billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 12, 2012 23:50:28 GMT -5
I read it, and it is replete with references to the "right" of same sex couples to marry. As has been stated- there is no "right" to marry. And it had a great deal more information for those who wish to have knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Feb 13, 2012 2:36:47 GMT -5
When two gay people can produce offspring with genetic birth defects due to incest, you'll have a point. True libertarians know if you aren't hurting someone else, you should have the right to do it.
Desperate much?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 13, 2012 9:08:00 GMT -5
....I have learned over the years that only the wind in my face on I-19 at 75 MPH returns me to sanity, so I am off the crank up the VTX 1800.... That sounds like a hell of a plan. Keep the painted side up!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2012 10:24:58 GMT -5
I read it, and it is replete with references to the "right" of same sex couples to marry. As has been stated- there is no "right" to marry. And it had a great deal more information for those who wish to have knowledge. No, it didn't. Once you begin with a false premise- nothing else they have to say matters. The idea that a state determining they will not recognize same sex marriage is a violation of the civil rights of gay people is wrong. Since there's no civil right to marry, nothing else that follows from this flawed premise matters. There is no 'civil right' to marry. Marriage has always had a definition and restrictions. Not only must you be a man and a woman, but you have to be an adult. You have to be human. You cannot already be married to anyone else. You cannot be blood relatives, and so on. So, marriage is a special legal institution created by the state. Rights are inherent, they are not created or granted by the state. Those things are called 'privileges'. It may seem 'unfair' to some that qualified married couples have benefits others don’t. There are reasons for this and it is tied the economic benefit provided by a strong, healthy family unit and successful child rearing. (And the failure rate of marriages is a red herring, btw. If the marriage fails you lose the benefits, but so long as you stay married the state has traditionally chosen to support your efforts) because marriage, to a society, is bigger than just a pile of government benefits. If the goal is government benefits, make that the objective. And stop trying to redefine a 5,000 year old institution to get government goodies. In fact, I can make a pretty good argument that we ought to stop subsidizing people's decisions PERIOD, not expand the group of people entitled to the subsidies. The state is not 'banning' gay relationships. You can love whom you please, we're just not going to call it 'marriage' because marriage has a definition, and same sex couples do not fit the definition. So, no one is being discriminated against for any reason. Private reasons for wanting to marry have always varied greatly from relationship to relationship- and it's none of the state's business. But the public purpose of marriage, and the state's interest in promoting family has been the same for thousands of years. There are all kinds of relationships, parents and children, cousins, aunts, uncles, close friends- but only one relationship has been called marriage. It's fundamental and natural that marriage would exist between a man and a woman. There's little point to trying to re-define it except for the narrow selfish interests of a very tiny segment of a tiny segment of the world's population. Never, until the last nano-second of human history, and by a population that represents 1% to 10% of a nation that represents 3% of the global population has ANYONE suggested marriage be anything other than the most natural institution it has always been. And the idea that the ninth circus is going to foist this untested social experiment on our country is truly absurd. They are going to be over-turned, and when they are it is going to be like the abortion debate: it won't be over, but it'll be effectively over. You can still debate it, but the creation of this new institution will be dead from a legal standpoint in any state that wants it dead.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:32:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 10:32:01 GMT -5
You didn't actually read billis's post, did you? ... Cause it worked from the premise that California had indeed already given these people the rights. As the law stood before Prop 8, there was equal treatment and the definition did NOT apply to man and woman. Therefore, Prop 8's whole and intended pupose was to strip a certain group of their given rights, and as such was unconstitutional. We have the CIVIL RIGHT to be treated equally under the law and extended equal benefit or punishment under the law.
Marriage is not a 'natural' institution... I know of no 'natural' instuation... all are founded or established... none occur naturally.
