• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Robert Prey said:
Funny that you guys keep bringing Him up.
Click to expand...

Well, see, the thing is: I'm not the one pretending to base my argument on the teachings of dead 2,000 year old carpenter. What I would ask and/or do to him is irrelevant to what I'm arguing.

What I've been pointing out with the Jesus talk is that it is irrelevant to your argument as well since you aren't even following his purported teachings. Your attempts to credit/blame your religion for your bigotry and hatred of gay people is merely an excuse for your bad behavior, not an actual reason.
 
DarbyII said:
Not at all. The legal mechanism for becoming married is currently a licensing process - a license issued by the state. That is based on "social norms" and not the Constitutional rights of the married people. The States are free to define marriage in any otherwise arbitrary or political manner it sees fit - and they have (thus the current round of court cases).
Click to expand...

So was loving v Virginia wrongly decided?

And this does not seem to fit with the idea of getting the state out of the marriage business. What are you proposing?
.
All of the other body of law that you've noted is currently covered in several States' "domestic partner" laws. It's not a particular problem.
Click to expand...

But domestic partnerships do nothing. My wife looked into them as an alternative to marriage and found out that they are pretty meaningless.
As to immigration, Federal law already covers cases of fraudulently entering into a marriage relationship for the purpose of obtaining legal immigration status as well as time limits required for a non-citizen spouse to apply for citizenship. That is not a case of the Federal government generally limiting or defining the marriage. It is a lawful assertion of Congress' Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."
Click to expand...

You have abolished marriage as a recognized thing so how can you then look for fraud? I am a jedi knight now am I a fraudulent one or not?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So we have to get rid of all the immigration, tax, inheritance, protection from testimony, legal standing in wrongful death and so forth that accompany marriage?
Click to expand...

Not at all. The legal mechanism for becoming married is currently a licensing process - a license issued by the state. That is based on "social norms" and not the Constitutional rights of the married people. The States are free to define marriage in any otherwise arbitrary or political manner it sees fit - and they have (thus the current round of court cases).

The question becomes, then, by what Constitutional authority does the State assume the right to dictate, limit or abridge what is termed in the New York law a "fundamental human right" when the 9th Amendment makes clear that the holder of this particular non-enumerated right is the people and not the State? If consenting adults have the right to determine, as a fundamental right, what their domestic relationship is or isn't what is the over arching concern of the State that trumps their 9th Amendment rights? None that I can see.

All of the other body of law that you've noted is currently otherwise covered in several States' "domestic partner" laws.

As to immigration, Federal law already covers cases of fraudulently entering into a marriage relationship for the purpose of obtaining legal immigration status as well as time limits required for a non-citizen spouse to apply for citizenship. That is not a case of the Federal government generally limiting or defining the marriage. It is a lawful assertion of Congress' Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."
 
KingMerv00 said:
So they are just pretending to enjoy themselves to annoy you? Jeez, that's dedication.
Click to expand...

I confess, that you found me out. I am a fake. I don't really linger for an extra few moments staring at the avatar when reading El Greco's posts. I really watched Saved by the Bell for Tiffany Amber Theisen and not Mario Lopez. I didn't react like Homer Simpson upon seeing a donut when Daniel Craig came of the water in his speedo in Casino Royale.
 
uke2se said:
Guys, you have allowed a single troll commandeer this thread completely. Might I suggest you all ignore Robert Prey? He has ably demonstrated that he won't ever post anything of value.
Click to expand...

He is fun to argue with because I get to see how the other side actually thinks.

The experience has been kind of like turning over a paving stone...
 
Dunstan said:
I'm going to be amused when years from now, conservatives and Christian leaders insist that they were the ones leading the charge for gay marriage; any contrary evidence will be dismissed as coming from No True Conservatives.
Click to expand...

:)


I'll take that state of affairs!


Remember the Republicans were formed by Lincoln and others for the express purpose of outlawing slavery, something the Democrats loved and supported. Byrd and Strom Thurmond, Democrats, may I remind people, aren't even that long in the grave.

Things can change.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
Click to expand...

I'd ask him why he thinks slavery is perfectly fine. Then he'd stare at me trying to figure out what new devil tongue I'm using since English won't be around for 1500 years.
 
crimresearch said:
Apparently Darby isn't going to address Loving, even though it has been brought up repeatedly.
Click to expand...

CrimeResearch,

Of course "loving" is an issue in marriage. The problem, Constitutionally, is that neither you nor I want the Government to end up defining for us the meaning of "loving relationship." The meaning of whatever relationships you enter into is yours and yours alone to define.

Sure, I believe in a higher being and that my actions on this world will be judged. But for my part, as a conservative, I'm willing to accept whatever judgement is at hand for my fervent belief that government has a limited role in my life and that the Constitution, flawed as it might be, clearly, unambiguously and in plain English states the limits of the Federal Government in 18 enumerated powers. Defining what is and what is not "marriage" is no where directly stated or indirectly implied as one of those enumerated powers.

I can't have it both ways. I cannot firmly stand in some instances as an unabashed Constitutionalist yet in others compromise my Constitutionalism when it is convenient simply because I might have a moral objection to some other person's view of the world.

And don't get me wrong here. That I said, "I might have a moral objection to some other person's view of the world" does not indicate that I, in fact, object to gay marriage. My Constitutional position is that it is none of my business and, likewise, it is none of our governments' business.

As a person who was, for 30 years, "the government" I can assure you that if you give us an inch we will take a mile. My current goal in life is to make sure that this paradigm is overturned.

I was a peace office for 30 years. This isn't something that I've openly admitted on the forums over the past 10-12 years. So you have the (questionable) privilege of being one of the few to hear it from me. When I entered law enforcement in 1968 the California Education Code, for example, was a book about 1 inch thick. It dealt with how schools were to be administered, how educators were to be qualified and how they were to interact with students. Today that same book is over 2 inches thick. Virtually all of the "exteraneous" material added in the past 40 years is law that criminalizes student behavior, patental behavior and educator behavior. In many cases what the average person would term "normal" child behavior has law in The Code that makes it a criminal act. Putting a metal fork in a lunch pail can be deemed a criminal act justifying expulsion (not suspension - expulsion) from school, criminal charges against the student and criminal charges against he parent. California is government gone out of control...totally, psychotically out of control.

As a person who enforced the law for 30 years and as a conservative "believer" I want to get government back into control. If it comes down to defending gay marriage on the basis of the US Constitution and the limit of Federal Government power so be it. In reality it is an easy call for me.
 
Last edited:
Follow-up post:

In the above post I addressed the Federal Government's power to define marriage. That does not mean that I believe that under the 10th Amendment it is, therefore, a State right. I addressed that part of the argument earlier. My analysis, as given in the New York law, is that it is a fundamental right covered by the 9th Amendment as an non-enumerated, unalienable right of the people - not the State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom