North Carolina and it's new amendment

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
North Carolina and it's new amendment

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html

 

( What next ? Are they going to start saying that a man and woman that live together, like my girlfriend and I, can't do so unless we are married ?)

 

North Carolina voters ban gay marriage civil unions.

by Liz Goodman / The Ticket

 

North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is marriage between a man and a woman, according to the AP's projection. The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent with most counties reporting, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.

The state already outlawed gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for politicians to ever change the law. The amendment also means that a handful of North Carolina municipalities that extended benefits to the domestic partners of their employees will no longer be able to do so, since marriage is now the only valid legal partnership in the state. Former President Bill Clinton urged the state's voters not to support the amendment in robocalls, while President Barack Obama's office said he was also against the change.

Supporters of gay marriage out-raised and out-advertised their opponents in the lead up to the vote, emphasizing in TV ads that the amendment could also have repercussions for unmarried straight couples because of its vague language. The anti-amendment coalition raised more than $2 million, according to campaign finance disclosures, most of which came from small and large individual donations. The pro-amendment crowd, called Vote for Marriage NC, raised a little more than $1 million, with most of the money being donated by nonprofit groups, not individuals.

Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage, according to a Public Policy Polling poll. A majority of North Carolina voters support civil unions.Minnesota faces a ballot gay marriage ban in November, while Maine activists are hoping that residents have changed their minds and will vote to approve gay marriage this November after repealing its legalization in 2009. Lawmakers in Maryland, Washington and New Jersey passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage this year, though Gov. Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey's law.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
What's next ?

I am not gay, but what business is it of mine or the government to worry about what people do ? What are they going to go after next ?

Now, while I have no way of providing sources on this. I would be willing to wager that 90% of the people that voted on this, did so because the BIBLE and their pastors told them to. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The "Supremacy clause" of

The "Supremacy clause" of the federal constitution has struck down state constitutions in prior Supreme Court cases on other issues. It certainly can make it a longer term issue to reverse. But look for that to be the next tactic. In general our long term courts have ebbed and flowed between state vs federal rights. But the trend long term has always given way to the rights of the individual, all be it slow and cumbersome. This is merely delay. For North Carolina to have 39% for gay marriage in the south is progress. I don't think it will take another century for this to be over turned. It wouldn't even surprise me if in 10 to 20 years this gets reversed, even if by the voters, if not a judge.

That is the good thing about our system. It can suck sometimes, but it protects us long term by banning stagnating in unmovable absolute power. So don't look for this vote to be an end all, it wont be. It is just stupidity that has to give way to progress eventually.

And to any jackass who voted for the ban. FUCK YOU! You are nothing but hypocrites on the one hand claiming to not want big government, but have no problem sticking your nose into the private lives of others. Your witch hunt fear mongering is childish bullshit. GROW THE FUCK UP!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The "Supremacy

Brian37 wrote:

The "Supremacy clause" of the federal constitution has struck down state constitutions in prior Supreme Court cases on other issues. It certainly can make it a longer term issue to reverse. But look for that to be the next tactic. In general our long term courts have ebbed and flowed between state vs federal rights. But the trend long term has always given way to the rights of the individual, all be it slow and cumbersome. This is merely delay. For North Carolina to have 39% for gay marriage in the south is progress. I don't think it will take another century for this to be over turned. It wouldn't even surprise me if in 10 to 20 years this gets reversed, even if by the voters, if not a judge.

That is the good thing about our system. It can suck sometimes, but it protects us long term by banning stagnating in unmovable absolute power. So don't look for this vote to be an end all, it wont be. It is just stupidity that has to give way to progress eventually.

And to any jackass who voted for the ban. FUCK YOU! You are nothing but hypocrites on the one hand claiming to not want big government, but have no problem sticking your nose into the private lives of others. Your witch hunt fear mongering is childish bullshit. GROW THE FUCK UP!

 

Agreed. That was new information to me about the "Supremacy Clause." I'll have to look that up. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I am

harleysportster wrote:

I am not gay, but what business is it of mine or the government to worry about what people do ? What are they going to go after next ?

Now, while I have no way of providing sources on this. I would be willing to wager that 90% of the people that voted on this, did so because the BIBLE and their pastors told them to. 

 

Agreed. It is completely asinine. I wonder what those same people would shout if say a law was passed banning the consumption of pork? Or other similar law based on a religion other than theirs. Maybe someone should propose a law banning the eating of symbolic flesh and drinking of symbolic blood because such practices encourage cannibalism, or a law against putting depictions of torture in front of children; both of which are more perverted imo than a couple of gays getting married.

 

As far as the supremacy clause is concerned, it doesn't apply. The federal government doesn't regulate marriage, it never has and has no authority to do so. Marriage is traditionally regulated by states and the federal government would have an uphill battle trying to take that over. The only viable constitutional argument against gay marriage bans is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which was the basis on which laws against interracial marriages were overturned in Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Quote:

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.

 

But in reality, it is difficult to imagine that SCOTUS is ever going to overrule a state law in this regard. The Court is simply too reluctant to overrule states unless there is a really compelling reason to do so. I think it is highly improbable that same sex marriage will be protected by SCOTUS any time soon. The gay rights movement is going to have to work to persuade one state at a time. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The "Supremacy clause" of the federal constitution has struck down state constitutions in prior Supreme Court cases on other issues. It certainly can make it a longer term issue to reverse. But look for that to be the next tactic. In general our long term courts have ebbed and flowed between state vs federal rights. But the trend long term has always given way to the rights of the individual, all be it slow and cumbersome. This is merely delay. For North Carolina to have 39% for gay marriage in the south is progress. I don't think it will take another century for this to be over turned. It wouldn't even surprise me if in 10 to 20 years this gets reversed, even if by the voters, if not a judge.

That is the good thing about our system. It can suck sometimes, but it protects us long term by banning stagnating in unmovable absolute power. So don't look for this vote to be an end all, it wont be. It is just stupidity that has to give way to progress eventually.

And to any jackass who voted for the ban. FUCK YOU! You are nothing but hypocrites on the one hand claiming to not want big government, but have no problem sticking your nose into the private lives of others. Your witch hunt fear mongering is childish bullshit. GROW THE FUCK UP!

 

Agreed. That was new information to me about the "Supremacy Clause." I'll have to look that up. 

Don't in the future accuse me of being a word for word memory expert of the constitution. I am much more a "motif" guy in the context that you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know it doesn't run on pixy dust.

The motif that has been argued of the "Supremacy clause" in many cases is simple. It is the simple concept that the rights of the majority do not trump the rights of the few.

State vs federal has always been a battle. But the motif that is iron clad in the Constitution is that no matter what issue, there is a ban on stagnation and absolute power and monopolies. It is the concept of allowing for every voice to compete. It is not a perfect tool, otherwise NC voters wouldn't be dip shits as a majority.

 

But the concept is very simple to explain to anyone, "What would you yourself want as far as government protection if you were holding an unpopular position"

Since power shifts over time, the brilliant concept was to ban any opportunity of stagnation. So while the voters won. It still does not mean they have absolute power. Just like women and blacks eventually used the same tool of the constitution via free speech and media and government in all those tactics, to eventually gain mainstream acceptance.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Nothing Could Be Further, By

Nothing Could Be Further, By Brian37

Back room tactics
At the last minute
The bigoted petitioners
Made a ballot

Praying on
The bigotry
Of the voter
Stifling progress again

And
Another state
Embodies
The worst of human nature

Maybe if our POTUS
Had spoken of those prior
On behalf
Of the minority

He could have spoke
Of the prior trials
Of blacks
And natives, and women

On the Tuesday
Of the 11th month
Will this be
His only term?

