quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I honestly don't know. If it is, that needs to be brought into the debate. But if marriage is not a 'right' ensured by the constitution or any such document, then what business does a federal judge have telling California what to do? Don't fault Kevin here. I obviously can't speak for him, but I think his point is that gay rights are irrelevant here, the breach was in the constitutional jurisdiction between state and federal powers. I am sure a libertarian would just as soon agree that the institution of marriage is a mostly outdated one that the government has little business recognizing, regardless of the orientation of the people who want to be together. Personally, I am pleased that a Federal aspect is taking responsibility and forcing this sort of change, even if marriage seems wholly unnecessary in the first place. But should drastic change be brought about by circumventing the entire system merely to push an agenda? Well, that's what's really what's at question here.

This is what I've been trying to convey. As I said earlier: This is a decision for the states, as its always been, unless and until Congress passes a Constitutional amendment and that amendment is ratified by the states. The Federal courts have absolutely no role in reversing the vote of the people of CA who properly amended their own state Constitution. In fact, they didn't even change it, they merely upheld it as it had always been! In California, Civil Unions are already established for gay couples... with the same rights, same benefits, everything the same as traditionally married people.... equal protection 14th Amendment style!

James Madison- Federalist Paper 45:

quote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

To hell with state's rights now. So why must we change the definition of the word itself to suit whoever or whatever people deem "marriage" should encompass? What does it even mean now... something between 2 consenting beings/objects? Person and animal? Where does it stop? What if 3 adults decide that they want to get married? I mean, if the adults are loving and responsible, why not 3 in a marriage?

p.s.- whoever said I'm a Libertarian is mistaken.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is what I've been trying to convey. As I said earlier: This is a decision for the states, as its always been, unless and until Congress passes a Constitutional amendment and that amendment is ratified by the states. The Federal courts have absolutely no role in reversing the vote of the people of CA who properly amended their own state Constitution. In fact, they didn't even change it, they merely upheld it as it had always been! In California, Civil Unions are already established for gay couples... with the same rights, same benefits, everything the same as traditionally married people.... equal protection 14th Amendment style! James Madison- Federalist Paper 45: To hell with state's rights now. So why must we change the definition of the word itself to suit whoever or whatever people deem "marriage" should encompass? What does it even mean now... something between 2 consenting beings/objects? Person and animal? Where does it stop? What if 3 adults decide that they want to get married? I mean, if the adults are loving and responsible, why not 3 in a marriage? p.s.- whoever said I'm a Libertarian is mistaken.

You are an idiot. Marriage is still a legal entity separate from a Civil Union. Yes it is only different in name, but it still creates a different class.

I am sorry, but that does not pass muster with the 14th Amendment.

The states agreed in ratifying the 14th Amendment that the states themselves can not deny equal protection under the law to ANYONE. Since marriage is NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE (that matters) as being solely between a man and a women then that protection extends to anyone who wishes to get married. It doesn't matter what the state says, they violated the constitution, it doesn't matter what the people said, they violated something they put in place to protect themselves.

Kevin, this is the system at work. If you don't like it you can get out.

Uh, excuse me? READ A BIBLE, NOU! SHEEEEEEEESH.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Honestly, I think fair is fair. Obviously the mother was using her child as the front for her own way to make a quick buck. But even if that wasn't the case, the people who regulate that type of stuff shouldn't be making exceptions or be burdened with the moral responsibility of deciding when and when not to make such decisions. If you don't have a license, you don't have a business. Period.

If a large company needs to do it right, then so should everyone else. What if the local vendor selling hot dogs decides "ok, well you give exception to little kids, I will use a kid to front my store and get away with it".

Besides, it's a good lesson... there are rules that people have to abide by in our society and you can't just plop yourself down and make a buck anywhere you like.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Is this the most insane licensing-related story of the day? No..... Guy Offers Free Rides to Keep Drunk Drivers Off the Streets, Is Arrested http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/05/g...rides-to-keep-d

While that is an awesome idea and I completely think that this type of thing she be kept up (a lot of the reason people drink and drive is because they can't afford an alternative), if the guy needs to pay $10 to get a license, then just do it. Again, fair is fair IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Look what happened in California yesterday. People are cheering the legalization of gay marriage, but what really happened? We had a single Federal judge overturn a legal State decision made by 7 million California voters to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional in their state. The people of CA properly amended their own state Constitution through the legal process. But 1 Federal judge (who is gay) reversed it because he didn't agree with it. If your vote in California doesn't count, and outcomes are at the discretion of a Federal activist judge, then what have we become?

This just goes to prove that the majority doesn't always know best. You poll a bunch of right-wing religious people and of course they are going to oppose gay marriage. Why don't you poll whether there should be public lynchings of illegal immigrants in Alabama and see what you get. Why didn't we poll the white men if we should abolish slavery?

Banning people basic rights is unconstitutional and there are a lot of people out there unfortunately, who are more than happy to deny this to people.

