Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Damocles said:
Which part of the constitution allows the Federal Government to "encourage" any specific relationship?
Click to expand...

The general welfare clause.

Damocles said:
Telling people which "groups" are "blessed" by government largesse while not giving the same consideration to others would be a violation of our Rights of Association and Assembly noted in the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

What silliness. You dont need a marriage to associate with anyone you like.

Damocles said:
The government does not have the power to tell you what kind of relationship is "best", it is one of the things we gave up when we limited the government constitutionally and recognized that you and I have a right to be able to hang with the people we want to hang with and follow the religions we want to follow, including marrying whomever we danged well please.
Click to expand...

I cant imagine what you are going on about. Hang with whomever you like. Just dont demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements if you prefer to hang out with people of the same sex.
 
dixon76710 said:
The general welfare clause.



What silliness. You dont need a marriage to associate with anyone you like.



I cant imagine what you are going on about. Hang with whomever you like. Just dont demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements if you prefer to hang out with people of the same sex.
Click to expand...

No one is marrying "people". I'm married to one man (civil ceremony)...and I demand the same privileges and entitlements afforded to a traditional couple.
 
Rune said:
Again, NO.
Allowing gay maraige does NOT open the door to polygamy nor beastiality, as much as you may desire it to.

The 14th amendment does not mandate multiple wives nor sex with animals.
Click to expand...

what is wrong with marrying multiple partners

why not allow marriage between two or more adults regardless of gender or mix of gender, e.g., two men one woman or two men two women, etc.
 
Southern Chicken said:
So do you have a problem with interracial marriages which, In my opinion, was a good floodgate to be opened. Laws must serve a purpose - even laws that respect long standing traditions. If the traditional restriction no longer serves a necessary purpose, it is unconstitutional. It's not about whether the equal protection clause guarantees gay marriage - and the equal protection argument has nothing to do with the "right to marry" - that would be the Due Process Clause, it's whether or not the law creates an unconstitutional classification.

The equal protection clause protects against the creation of classifications that aren't, at the very least, related to some legitimate government interest. That's what the equal protection argument was about. Prop 8 creates a classification that, as he ruled, is not related to any legitimate government interest.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with anything, this isn't about me and what I want. This is about how society functions and how we function as a society. In the landmark Loving case, the basis was the 14th Amendment, which along with the further clarifications of the CRA 1964, make the legitimate legal case that discrimination in marriage license based on race is unconstitutional.

It is very important and vital to this current argument over gay marriage, that we recognize the fact that laws had changed during civil rights, and the changes facilitated the challenges to the laws banning interracial marriage. This wasn't something that was simply forced onto society against it's will by judges, regardless of how many rednecks may have been opposed. It was an issue which finally established a legal justification under the law, and became changed as a result. We've not adopted a Gay Rights Act, and I don't think anyone has even proposed one. Yet, you want to behave as if that is the case, and the precedent has been established in law, that people can't be discriminated against on the basis of sexual preferences. Furthermore, you want to continue to insist that gay people are being denied something, and they aren't. No one can marry the same sex, that's not what marriage is. Marriage is also not prohibited to anyone who is of legal age and not immediately related, providing both male and female consent. Nowhere is anyone ever asked are they gay or straight, when obtaining a marriage license. What you wish to do, is muddy the debate with false semantics... Gays are being denied the same rights... no they're not! Stop painting this false picture of reality, and face the truth.
 
dixon76710 said:
The general welfare clause.



What silliness. You dont need a marriage to associate with anyone you like.



I cant imagine what you are going on about. Hang with whomever you like. Just dont demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements if you prefer to hang out with people of the same sex.
Click to expand...

the general welfare clause? lmao.

your last sentence proves you against the 14th amendment and are a bigot.
 
Dixie said:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------

If it is legal for you to marry your sexual preference, it has to be legal for anyone to marry their sexual preference. It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment. You see, currently, marriage is the union of a male and female of consenting age, that is the parameters we've established and adhere to, and everyone (including gays) has the right to do. If we alter the definition of marriage to include a sexual preference, then that becomes the parameter we codify into law, and we must adhere to the constitution regarding it, whether we like it or not. So when a goat fucker comes along and demands his right to marry his goat, because that is his sexual preference, then we have no basis on which to deny him this request, and we can't deny the request and remain true to the constitution.