It was a calculation
To sideline
With the word
"Evolve"

I fear that
This new ban
May anger
His base

They may ask
Why did you wait
Why did you allow
Voters to discriminate?

Maybe the calculation
On his part
Was that the ban
Would rally his base?

He had no problem
Repealing don't ask
So why did he wait
For this primary?

And after the fact
After the vote
The Powder Blue state
Is shackled by bigotry

Where was he
Last week
Where was he
In defense of the meek?

In all sincerity
With all my hope
I hope our POTUS
Knows what he's doing.
(end)

I am wondering why Obama waited until after the NC vote to do the right thing. He already repealed DADT and refused to enforce the defense of marriage act. All I can think is that he is thinking long term. But the risk I see is that some will ask "where were you last week, last month"?

I hope this doesn't hurt him. But damn, last week Biden said that he supported gay marriage.

AND the worst part is that the social issues are what exactly what Republicans use to distract voters from economic issues.

And I am totally ashamed right now that I live in NC.

 

I posted this poem in this tread as well because of topic.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Isn't it great that the

Isn't it great that the republican party is the one that is against government interference in people lives?
Just imagine if they weren't.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Two things: 1 - It is

Two things:

 

1 - It is unconstitutional

2 - It was written by dickwad religious conservatives who tricked people in to thinking it was solely about the word "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Instead it was a broad statement saying that being gay is wrong and if you are gay you are going to hell.

Fucking christian politicians.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Two

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Two things:

 

1 - It is unconstitutional

2 - It was written by dickwad religious conservatives who tricked people in to thinking it was solely about the word "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Instead it was a broad statement saying that being gay is wrong and if you are gay you are going to hell.

Fucking christian politicians.

 

I hope there were a ton of ignorant heterosexual couples previously bound by mere civil unions in North Carolina who voted yes to the proposition due to the influence of their pastors. They have now been denied the same rights they voted to deny to gay people (although they can in theory get married and have them back, but there may be a reason they opted for a civil union in the first place). I don't wish them grief, but I hope they learn to distrust their pastors with agendas.

I'd love to hear someone explain to me in what way homosexuality is wrong, without using a religious argument. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Have you read it?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Two things:

 

1 - It is unconstitutional

2 - It was written by dickwad religious conservatives who tricked people in to thinking it was solely about the word "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Instead it was a broad statement saying that being gay is wrong and if you are gay you are going to hell.

Fucking christian politicians.

 

 

1. I would love you to explain how, just because you don't like it and it is stupid, bigoted etc. doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

2.

North Carolina Constitution as amended wrote:

Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012)

 

Hardly a "broad statement saying that being gay is wrong" seems pretty specific and limited to its stated purpose to me. How else would you word it?

 

@Jabberwocky

More misinformation that has been spread throughout the internet- the state of North Carolina doesn't recognize common law marriage already so this amendment will not have any effect on those situations. Even if it did, I am doubtful it would be legally found to nullify or prevent such marriages, no similarly worded law in any state has as far as I am aware. I suspect that this claim was simply made up by some blogger and has been spread by commentators who are ignorant of and too lazy to research the law. 

In researching this claim though I did discover  that in NC you can marry your first cousin at age 14... yet the moral outrage is aimed at two consenting adults?!? That's more than a little fucked up.

http://www.montylaw.com/north-carolina-family-laws/marriage-laws.aspx

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Two things:

 

1 - It is unconstitutional

2 - It was written by dickwad religious conservatives who tricked people in to thinking it was solely about the word "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Instead it was a broad statement saying that being gay is wrong and if you are gay you are going to hell.

Fucking christian politicians.

 

I hope there were a ton of ignorant heterosexual couples previously bound by mere civil unions in North Carolina who voted yes to the proposition due to the influence of their pastors. They have now been denied the same rights they voted to deny to gay people (although they can in theory get married and have them back, but there may be a reason they opted for a civil union in the first place). I don't wish them grief, but I hope they learn to distrust their pastors with agendas.

I'd love to hear someone explain to me in what way homosexuality is wrong, without using a religious argument. 

It will be overturned. Individuals can not enforce or take away liberties of other minorities by a vote. Neither can the government do so.

If this vote in NC was valid, then individuals could vote away the ability for women to vote, take away black civil liberties or force children to work long hours in sweat shops.

It's so fucking ridiculous that I want to beat the living shit out of people for a) not learning what they were voting for before they voted for it and 2) the assholes who worded the referendum of the state constitution.

In Florida we had three similar cases:

1) a while back the people in this state voted by 83% to have light rail. Then a short while later a collective of the different taxi, limo, bus, etc companies all got together and formed a coalition to push through another vote to the people. The vote was the complete opposite than the previous one but in reverse and the way it was worded really confused people. 83% of the people in the state of Florida voted for it thus killing the light rail system.

2) recently the term "marriage" was on the ballot but hidden within the referendum was similar wording to the NC version. It passed, barely, but is being fought as it is unconstitutional.

3) there was a change to the state constitution effectively giving all veterans who served or fought (forget the wording) the ability to avoid paying taxes on their houses. This is unconstitutional even for the Florida Constitution as it gives one minority an advantage over all other minorities. I'm all for giving the veterans benefits (I'm one myself) but you don't change the state constitution to do so. You do it through benefits of the VA or local/state organizations.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: In

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

In researching this claim though I did discover  that in NC you can marry your first cousin at age 14... yet the moral outrage is aimed at two consenting adults?!? That's more than a little fucked up.

http://www.montylaw.com/north-carolina-family-laws/marriage-laws.aspx

 

 

 

So, some of these people that were voting against this amendment could have been married to their first cousins, and could have married them when they were 14 ? DAMN. I would have thought that would have been highly illegal.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Beyond

harleysportster wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

In researching this claim though I did discover  that in NC you can marry your first cousin at age 14... yet the moral outrage is aimed at two consenting adults?!? That's more than a little fucked up.

http://www.montylaw.com/north-carolina-family-laws/marriage-laws.aspx

 

So, some of these people that were voting against this amendment could have been married to their first cousins, and could have married them when they were 14 ? DAMN. I would have thought that would have been highly illegal.

Yeah it's a fucked up state. There is no way I would want to live there except for Asheville.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the Bible Belt

Welcome to the Bible Belt, where ignorance is virtue and the first amendment does not exist -- (I don't know who quoted that, I saw it on Facebook)

 

I wonder what the theists think about that line in Deuteronomy, where it states that marriage is only valid if the girl is a virgin. If the girl is not a virgin, the two shall be put to death ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Two things:

 

1 - It is unconstitutional

2 - It was written by dickwad religious conservatives who tricked people in to thinking it was solely about the word "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Instead it was a broad statement saying that being gay is wrong and if you are gay you are going to hell.

Fucking christian politicians.

 

 

1. I would love you to explain how, just because you don't like it and it is stupid, bigoted etc. doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

2.

North Carolina Constitution as amended wrote:

 

Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012)

 

Hardly a "broad statement saying that being gay is wrong" seems pretty specific and limited to its stated purpose to me. How else would you word it?

 

@Jabberwocky

More misinformation that has been spread throughout the internet- the state of North Carolina doesn't recognize common law marriage already so this amendment will not have any effect on those situations. Even if it did, I am doubtful it would be legally found to nullify or prevent such marriages, no similarly worded law in any state has as far as I am aware. I suspect that this claim was simply made up by some blogger and has been spread by commentators who are ignorant of and too lazy to research the law. 