In case you hadn't noticed, the general population rejects change, and is more often than not, discriminatory to others in some way (and also very stupid a lot of the time). Do you honestly think these people should be allowed to call the shots of the entire nation? Personally, I am glad we have highly educated individuals in power who can overturn the idiocy that comes from the general population.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I just noticed this little gem. Where's your head? It was the California STATE constitution the CA citizens voted on, not the country's Constitution. This is hilarious; you were thinking that it's fucked up that a majority of voters in a state were speaking for the entire country... but in your mind it's totally fine that a single Federal judge spoke for and overruled a majority of voters in a state on that individual state's issue.

The point is that an individual state should not be allowed to ignore a country's laws.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Where's your head? I hate to have to reference this again, but the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws". By amending their constitution, they denied equal rights/protection to a specific set of people, which blatantly goes against the Fourteenth Amendment. I know full well what the citizens of California voted to amend, but the simple fact is, regardless of a lack of precedent as you previously mentioned, the citizens of California voted to violate the United States Constitution. If you see it differently then so be it, but that's the way it is.

+234534058309485

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss p.s.- whoever said I'm a Libertarian is mistaken.

I thought that said librarian

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Don't fault Kevin here. I obviously can't speak for him, but I think his point is that gay rights are irrelevant here...

As do I. I'm talking about the broader spectrum of civil rights, not just gay rights.

quote:

...the breach was in the constitutional jurisdiction between state and federal powers.

Which is exactly what I have been discussing.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You are an idiot. Marriage is still a legal entity separate from a Civil Union. Yes it is only different in name, but it still creates a different class. I am sorry, but that does not pass muster with the 14th Amendment. The states agreed in ratifying the 14th Amendment that the states themselves can not deny equal protection under the law to ANYONE. Since marriage is NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE (that matters) as being solely between a man and a women then that protection extends to anyone who wishes to get married. It doesn't matter what the state says, they violated the constitution, it doesn't matter what the people said, they violated something they put in place to protect themselves. Kevin, this is the system at work. If you don't like it you can get out.

Beat me to it.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru As do I. I'm talking about the broader spectrum of civil rights, not just gay rights.

Does that include states' rights?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Does that include states' rights?

I'm all for states rights, provided they fall in line with a federal constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You are an idiot. Marriage is still a legal entity separate from a Civil Union. Yes it is only different in name, but it still creates a different class. I am sorry, but that does not pass muster with the 14th Amendment.

Why not? You have something called a Civil Union that affords the exact same rights, benefits, and protections to gay couples as marriage does for strait couples. Is a married couple being discriminated against because they can't take part in a Civil Union due to being heterosexual? It doesn't create a "different class"... that's fucking stupid.

quote:

The states agreed in ratifying the 14th Amendment that the states themselves can not deny equal protection under the law to ANYONE. Since marriage is NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE (that matters) as being solely between a man and a women then that protection extends to anyone who wishes to get married. It doesn't matter what the state says, they violated the constitution, it doesn't matter what the people said, they violated something they put in place to protect themselves. Kevin, this is the system at work. If you don't like it you can get out.

The system did work... until an activist Federal judge ruled on a state's policy matter he didn't agree with, despite the fact that a state's citizens legitimately voted to maintain the standard that was already set in their constitution. This is where we're headed when people believe the original Constitution "is a living and breathing document open to interpretation" based in personal subjective biases by those who wear black robes. I'll get out of this country when you get out of your Aunt's basement and contribute to society. In other words, never.

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!! HYUCK, HYUCK, HYUUUuuu

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The system did work... until an activist Federal judge ruled on a state's policy matter he didn't agree with, despite the fact that a state's citizens legitimately voted to maintain the standard that was already set in their constitution. This is where we're headed when people believe the original Constitution "is a living and breathing document open to interpretation" based in personal subjective biases by those who wear black robes. I'll get out of this country when you get out of your Aunt's basement and contribute to society. In other words, never.

I love all the conservatives yelling out that the judge was some huge "activist."

The fact is that the entire defense Prop 8 had was that homosexuals aren't as good as heterosexuals and they had no evidence to back it up since it isn't true at all.

The whole point of the Judicial Branch is to determine if laws are constitutional or not. The people in California voted in a law, they had a trial, he determined that it was unconstitutional and they had no proof of what they were claiming and nulled it. This shit happens all the time. It's the entire point of the Judicial Branch.

And don't even try to claim that there is no "different class." It's completely a different class and they are being discriminated against.

Marriage is a social contract between two people. No one else should have a say besides the people getting married.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I'm all for states rights, provided they fall in line with a federal constitution.

Then what's the point of having states' rights if the Fed has power over anything they do? States' rights were originally promised in exchange for votes to ratify the Constitution, and it was a hard sell because the fear of many of the Founders was a new centralized government similar to the monarchy they fled would be created. They did not want to create what they left behind but that's what we have more so now than ever. And here you are saying the Fed should be able to trump any state law... absolutely contrasting the Founders' visions of checks and balances in power.