quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

I think a lot of the Founders would object to the above statement. The Bill of Rights is meant to delineate certain rights but not to limit what rights the people had.

They even put in a nifty amendment to basically tell folks not to make the claim you just made.
The Ninth Amendment to the United states Constitution

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

To your point, who decided what your retained rights are? You? Me? Your mother? Do you feel somehow marriage by the same gender is some right you were born with and apparently your father and mother and grandfather and grandmother also but they just were too stupid to know or care?
Or is a "right" just something you decide to "retain" and so I can "retain" the right to multiple wives if I so choose because it is a "right" I decide to retain and also btw I might as well "retain" the right to not pay taxes or "retain" the right to your wife because that is liberty.

Sweet. I see your point and embrace it completely. I am getting multiple wives, not paying taxes and I want your wife too because it is a "right" I retain and was born with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Only I am saying it and I have the "retained right" under the Constitution to do it as long as it is ok with the TOS. Wait! Is that right? How can that be since this is a "retained right" I was born with and so the TOS is "Un-Consitutional", very sweet.

quote:

If the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution were here today, Arty, they'd probably say, "Eh? What? Why ask us? Things have moved on and this has become way too complicated. We're dead and want to remain so - we've done our work and want to rest. Why don't you all grow up and think for yourselves, you bunch of lazy-minded slobs?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Only I am saying it and I have the "retained right" under the Constitution to do it as long as it is ok with the TOS. Wait! Is that right? How can that be since this is a "retained right" I was born with and so the TOS is "Un-Consitutional", very sweet.

If the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution were here today, Arty, they'd probably say, "Eh? What? Why ask us? Things have moved on and this has become way too complicated. We're dead and want to remain so - we've done our work and want to rest. Why don't you all grow up and think for yourselves, you bunch of lazy-minded slobs?"

I used to be gung ho in favour of a written constitution for the UK, just as you Americans have. But I'm less keen, now. The US Constitution seems to have become yet another means of allowing people to stop thinking for themselves. Whew! No brain required here! All the thinking was done centuries ago. Great!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

I think a lot of the Founders would object to the above statement. The Bill of Rights is meant to delineate certain rights but not to limit what rights the people had.

They even put in a nifty amendment to basically tell folks not to make the claim you just made.
The Ninth Amendment to the United states Constitution

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

To your point, who decided what your retained rights are? You? Me? Your mother? Do you feel somehow marriage by the same gender is some right you were born with and apparently your father and mother and grandfather and grandmother also but they just were too stupid to know or care?
Or is a "right" just something you decide to "retain" and so I can "retain" the right to multiple wives if I so choose because it is a "right" I decide to retain and also btw I might as well "retain" the right to not pay taxes or "retain" the right to your wife because that is liberty.

Sweet. I see your point and embrace it completely. I am getting multiple wives, not paying taxes and I want your wife too because it is a "right" I retain and was born with.

quote:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You can keep chanting that denial of reality all you want, it simply isn't true.

After the ruling, no state in America can sustain the prosecution or persecution of a US citizen for being married to their same sex partner under a legal license from another state, no matter how desperately you pretend they can.

They have to honor it the same as they would honor a heterosexual license. They cannot strike down the sovereignty of another state that issues said license, that's direct from the written opinion.
Since the feds are bound by the ruling, any state that tries to deprive a US citizen of those rights, it is going to lose at the federal level.

Give it up, Loving, Lawrence, and now Windsor are the law of the land.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state.

Read the decisions.

No. It did not. Only section 3 of DOMA was struck down. Section 2, which is the state recognition part, still stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The will of some of the people does not superceedt he constitution.

Sweet. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They were very pro gay marriage and anti-voting.

No, the founding fathers were not pro gay marriage, they also weren't pro subsidized electric power, they didn't enumerate the right to an attorney, they didn't think of a lot of things. See, the founding fathers were not a hydrocephalic moron like Sean Hannity, they knew the constitution couldn't cover everything, because they knew the country was going to stay 13 sparsely settled colonies using horse drawn carriages. What they realized is the country would grow and change, and they put flexibility into the laws, they built a Supreme Court into the constitution to interpret the constitution in light of societal changes. There is a reason the founders made amending the constitution so difficult, it is that they expected that both legislatures and the courts would handle issues, they didn't want a situation like California where any whack job can amend the constitution, they wanted the constitution to remain what it was meant to be, the framework to run the government and protect our rights. Other than prohibition, most amendments tend to enhance rights, not take them away (well, unless you are one of those people who dream of the confederacy and think the 13 amendment took away all the fun), but it also is reserved for major issues. Once same sex marriage is settled, that will be it, because even though the GOP will bluster, ma and pa frickert from Alabama will yell and roll on the ground and rant and rave, the fact is that soon enough states will make it legal that the only practical step will be to have states forced to recognize it, otherwise you could see a kind of civil war, states that recognize same sex marriage can refuse to recognize marriage from states without it, it will be a nightmare.

Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

In case anyone wants to point to the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment in 1868 did not mean equal voting for women when it (the 14th amendment) was passed, so the Constitution did not extend it's reach into the voting laws then or now using that Amendment and did not by itself support or deny equal voting for women during suffrage in the next century. Why do we care, because in the same way it does not extend into some newly made up Right to same gender marriage.

Precedence matters. Intent by the founding fathers matters and made up shit does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Pure nonsense. What is literally spelled out in the exact wording of the Constitution is equal government treatment for *all*, absent a compelling reason.

What is spelled out in the exact wording of Art III is that when the Supreme Court says that inter-racial/interfaith/same sex marriage is a right, it is a right.


Maybe you can find another forum where people will actually fall for that drivel. I'm sure the FBI has a list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

quote:

What is literally spelled out in the exact wording of the Constitution is equal government treatment for *all*, absent a compelling reason.

No. Quote it if you like. There is no phrase "equal government treatment".

quote:

What is spelled out in the exact wording of Art III is that when the Supreme Court says that inter-racial/interfaith/same sex marriage is a right, it is a right.

No. The only "rights" are in the Constitution itself, this is why the Amendments are so important and why they are called "The Bill of Rights".

Anything else is a law allowing or then disallowing activities as long as they do not contradict or remove the rights specified in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court cannot make "rights" nor does it make law. Any law can be changed or removed or added as long as doing so does not "Violate the Constitution". The Supreme court decides if a law violates the Constitution whereas Congress (not just the Senate btw) makes Federal Law and the States make, you guessed it, non-Federal law and none of these are "rights".

Sweet. I am so glad we had this talk. I hope you do also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You can keep chanting that denial of reality all you want, it simply isn't true.

After the ruling, no state in America can sustain the prosecution or persecution of a US citizen for being married to their same sex partner under a legal license from another state, no matter how desperately you pretend they can.

They have to honor it the same as they would honor a heterosexual license. They cannot strike down the sovereignty of another state that issues said license, that's direct from the written opinion.
Since the feds are bound by the ruling, any state that tries to deprive a US citizen of those rights, it is going to lose at the federal level.

Give it up, Loving, Lawrence, and now Windsor are the law of the land.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state.

Read the decisions.

No. It did not. Only section 3 of DOMA was struck down. Section 2, which is the state recognition part, still stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

I think a lot of the Founders would object to the above statement. The Bill of Rights is meant to delineate certain rights but not to limit what rights the people had.

They even put in a nifty amendment to basically tell folks not to make the claim you just made.
The Ninth Amendment to the United states Constitution

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

To your point, who decided what your retained rights are? You? Me? Your mother? Do you feel somehow marriage by the same gender is some right you were born with and apparently your father and mother and grandfather and grandmother also but they just were too stupid to know or care?
Or is a "right" just something you decide to "retain" and so I can "retain" the right to multiple wives if I so choose because it is a "right" I decide to retain and also btw I might as well "retain" the right to not pay taxes or "retain" the right to your wife because that is liberty.

Sweet. I see your point and embrace it completely. I am getting multiple wives, not paying taxes and I want your wife too because it is a "right" I retain and was born with.

I don't mean to rush you with that list of who decided what your "retained" rights are but I am on the clock here. It should be easy, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

I think a lot of the Founders would object to the above statement. The Bill of Rights is meant to delineate certain rights but not to limit what rights the people had.

They even put in a nifty amendment to basically tell folks not to make the claim you just made.
The Ninth Amendment to the United states Constitution

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

To your point, who decided what your retained rights are? You? Me? Your mother? Do you feel somehow marriage by the same gender is some right you were born with and apparently your father and mother and grandfather and grandmother also but they just were too stupid to know or care?
Or is a "right" just something you decide to "retain" and so I can "retain" the right to multiple wives if I so choose because it is a "right" I decide to retain and also btw I might as well "retain" the right to not pay taxes or "retain" the right to your wife because that is liberty.

Sweet. I see your point and embrace it completely. I am getting multiple wives, not paying taxes and I want your wife too because it is a "right" I retain and was born with.

The Supreme Court decided that it was a right for any couple to marry in 1967.
From the majority opinion in Loving v Virginia (a unanimous decision by the court)

quote:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

To your attempt to take things beyond reasonableness, I agree that plural marriages between consenting adults should be legal. The bans are fairly clearly a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. As to taking any bride you wish maybe you need to be reminded that your rights end at every other person's nose.

As to not paying taxes, that responsibility is clearly in the Constitution so yes, you do have to pay all taxes you owe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Do you think Clarence Thomas in between chasing secretaries and reading porn while he was supposed to be studying law books, ever read the loving decision? It was the height of hypocrisy for him to vote against the DOMA decision and to make clear the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage, when he is married to a white woman and living in Virginia, which before Loving would have landed him in jail....Thomas has to be one of the biggest hypocrits ever to sit on the bench

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Do you think Clarence Thomas in between chasing secretaries and reading porn while he was supposed to be studying law books, ever read the loving decision? It was the height of hypocrisy for him to vote against the DOMA decision and to make clear the 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage, when he is married to a white woman and living in Virginia, which before Loving would have landed him in jail....Thomas has to be one of the biggest hypocrits ever to sit on the bench

I think Clarence Thomas is the worst Supreme Court justice in, possibly, the entire history of the Court. He should have been impeached for the whole lying on a decades worth of financial disclosure forms and for failing to recuse himself on cases where he has a clear conflict of interest through his wife's business ventures. He has gone almost a decade without asking a single question in any oral argument before the Court. He has, as far as I know, never once decided a case against the prevailing opinion of the conservative movement, even Scalia and Roberts have done so on occasion. In numerous cases he has, along with Scalia, voted against a decision the other 7 justices agreed with including a case where they argued that simply having a lawyer, even though the lawyer did not file appeals or otherwise advocate for the condemned, was acceptable in capital cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

So racial slurs are OK, as long as you only mean a subset of the larger group? I call BS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

I am referring to a particular subset, most specifically the garbage in the saudi royal family who have been using the UK courts to try and obliterate the massive amounts of evidence that they are the principal means of support of Al Qaeda and such, and it was aimed specifically at them, not people in general. I wasn't aiming at everyone in the mideast, only the asshole Saudi royal family.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You can keep chanting that denial of reality all you want, it simply isn't true.

After the ruling, no state in America can sustain the prosecution or persecution of a US citizen for being married to their same sex partner under a legal license from another state, no matter how desperately you pretend they can.

They have to honor it the same as they would honor a heterosexual license. They cannot strike down the sovereignty of another state that issues said license, that's direct from the written opinion.
Since the feds are bound by the ruling, any state that tries to deprive a US citizen of those rights, it is going to lose at the federal level.

Give it up, Loving, Lawrence, and now Windsor are the law of the land.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state.

Read the decisions.

No. It did not. Only section 3 of DOMA was struck down. Section 2, which is the state recognition part, still stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

Ken is right, it is not binding on all 50 states, nor are states forced to recognize the marriages of other states. There were two rulings in SCOTUS:

1)With DOMA, they stuck down the provision that allowed the federal government not to recognize same sex marriages for federal benefits. It was clearly illegal, since the federal government has no right to decide what is a valid marriage, period, that is the state's right to do so.

They did not address the full faith and recognition part of DOMA, where congress said states don't have to recognize the laws of other states in regards to same sex marriage. That one may be hard to repeal, because the full faith and credit clause did give congress the right to decide interstate disputes; however, there is also precedent where congress right to do so can be tempered by other rights, so if in doing so Congress is violating let's say the 14th amendment, they could strike it down.

2)In the proposition 8 case, SCOTUS did not rule on the legality of Prop 8, they basically threw it out of court because those bringing it didn't have standing to argue it. If Jerry Brown and his AG weren't such dumbfucks, if they had taken it to the SCOTUS, then SCOTUS would have to have ruled on the legality of prop 8, but they did not, so the court punted, which meant that the California high courts ruling stood. The problem is the California ruling has no stand nationally, because it is not a federal court, and only SCOTUS affects all 50 states, even federal appeals rulings are only binding in their local circuit.

Ken in other words was totally correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Completely and utterly misstating the actual rulings

One last time. The Court refused to hear the Prop 8 case because the anti-gay marriage petitioners had no standing. Its over, its done.

In Windsor, the Court very specifically declared that the right of each state to allow same sex marriages was inviolate. That issue was federal benefits, but all 50 states have to offer the same protections, or more. Any state in America that tries to overrule another state's sovereignty is going to get bitch slapped in federal court, just as happened after Brown, Loving, Lawrence, Heller etc.

If Texas tries to take away the legally married status of a couple who moves there from California, by arresting them for co-habitation, or taking their children, or saying they can't file taxes jointly, *or* manage their joint assets in probate, divorce, etc. they will lose in federal court.

You can argue and deny until you are blue in the face, the Court has made the law of the land exactly what it is, and no amount of spin is going to dial that back.

quote:

In Windsor, the Court very specifically declared that the right of each state to allow same sex marriages was inviolate. That issue was federal benefits, but all 50 states have to offer the same protections, or more. Any state in America that tries to overrule another state's sovereignty is going to get bitch slapped in federal court, just as happened after Brown, Loving, Lawrence, Heller etc.

If Texas tries to take away the legally married status of a couple who moves there from California, by arresting them for co-habitation, or taking their children, or saying they can't file taxes jointly, *or* manage their joint assets in probate, divorce, etc. they will lose in federal court.