In researching this claim though I did discover  that in NC you can marry your first cousin at age 14... yet the moral outrage is aimed at two consenting adults?!? That's more than a little fucked up.

http://www.montylaw.com/north-carolina-family-laws/marriage-laws.aspx

 

 

 

Holy shit, you've said tons of stupid shit before but this really takes the cake. If you cannot understand why this is unconstitutional you really do have your head up your fucking ass.

Banning gays from marrying isnt just about bigotry. It violates the First Amendment because it is religiously motivated. And even if it were not, which it clearly is, it is a denial of rights to a minority. Now please don't be stupid and say "gays can get married" What would a gay man want to marry a woman?. Why don't you talk to gays face to face and ask them if they think their rights are being violated by this ban.

I don't remember if it was Micheal Shermer or Dan Barker who successfully fought in SC to nullify the State Constitutions demand to an oath to a god.  What if a state voted to ban atheists from getting married, or denied them the right to own a business?

You are justifying government sanctioned bigotry. Nowhere in the Constitution does it set up a sexual pecking order. You show me where the homophophobes have a Constitutional right to say "fuck you and what you want".

The same fucking tactics used on gays in California and North Carolina is the same shit done to women and blacks and you have the nerve being a minority yourself to support such vile garbage.

And don't cop out to States rights vs Federal. Cases on a multitude of issues over Supreme Court history have said to the majority "despite what you voted for, it is unconstitutional and you cannot step on the rights of the few". It"s called THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE and I damned sure hope gays win with that and the trend in America is that they eventually will.

There is no law, nor should be a law banning people from stupid bigotry. But laws ARE NOT the property of one class, one race, or one religion. They are not absolute by mob rule by vote. It is sick for you as an atheist to suggest rights by vote are set in stone. "The right to petition the government for a redress of grievance" Is not a right only afforded to one label by proxy of popular belief.

Our Constitution is basically an anti monoploy anti trust law that prevents absolute power at any level, including the right to challenge what voters vote in as laws. And we are a "sanctuary government" which long term has leaned to protecting dissent. If you value the rights of the bigoted majority in this case you are an idiot considering you are an atheist living among bigots who if given absolute power would prevent you from doing what OUR Constitution protects.

Really Beyond, I can tolerate you bullshit "every man for themselves" economic attitude, but this really? YOU and I are hated merely for the fact we don't believe. If you cant understand how allowing this could eventually affect you, you are a fool.

Grow the fuck up and do the right thing and stand up for those being bullied by the homophobes, otherwise why even have a fucking Constitution where it only protects "mob rule by vote".

This idiocy hurts gays and denies them the human dignity of "equal protection under the law". It was no different when states had bans on interracial marriages, and this is no different.

This ban is Unconstitutional even when you take out the obvious religious motivation. Gays should have the right to marry the same sex, PERIOD! And you are an asshole if you think the bigoted majority has the right to make laws denying them the human dignity of the public contract of marriage.

 

You are further proof to me that labels do not matter and even atheists can be delusional and stupid.

Please correct me if I missunderstood you.

Quote:
1. I would love you to explain how, just because you don't like it and it is stupid, bigoted etc. doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Simple. I can take a woman to a justice of the piece and sign a piece of paper saying we are married. Gays cannot make the same paper proclamation with someone of the same sex. That is a denial of their rights. To me it would be the same as banning women from driving or voting.


 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've started to conclude

I've started to conclude that marriage itself, any/all, should be banned. That'll put an end to marriage inequality.

Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The "minority argument"

The "minority argument" rests on the fact that someone is discriminated against based who they are from birth.  Like being a certain ethnic group or gender.

A lot of people believe that being homosexual is a choice.

Personally, my opinion is that most homosexuals are born gay.  If everyone agreed on this, the claim that it was unconstitutional would carry more weight.

Unfortunately a large portion of this country does not agree.

Frankly this North Carolina thing is annoying, but is only temporary.  The majority of Baby Boomers are against gay marriage.  The majority of Millennials are for it.  My generation, Generation X, is probably mixed.

In 50 years, give or take a decade, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states.  We just need to wait on the baby boomers to die off.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is not enough to simply

It is not enough to simply say "I agree it is bigoted, but constitutional". I doubt anyone reading this would have the balls to face the people in this video and try to argue it's Constitutionality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gP61wDGAmXA

The religious right and all fear mongers, even on the left ARE treating these people as second class citizens.

We are not talking about free speech here. We are talking about saying to a fellow citizen " I can do this, but you cant" by mandate of mob rule by popular vote. Same thing was done to interracial couples, and some states even today ban atheist from holding even low level government jobs through a written singed "litmus test" to god.

If we cannot as a society treat the least among us as equals, then the constitution means nothing.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no need for gay

There is no need for gay marriage to be banned by law anyway. If you are a man and don't want to marry another man, THEN DONT. But the government documents from drivers licenses to liquor licenses AND marriage licenses, must be available to all citizens. Anything less is treating the denied as second class and sub human.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is not

Brian37 wrote:

It is not enough to simply say "I agree it is bigoted, but constitutional". I doubt anyone reading this would have the balls to face the people in this video and try to argue it's Constitutionality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gP61wDGAmXA

The religious right and all fear mongers, even on the left ARE treating these people as second class citizens.

We are not talking about free speech here. We are talking about saying to a fellow citizen " I can do this, but you cant" by mandate of mob rule by popular vote. Same thing was done to interracial couples, and some states even today ban atheist from holding even low level government jobs through a written singed "litmus test" to god.

If we cannot as a society treat the least among us as equals, then the constitution means nothing.

Well for one, I'm not Constitutional lawyer, but if it's unconstitutional then cool.  The Fed will overturn it.  So no reason to fret.

First you have to prove that a white male in America is a minority if he wants to marry another man.

A white male is not considered a minority in America.  So it will not be considered unconstitutional.

C'mon man.  You hear how these theists talk.  They sputter all the time that if we allow gay marriage then a human marrying a dog will come next.  Bestiality is illegal and it's not challenged as unconstitutional by dogfuckers.  Their mindset will go along the same lines. 

I don't agree with it.  What do you want me to do?  Grab a gun and find a tower?

I'll vote if it comes up here in my area, is that good for ya?

And I know all about litmus tests about god to hold office in some states.  I live in Texas.

Texas' Bill of Rights Section 4:
"RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Look at it this way: The

Look at it this way: The battle for gay marriage equality closely mirrors the battle for evolution to be taught in all schools.

There is substantial evidence to show that evolution is true.

The research on gay people is about 100 years behind the research on evolution, adjusted for technology and communication advances (otherwise the gap is closer to 500 years, but it won't take anything like that long to catch up thanks to those advances). Even so, all evidence so far shows gay members of a species are neither uncommon nor unnatural. On the contrary, "gayness" has been observed in dozens of mamallian species, at least.

There is no evidence to suggest being gay is a choice. Just like there's no evidence to suggest that evolution is false. But until we get idiots who aren't qualified to make such decisions out of the education and political arenas, we'll never see science being put to its full use, and these issues won't go away.

It isn't even really a religious issue. Yes, the main antagonists are...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...religious, but examples

...religious, but examples such as the vatican accepting evolution show that religion can change its position provided its members are properly educated.

Make everyone smarter and issues like these will vanish, and not even religions can stand against the obvious.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
North Carolina backlash ?

http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=680340

Backlash over North Carolina's  Marriage Vote

 

By

 

Jeff Stacklin / Yahoo news.

 

The voters in North Carolina have spoken. Now get ready for some backlash. By the indications of posters to the state's Visit North Carolina Facebook page, the state's tourism business might take a hit this summer.  The Raleigh News & Observer noted that the "normally cheerful" Facebook page has become a sort of profane sounding board for critics of the measure. The page's moderator on Wednesday issued a plea for a more civil tone, reminding those who post that it is intended to be forum about travel, "and not a place for political discussion."

Tourism is big business in North Carolina. How big? According to the Viriginian-Pilot, visitors spent an estimated $17 billion in North Carolina in 2010. That was a 9% increase from the previous year, the newspaper reported. And the spending increase wasn't just in coastal and mountain hot spots. Of the state's 100 counties, 98 had an uptick in spending from 2009 to 2010.

As pointed out by "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart on Wednesday, one group of people who will most certainly be visiting the state this summer are the Democrats--for the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., in September.

It should be interesting.

The newspaper singled-out one celebrity--former "American Idol" runner-up and current "The Celebrity Apprentice" favorite, Clay Aiken--as supporter of his home state. He told the newspaper in an interview, that he still loves his state, but not the new law.

"I don't want people talking bad about North Carolina," Aiken, who is gay, said in a phone interview. "I saw a lot of folks ... on Facebook and Twitter that were embarrassed to be from North Carolina or that people from North Carolina should be ashamed and embarrassed.

"And I think to myself, you know, you can be as mad as you want and think that all you want to, but you have to remember that 30 states did that before we did it and California was one of them. So you can kiss my foot if you want to talk bad about my state."

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
With all this interest in marriage

It is difficult to conceive of a time barely three centuries ago and back to the beginning of time when civil governments took no interest at all in marriage at all. Birth, death, marriage records were all church matters to which the state was not a party.

What else hath the Treaty of Westphalia wrought that was unpredictable and certainly unintended? if they had foreseen gay marriage would we still be waging wars over Christian sects?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Two things:

 

1 - It is unconstitutional

2 - It was written by dickwad religious conservatives who tricked people in to thinking it was solely about the word "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Instead it was a broad statement saying that being gay is wrong and if you are gay you are going to hell.

Fucking christian politicians.

 

 

1. I would love you to explain how, just because you don't like it and it is stupid, bigoted etc. doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

2.

North Carolina Constitution as amended wrote:

 

Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Before I beat your brains in with the facts about what is constitutional and what isn't why don't you tell me your opinion on gay marriage?

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Before

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Before I beat your brains in with the facts about what is constitutional and what isn't why don't you tell me your opinion on gay marriage?

 

My opinion is that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with determining who can and can't get married. I believe you should be able to marry one person of the same gender or a dozen people of varying genders. I don't think married people should be given any preference under the law like they currently get. I don't think you should even need a license. Marriage is a contract and like any contract the terms should be determined by the willing participants and the governments sole responsibility is to enforce the terms of the contract and provide a third party to resolve any disputes. Married people shouldn't get favorable tax laws, favorable probate laws or be treated any different than a couple of people living together as roommates.

 

So show me the "facts". There is nothing in Supreme Court precedent that indicates that the government refusing to recognize gay marriage is unconstitutional. I'm all for gay marriage, but just because you support something doesn't mean that using the courts is the proper way to get it. There are a lot of laws I would love to be declared unconstitutional and many laws I believe there are strong arguments are unconstitutional. In our system when SCOTUS declares something is constitutional it is whether you like it or not, no matter how strong you think your argument is. If you can find a case that you believe indicates I am wrong I would love to see it, just post the citation and I will read it.

 

In the case of gay marriage bans I don't think there is any evidence that they will be declared unconstitutional- it is a classic case where SCOTUS will almost certainly defer to the legislatures. While I can make some pretty strong arguments against the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, ultimately I recognize that those arguments will not persuade the Supreme Court. Marriage is a state issue and as such gay rights activists are best off focusing on getting gay marriage laws passed at the state level, in that respect they have my full support, and so do polygamists, bigamists and people who want to marry a duck.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:There is no

Brian37 wrote:

There is no need for gay marriage to be banned by law anyway. If you are a man and don't want to marry another man, THEN DONT. But the government documents from drivers licenses to liquor licenses AND marriage licenses, must be available to all citizens. Anything less is treating the denied as second class and sub human.

 

There is no need for most of the laws that we have. That doesn't change the fact that we have them and that they are constitutional. And yes, I would be willing to discuss the constitutionality of any law with any person. No matter how much sympathy I have for a particular cause I'm not going to ignore reality and pretend that things are different than they are or lie to the people I am talking to simply to make them feel better. The Constitution is pretty specific and it gives states a lot of leeway on these types of laws.  

 

For example, Digital made a comment about how if this is constitutional than the government could take away the right of women and blacks to vote. They could and they did. It took an amendments to the Constitution to protect against racial and sexual discrimination in determining who can vote. (The 15th and 19th Amendments) That means we had to actually change the Constitution. Why did we need to change it? Because the protection wasn't there before.

 

Maybe we should have an amendment protecting the right of gays to marry, but we don't have one. And the Constitution says what it says, not what you wish it said. Under our current Constitution, I don't think it is at all clear that gay marriage is a protected right and most arguments that it is are stretched thin.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So show

Beyond Saving wrote:

So show me the "facts". There is nothing in Supreme Court precedent that indicates that the government refusing to recognize gay marriage is unconstitutional. I'm all for gay marriage, but just because you support something doesn't mean that using the courts is the proper way to get it. There are a lot of laws I would love to be declared unconstitutional and many laws I believe there are strong arguments are unconstitutional. In our system when SCOTUS declares something is constitutional it is whether you like it or not, no matter how strong you think your argument is. If you can find a case that you believe indicates I am wrong I would love to see it, just post the citation and I will read it.

In the case of gay marriage bans I don't think there is any evidence that they will be declared unconstitutional- it is a classic case where SCOTUS will almost certainly defer to the legislatures. While I can make some pretty strong arguments against the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, ultimately I recognize that those arguments will not persuade the Supreme Court. Marriage is a state issue and as such gay rights activists are best off focusing on getting gay marriage laws passed at the state level, in that respect they have my full support, and so do polygamists, bigamists and people who want to marry a duck.

The issue with the state legislation is that they are motivate by local religious agendas which are dictated by bullshit jesus freaks who say that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a crock of shit since they are completely mixing their religious beliefs directly in to the constitution. No state is supposed to pass any laws which give benefit to one minority and degrade another. The federal government is supposed to protect and balance all creeds, races, nationalities, handicaps and sex; this includes if they are heterosexual or homosexual.

The constitution has been used to allow black to be free, blacks men to vote, women to vote and to legalize abortion. While it is a temporary win for those self satisfying cock suckers they will eventually lose. Being gay isn't a choice. It's chemical and biological in nature and not a person waking up one day and saying, "hey I'm gay today and not tomorrow".

Do you think that any state would be allowed to take away the rights of women to vote? No. Why? Because "all men are created equal"; and women.

Do you think that any state would be allowed to take away the rights of blacks to be free? No. Why? Because "all men are created equal"; and women.

I have issue with the people who push their religious agenda on others. It's self satisfying and self centered to think that their religion is right and all others all wrong. This is why Prop 8 in California has been found unconstitutional and will be overturned. It is why all other states which currently have anti-gay laws will eventually lose just like the states which prevented women from voting or blacks from being free.

