• 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!!!

crimresearch said:
Apparently Darby isn't going to address Loving, even though it has been brought up repeatedly.

DarbyII said:
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."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
crimresearch is talking about the precedent setting court case Loving v. Virgina.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Failing any attempt at rational thought, your own hatred and bigotry duly noted in your own ad hominem attack.
 
Robert Prey said:
Failing any attempt at rational thought, your own hatred and bigotry duly noted in your own ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...
Matthew 7:12

Matthew:22:36-40

And the biggie:

John 3:16-17

The 17 gets left out an awful lot:

"God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him"

So God's son wasn't sent to judge the world, but you're better than that?
 
Last edited:
DarbyII said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think crimresearch didn't mean the gerund of "to love" when he wrote Loving in italics, but the landmark SCOTUS case Loving v. Virginia, which has repeatedly been brought up in this thread. In fact, KingMerv00 responded to an earlier post of yours with just a link to that case.

ETA: RandFan beat me to it. :)
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Failing any attempt at rational thought, your own hatred and bigotry duly noted in your own ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...

You´re the one to talk about hatred and bigotry...

Now what was that line about motes and beams in eyes again?
 
Robert Prey said:
Failing any attempt at rational thought, your own hatred and bigotry duly noted in your own ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...

Hatred and bigotry? What hatred and bigotry?

I've pointed out that there is no rational reason to deny homosexuals the right, or privilege if you prefer, to marry. All you have retorted with are vague claims of immorality that are not backed up by the guy you claim is your moral authority. You also made claims of doom for the human race, but never really explained how allowing gay people to marry is supposed to keep straight people from having children.

In short, you are the one who has failed at rational thought here. You have admitted that you hate homosexuals, that you feel "revulsion" about them. You are the one allowing your hate to blind you to the utter harmlessness of gay marriage.

To borrow a phrase from your supposed moral authority, you're throwing a whole bunch of stones when you shouldn't be.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
crimresearch is talking about the precedent setting court case Loving v. Virgina
Click to expand...

RandFan,

LOL. I guess it would have helped had I read all 11 pages of the thread. I didn't pick up on the fact that "Loving" is a shortform case cite.

As I stated in the earlier post, a 14th Amendment appeal is a weak argument if New York is correct. Loving v. Virginia only protects the plantiffs to the extent that all marriage laws lend equal protection. In the absurd case that the State bans marriage altogether everyone is equally protected...equally unhappy, but equal in the eyes of the law...and we're back to the conclusion that marriage is a privilege granted by the State and not a fundamental and unalienable right of the people.

In re Loving, had the Commonwealth of Virginia (or any other State) simply rolled out of the marriage licensing business there would be no Loving v. Virginia. Consenting adults don't need permission from the State to get married.
 
Last edited:
DarbyII said:
RandFan,

LOL. I guess it would have helped had I read all 11 pages of the thread. I didn't pick up on the fact that "Loving" is a shortform case cite.

As I stated in the earlier post, a 14th Amendment appeal is a weak argument if New York is correct. Loving v. Virginia only protects the plantiffs to the extent that all marriage laws lend equal protection. In the absurd case that the State bans marriage altogether everyone is equally protected...equally unhappy, but equal in the eyes of the law...and we're back to the conclusion that marriage is a privilege granted by the State and not a fundamental and unalienable right of the people.

In re Loving, had the Commonwealth of Virginia (or any other State) simply rolled out of the marriage licensing business there would be no Loving v. Virginia. Consenting adults don't need permission from the State to get married.
Click to expand...
The name of the case is not 'In re Loving'. In re refers to cases where there are not 2 parties opposed. And referring to landmark cases by the name of the significant party, such as Miranda, or Loving, or Lawrence isn't a 'shortform case cite'.

I'm sure it is great good fun for you to simply make up the law as you go along, and then use that to support whatever opinions you already hold, but some of us prefer to deal with the reality of it.

In the case of government issuance of a license, the 14th Amendment is the controlling factor.
 
DarbyII said:
RandFan,

LOL. I guess it would have helped had I read all 11 pages of the thread. I didn't pick up on the fact that "Loving" is a shortform case cite.

