting life long relationships then anyone can wake up and see that:
GAY MARRIAGE AFFECTS NO ONE.
What a non issue. Amazing that folks waste their time worrying about the gay boogeyman.