I'd like to point out that it would be illegal to have a state vote and remove the right of women to vote so it is illegal for them to remove the pursuit of happiness of others. This would include gay marriages.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Maybe we

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe we should have an amendment protecting the right of gays to marry, but we don't have one. And the Constitution says what it says, not what you wish it said. Under our current Constitution, I don't think it is at all clear that gay marriage is a protected right and most arguments that it is are stretched thin.  

I don't see any thing in the constitution which says that gays can't marry.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The issue with the state legislation is that they are motivate by local religious agendas which are dictated by bullshit jesus freaks who say that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a crock of shit since they are completely mixing their religious beliefs directly in to the constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution that invalidates laws simply because they are religiously motivated. A good number of our laws are religiously motivated and none has ever been found unconstitutional on those grounds. The only thing the Constitution says in respect to religion is that 

First Amendment wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Does this law respect an establishment of religion? Clearly not. Does it prohibit the free exercise thereof? If you really stretch you might be able to make that argument. I made it myself once on this site as an alternative argument that could be offered in court, mostly because I think it would be hilarious to declare that marriage is a fundamentally religious institution and watch the fundies argue that it is not. I don't think the argument gets much mileage in SCOTUS. In Reynolds v. United States 98 US 145 (1879) the Court made it clear that states can regulate what types of marriages are legally recognized even if that means certain people are not able to marry in the form dictated by their religion. A mormon polygamist in this instance. There has been no case since where SCOTUS has shown any inclination to overturn this ruling.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

No state is supposed to pass any laws which give benefit to one minority and degrade another. The federal government is supposed to protect and balance all creeds, races, nationalities, handicaps and sex; this includes if they are heterosexual or homosexual.

Where does it say that? You can argue that the spirit of the Constitution is such but spirit doesn't matter. We are talking a legal issue and nowhere in the Constitution does it mention nationality, handicaps, or sexuality. Religious beliefs, race and gender are specifically protected.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
 

The constitution has been used to allow black to be free, blacks men to vote, women to vote and to legalize abortion. While it is a temporary win for those self satisfying cock suckers they will eventually lose. Being gay isn't a choice. It's chemical and biological in nature and not a person waking up one day and saying, "hey I'm gay today and not tomorrow".

Blacks being free, voting and women voting were all done in amendments that specifically bring out those classes. Namely the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments. There is no amendment that says anything about marriage of any type. If you amend the Constitution you can make anything unconstitutional that you desire. As far as abortion, it is not entirely legalized. States can and do routinely regulate how abortions can be performed, when, who can perform them and what situations a woman may or may not have an abortion. It is not protected as an absolute.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Do you think that any state would be allowed to take away the rights of women to vote? No. Why? Because "all men are created equal"; and women.

Do you think that any state would be allowed to take away the rights of blacks to be free? No. Why? Because "all men are created equal"; and women.

Has nothing to do with "all men are created equal" a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Both are protected by the Constitution through amendments. Why did we need an amendment? Because it was not already guaranteed. 

 

15th Amendment wrote:

 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.

19th Amendment wrote:

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.

 

Neither amendment says anything about sexuality. 

 

The only other text in the Constitution that is semi relevant to the topic is section 1 of the 14th Amendment

14th Amendment wrote:

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.

This is the amendment that lawyers trying to push court cases to protect gay marriage use. Specifically the part about equal protection of the laws. However, their arguments are really stretching since in determining what "privileges or immunities of citizens" are the Court usually uses popular tradition as a measure. Whatever gay marriage is, it is not traditional. As far as equal protection, the Court has used that clause to apply protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 14th Amendment, states did not have to abide by the Bill of Rights at all. They could do whatever they wanted.

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I have issue with the people who push their religious agenda on others. It's self satisfying and self centered to think that their religion is right and all others all wrong. This is why Prop 8 in California has been found unconstitutional and will be overturned. It is why all other states which currently have anti-gay laws will eventually lose just like the states which prevented women from voting or blacks from being free.

I have issues with people who want laws. It is self satisfying and self centered to think that your laws are right. However, as self satisfying, self centered and self serving laws tend to be that does not make them unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit found Prop 8 unconstitutional, so what? Their opinion isn't going to matter when it goes to SCOTUS and the 9th Circuit is a heavily biased court that best known for being the most overturned lower court in the country.  

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'd like to point out that it would be illegal to have a state vote and remove the right of women to vote so it is illegal for them to remove the pursuit of happiness of others. This would include gay marriages.

The phrase "pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the Constitution either. Before you "beat my brains in" with facts you should probably find some and try reading the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't see any thing in the constitution which says that gays can't marry.

It doesn't. Nor does it say anything about guaranteeing they can marry. Nor does it enumerate defining marriage as a federal power. Therefore, the power to define a legal marriage is left to the states. They can define marriage to allow gay marriage or not to allow it, to allow polygamy or not to allow it. It is called federalism. So if you really want gay marriage you have to work to persuade your fellow citizens to vote appropriately. You are not going to find relief in the courts every time you don't like a law.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I am

harleysportster wrote:

I am not gay, but what business is it of mine or the government to worry about what people do ? What are they going to go after next ?

Well then why aren't you against strait marriage as well? Why does the government need to issue marriage certificates to anyone? If you're religious, why not have the a church do it, if you're an atheist have RRS or some other group give you a piece of paper.

Why do we want grant special privileges to couples that we don't give to single people? Why is the government's business if I'm single or married to anyone?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
@beyond

Name a law at the federal level which is religiously motivated and gives benefits to others while denying others and is constitutional?

Most of what I was speaking about was not specific to the constitution, the only thing I misquoted was that all men are created equal.

And since you are being anal about amendments not being the constitution, you seem to have claimed that the 14th amendment was in the Constitution. All amendments are related to the bill of rights or there after.

In time the christians will lose more grip on things and eventually be a minority as well other religions.

Laws which bring balance to all and for the greater good are needed. People who push their own private agenda are the problem here. I'm not wanting any thing other than peace and quiet in the world. Want to be a chrisitan? Sure, go right ahead, but leave me alone and don't knock on my door telling me about your false prophet.

And you still need to get your brains bashed in by a roll of sheep skin. No state should allow their people to vote against a minority in such a way.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:harleysportster

EXC wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

I am not gay, but what business is it of mine or the government to worry about what people do ? What are they going to go after next ?

Well then why aren't you against strait marriage as well? Why does the government need to issue marriage certificates to anyone? If you're religious, why not have the a church do it, if you're an atheist have RRS or some other group give you a piece of paper.

Why do we want grant special privileges to couples that we don't give to single people? Why is the government's business if I'm single or married to anyone?

 

If it were up to me, NO ONE would get special privileges.  I've been living with the same girl for a few years. I see no reason to go to a church or a court to classify us as married. I don't think the government, a church, a judge nor any other organization, has a fucking right to tell people about who they sleep with. Nor should the IRS have all sorts of exemptions for married people or people with children, or single parents. 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think it's pretty easy to

I think it's pretty easy to say gays are morally in the right but whether they are legally is a more difficult question. Gay marriage proponents in the US have argued at least three reasons for same-sex marriage bans being unconstitutional. One is that they violate the full faith and credit clause of article 4 of the constitution which requires all states to recognize public acts of other states which of course includes marriage contracts. States are relieved of observing this due to a federal law which the US department of justice now  considers to be unconstitutional and no longer defends in court. 

Another is that they violate the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution specifically substantive due process which is the idea that there are limits to legislative authority especially when denying individuals their liberty or property and particularly when it comes to the policy enactments of the majority placing minority groups at an significant disadvantage. 

There is also the argument that they violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because marriage as an civil institution affords individuals civil benefits and equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits. This is a powerful argument but equal protection does not require that the state treat different people the same. The state doesn't have to allow minors to purchase cigarettes just because people above the age of majority can for example. What it does require is that there be a rational basis for these  classifications being created and used to treat people differently. Same-sex marriage opponents no doubt believe there is a rational basis for the laws but let's face it there  probably isn't. Beyond that laws that negatively affect disadvantaged groups like women,  racial minorities and non-citizens often must be held to a higher level of legal scrutiny. It's not enough that they are merely reasonable. 

It's shitty to think people have to struggle just for equal treatment but considering that homosexual relationships were criminalized in the US until 2003 to me it seems like pretty big success story.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Name a

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Name a law at the federal level which is religiously motivated and gives benefits to others while denying others and is constitutional?

Most of what I was speaking about was not specific to the constitution, the only thing I misquoted was that all men are created equal.

And since you are being anal about amendments not being the constitution, you seem to have claimed that the 14th amendment was in the Constitution. All amendments are related to the bill of rights or there after.

In time the christians will lose more grip on things and eventually be a minority as well other religions.

Laws which bring balance to all and for the greater good are needed. People who push their own private agenda are the problem here. I'm not wanting any thing other than peace and quiet in the world. Want to be a chrisitan? Sure, go right ahead, but leave me alone and don't knock on my door telling me about your false prophet.

And you still need to get your brains bashed in by a roll of sheep skin. No state should allow their people to vote against a minority in such a way.

 

 

Amendments are in the Constitution. My point was that they were not part of the Constitution until it was amended which is why the examples you used of the Constitution protecting the voting rights of blacks and women were not relevant to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. If you want to suggest that there should be an amendment to protect gay marriage, fine.

My sole disagreement with you is your claim that this law is unconstitutional- I agree it is a stupid law and I agree that states shouldn't pass these laws but the question of whether or not a law is a good one is completely separate to the question of whether or not a law is constitutional. A lot of really stupid laws are constitutional like blue laws for example. With our Constitution as it is today the argument that this law is unconstitutional is weak at best and there is no evidence that our current Supreme Court is going to against the prevailing precedent. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Amendments are in the Constitution. My point was that they were not part of the Constitution until it was amended which is why the examples you used of the Constitution protecting the voting rights of blacks and women were not relevant to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. If you want to suggest that there should be an amendment to protect gay marriage, fine.

My sole disagreement with you is your claim that this law is unconstitutional- I agree it is a stupid law and I agree that states shouldn't pass these laws but the question of whether or not a law is a good one is completely separate to the question of whether or not a law is constitutional. A lot of really stupid laws are constitutional like blue laws for example. With our Constitution as it is today the argument that this law is unconstitutional is weak at best and there is no evidence that our current Supreme Court is going to against the prevailing precedent. 

It is with out hesitation, an unconstitutional law. It with out hesitation is an unfair voting against a minority.

Sexual preference is not some thing which people choose. It is given at birth from a chemical reaction through genetic material. Parents pass this trait along to their children, it isn't a multiple choice for these people.

For example, there are people in this country who won't have sex. They have no, none, nil, nada attraction to either male or female. They are an extreme minority. They are aromantic account for less than 2% of the population of the world. We see no legislation against them because they fly under the radar.

Science has shown that they have hormone in balances which cause them not to want to have sex. Yes, they still get married for financial reasons but usually they go single for their entire lives.

I know several people like this and they have no desire to have sex, procreate or to be intimate with any one.

The ruling is that men and women should be married because it is natural. It is for the reason of procreation. It's been that way for thousands of years, blah blah blah.

So when these people get married but have no desire to procreate or to have sex, then they too should not be allowed to get married?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution

And what about people who use machines to masturbate? Are they given consideration? What if they don't want to have sex with a man or a woman but only want to use machines to have sex? Should they be included in this new law?

See, it discriminates against gays. It focuses on one religious viewpoint which is that "hey we are christians and we say what you are doing in the privacy of your own home is wrong and we don't do it so you shouldn't do it".

Well fuck that point of view.

Next thing you know they will be telling heterosexual people that you can't have oral sex.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/crime-against-nature-oral-sex-felony-in-nc/

http://www.ncgala.org/guide/guidecan.htm

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/north-carolina

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sexual preference isn't a

Sexual preference isn't a chemical reaction.   That's inane.   Lust, yeah I can agree with that.   But what you find attractive is in no way shaped by chemicals after you are formed.   You can't inject me or you or anyone and make them gay or something for a bit.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:It is

digitalbeachbum wrote:

It is with out hesitation, an unconstitutional law. It with out hesitation is an unfair voting against a minority.

Ok.... why? There is very little in Supreme Court precedent that supports your claim, it certainly is not a law that is a slam dunk where you would see a 9-0 case in SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional. To pretend that it is simply because you want it to be is denying the reality of our law and how it works. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Sexual preference is not some thing which people choose. It is given at birth from a chemical reaction through genetic material. Parents pass this trait along to their children, it isn't a multiple choice for these people.

For example, there are people in this country who won't have sex. They have no, none, nil, nada attraction to either male or female. They are an extreme minority. They are aromantic account for less than 2% of the population of the world. We see no legislation against them because they fly under the radar.

Science has shown that they have hormone in balances which cause them not to want to have sex. Yes, they still get married for financial reasons but usually they go single for their entire lives.

I know several people like this and they have no desire to have sex, procreate or to be intimate with any one.

The ruling is that men and women should be married because it is natural. It is for the reason of procreation. It's been that way for thousands of years, blah blah blah.

So when these people get married but have no desire to procreate or to have sex, then they too should not be allowed to get married?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution

And what about people who use machines to masturbate? Are they given consideration? What if they don't want to have sex with a man or a woman but only want to use machines to have sex? Should they be included in this new law?

See, it discriminates against gays. It focuses on one religious viewpoint which is that "hey we are christians and we say what you are doing in the privacy of your own home is wrong and we don't do it so you shouldn't do it".

Well fuck that point of view.

Next thing you know they will be telling heterosexual people that you can't have oral sex.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/crime-against-nature-oral-sex-felony-in-nc/

http://www.ncgala.org/guide/guidecan.htm

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/north-carolina

Ok, so you lay out why the law is stupid. Laws are not unconstitutional just because they are stupid or silly. Until recently laws against sodomy were common. They were overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. The legal argument was based upon same legal argument that supports Roe vs. Wade. Both arguments rely upon the due process clause and the murky "right to privacy" which isn't specifically defined but current law is that there are some actions which are so private that government does not have power to legislate. That line is still not clear and will be several decades before we have enough cases to draw a clear line and tell with any certainty exactly which issues are protected by the right to privacy and which are not. 

So can the same argument be used to protect gay marriage? Unlikely. All cases that relied on the due process clause and the right to privacy involve actions that are inherently private. Marriage is not a private action. In fact, the whole argument is over whether homosexual marriages should be recognized publicly. The law is not about having a homosexual relationship, having sex in private or making medical decisions. It has nothing to do with anything that has been included in the right to privacy in the past. A law against homosexuals cohabiting would have a strong argument under the right to privacy. 

However, gay marriage is not private- it is requesting that the marriage be officially recognized by the government and get the government benefits that go with being married. You can buy each other rings, live together, tell people you are married, go to each others family reunions and all the other actions that married couples do together. The only thing you are prevented from getting is the government benefits that go along with being married. 

Including gay marriage as part of the right to privacy would greatly extend current legal understanding of it. I'm not saying it is completely impossible, but it is extremely unlikely that our current Supreme Court is going to do that. It is slightly more likely that they would find it a violation of the equal protection clause, but even that I would consider extremely unlikely. All arguments that these bans are unconstitutional are a stretch and if any of them succeeded it would be a very significant change to constitutional law.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Sexual

Watcher wrote:

Sexual preference isn't a chemical reaction.   That's inane.   Lust, yeah I can agree with that.   But what you find attractive is in no way shaped by chemicals after you are formed.   You can't inject me or you or anyone and make them gay or something for a bit.

This is what I was trying to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

Hormones, chemicals, DNA, what ever, being gay isn't a choice just like not being gay isn't a choice.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

It is with out hesitation, an unconstitutional law. It with out hesitation is an unfair voting against a minority.

Ok.... why? There is very little in Supreme Court precedent that supports your claim, it certainly is not a law that is a slam dunk where you would see a 9-0 case in SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional. To pretend that it is simply because you want it to be is denying the reality of our law and how it works. 

 

I don't have much time to reply to the entire post, but precedence has already been determined from 200 years of this country so I'll hit on a little bit now and more later.

This entire country and they way it was formed gives precedence over what is going on with the gays now. People in DC and around the country who are in politics attempt and every given angle to customize this country in to their opinions. As this country has grown, people have stood up and said, "wait a second, I have the right to do..." and changes were made to allow them the same rights as others.

People who support marriage as being between a man and a woman are specifically stating THEIR RELIGION on to others. It is specifically a religious opinion.

YOU CAN NOT FORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON OTHERS. YOU CAN NOT FORCE OTHERS TO BELIEVE YOUR OPINION.

This law is unconstitutional for that sole reason.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't have much time to reply to the entire post, but precedence has already been determined from 200 years of this country so I'll hit on a little bit now and more later.

This entire country and they way it was formed gives precedence over what is going on with the gays now. People in DC and around the country who are in politics attempt and every given angle to customize this country in to their opinions. As this country has grown, people have stood up and said, "wait a second, I have the right to do..." and changes were made to allow them the same rights as others.

People who support marriage as being between a man and a woman are specifically stating THEIR RELIGION on to others. It is specifically a religious opinion.

YOU CAN NOT FORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON OTHERS. YOU CAN NOT FORCE OTHERS TO BELIEVE YOUR OPINION.

This law is unconstitutional for that sole reason.

 

That is complete nonsense. All laws are someones opinions and law by definition is forcing someone to follow the opinions of the law makers. Drugs are illegal solely because many people hold the opinion (often religiously based) that they should be. The government had the opinion that I should not be allowed to play online poker so they passed a law against it. Many people hold the opinion that you should not be allowed to walk around naked in public, so it is illegal. People support minimum wage laws because they hold the opinion that people shouldn't be allowed to work for low wages. Simply because a law is based on someones opinion does not make it unconstitutional.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Being anti-gay is hardly

Being anti-gay is hardly restricted to religious groups. There are atheists who are anti-gay.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't have much time to reply to the entire post, but precedence has already been determined from 200 years of this country so I'll hit on a little bit now and more later.

This entire country and they way it was formed gives precedence over what is going on with the gays now. People in DC and around the country who are in politics attempt and every given angle to customize this country in to their opinions. As this country has grown, people have stood up and said, "wait a second, I have the right to do..." and changes were made to allow them the same rights as others.

People who support marriage as being between a man and a woman are specifically stating THEIR RELIGION on to others. It is specifically a religious opinion.

YOU CAN NOT FORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON OTHERS. YOU CAN NOT FORCE OTHERS TO BELIEVE YOUR OPINION.

This law is unconstitutional for that sole reason.

 

That is complete nonsense. All laws are someones opinions and law by definition is forcing someone to follow the opinions of the law makers. Drugs are illegal solely because many people hold the opinion (often religiously based) that they should be. The government had the opinion that I should not be allowed to play online poker so they passed a law against it. Many people hold the opinion that you should not be allowed to walk around naked in public, so it is illegal. People support minimum wage laws because they hold the opinion that people shouldn't be allowed to work for low wages. Simply because a law is based on someones opinion does not make it unconstitutional.  

You think drugs are illegal because of religious views? LMAO! Not even close. Not even 1%.

Online poker was not a personal opinion.

Being naked is an exception. They do it for sanitary reasons.

Low wages = Sweat shops. This all changed after hundreds of people (mostly kids) all died in a fire, in I think NY or Chicago.

 

This law is a religious opinion. It is based on a chrisitian faith and yes it does make it unconstitutional.

 

the proof will be what happnes in the near future. I don't want to waste your time or mine continuing this conversation until we see what happens in NC went it is appealed.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Online

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You think drugs are illegal because of religious views? LMAO! Not even close. Not even 1%.

Admittedly I don't have my hands on any polling data, but virtually every atheist I know supports legalizing marijuana and I find that atheists are far more likely to be sympathetic to arguments about legalizing other drugs. I know from my previous association with the republican party that the evangelical right wing is extremely anti-legalization.

Almost every time we have a thread on here about legalization you find significant support for it. If you post the same thread in theist forum you will get very different results. I think it is fair to assume that far more than 1% of the people who support maintaining drug bans do so for religious/moral reasons. Do you have access to information that says otherwise? What reason is there to outlaw drugs other than a personal opinion that they are bad?

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Online poker was not a personal opinion.

Then what is it? It was Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee who went to extreme lengths to get it included in a completely unrelated port security bill. Why? Because he is a religious douche bag that wanted to stop us sinners. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Being naked is an exception. They do it for sanitary reasons.

Is it more sanitary for a man to be topless than a woman? They are laws that simply stem from tradition and religious views of decency. If sanitation is your concern than the law should require people to wear gloves and masks. Your hands are by far the dirtiest part of your body and coughing or a running nose are the most likely ways for you to spread germs.  

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Low wages = Sweat shops. This all changed after hundreds of people (mostly kids) all died in a fire, in I think NY or Chicago.

 

It is an opinion about what form our economy should be and legal enforcement of that opinion. Just like every other law. So I guess it is constitutional to pass a law to enforce your morality but not for someone who is Christian? 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This law is a religious opinion. It is based on a chrisitian faith and yes it does make it unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it say a law is unconstitutional because many of its supporters are Christian? What law has ever been overturned on those grounds?

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
 

the proof will be what happnes in the near future. I don't want to waste your time or mine continuing this conversation until we see what happens in NC went it is appealed.

Too bad, I was waiting for you to bash my head in with facts. At least one fact would have been nice, or at least an attempt to use the actual text of the Constitution to back up your assertion that the law is unconstitutional.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Being anti-gay

Vastet wrote:
Being anti-gay is hardly restricted to religious groups. There are atheists who are anti-gay.

Homosexuality has always been looked down upon, and the reason has to do with evolutionary human ignorance, not labels.

Neither gay or straight can deny that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce. Since the evolution has produced a ratio of a majority over a minority, humans falsely assume that a pattern means success and any minority in the mix cannot help so it is automatically assumed as a threat.