As I stated in the earlier post, a 14th Amendment appeal is a weak argument if New York is correct. Loving v. Virginia only protects the plantiffs to the extent that all marriage laws lend equal protection. In the absurd case that the State bans marriage altogether everyone is equally protected...equally unhappy, but equal in the eyes of the law...and we're back to the conclusion that marriage is a privilege granted by the State and not a fundamental and unalienable right of the people.

In re Loving, had the Commonwealth of Virginia (or any other State) simply rolled out of the marriage licensing business there would be no Loving v. Virginia. Consenting adults don't need permission from the State to get married.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand your argument. 10th Amendment, etc.. Thing is, that's not a world I want to live in. Perhaps, given the constitution, it's the only way to adhere to the founders intent. Meh. For some odd reason SCOTUS has applied the 10th Amendment sparingly and we've still managed to become a super power and one of the most prosperous nations on Earth. Anarchy didn't set in and the Constitution hasn't entirely crumbled. So, without arguing against your thesis (and such arguments exist by constitutional scholars). I don't care. Spurning hundreds of years of social and moral progress because of strict construction makes little sense to me.

Again, I'm not a legal scholar and neither do I dismiss the importance of the constitution. I'm just happy that philosophers, legal scholars and SCOTUS have provided 200+ years of precedent have given us a stable working foundation for governing. Could they have been wrong? Yeah. Don't care.
 
Yikes. Now we're both misreading (and I was vague) what is and what isn't referenced as a case cite. Not to worry. I didn't intent for In Re Loving to appear to be a case cite similar to a Juvenile Court citation. Read that sentence as "In regards to the Loving case..."
 
Could they have been wrong? Yeah. Don't care.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you're not in a minority with that opinion which is why I quipped that we might as well rename the document "The Suggestion of the Church of What's Happenin' Now".

It's not a matter of strict constructionism. It's a matter of either having a government that has or doesn't have specific enumerated limitations that don't hinge on whatever the present packaging of SCOTUS happens to be. The rights, restrictions and responsibilities incorporated into the Constitution are not mere suggestions subject to whim such that it is possible to go to bed tonight thinking your rights or the government’s limits are X only to awaken tomorrow and find that they are now Y.

My wife happens to be a pretty far left liberal (don’t laugh – it works. Two retired peace officers who have known each other for 30 years)…

So one day last March I wake up, get out of bed and find her watching CNN which is reporting on the US incursion into Libya. I ask her (knowing the risk of pushing a hot button), “So, when did Congress authorize President Obama’s military invasion of another sovereign nation?” Without hesitation she fired back, “He asked NATO! He knew that you damned Republicans in Congress would not support him!” I started to continue the soon to be fully engaged debate but thought better of it. We’d gone over this before. Does the Constitution give Congress and only Congress the authority to take us to war? Yes. But she didn’t care and neither did almost anyone else. The President wanted us in Libya and that’s what he got, Constitution or no Constitution.

I thought that that was the end of the discussion. Later in the day she approached me and said that the President was operating in Libya under the authority of the War Powers Act. Oh, boy. Once again I knew that I was about to push a hot button but I had to ask, “OK, we already agreed that he had no Congressional authorization, so where was the national emergency created by an attack on the US, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico or US armed forces?” “He didn’t declare war on Libya!” “So, if you looked out the window this afternoon and saw 8 to 10 fully armed Libyan SU-22’s floating about Santa Barbara dropping a bomb here or there it wouldn’t be an act of war?” “That’s ridiculous!”

OK – I’d gone too far. Discussion terminated with a quiet withdrawal of forces to the DMZ.

Last month I again got out of bed and found her watching CNN. The President has made several recess appointments. “Dear, neither Harry Reid nor Vice President Biden has recessed the Senate. The President has no authority here to circumvent the “Advice and Consent” clause. “He knew that you damned Republicans in the Senate would not support him!” “But – Harry Reid is a member of the President’s party as is the Vice President and the Republicans are the minority party.” She didn’t care and neither did anyone else. What the President wants he gets. We don’t need no stinking Constitution.