Now, the goat fucker example is a little extreme (which is why you brought it up), most goat fuckers tend to keep that a secret and wouldn't likely emerge from the closet to demand their rights anytime soon, our generation would probably not have to deal with it, but eventually, someone would bring the case. The more likely scenario involves polygamists, who are already lobbying in states which have passed gay marriage. Again, the problem is, you can't say THIS sexual behavior is okay as a basis for marriage, but THAT sexual behavior is not. If you do say that, you are in violation of the 14th, if marriage has been defined by a sexual lifestyle, which "gay marriage" is, it's in the name!
Click to expand...

dixie, your grasp of the constitution and court cases is as bad as your grasp of history.

EP does not extend to non or illegal behavior or relationships.

fuck....that is seriously elementary.
 
Dixie said:
Let's be clear on some things. The court very seldom relies on one single piece of legislation to make ANY ruling. Cases are reviewed on the basis of the law in total at the time, and any number of laws may apply. In Loving, the 14th was the basis, but the 14th applies to black people differently before 1964, or before 1954 (Brown), as blacks were not included. It is only AFTER these measures were passed, that legal court cases could be made and won, and there were a ton of them following Civil Rights, Loving being one of them.

The bans were still in place after '64, but are they still in place today? What happened? Did people just voluntarily lift them one day, realizing they must be in the wrong? Nope... Court cases were brought, rulings were made, and one by one, the laws were struck down. Now why didn't someone bring these cases before? Why did it take until 1967 for Loving? We didn't just wake up one day and say..well, time has come for us to do this.. it took YEARS of struggle, and passage of specific legislation which forbid the discrimination against blacks on the basis of race. Once that was done, the 14th Amendment becomes the basis for establishing justice.
Click to expand...

such a long winded response and you gave not a single cite to where the court relied on the CRA of 64. what happened? are you really this dumb?

LOVING V. VIRGINIA happened.

thanks for admitting your grasp of history is abysmal and that you are dead wrong that loving relied on the CRA of 64.
 
Yurt said:
such a long winded response and you gave not a single cite to where the court relied on the CRA of 64. what happened? are you really this dumb?

LOVING V. VIRGINIA happened.

thanks for admitting your grasp of history is abysmal and that you are dead wrong that loving relied on the CRA of 64.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't say the court "relied" on CRA64 in Loving, you misinterpreted me.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you saying that they can marry someone they are in love with and want to spend the rest of their life with!! :good4u:
Click to expand...

of course not....dixie believes marriage is not about love, it is about the GOOBERMENT mandating that only those of the opposite sex can marry, regardless if they love other.

dixie hearts big brother
 
Dixie said:
Well I didn't say the court "relied" on CRA64 in Loving, you misinterpreted me.
Click to expand...

dixie....i'm going to go back and pull up your words. that you are such a pansy that you can't admit you're wrong, cracks me up. then again, you're a loveable kind of oaf.

:)
 
Dixie said:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------

If it is legal for you to marry your sexual preference, it has to be legal for anyone to marry their sexual preference. It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment. You see, currently, marriage is the union of a male and female of consenting age, that is the parameters we've established and adhere to, and everyone (including gays) has the right to do. If we alter the definition of marriage to include a sexual preference, then that becomes the parameter we codify into law, and we must adhere to the constitution regarding it, whether we like it or not. So when a goat fucker comes along and demands his right to marry his goat, because that is his sexual preference, then we have no basis on which to deny him this request, and we can't deny the request and remain true to the constitution.

Now, the goat fucker example is a little extreme (which is why you brought it up), most goat fuckers tend to keep that a secret and wouldn't likely emerge from the closet to demand their rights anytime soon, our generation would probably not have to deal with it, but eventually, someone would bring the case. The more likely scenario involves polygamists, who are already lobbying in states which have passed gay marriage. Again, the problem is, you can't say THIS sexual behavior is okay as a basis for marriage, but THAT sexual behavior is not. If you do say that, you are in violation of the 14th, if marriage has been defined by a sexual lifestyle, which "gay marriage" is, it's in the name!
Click to expand...

So, if it's legal to only marry a member of the opposite sex then a brother and sister can marry. Or a father and daughter.

Couldn't one argue, "It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment?
 
I like to think of legalized homosexual marriage as a political victory for charged up gay and lesbian agenda setters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top