But this childish demonizing gays based on sexuality, is the same demonizing ANY  label does to a perceived threat of the "in group vs out group".

Homosexuality is a RATIO, not a utopia. It cannot be good or bad any more than the majority of heterosexuals are good or bad. It simply is a ratio in our current climate of evolution.

What IS clearly bad is that any given majority based on a label cannot see life as a range, instead, far too often we see it as a utopia.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
The family and myth making

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years

extract:

'Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman." So says the Coalition for Marriage, whose petition against same-sex unions in the UK has so far attracted 500,000 signatures. It's a familiar claim, and it is wrong. Dozens of societies, across many centuries, have recognised same-sex marriage. In a few cases, before the 14th century, it was even celebrated in church.

This is an example of a widespread phenomenon: myth-making by cultural conservatives about past relationships. Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel rare to behold. Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple". He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
LOL, nice. I can feel the

LOL, nice. I can feel the gay community cheering that post.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You think drugs are illegal because of religious views? LMAO! Not even close. Not even 1%.

Admittedly I don't have my hands on any polling data, but virtually every atheist I know supports legalizing marijuana and I find that atheists are far more likely to be sympathetic to arguments about legalizing other drugs. I know from my previous association with the republican party that the evangelical right wing is extremely anti-legalization.

Almost every time we have a thread on here about legalization you find significant support for it. If you post the same thread in theist forum you will get very different results. I think it is fair to assume that far more than 1% of the people who support maintaining drug bans do so for religious/moral reasons. Do you have access to information that says otherwise? What reason is there to outlaw drugs other than a personal opinion that they are bad?

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Online poker was not a personal opinion.

Then what is it? It was Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee who went to extreme lengths to get it included in a completely unrelated port security bill. Why? Because he is a religious douche bag that wanted to stop us sinners. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Being naked is an exception. They do it for sanitary reasons.

Is it more sanitary for a man to be topless than a woman? They are laws that simply stem from tradition and religious views of decency. If sanitation is your concern than the law should require people to wear gloves and masks. Your hands are by far the dirtiest part of your body and coughing or a running nose are the most likely ways for you to spread germs.  

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Low wages = Sweat shops. This all changed after hundreds of people (mostly kids) all died in a fire, in I think NY or Chicago.

 

It is an opinion about what form our economy should be and legal enforcement of that opinion. Just like every other law. So I guess it is constitutional to pass a law to enforce your morality but not for someone who is Christian? 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This law is a religious opinion. It is based on a chrisitian faith and yes it does make it unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it say a law is unconstitutional because many of its supporters are Christian? What law has ever been overturned on those grounds?

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
 

the proof will be what happnes in the near future. I don't want to waste your time or mine continuing this conversation until we see what happens in NC went it is appealed.

Too bad, I was waiting for you to bash my head in with facts. At least one fact would have been nice, or at least an attempt to use the actual text of the Constitution to back up your assertion that the law is unconstitutional.  

Elaborate tripe is elaborate tripe, no matter the subject. You masturbate over national economics as if it were one person's checkbook and can only follow your utopia script and the past 30 years has done NOTHING but hurt the middle class and poor. It is bad enough you worship your own Wall Street legalized racketeering god, but we are not talking about economics here.

But this is about the violation of the concept of "equal protection under the law". Since gays cannot marry that violates their rights to do the same thing heterosexuals can do. See how I can boil down something to it's core, but you have to with this issue, and with economics, have to fuck Ocham's Razor with the lube of delusion by making it needlessly complex.

In both this case and your bullshit economics arguments you do the same stupid bullshit, "I can so therefore I am right".

Legal and moral are TWO different things. The economic bullshit was only legal because it played upon the concept of "put it on the books and make the crime legal". But this issue on the ban is a rights issue, not a money issue and this is a clear case of majority tyranny, not legalized pickpocketing.

If "might makes right" were a centerfold you'd have the pages stuck together. You are just too stupid to see that when you boil down all your arguments on either subject that is all you advocate.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:but we are not

Brian37 wrote:

but we are not talking about economics here.

Nice of you to recognize that.

 

Brian37 wrote:

But this is about the violation of the concept of "equal protection under the law". Since gays cannot marry that violates their rights to do the same thing heterosexuals can do. See how I can boil down something to it's core, but you have to with this issue, and with economics, have to fuck Ocham's Razor with the lube of delusion by making it needlessly complex.

Except that Supreme Court law tends to get rather complex because the justices rely heavily on the precedent of cases that happened before. Precedent can change how they decide compared to how they might decide if they were simply handed the Constitution with no knowledge of previous rulings.

So we have the equal protection argument. Seems a logical place to start. But the first thing the justices are going to ask is "what is the limiting principle?" In other words, does that mean that the government must recognize all marriages? If 3 people, 4 people, 100 people all want to get married shouldn't they also get equal protection? Incestuous marriages? Shouldn't they also qualify? Where do you draw the line and how do you define it? What marriages are constitutionally protected and which are not? 

If you say "yes all marriages are protected no matter what" well that throws a hell of a monkey wrench in our current tax and probate laws which heavily favor marriage. Government would be practically forced to do away with it. That kind of massive overhaul of our tax and benefit system isn't something that SCOTUS is going to take lightly.

If you say "no only gay marriage" why?

At the end of the day, SCOTUS is going to look at history and see that historically states have been free to define marriage however they want. They set the age limits, laws against blood relations, bigamy and polygamy. Then they will ask if there is some fundamental right that is being violated. There is no right to marry in the Constitution, there is none in any previous caselaw. So they will be presented with the choice of creating a new right, or allowing states to create their own laws. It is almost certain that they will step back and allow the states to decide.

Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE for SCOTUS to say that government can't regulate who can or can't get married. I would LOVE for them to say that government can't provide preference to people based on marital status. I would LOVE for SCOTUS to start interpreting the Constitution in a way that severely limits the power of government and forces it to repeal a whole bunch of laws. It would be great to be able to make a case that discriminating against poker players while allowing slot machines and the lottery is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, I didn't write the Constitution, and I am not sitting on the Court. As such, I am left with simply the ability to make an assessment of what I believe the Court will do. And the argument using the Equal Protection Clause has a snowballs chance in hell. Your best challenge on legal grounds is probably to get married in a state with liberal laws and then try to get it recognized in your state of residence, since states routinely recognize marriages done in other states even when said marriage would not have been recognized if it was conducted in state. That runs into the DOMA, which I believe has a very strong case that it is unconstitutional.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Legal and moral are TWO different things. The economic bullshit was only legal because it played upon the concept of "put it on the books and make the crime legal". But this issue on the ban is a rights issue, not a money issue and this is a clear case of majority tyranny, not legalized pickpocketing.

Legal and moral are two different things. That is what I am saying. I am fully supportive of gay marriage, like I said, I don't think government has any business requiring a license for ANY marriage. However, I don't think the legal argument is solid. I believe that the income tax is also a clear case of majority tyranny, so is the ban on my poker, the requirement for strippers to wear pasties, the ban on selling raw milk, the alcohol limits on beer, requirements to get various government permits and licenses and any of a million laws government has. But just because you or I don't like a law doesn't make it unconstitutional.

If I had written the Constitution I guarantee most laws would be unconstitutional, including this one. But I didn't. The question of whether or not a law is constitutional is completely separate from the question of whether or not a law is a good law. You, Digital and most of the gay rights movement seem to think that simply because the law is offensive it must be unconstitutional. Sorry, our court system doesn't work that way. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X