Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

[cave_dweller]

Well, ... not quite.

The Supremacy Clause coupled with the 14th and other Amendments sorta makes Federal Law binding on the States. It was not always that way nor was it intended by the Founders to be that way but it is what it is today. The Supreme Court can and has determined Gay Marriage Rights are NOT a Federal Question and that defers to the States... I think the current control is Nelson v Minn...
Now... the Federal Marriage Act, DOMA seems to violate a few provisions of the Constitution (as interpreted) So I expect that to be overturned. Prop 8 in California ought not be 'forced' on the other States because in that issue Gay Folks had the right that the Prop took away.... Because the Strict Scrutiny level is applicable (Fundamental Right of a Suspect Class) to do so and the State nor the Prop folks met that standard or even close I expect the USSC to sustain the Federal District Court and the 9th Circuit.

Where did you hear this. I think you are heavily confused what your constituion does. The U.S. federal Constitution was designed to provide various structural limitations on federal power. Your Constitution established a federal government of limited and enumerated powers and it vertically created a separation of powers between state and your federal government. Your constitution prevents your government to interfere with state law because they are unjust. Why you think its such a issue?

 

[fskimospy]

Where did you hear this. I think you are heavily confused what your constituion does. The U.S. federal Constitution was designed to provide various structural limitations on federal power. Your Constitution established a federal government of limited and enumerated powers and it vertically created a separation of powers between state and your federal government. Your constitution prevents your government to interfere with state law because they are unjust. Why you think its such a issue?

It did not vertically create a separation of powers between the state and federal government and the Constitution most certainly does not prevent the federal government from interfering with state law.

These are just basic, factual errors. Please refrain from talking about the Constitution if you don't know anything about it.

 

[cave_dweller]

It did not vertically create a separation of powers between the state and federal government and the Constitution most certainly does not prevent the federal government from interfering with state law.

These are just basic, factual errors. Please refrain from talking about the Constitution if you don't know anything about it.

Really? The federal government simply has no jurisdiction over these laws, any more than the divorce court in Panama ought to be able to overturn repugnant laws of, say, Hong Kong, or any more than the United Nations should be able to order the U.S. to shift to metric.I suggest you go look what your constitution is for. You are heavily misinformed. Go ask a lawyer. They can read between the lines.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? The federal government simply has no jurisdiction over these laws, any more than the divorce court in Panama ought to be able to overturn repugnant laws of, say, Hong Kong, or any more than the United Nations should be able to order the U.S. to shift to metric.I suggest you go look what your constitution is for. You are heavily misinformed. Go ask a lawyer. They can read between the lines.

No, this is once again factually false.

Please go educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

[cave_dweller]

No, this is once again factually false.

Please go educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

bahahaha

The First Amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law…". How could a limitation on Congress's power be applied to the states?

 

[fskimospy]

bahahaha

The First Amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law…". How could a limitation on Congress's power be applied to the states?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Who filled your head with these stupid ideas?

Regardless, you seem to be extremely confused on the role of the federal government. The federal government has huge latitude to override decisions made by states. In fact, so long as Congress is lawfully exercising one of its powers it overrides any and all state laws that might impede the exercise of that power.

So not only do the feds have the capacity to toss out state laws, it has happened quite frequently in our history.

 

[cave_dweller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Who filled your head with these stupid ideas?

Regardless, you seem to be extremely confused on the role of the federal government. The federal government has huge latitude to override decisions made by states. In fact, so long as Congress is lawfully exercising one of its powers it overrides any and all state laws that might impede the exercise of that power.

So not only do the feds have the capacity to toss out state laws, it has happened quite frequently in our history.

The government that's closest to you is often in the best position to put the screw you over. It was written bu Supreme Court judges. So words like Due process have a legal meaning. Best yet what is this?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

 

[LunarRay]

Because its a package with qa neat contract with certain conditions. The problem is changing your constitution giving your government more power to interfere with peoples freedom for 2 percent of your population or just make up a different package for them with a different name without having to touch the constitution. Because at te moment a Supreme court nor a federal government can not touch a state who do not want to legalize it. Am I correct?

As I said elsewhere, the USSC has used a particular methodology to indicate that the Gay marriage issue is a State issue... So long as a State does not give a right and then by some method take it back... You see, once a right exists it does and to then deny it requires one of three levels of scrutiny... and because we're speaking about a Fundamental Right and that of a Suspect Class of the population "Strict Scrutiny" is applicable... in the California Prop 8 case. The same would be the case in any State that has granted same sex marriage rights and for what ever reason or by what ever means that right is sought to be terminated...