Any stable partnership benefits the state.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2012 10:44:23 GMT -5
And it had a great deal more information for those who wish to have knowledge. No, it didn't. Once you begin with a false premise- nothing else they have to say matters. ... Court rulings do have significance. Worth the read: www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Feb 13, 2012 10:45:39 GMT -5
Not only is it a right (despite your ad nauseum), but the 14th Amendment covers privileges too, so you're wrong AND your point is moot. You lose even under your own conditions. 14th Amendment, 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." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 13, 2012 12:07:24 GMT -5
Note that the California Constitution did not guarantee the right of same sex marriage, but the California Supreme Court ruled on the basis of equal protection that such a right existed. Amendment 8 was intended to clarify the definition of marriage to mean what it had always meant in the opinion of most of the people of California. The recent Federal Court ruling infers the right of the California Supreme Court to change the generally accepted meaning of a term without the permission of the people. This is precisely what is meant by an "activist" judiciary which encroaches on the power of the people to enact laws through petition or the proper action of the legislative branch. This also is an example of the tyranny which a certain proportion of citizens prefer since it allows a relatively small group of people [them] to enforce its will over the mass of the people through political manipulation. There are three branches of government in the US for a reason.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2012 12:16:47 GMT -5
... ... There are three branches of government in the US for a reason. And this case is a great example of why it is good thing.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 13, 2012 12:25:26 GMT -5
I suspect it is, but not in the way you have in mind. It is an excellent example of the overreach of one branch which needs to be corrected within the branch ~ and I suspect the SCOTUS will correct it ~ or by action from the other branches.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,298
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 13, 2012 12:28:45 GMT -5
We have the RIGHT to equal protection under the law... if the law grants benefits ... it must grant them equally... Equal protection is not a valid argument. The same argument could be made for any number of things. Why is Social Security ONLY available to those who qualify by meeting certain criteria set by the state? Why shouldn't everyone get a check whenever they damn well want one? Why can only people 16 and older drive cars if they qualify? Do the blind have a right to drive? Why can't blood relatives marry? driving is not a right. it is a privilege. and blood relatives CAN marry in many states (see "first cousin marriage").
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2012 12:29:45 GMT -5
... ~ and I suspect the SCOTUS will correct it ~ .... Being unfamiliar with the Koch Brothers stand on same sex marriage, I don't have an opinion on which way the SCOTUS will go on it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2012 12:32:58 GMT -5
... Why can only people 16 and older drive cars if they qualify? Do the blind have a right to drive? ... Can never figure out why some people struggle so much with the very very very simple concept of compelling reason.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,298
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 13, 2012 12:35:09 GMT -5
... Why can only people 16 and older drive cars if they qualify? Do the blind have a right to drive? ... Can never figure out why some people struggle so much with the very very very simple concept of compelling reason. it is more likely a very poorly thought-through reducio ad absurdum argument in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Feb 13, 2012 13:31:41 GMT -5
It used to mean a man and a woman as arranged by their parents and given consent by their church. So, no on that count. The "people" didn't give freedom slaves, the women the right to vote, or interracial marriage. Read the Fourteenth Amendment : it doesn't matter if legislation was due to popular vote or purely by legislators. Or if you'd like, we can put up a vote for you to give us all your money, I mean it's the will of the majority, isn't it? And you're a tyrant if you, a very small group of person don't agree over the mass of people. Yeah, how dare it not allow "the people" to tyrannically dictate how other people should live their lives! The nerve! How other people live their lives that has nothing to do with you and isn't hurting you is NOYFB
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2012 13:36:37 GMT -5
Not only is it a right (despite your ad nauseum), but the 14th Amendment covers privileges too, so you're wrong AND your point is moot. You lose even under your own conditions. 14th Amendment, 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." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I demolished every argument you made. You may regard my last post as my final argument on the subject, and it covers everything here that you think so cleverly debunks my post. No privileges or rights are being abridged by any state, because no such federal privilege exists in the first place. Marriage is a state issue. Thanks for playing.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2012 13:43:16 GMT -5
Declare victory and move on. Good technique. Now with that distraction out of the way, people who wish to be informed should check out the earlier link to the court ruling.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 13, 2012 13:45:19 GMT -5
Proposition 8:
This also is an example of the tyranny which a certain proportion of citizens prefer since it allows a relatively small large group of people [them] to enforce its will over the mass a minority of the people through political manipulation.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2012 13:45:28 GMT -5
... Why can only people 16 and older drive cars if they qualify? Do the blind have a right to drive? ... Can never figure out why some people struggle so much with the very very very simple concept of compelling reason. I'm not the one having the issue with a compelling reason. I have already explained that marriage is not recognized by the state for any individual purpose, or even for couples, or harems, or whatever. It is to support the five thousand years of human history, and the self-evident, natural institution of the family unit. Beyond that, the state has no interest in re-defining marriage to meet the short-sighted, selfish aims of an infinitesimal minority of the current human population in a corner of a nation that only makes up 3% of the overall current population of the planet in the last nanosecond of human history who wish to elevate the social status of their aberrant behavior to the status of 'normal', and to get their hands on a package of government goodies reserved for supporting normal, healthy, thriving, successful family units. There's simply no compelling reason for the state to extend its recognition of marriage to include brothers and sisters- or same sex couples.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2012 13:47:49 GMT -5
Already addressed. You may live any way you please. The state has no interest, and it certainly has no duty to recognize the relationship between you and your horse as 'marriage'. Or your relationship with your same sex partner.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 13, 2012 13:49:50 GMT -5
Declare victory and move on. Good technique. Now with that distraction out of the way, people who wish to be informed should check out the earlier link to the court ruling. I am sure we have not heard the last on this subject from our resident U.S. Supreme Court (alternate) Associate Justice. ETA: Ooops! I posted too soon.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2012 14:05:03 GMT -5
Can never figure out why some people struggle so much with the very very very simple concept of compelling reason. I'm not the one having the issue with a compelling reason. ... ... it certainly has no duty to recognize the relationship between you and your horse as 'marriage'. ...
|
|
EveryWhichWay
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 17:34:22 GMT -5
Posts: 58
|
Post by EveryWhichWay on Feb 13, 2012 14:23:35 GMT -5
Wow Have you ever thought that maybe those who you label as having 'aberrant behavior' think you're not 'normal'? I have to ask, do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 13, 2012 14:26:11 GMT -5
Wow Have you ever thought that maybe those who you label as having 'aberrant behavior' think you're not 'normal'? I have to ask, do you consider yourself to be a Christian? Religion of the poster is irrelavent. Stick to the subject please. cme1201 - Moderator P&M
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2012 15:43:10 GMT -5
Wow Have you ever thought that maybe those who you label as having 'aberrant behavior' think you're not 'normal'? I have to ask, do you consider yourself to be a Christian? I don't mean it to be offensive, it's just a fact. Homosexuality isn't normal, it's unnatural in the sense that it occurs very rarely, and makes no sense- even from a humanist standpoint. This is different, by the way, from making the point that it is in any way morally wrong. So, my Christian faith (which you're not supposed to bring up or discuss in these forums and which I will not address) has nothing to do with it. My point is that there's nothing interfering with the natural right of gays to live any way they choose. There's simply no state interest in changing the definition of marriage to suit the desires of a few individuals. The state has zero interest in advancing the selfish interests of an infinitesimal minority that does nothing to promote- let alone prolong the interests or secure the future of the state.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2012 15:52:32 GMT -5
... ~ and I suspect the SCOTUS will correct it ~ .... Being unfamiliar with the Koch Brothers stand on same sex marriage, I don't have an opinion on which way the SCOTUS will go on it. I gather from the constant mention of the Koch brothers that they are the new Halliburton? The source of all evil in the world? What'd they do, fund the election of some conservative somewhere? Or do they own a tobacco company?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 13, 2012 15:54:38 GMT -5
The state has zero interest in advancing the selfish interests of an infinitesimal minority that does nothing to promote- let alone prolong the interests or secure the future of the state. Infinitesimal?? Really? They're around 5% of the US population. They also work and pay taxes, so they are securing the future of the state.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:32:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 15:55:20 GMT -5
Reiterating, there ARE federal benefits extended by marriage... there are also benefits to the state for ANY solid partnership/family unit.... (I'm always afraid if you just LET people keep saying what isn't true, they will think you are agreeing with them....)
Interacial marriages used to be termed aberrant. And we were just discussing poor Tevya this morning, and his struggle to adapt to his daughters actually choosing their own spouses, including those of ... egads.... another faith...
Normal shmormal.... YOU don't get to decide which relationships and family units have validity...
You could sing me a chorus of Tradition though, if you want... I love that song...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,298
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 13, 2012 15:59:38 GMT -5
The state has zero interest in advancing the selfish interests of an infinitesimal minority that does nothing to promote- let alone prolong the interests or secure the future of the state. Infinitesimal?? Really? They're around 5% of the US population. They also work and pay taxes, so they are securing the future of the state. some people claim it is as high as 10% if you fold in all of the other flavors of non-heterosexual folks. and they are disproportionately high income earners.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 13, 2012 16:35:29 GMT -5
The state has zero interest in advancing the selfish interests of an infinitesimal minority that does nothing to promote- let alone prolong the interests or secure the future of the state. Infinitesimal?? Really? They're around 5% of the US population. They also work and pay taxes, so they are securing the future of the state. some people claim it is as high as 10% if you fold in all of the other flavors of non-heterosexual folks. and they are disproportionately high income earners. Five to ten percent would be anywhere from 15,000,000 to 30,000,000 U.S. citizens. If all 15,000,000 were located in one state it would create the 5th largest state in population. At 30,000,000, it would be the 2nd largest in population.
|
|