And it’s not just President Obama. He’s much more determined and aggressive in his disregard of the Constitution but they all do it – both parties.

And that’s why it’s not a matter of strict constructionism. Get the government out of the marriage licensing business. It’s a start.

And, RandFan, I assure you that the above is not some apocryphal story that I made up for the post. The two discussions took place between us and I’ve recounted them almost verbatim.

And now I’m OT
 
Last edited:
DarbyII said:
Unfortunately you're not in a minority with that opinion which is why I quipped that we might as well rename the document "The Suggestion of the Church of What's Happenin' Now".

It's not a matter of strict constructionism. It's a matter of either having a government that has or doesn't have specific enumerated limitations that don't hinge on whatever the present packaging of SCOTUS happens to be.
Click to expand...
You can't have one without the other.

The rights, restrictions and responsibilities incorporated into the Constitution are not mere suggestions subject to whim such that it is possible to go to bed tonight thinking your rights or the government’s limits are X only to awaken tomorrow and find that they are now Y.
Click to expand...
I never said they were mere suggestions. You are arguing a straw man.

My wife happens to be a pretty far left liberal (don’t laugh – it works. Two retired peace officers who have known each other for 30 years)…

So one day last March I wake up, get out of bed and find her watching CNN which is reporting on the US incursion into Libya. I ask her (knowing the risk of pushing a hot button), “So, when did Congress authorize President Obama’s military invasion of another sovereign nation?” Without hesitation she fired back, “He asked NATO! He knew that you damned Republicans in Congress would not support him!” I started to continue the soon to be fully engaged debate but thought better of it. We’d gone over this before. Does the Constitution give Congress and only Congress the authority to take us to war? Yes. But she didn’t care and neither did almost anyone else. The President wanted us in Libya and that’s what he got, Constitution or no Constitution.

I thought that that was the end of the discussion. Later in the day she approached me and said that the President was operating in Libya under the authority of the War Powers Act. Oh, boy. Once again I knew that I was about to push a hot button but I had to ask, “OK, we already agreed that he had no Congressional authorization, so where was the national emergency created by an attack on the US, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico or US armed forces?” “He didn’t declare war on Libya!” “So, if you looked out the window this afternoon and saw 8 to 10 fully armed Libyan SU-22’s floating about Santa Barbara dropping a bomb here or there it wouldn’t be an act of war?” “That’s ridiculous!”

OK – I’d gone too far. Discussion terminated with a quiet withdrawal of forces to the DMZ.

Last month I again got out of bed and found her watching CNN. The President has made several recess appointments. “Dear, neither Harry Reid nor Vice President Biden has recessed the Senate. The President has no authority here to circumvent the “Advice and Consent” clause. “He knew that you damned Republicans in the Senate would not support him!” “But – Harry Reid is a member of the President’s party as is the Vice President and the Republicans are the minority party.” She didn’t care and neither did anyone else. What the President wants he gets. We don’t need no stinking Constitution.

And it’s not just President Obama. He’s much more determined and aggressive in his disregard of the Constitution but they all do it – both parties.

And that’s why it’s not a matter of strict constructionism. Get the government out of the marriage licensing business. It’s a start.
Click to expand...
I've not a clue as to how you go from your anecdotes to claiming that it's not a matter of strict constructionism. What is it that you think strict constructionism is?

And, RandFan, I assure you that the above is not some apocryphal story that I made up for the post. The two discussions took place between us and I’ve recounted them almost verbatim.
Click to expand...
? I've no reason to doubt you. And?

And now I’m OT
Click to expand...
If you want to then start a thread, however, if you don't really understand my point then I'm not sure how much I'm going to participate.

Let me state clearly. I'm for the pragmatic argument. Are there examples of why being strict constructionist (please look up the term) would be advantageous? Yes. Is it best overall? Not in my opinion. No.

BTW: If you honestly don't know what strict constructionism is and you respond with telling me it's not about strict constructionism then I'm not going to take you seriously. At least take a moment to explain how strict constructionism and thinking that the Constitution enumerates specific powers of the government and no more are different. It's really difficult to have a conversation when you declare that a half dozen is different than 6.