 

[LunarRay]

Where did you hear this. I think you are heavily confused what your constituion does. The U.S. federal Constitution was designed to provide various structural limitations on federal power. Your Constitution established a federal government of limited and enumerated powers and it vertically created a separation of powers between state and your federal government. Your constitution prevents your government to interfere with state law because they are unjust. Why you think its such a issue?

You think I'm confused do you....

You'd have to read opinion regarding this issue as presented by the USSC. There are lots and lots of them and you'll no doubt be informed by them...

An example might be the Federal Law as it applies to Marijuana use... Some States legalize its use... But, Federal Law trumps that State Law and it is Still illegal under Federal Law... Now then, the State should not be able to prosecute an individual for a crime but the Feds can and have Federalized the issue and folks have been prosecuted. A State can TRY to ignore the Federal Law and they have from time to time but none-the-less the Supremacy Clause holds sway... Read it and read opinion on it and what it means.

 

[cave_dweller]

As I said elsewhere, the USSC has used a particular methodology to indicate that the Gay marriage issue is a State issue... So long as a State does not give a right and then by some method take it back... You see, once a right exists it does and to then deny it requires one of three levels of scrutiny... and because we're speaking about a Fundamental Right and that of a Suspect Class of the population "Strict Scrutiny" is applicable... in the California Prop 8 case. The same would be the case in any State that has granted same sex marriage rights and for what ever reason or by what ever means that right is sought to be terminated...

The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of “liberty,” so long as “due process of law” is provided.

Let me put it this way to you. The constitution limit the government from taking away your rights. The supreme court. Do the voters democratically elect judges and place them there? No eight associate justices are nominated by the President. So that means through that the president has a way to have more power that constitution allow them to have. That is one argument. In the other argument nowhere does your constitution say homosexuals have a right to get married. Show me where it says homosexuals? That why the state can ban it and the government can not interfere. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives homosexuals the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. But the state can deprive their citizens of liberty, so long as due process of law” is provided. Your Fourteenth Amendment allows it.

The incorporation of the Fifth’s due process clause had little effect on the States because it was merely seen as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property outside the sanction of law and did not act to oust the States from continuing to administer justice as they had always under their own Constitution and laws. Because due process deals only with the administration of justice, limits its application.

The committee report further added the “words ‘citizens of the United States,’ and ‘citizens of the States,’ as employed in the Fourteenth Amendment, did not change or modify the relations of citizens of the State and the nation as they existed under the original Constitution.” In other words, citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment did not, by implication or modification, refer to resident citizens within their own State.

Like under the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, the amendment's first section “does not reach mere private wrongs, but only those done under color of State authority,” said Bingham’s close colleague, Samuel Shellabarger. Covering much of the same points as Bingham had, Mr. Shellabarger tells us the effect of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is a “negation upon the power of the States, and that as the fifth section of that amendment only authorizes Congress to enforce the provisions thereof, therefore Congress has no power by direct legislation to secure the privileges and immunities of citizenship, because the provision in each section is in the form of a mere negation.

http://www.federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm
See yhe feds hands is cut off and not the state cause you do not read what citizens of xxxx is referring to.

 

[fskimospy]

The government that's closest to you is often in the best position to put the screw you over. It was written bu Supreme Court judges. So words like Due process have a legal meaning. Best yet what is this?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

I have no idea what you are trying to argue now. Regardless, hopefully you read my links and learned something about the US.

 

[cave_dweller]

I have no idea what you are trying to argue now. Regardless, hopefully you read my links and learned something about the US.

*sigh

Let me make it simple

Due process law -> Limits the justice system to interfere with state matters

The incorporation of the Fifth’s due process clause had little effect on the States because it was merely seen as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property outside the sanction of law and did not act to oust the States from continuing to administer justice as they had always under their own Constitution and laws. Because due process deals only with the administration of justice, limits its application.

“words ‘citizens of the United States,’ and ‘citizens of the States -> Does not refer to a resident in his own state. Note States and United States. Again it curbs the feds hands on your right not your state.

In other words, citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment did not, by implication or modification, refer to resident citizens within their own State.

Negation upon the power of the States, and that as the fifth section of that amendment only authorizes Congress to enforce the provisions thereof, therefore Congress has no power by direct legislation to secure the privileges and immunities of citizenship -> Does not say anything about the state again. It clearly says congress has no direct legislation to secure your rights from the State that you live in.

 

[LunarRay]

Let me put it this way to you. The constitution limit the government from taking away your rights. The supreme court. Do the voters democratically elect judges and place them there? No eight associate justices are nominated by the President. So that means through that the president has a way to have more power that constitution allow them to have. That is one argument. In the other argument nowhere does your constitution say homosexuals have a right to get married. Show me where it says homosexuals? That why the state can ban it and the government can not interfere. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives homosexuals the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. But the state can deprive their citizens of liberty, so long as due process of law” is provided. Your Fourteenth Amendment allows it.

I rather suspect your understanding of the US Constitution is limited.

I'd like to point out that the words you read contained in the Constitution although informative are not conclusive based on some dictionary definition of the words used. What is Law is what from time to time the USSC has determined it to be regardless of the actual words in the Constitution.

You won't find a listing of the Fundamental Rights that exist but the USSC has found that they do... Marriage, Voting and a host of other Rights exist under the Constitution.
The aspect of the 14th Amendment that is at play in the Gay marriage issue as applicable to California's Prop 8 denial attempts is indeed The Due Process Clause but also the Equal Protection Clause...

The Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to nominate the Chief Justice and the eight Associates along with every other Federal Judgeship... There could be 70 Associate Justices of the USSC or none... FDR wanted to 'pack' the court with like minded Justices... 18 I think... but that didn't work out... The Congress seems to have that authority. So power is granted explicitly and inferentially by the Constitution and it is the Court who ultimately determines what are the Powers of the Executive and the Rest of Government. For the most part it is settled law... You might be informed by Justice Robert Jackson's Youngstown Sheet and Tube opinion as it relates to Presidential Power versus Congressional Power (the three tiers).

 

[cave_dweller]

I rather suspect your understanding of the US Constitution is limited.

I'd like to point out that the words you read contained in the Constitution although informative are not conclusive based on some dictionary definition of the words used. What is Law is what from time to time the USSC has determined it to be regardless of the actual words in the Constitution.

You won't find a listing of the Fundamental Rights that exist but the USSC has found that they do... Marriage, Voting and a host of other Rights exist under the Constitution.
The aspect of the 14th Amendment that is at play in the Gay marriage issue as applicable to California's Prop 8 denial attempts is indeed The Due Process Clause but also the Equal Protection Clause...

The Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to nominate the Chief Justice and the eight Associates along with every other Federal Judgeship... There could be 70 Associate Justices of the USSC or none... FDR wanted to 'pack' the court with like minded Justices... 18 I think... but that didn't work out... The Congress seems to have that authority. So power is granted explicitly and inferentially by the Constitution and it is the Court who ultimately determines what are the Powers of the Executive and the Rest of Government. For the most part it is settled law... You might be informed by Justice Robert Jackson's Youngstown Sheet and Tube opinion as it relates to Presidential Power versus Congressional Power (the three tiers).

Where does it grant congress the right? United States and States does not refer to state. It refers to the feds and limit their power. All those that I stated above limit their power.

Read this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
This is stated more clerely how the constitution limit the feds hands.

Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct.

 

[LunarRay]

*sigh

Let me make it simple

Due process law -> Limits the justice system to interfere with state matters


“words ‘citizens of the United States,’ and ‘citizens of the States -> Does not refer to a resident in his own state. Note States and United States. Again it curbs the feds hands on your right not your state.


Negation upon the power of the States, and that as the fifth section of that amendment only authorizes Congress to enforce the provisions thereof, therefore Congress has no power by direct legislation to secure the privileges and immunities of citizenship -> Does not say anything about the state again. It clearly says congress has no direct legislation to secure your rights from the State that you live in.

You really need to spend some time reading US Constitutional Law...
The Clauses of the 14th (Due Process and Equal Protection) is what granted to the Federal Government the Power to force the States to comply not only with the Slave issue but by further opinion just about what ever else it wanted the States to comply with. The Supremacy Clause is what it is... and how it can be used is rather obvious and there exists a plethora of opinion on that matter...

Again, a strict reading of the Constitution's words are not instructive nor binding when there exists opinion by the USSC as to what they really do mean...
You'll find in the Constitution the words, "... Shall extradite..." Regarding the requirement for Governors to send folks back to a jurisdiction, however, the Court has determined that 'Shall' means 'May'....

 

[fskimospy]

*sigh

Let me make it simple

Due process law -> Limits the justice system to interfere with state matters


“words ‘citizens of the United States,’ and ‘citizens of the States -> Does not refer to a resident in his own state. Note States and United States. Again it curbs the feds hands on your right not your state.


Negation upon the power of the States, and that as the fifth section of that amendment only authorizes Congress to enforce the provisions thereof, therefore Congress has no power by direct legislation to secure the privileges and immunities of citizenship -> Does not say anything about the state again. It clearly says congress has no direct legislation to secure your rights from the State that you live in.

What you are writing is incomprehensible to me. I genuinely don't know what you are trying to argue. You appear to be stating that the Constitution only limits the actions of the federal government, which is factually wrong. Quoting a blog will not change this.

If you are arguing that the federal government cannot alter the state's ability to provide marriages, etc, this is also factually wrong as shown by Loving v. Virginia.

I strongly suggest you find your information about the US Constitution from more reputable sources as you appear very confused about how the US government operates.

 

[LunarRay]

Where does it grant congress the right? United States and States does not refer to state. It refers to the feds and limit their power. All those that I stated above limit their power.

Read this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
This is stated more clerely how the constitution limit the feds hands.

With all due respect, I'm not interested in spelunking this issue to death... You believe as you see fit. I'm reasonably certain of my understanding of what I've mentioned so being at loggerheads with anyone beyond a certain point is not informative.

 

[Moonbeam]

I rather suspect your understanding of the US Constitution is limited.

I'd like to point out that the words you read contained in the Constitution although informative are not conclusive based on some dictionary definition of the words used. What is Law is what from time to time the USSC has determined it to be regardless of the actual words in the Constitution.

You won't find a listing of the Fundamental Rights that exist but the USSC has found that they do... Marriage, Voting and a host of other Rights exist under the Constitution.
The aspect of the 14th Amendment that is at play in the Gay marriage issue as applicable to California's Prop 8 denial attempts is indeed The Due Process Clause but also the Equal Protection Clause...

The Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to nominate the Chief Justice and the eight Associates along with every other Federal Judgeship... There could be 70 Associate Justices of the USSC or none... FDR wanted to 'pack' the court with like minded Justices... 18 I think... but that didn't work out... The Congress seems to have that authority. So power is granted explicitly and inferentially by the Constitution and it is the Court who ultimately determines what are the Powers of the Executive and the Rest of Government. For the most part it is settled law... You might be informed by Justice Robert Jackson's Youngstown Sheet and Tube opinion as it relates to Presidential Power versus Congressional Power (the three tiers).

I am not sure. Government is of the people and by the people and I am a people so I determine what is Constitutional, it seems to me. So if I say gay marriage is proper and I do, then everybody else is nuts. I have carefully examined my argument and can find no flaws in it so gay marriage it will be. Now I know there are many people who think like me but differ, so I wanted you to know you're to pay no attention to them. They are as full of stuffing as a Christmas turkey, whereas I am of the finest vintage of wine most delicious. You will be able to test this with your Moonbeam counter. These other fools are simply ersatz frauds. If you want your life illuminated by personal opinion and randomly generated nonsense, get somebody like me who's a wiz.

 

[LunarRay]

I am not sure. Government is of the people and by the people and I am a people so I determine what is Constitutional, it seems to me. So if I say gay marriage is proper and I do, then everybody else is nuts. I have carefully examined my argument and can find no flaws in it so gay marriage it will be. Now I know there are many people who think like me but differ, so I wanted you to know you're to pay no attention to them. They are as full of stuffing as a Christmas turkey, whereas I am of the finest vintage of wine most delicious. You will be able to test this with your Moonbeam counter. These other fools are simply ersatz frauds. If you want your life illuminated by personal opinion and randomly generated nonsense, get somebody like me who's a wiz.

Before I saw the avatar of Moonbeam I was about to respond to our Cave person.... Folks are exactly like you but different.... hmmmmm Sounds ummmm like a disconnect to me... hehehehe
Down here on Earth, well... except for Texas and a few other places your wizziness is quite a relief from reality... :whiste:

 

[Retro Rob]

I once asked my favorite Jesuit, Brother Timothy, why God might have created more than just the Earth and the Sun.... IF this Universe was for us it seems superfluous to have all these extra bits not to mention all the bits said to be flitting about with no apparent purpose other than to crash into us...

Know one knows the answer to that, I guess. Nothing's crashed into us, so we're good!

You've said that when we die we sorta go to sleep for eternity... That sounds like Martin Luthur. But, that don't sound like the bible. I'd be interested in from where in the bible do you conclude the absence of heaven and hell?

Oh, I believe in Heaven, but not Hell. If we die, and are "tormented" in Hell, we really aren't "dead", right? ... because we're suffering in Hell, feeling pain, anguish, ect. Dead people can't feel anything.

Hell is a false teaching geared to control people with fear. If anyone believes that God is loving, it's not loving to torture someone for thier past mistakes even if they paid for them with their lives. "The wages sin pays is Death". Romans 6:23.

Once you die, all sins are paid for and no further "payment" (suffering in Hell) is required.

 

[mikeymikec]

Know one knows the answer to that, I guess. Nothing's crashed into us, so we're good!



Oh, I believe in Heaven, but not Hell. If we die, and are "tormented" in Hell, we really aren't "dead", right? ... because we're suffering in Hell, feeling pain, anguish, ect. Dead people can't feel anything.

Hell is a false teaching geared to control people with fear. If anyone believes that God is loving, it's not loving to torture someone for thier past mistakes even if they paid for them with their lives. "The wages sin pays is Death". Romans 6:23.

Once you die, all sins are paid for and no further "payment" (suffering in Hell) is required.

Ah, you know all these things about how the universe was created, but Hell is false because you believe it is.

If you don't think that Hell exists because its purpose is to torment people after death, and if we're being tormented, we're not dead, what exactly goes on in Heaven? It seems to me that you believe that life = suffering.

The concepts of Heaven and Hell, in my opinion, were to bring a sense of justice to God's reign. Get rid of one and what's the point in the other?

 

[LunarRay]

Know one knows the answer to that, I guess. Nothing's crashed into us, so we're good!



Oh, I believe in Heaven, but not Hell. If we die, and are "tormented" in Hell, we really aren't "dead", right? ... because we're suffering in Hell, feeling pain, anguish, ect. Dead people can't feel anything.

Hell is a false teaching geared to control people with fear. If anyone believes that God is loving, it's not loving to torture someone for thier past mistakes even if they paid for them with their lives. "The wages sin pays is Death". Romans 6:23.

Once you die, all sins are paid for and no further "payment" (suffering in Hell) is required.

In your post #329 you wrote, in part:

"... Nothing. Ec 9:5 says that dead are "conscience of nothing at all". When we die, we're in a deep, unawakeable sleep. No Hell, no torture, no Heaven.

When Jesus resurrected Lazarus, he said that Lazarus was "asleep", not in Heaven, Hell, anywhere..."

I'm not sure now what you mean in this or that post regarding Heaven or Hell... I suspect you mean there is no hell but there is heaven, however, we don't go to heaven upon death nor hell we simply... sleep?

 

[alzan]

Know one knows the answer to that, I guess. Nothing's crashed into us, so we're good!

Actually we're hit with space objects fairly often, most of them are pretty small admittedly. It's more accurate to say "nothing of a size large enough to do appreciable building damage or loss of life has hit us in a while.

Oh, I believe in Heaven, but not Hell. If we die, and are "tormented" in Hell, we really aren't "dead", right? ... because we're suffering in Hell, feeling pain, anguish, ect. Dead people can't feel anything.

Hell is a false teaching geared to control people with fear. If anyone believes that God is loving, it's not loving to torture someone for thier past mistakes even if they paid for them with their lives. "The wages sin pays is Death". Romans 6:23.

Once you die, all sins are paid for and no further "payment" (suffering in Hell) is required.

Some religions and theologians view Hell simply as being apart from G-d. Is it a physical place, realm, other dimension; with or without fire and brimstone? Who knows for sure? One would be spending an eternity apart from G-d; a thought sobering enough to keep most believers in line.

 

[sandorski]

"There are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians"

- not sure who said it, but it seems accurate. In fact, it seems there are probably even more versions of Christianity than that as many Christians seem to just morph from one position to the other depending on convenience.

 

[LunarRay]

"There are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians"

- not sure who said it, but it seems accurate. In fact, it seems there are probably even more versions of Christianity than that as many Christians seem to just morph from one position to the other depending on convenience.

This is probably true.

I know from my life and having spent quite a number of years in Catholic Academy type schools that a sort of brain washing occurs. At home from the parents and at school from the Nuns and Jesuits or other Brothers.
Most everyone I knew assimilated into the 'fold' and accepted without question what was dictated to them. I read too much other stuff to not question just about everything....
I once asked, "If the Immaculate Conception is real that means God and not Joseph is the father of Jesus and that also means that Jesus is not blood related to David via Joseph... and don't that sorta screw up the other aspects of the messiah stuff." I was told.... an immediate response from good ole Brother Timothy.... "No it don't screw up stuff... Jesus is the Messiah the Jews awaited".... hmmmmmm

Indulgences for Sale.... hehehehe

We use our own brains to deal with stuff that has no real proof and that makes us believe in an unique way... I think.