federal gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[werepossum]

I suggest you should reread the constitution and the bill of rights.

Also unplug your brain from whatever law professor planted that dumb ass line of thinking in there.

read this carefully




Keep reading it till it sinks in.





exactly where in the bill of rights does it specify that the states have the ability to not grants the rights guarenteed by the constitution ?

You won't find it becuase it does not exsit.

the Bill of rights is the minimum rights the states MUST GRANT TO ALL CITIZENS

You are 100% wrong in your interpretation.
Neither the states nor the federal government grant these rights; they are granted by G-d and merely protected by the institutions of man.

The Bill of Rights is exclusively limiting the power of the federal government, as Fern said. It is silent on what states may or may not do - for instance, several states had official state religions, a clear violation of the First Amendment. States also had many laws prohibiting some religions or religious practices, or mandating others. Blue laws, for instance, still linger in places even today as a mandate to honor the Sabbath (even though the day honored is not in fact the Sabbath unless you accept the Pope's authority to transfer the sanctity of the Sabbath.)

This is why we had the Fourteenth Amendment, to prohibit states from denying these G-d-given rights to US citizens. If your interpretation were correct, the Fourteenth Amendment would be as so much fart gas, much noise and fury but signifying nothing.

 

[MJinZ]

You are 100% wrong in your interpretation.
Neither the states nor the federal government grant these rights; they are granted by G-d and merely protected by the institutions of man.

The Bill of Rights is exclusively limiting the power of the federal government, as Fern said. It is silent on what states may or may not do - for instance, several states had official state religions, a clear violation of the First Amendment. States also had many laws prohibiting some religions or religious practices, or mandating others. Blue laws, for instance, still linger in places even today as a mandate to honor the Sabbath (even though the day honored is not in fact the Sabbath unless you accept the Pope's authority to transfer the sanctity of the Sabbath.)

This is why we had the Fourteenth Amendment, to prohibit states from denying these G-d-given rights to US citizens. If your interpretation were correct, the Fourteenth Amendment would be as so much fart gas, much noise and fury but signifying nothing.

God given rights?

LMFAO.

Hold on...


LMFAO.

 

[SoCalAznGuy]

I suggest you should reread the constitution and the bill of rights.

Also unplug your brain from whatever law professor planted that dumb ass line of thinking in there.

read this carefully




Keep reading it till it sinks in.





exactly where in the bill of rights does it specify that the states have the ability to not grants the rights guarenteed by the constitution ?

You won't find it becuase it does not exsit.

the Bill of rights is the minimum rights the states MUST GRANT TO ALL CITIZENS

I hate to say this but you are wrong. The bill of rights only applies to state because of the 14th Amendment. Without the the 14th Amendment the bill of rights DOES NOT apply to state law. The bill of rights by themself specifically state that are only binding to the federal government and not the state government.

 

[SoCalAznGuy]

God given rights?

LMFAO.

Hold on...


LMFAO.

While the part about god is pure bullshit, his statement over the bill of rights applying because of the 14th amendment is correct.

 

[Jaskalas]

As far as states' rights go I'm OK with it.

Problem is, that's not what it's about. If you'd have noticed the federal government's position, their complaint is the state thereby madating who is eligible for FEDERAL benefits.

Fern

Remove the federal benefits, case closed.

 

[piasabird]

No such thing as Gay Marriage.

 

[Carmen813]

Rights are inherent, the bill of rights are not granted to you by the government. The bill of rights is a restriction on government, not on our rights. That is why the 9th and 10th amendment exist.



/pie

 

[Vic]

The word 'marriage,' and any and all of its possible synonyms, are not referred to once in the entirety of the US Constitution, including all amendments. Therefore, per the 9th and 10th amendments, the federal govt has no jurisdiction.

You don't like gay marriage? Then go live in a state that cares so much about the issue that its people feel the need to regulate and/or abolish it.

 

[ebaycj]

Thank goodness we still have 5 sane judges on supreme court so they can smack this back down.

Only if Obama decides to appeal. And even then, it would still be state-by-state, so the gays left in the south can still continue to be treated inequitably, so you should be happy.

 

[ebaycj]

Isn't criminalizing harm to another also a morality law? On what is this law based if not morality, if not on the claim that bringing harm to another is morally wrong?

I don't think the argument is whether or not laws should be subject to morality, but on what version of morality they should be founded.

It is based on the nearly universal supposition that an individual, as a member of said society, would not want those things done to them (without their consent), by another member of society.

For example:
I don't have a choice if I am (murdered / raped / assaulted / etc), yet I am directly physically harmed.

I don't have a choice if I am stolen from, yet I am directly harmed by deprivation of use of my property.

I don't have a choice if two other consenting adults choose to butt-fuck, and I'm not directly physically harmed by their fornication. Neither does their fornication directly harm me by deprivation of the use of my property.

See the difference?

 

[ebaycj]

No, I am not willing to make a modest sacrifice to increase someone else's happiness. I am willing to make a modest sacrifice to increase someone else's opportunity, or for basic fairness, or to redress a societal wrong done to that person, or to ensure their liberty, or to help them out if they've honestly become unable (temporarily or permanently) to do for themselves. But I don't really give a damn about increasing someone else's happiness. We are entitled by G-d to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - not happiness itself, that's up to each of us.

Your point about there being no truly victimless crime is valid to a point. A gambler's family may be broke; a drunk may kill innocents while driving intoxicated. But again, this can be true of other, legal behaviors as well. A man who with the best of intentions invests in the stock market may leave his family destitute; a perfectly sober driver may make an error and wipe out a family. It's still useful to distinguish between crimes with direct victimization (murder, rape, extortion) and those without.

Also, it's recognized by almost everyone that there is no societal will to criminalize the actual behavior - homosexuality. Very few people wish to see the United States tread the path of Iran. With laws prohibiting gay marriage we're actually just preventing people from reaping the rewards we would otherwise assign, rightly or wrongly, to that behavior because of a condition of that behavior. So arguably laws prohibiting gay marriage are not morality laws, but rather retaliatory laws. Your behavior offends me, and while I recognize that I can't prohibit you from engaging in it, or make you hide it in the closet, I can frame the debate to get away with punishing you for it, financially and by denying you some of the security that our society affords me.

I should say too that I totally sympathize with those who support traditional family values. I wish everyone could be happily straight and married to their first lover. I wish life could be a stylized version of fifties America, Mom and apple pie and baseball without the racism and repression. Life ain't like that. Some people are not straight no matter what; some people have events that make them cross the fence. No one should have the power to enforce their will on others simply because they wish to preserve their own privileged position, or because they are offended, or because they think they know best how life should be lived. And no government should be given the power to dictate who can and cannot engage in something so fundamental and personal as marriage.

Wow, excellent post. Did not expect that.

 

[Craig234]

No such thing as Gay Marriage.

Ignorant bigot. You don't understand gay people, and so you post your ignorance based on your dehumanizing them.

Just because you choose a narrow definition for the word marriage - just as some have chosen one that excludes blacks, or interracial couples - doesn't mean this doesn't exist.

There are married gay couples, legally, in your country right now in fact. You say they don't exist.

 

[MJinZ]

Ignorant bigot. You don't understand gay people, and so you post your ignorance based on your dehumanizing them.

Just because you choose a narrow definition for the word marriage - just as some have chosen one that excludes blacks, or interracial couples - doesn't mean this doesn't exist.

There are married gay couples, legally, in your country right now in fact. You say they don't exist.

I used to think the same way as you, but when you explore the history of marriage across the world, it has always been one male and one female, or one male and multiple females, and I'm sure one female and multiple males in some matriarchal societies.

Words do not work perfectly as societies evolve. Some words cease to become very useful.

I think the State should start granting something else rather than marriage as a legal standing. Partnership certificate?

Leave marriage to anyone else who wish to get married at a wedding or ceremony. Atheists do it and so do the Catholics and Protestants. Straights, Bis, or Gays. No churches, synagogues, or huts are necessary, but a ring and witnesses for sure.

 

[Craig234]

I used to think the same way as you, but when you explore the history of marriage across the world, it has always been one male and one female, or one male and multiple females, and I'm sure one female and multiple males in some matriarchal societies.

Words do not work perfectly as societies evolve. Some words cease to become very useful.

I think the State should start granting something else rather than marriage as a legal standing. Partnership certificate?

Leave marriage to anyone else who wish to get married at a wedding or ceremony. Atheists do it and so do the Catholics and Protestants. Straights, Bis, or Gays. No churches, synagogues, or huts are necessary, but a ring and witnesses for sure.

I appreciate your point, but nonetheless, the situation is simply that there has long been widespread bigotry, and there is such a thing as gay marriage, whether practiced or not.

And it it practiced now, in the modern age, in some places as the bigotry is lessened, with criminal penalties for homosexuality ended in most places, and marriage equality in a few.

It's always remarkable to me how people have 'marriage reform' on the back burner until faced with gay marriage, when it suddenly becomes urgent.

 

[Hacp]

No No No NO nOOOO! How are we going to pay for all the extra benefits that these gay couple get now? By borrowing and taxing. I can't believe any fiscally conservative person would agree with this ruling at all.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, I am not willing to make a modest sacrifice to increase someone else's happiness. I am willing to make a modest sacrifice to increase someone else's opportunity, or for basic fairness, or to redress a societal wrong done to that person, or to ensure their liberty, or to help them out if they've honestly become unable (temporarily or permanently) to do for themselves. But I don't really give a damn about increasing someone else's happiness. We are entitled by G-d to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - not happiness itself, that's up to each of us.

Your point about there being no truly victimless crime is valid to a point. A gambler's family may be broke; a drunk may kill innocents while driving intoxicated. But again, this can be true of other, legal behaviors as well. A man who with the best of intentions invests in the stock market may leave his family destitute; a perfectly sober driver may make an error and wipe out a family. It's still useful to distinguish between crimes with direct victimization (murder, rape, extortion) and those without.

Also, it's recognized by almost everyone that there is no societal will to criminalize the actual behavior - homosexuality. Very few people wish to see the United States tread the path of Iran. With laws prohibiting gay marriage we're actually just preventing people from reaping the rewards we would otherwise assign, rightly or wrongly, to that behavior because of a condition of that behavior. So arguably laws prohibiting gay marriage are not morality laws, but rather retaliatory laws. Your behavior offends me, and while I recognize that I can't prohibit you from engaging in it, or make you hide it in the closet, I can frame the debate to get away with punishing you for it, financially and by denying you some of the security that our society affords me.

I should say too that I totally sympathize with those who support traditional family values. I wish everyone could be happily straight and married to their first lover. I wish life could be a stylized version of fifties America, Mom and apple pie and baseball without the racism and repression. Life ain't like that. Some people are not straight no matter what; some people have events that make them cross the fence. No one should have the power to enforce their will on others simply because they wish to preserve their own privileged position, or because they are offended, or because they think they know best how life should be lived. And no government should be given the power to dictate who can and cannot engage in something so fundamental and personal as marriage.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

No, I am not willing to make a modest sacrifice to increase someone else's happiness. I am willing to make a modest sacrifice to increase someone else's opportunity, or for basic fairness, or to redress a societal wrong done to that person, or to ensure their liberty, or to help them out if they've honestly become unable (temporarily or permanently) to do for themselves. But I don't really give a damn about increasing someone else's happiness. We are entitled by G-d to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - not happiness itself, that's up to each of us.

Your point about there being no truly victimless crime is valid to a point. A gambler's family may be broke; a drunk may kill innocents while driving intoxicated. But again, this can be true of other, legal behaviors as well. A man who with the best of intentions invests in the stock market may leave his family destitute; a perfectly sober driver may make an error and wipe out a family. It's still useful to distinguish between crimes with direct victimization (murder, rape, extortion) and those without.

Also, it's recognized by almost everyone that there is no societal will to criminalize the actual behavior - homosexuality. Very few people wish to see the United States tread the path of Iran. With laws prohibiting gay marriage we're actually just preventing people from reaping the rewards we would otherwise assign, rightly or wrongly, to that behavior because of a condition of that behavior. So arguably laws prohibiting gay marriage are not morality laws, but rather retaliatory laws. Your behavior offends me, and while I recognize that I can't prohibit you from engaging in it, or make you hide it in the closet, I can frame the debate to get away with punishing you for it, financially and by denying you some of the security that our society affords me.

I should say too that I totally sympathize with those who support traditional family values. I wish everyone could be happily straight and married to their first lover. I wish life could be a stylized version of fifties America, Mom and apple pie and baseball without the racism and repression. Life ain't like that. Some people are not straight no matter what; some people have events that make them cross the fence. No one should have the power to enforce their will on others simply because they wish to preserve their own privileged position, or because they are offended, or because they think they know best how life should be lived. And no government should be given the power to dictate who can and cannot engage in something so fundamental and personal as marriage.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Possessed Freak]

And no government should be given the power to dictate who can and cannot engage in something so fundamental and personal as marriage.

You had me until this sentence. Of course there are instances where marriage is NOT sociably acceptable and that is where there is such a funny wavy tricky line where the government can not acknowledge that marriage and even forcibly deny it.

Some choose to believe the line should be allow gay marriage but not allow... underage(how does one define underage?) marriage. Some choose to believe the line should not allow gay marriage but allow... polygamy.

The problem that I have is that I believe it is a state's right (well it is more of a state's right than a Federal one) to choose where the line is, but that ends when there are Federal benefits based on marital status. So my solution is one that dissolves the Federal bonuses/penalties based on marriage. Until that happens I believe the wavy line between states has to be standardized.