One last thing, loose constructionism doesn't mean that the Constitution is mere suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Solitaire said:
Easily done.

Instead of defending the word marriage, you must delegitimize it.
Simply write a constitutional amendment that the government no longer
recognizes marriage as legally valid, that only civil unions between two
or more people registered with the government posses legal rights that
applied to the word marriage.

Then again I suspect you won't take the libertarian choice. Nobody ever does.
Click to expand...


I very much favor your suggestion.

However, as long as the government does recognize marriage and give it special privileges, the pursuit of marriage equality is essential.
 
I never said they were mere suggestions. You are arguing a straw man.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that you said they are mere suggestions. I probably could have worded that a bit more precisely.

The statement is that if we can pack SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution "today" as we want based on the present social and political conditions and repack SCOTUS differently "tomorrow" when the situation changes to make sure that the Constitution is reinterpreted to fit the new situation - ignoring Article V entirely - then the Constitution is in fact a suggestion rather than the supreme law of the land. A whole bunch of American Citizens of Japanese decent woke up on the morning of 19-FEB-1942 to discover that “X” no longer applied, their “rights” were now “Y”…and off to camp they went for the next 3+ years. A stroke of FDR’s pen and Executive Order 9066 was issued. Three years later SCOTUS in Korematsu v. US interpreted the Constitution, based on the then present social and political conditions, to declared the forced internment without trial of American Citizens not suspected of any specific illegal (or even legal) act was Constitutional. Yet we rarely ask ourselves where in Article III does the Court derive its authority to interpret the Constitution or question the inherent and possibly extreme dangers to our liberty by allowing and condoning such actions. We just accept without question or much thought what we are told in school - it's a living and breathing document. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that if it isn’t enumerated in the Constitution as a Federal power then it doesn’t exist. The power of the Court to interpret the Constitution doesn’t exist in Article III or anywhere else in the document.

People will from time to time point to Marbury v. Madison and say that it was that case that gives the Court authority to interpret the Constitution. But that’s not factual. In Marbury the Court looked at Mr. Marbury’s petition, referred to Article III without interpretation relative to its jurisdiction to hear the case and told Marbury that his case had merit, that he had legal remedies but Article III does not give the Supreme Court authority to hear his case (a petition for a writ of mandamus) as a court of original jurisdiction nor does Congress, under Article II, have authority to arbitrarily expand the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III. (The authority to expand the Court’s jurisdiction under Article III is found in Article V – amendment or Constitutional Convention.)

That's not a straw man argument. That's precisely how we have handled the Supreme Court for the past 100 years. A Justice's political philosophy or personal prejudices concerning social and legal issues should not enter the Court or become a litmus test for confirmation. Yet that's how it now works. In fact it has become the overriding qualification for confirmation. The nominee’s sense of jurisprudence and legal scholarship take a back seat to the social and political litmus test. We ignore Article V, pack the Court and let SCOTUS become the Congress and pass legislation from the bench. There is no appeal, Congress can’t easily overcome them with new law in most cases, the President can’t ignore them, he has no veto power over their “legislation” and we can’t recall them if we the people disagree. They leave office only after taking a dirt nap, are impeached or voluntarily retire. But their Court created law becomes the gift that keeps on giving until the winds of war blow another direction.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Hatred and bigotry? What hatred and bigotry?

I've pointed out that there is no rational reason to deny homosexuals the right, or privilege if you prefer, to marry. All you have retorted with are vague claims of immorality that are not backed up by the guy you claim is your moral authority. You also made claims of doom for the human race, but never really explained how allowing gay people to marry is supposed to keep straight people from having children.

In short, you are the one who has failed at rational thought here. You have admitted that you hate homosexuals, that you feel "revulsion" about them. You are the one allowing your hate to blind you to the utter harmlessness of gay marriage.

To borrow a phrase from your supposed moral authority, you're throwing a whole bunch of stones when you shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

Baloney. It is the "anything goes" Deep Thinkers on this board who have tried to justify immoral behavior by what that carpenter/Rabbi said or did not say 2000 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom