Which is what I have been saying from jump. They keep saying it will lose at the Federal level. Why? Equal protection means equal protection, no?Originally Posted by Bill Blake
Diamond Member
Which is what I have been saying from jump. They keep saying it will lose at the Federal level. Why? Equal protection means equal protection, no?
"Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation."
George Carlin
Diamond Member
Well, congressionally, it has...
Diamond Member
State and Federal laws do not have to conform to one another.
See medical marijuana...
Diamond Member
major oversimplification...
Diamond Member
How though? I am really trying to get school here. How is it overly simple to say that gays wanting to be legally married are being discriminated against as compared to non-gays?
"Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation."
George Carlin
Super Star Member
That is the law of contracts. Government is instituted to protect it. What's with the undertone mockery?
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
by a William Jefferson Clinton hero Carroll Quigley – (from Tragedy & Hope)
Diamond Member
Because I’m not interested in your beliefs, which are usually the foundation for your arguments; the questions are: is gay marriage a Federal or State issue under the Constitution, and does the Federal Congress have the authority to not recognize State sanctioned marriages, which is the case, thus far.
Diamond Member
LATEST MIXES
sometimes you just know // organix // background music for weed dealers // how i let my mind float // forward momentum // refresher course
Diamond Member
They, at least do, with regard to the Bill of Rights, under Section 1, Amendment 14:
“Section 1. 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.”
It seems as though we, possibly, have a reversal: where, this clause was intended to protect citizens from state laws that contradicted the Bill of Rights, now some states are extending Liberty, not recognized by federal law?
Diamond Member
The 14th Amendment does not mean that everybody gets to do everything. Imprisoned felons don't have the same rights as those outside. Children don't have the same rights as adults. And, when the amendment was written, women didn't have equal rights to men. My point is, just because the words "equal protection" appear does not necessarily mean that the clause can be used in every situation where a seemingly deprived group wants "equality." That said, the 14th is a very interesting amendment, which has been at the center of a lot of landmark cases... lots of different ways to interpret it.
I agree that gays are, indeed, being discriminated against for their desire to be legally married, and not to be confined to some sort of sub-class of human experience. i do hope that, during my life time, the 14th is used to extend marriage rights to gays.
Diamond Member
But, unless marriage licenses are different –that ones issued by a State for same-sex marriages are distinct from those issued to heterosexual couples, violates the Equal Protection Clause, but for the Federal government and other States that prohibit same-sex marriages?
If the licenses are the same, for any couple, issued by the State, regardless of sex, for the Federal government to deny some of the same licenses, as opposed to others, is a legal contradiction, at least?
Diamond Member
read the dissenting opinions and O'Connor's separte opinion in that Texas sodomy case.
Diamond Member
One of many.
Super Star Member
Because it depends on the argument presented. Some argue that abortion is a State issue because it isn't expressed enumerated within the Federal Constitution, but they argued person protections under Amendment XIV. The same may be argued when it comes to marriage. I think there is more to it, like contract protections, equal protections, religious protections, but most importantly that a Constitution is not there to limit the people, but to limit Government, so it has no business trying to limit people, through legislation.
BTW your statement about "my belief" is ridiculous. When you ask a question to get an opinion you are asking for someone their "belief." Beliefs are usually the foundation for every argument. What else is the basis for an argument? Everyone on here has different opinions and they are based on what they believe.
Second, Libertarian is the foundation of the Constitution, so to mock that doctrine is also ridiculous, although I understand it is in fashion to do so.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
by a William Jefferson Clinton hero Carroll Quigley – (from Tragedy & Hope)
Diamond Member
And, I do agree with you. But there are enough law-degree-holding people on the court and throughout the federal bureaucracy that can legally justify the status quo.
Had CA kept mariage on the books, and had NY State LEGISLATIVELY legalized marriage here, then I think the whole argument would have exploded into the SCOTUS.
Diamond Member
not true, but that's an argument for another day.
Super Star Member
Don't forget that Amendment XVI was mainly enacted for freed slaves and corporations. It has since expanded through the judges that subscribe to the living constitution.
The ironic thing is that the States began to issue licenses for marriages that were not permissible, such as interracial marriage so why not just issue a license to gay couples?
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
by a William Jefferson Clinton hero Carroll Quigley – (from Tragedy & Hope)
Super Star Member
Of course liberty was the foundation for the Constitution. Wasn't socialism. For those who forget, Libertarian is just a person who believes in liberty.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
by a William Jefferson Clinton hero Carroll Quigley – (from Tragedy & Hope)
Diamond Member
Libertarianism is the foundation for the Constitution? --Oh, brother.
Can you provide me with the section of the Constitution that is “the law contracts”?—that provides the right for gay marriage?
The Contract Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 1, does not apply.
Thanks.
Diamond Member
I believe this is the inductive fallacy that applies best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Super Star Member
My bad. Socialism was the foundation. Or better, why don't you set forth the founding principles for the Constitution Mr "Oh brother"?
You actually don't expect them to write in every type of contract into the Constitution, do you? Tell me why Article I, § 10, Clause 1 does not apply.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
by a William Jefferson Clinton hero Carroll Quigley – (from Tragedy & Hope)
Diamond Member
That's your second Straw Man within two posts.
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Explain to me how the above applies?--'Cause that's our esteemed Contract Clause.
Super Star Member
I am not interested in your belief, which is usually the foundation for your arguments. I love how you yield your argument to Wiki. LMAO
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
by a William Jefferson Clinton hero Carroll Quigley – (from Tragedy & Hope)
Diamond Member
If you don't like Wiki:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Super Star Member
You appear to be assuming that if it isn't in the Constitution it doesn't exist. The Right to contract existed prior to the Constitution. They just made sure that contracts would not be impaired. Now, some can argue that the contracts they hold jurisdiction over deal with contracts between States, between State and individuals, Corporations and individuals, between a State and the United States, and therefore not between individuals, since they are inherently free of Government interferences. See US Constitution, Annotated Senate issue with citations, 1924.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
by a William Jefferson Clinton hero Carroll Quigley – (from Tragedy & Hope)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks