Supreme Court on Cal. Prop 8

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So errr Mr. Constitutionalist... you think it's OK for the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

Not sure where the Constitution says anyone has the right to marry.

 

I do recall something about States rights though.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The constitutional definition changed, right? So changing it again shouldn't be a big deal.

 

Your question was stupid. HTH

The definition has always been a man and a woman. That is how state Constitutions have defined it.

 

So what changed?

 

Still dodging the question. What a puzzey. :lol:

[DankNuggs 305]

Let them marry... Once enough are subjected to the financial torture of divorce they'll be wondering what the hell they were fighting for.

[DankNuggs 305]

So errr Mr. Constitutionalist... you think it's OK for the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

its called democracy. Like how they can arbitrarily vote that mean looking guns can be banned.

[MDC 7,826]

The definition has always been a man and a woman. That is how state Constitutions have defined it.

 

Every state Constitution has always explicitly defined marriage as one man and one woman ... really?

 

Still dodging the question. What a puzzey. :lol:

 

States are allowed to amend their own constitutions , right? They gave themselves that right. Question answered.

[phillybear 366]

So, the queebs and the quays want tax breaks because of marriage, which of course is discriminatory vs single people. However, since companies are charging smokers and drinkers and fatties more for health insurance because of the risks they bring, the fagguts have to pay at least the same amount of the tax break money and possibly a hell of a lot more because of their increased percentage risk of spreading horrific/fatal diseases due to risky practices which will throw health insurance out of whack.

 

Also, since prenups are consistently being tossed out of courts today, and with the current rules in divorce court, you'd have to be a focking tard to ever get married. There is zero benefit for a male, ever.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

How about we just stop at 2 consenting adults?

 

 

I think man and woman.

You think any two adults.

 

I think you're off base.

 

 

I PROMISE some think groups deserve the right to marry.

I also promise some think it's okay for kids to marry kids or kids to marry adults.

 

You'll join me in thinking they are off base. But why? What is your reason why?

 

My reason is the same as (see my initial comment). You are forced to rationalize again, and say "yeah well but...jeesh...come on....are you seriously saying that some would say it's okay for kids to get married, etc?", or "Someone would have to be a real sick fvck to think that is okay"

 

Well. My response to anyone who believes that it is okay for two men or two women to marry....is the same "Someone would have to a real sick fvck to think that is okay"

[MDC 7,826]

I think man and woman.

You think any two adults.

 

I think you're off base.

 

 

I PROMISE some think groups deserve the right to marry.

I also promise some think it's okay for kids to marry kids or kids to marry adults.

 

You'll join me in thinking they are off base. But why? What is your reason why?

 

My reason is the same as (see my initial comment). You are forced to rationalize again, and say "yeah well but...jeesh...come on....are you seriously saying that some would say it's okay for kids to get married, etc?", or "Someone would have to be a real sick fvck to think that is okay"

 

Well. My response to anyone who believes that it is okay for two men or two women to marry....is the same "Someone would have to a real sick fvck to think that is okay"

 

Kids cannot legally consent because they're kids.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

Kids cannot legally consent because they're kids.

 

 

Change the law. Change the constitution. Change whatever is needed. That seems to be the trend these days.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Not sure where the Constitution says anyone has the right to marry.

 

I do recall something about States rights though.

 

"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."

 

Seems pretty clear to me

[MDC 7,826]

Change the law. Change the constitution. Change whatever is needed. That seems to be the trend these days.

 

Great reply.

[hoytdwow 202]

It's an unspoken rule. Sort of like stealing home in baseball with a 8 run lead.

 

I'll tell you what Hoyt. The next time your ghey friends invite you to a dinner party and they ask you to bring a gourmet fruit bowl, show up with a bowl of corn and green beans instead. See if you are ever invited to another one of their chic and fabulous dinner parties ever again!@#!

Interracial marriages also used to be illegal. The times, they are a change-in, Bubba.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

"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."

 

Seems pretty clear to me

Perhaps you should alert the SC that they are wasting their time.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Perhaps you should alert the SC that they are wasting their time.

 

Oh you can certainly interpret it different ways even though I think it's clear. I was mainly just pointing out that your pal RP has no clue what he's talking about when he throws the Constituion out there.

 

I knew you would ride to his defense though. It's all you do here. Ever. Almost like you don't have your own thoughts or opinions, Timmy.

[The Moz 71]

As a Republican I can honestly say I couldn't care less if they could marry or could not. It does not effect me at all.

[5-Points 3,747]

"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."

 

Seems pretty clear to me

All of that was achieved through civil unions. Seems to me that if all they wanted was equal protection under the law, the argument should've ended there.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

Oh you can certainly interpret it different ways even though I think it's clear. I was mainly just pointing out that your pal RP has no clue what he's talking about when he throws the Constituion out there.

 

I knew you would ride to his defense though. It's all you do here. Ever. Almost like you don't have your own thoughts or opinions, Timmy.

Haven't seen a whole lot from your end either. I figured a "lawyer" might bring more to the table on this one. Especially one with such a "clear" understanding on the constitution.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

Ever notice the more we push for equality, gheys, welfare, handouts, and for everyone to get along and love one another, the more mass murders and demented focks that are popping up.

 

Everyone thinks they deserve their "due props" and when they don't get it by god the world is gonna have hell to pay.

 

Yes. There's a direct correlation.

[OldMaid 2,134]

You know... there was actually a pretty reasonable solution offered on this in one of the last discussions we had here on this issue. I wish I could remember who's it was so I could give them credit. It went something like this: Under the law everyone is entitled to a civil union. Then, if you still wanted a marriage, you could do so through the church, and it would be left up to them to decide which couples they wanted to marry.

[MDC 7,826]

You know... there was actually a pretty reasonable solution offered on this in one of the last discussions we had here on this issue. I wish I could remember who's it was so I could give them credit. It went something like this: Under the law everyone is entitled to a civil union. Then, if you still wanted a marriage, you could do so through the church, and it would be left up to them to decide which couples they wanted to marry.

 

I can't say that was me in the past thread but this has been my position from the beginning.

[KSB2424 3,172]

You know... there was actually a pretty reasonable solution offered on this in one of the last discussions we had here on this issue. I wish I could remember who's it was so I could give them credit. It went something like this: Under the law everyone is entitled to a civil union. Then, if you still wanted a marriage, you could do so through the church, and it would be left up to them to decide which couples they wanted to marry.

I'm not going to take full credit but this is the solution I've backed for years.

 

This whole problem was when the government decided to get in the "Marraige" game to begin with. I think we all know it was so they could 'tax' it with a marraige license. That was the genesis of all this nonsense. Once again government muddied the waters.

 

If the government wants to recognize unions then anybody whether that Jim and Linda or Jim and John should go down to the courthouse, file the proper paperwork yada yada and get a civil union recognized by the gov't.

 

If you want to get Married, in the true sense of being married then you go to your church and do so.

 

If some church/pastor/priest/minister/rabbi wants to bastardize the true meaning of being married and start 'marrying' gheys then thats on them, their church and members.

 

Seperation of Church and State.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I'm not going to take full credit but this is the solution I've backed for years.

 

This whole problem was when the government decided to get in the "Marraige" game to begin with. I think we all know it was so they could 'tax' it with a marraige license. That was the genesis of all this nonsense. Once again government muddied the waters.

 

If the government wants to recognize unions then anybody whether that Jim and Linda or Jim and John should go down to the courthouse, file the proper paperwork yada yada and get a civil union recognized by the gov't.

 

If you want to get Married, in the true sense of being married then you go to your church and do so.

 

If some church/pastor/priest/minister/rabbi wants to bastardize the true meaning of being married and start 'marrying' gheys then thats on them, their church and members.

 

Seperation of Church and State.

 

So, if I don't say "I do" in a church, am I married? The way that I see it, those people who just went to the local JP would not be married in your eyes even if they are a man and a woman. Is that true?

[jerryskids 7,053]

So, if I don't say "I do" in a church, am I married? The way that I see it, those people who just went to the local JP would not be married in your eyes even if they are a man and a woman. Is that true?

 

I was wondering that too.

 

Also, part of the problem is that "union" or "civil union" don't translate well to verbs. I'm unionized? Unionated?

 

That being said, I just don't give a fock if gheys are called "married." If somebody wants to think less of their marriage because they are ghey, or it wasn't done in a church, then that is their prerogative. The ONLY argument against it I see is the slipper slope argument in which gheys are getting increasing rights and you believe that it is in general bad for our society. Not saying I agree, but I respect the argument.

[KSB2424 3,172]

So, if I don't say "I do" in a church, am I married? The way that I see it, those people who just went to the local JP would not be married in your eyes even if they are a man and a woman. Is that true?

Like I said the toothpaste is out of the tube on this. When government muddied the waters decades and decades ago it changed everything.

 

Being truely married is in front of your God. So no going down to the courthouse and signing a document doesn't make you married by the true sense of the word. I know its hard to understand because its not how its been percieved in our lifetime...because gov't focked it all up.

 

To answer your question, if I was a religious person who believed in true meaning of Marriage then no, Jim and John would not be considered married in my and my churches eyes. Just like Jim Bob who decided to go to some redneck made up church and got Married to 4 women at the same time would not be considered "married" in my eyes and my churchs eyes either.

 

But that's not the way it is now, gov't bastardized the whole thing back then. They are just finishing it off now.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I can't say that was me in the past thread but this has been my position from the beginning.

 

Same here. It is unquestionably the most reasoned approach.

 

Although I think we should either call it marriage or call everything a civil union (straigh folk would have a civil union too) unless you get "married" in a church.

 

That's where we seem to differ slightly with KSB if I correctly understand everyone's position.

[Mungwater 601]

You know... there was actually a pretty reasonable solution offered on this in one of the last discussions we had here on this issue. I wish I could remember who's it was so I could give them credit. It went something like this: Under the law everyone is entitled to a civil union. Then, if you still wanted a marriage, you could do so through the church, and it would be left up to them to decide which couples they wanted to marry.

 

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Same here. It is unquestionably the most reasoned approach.

 

Although I think we should either call it marriage or call everything a civil union (straigh folk would have a civil union too) unless you get "married" in a church.

 

That's where we seem to differ slightly with KSB if I correctly understand everyone's position.

 

But on second though I agree with jerry--it's hard to say "I'm unionized" or something. Plus there's confusion whether you're talking a civil union or a labor union. So I think everyone should be able to get "married" but not necessarily "church married"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

"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."

 

Seems pretty clear to me

I see nothing about a "right" to marry in there.

 

Keep digging, Kleagle.

[KSB2424 3,172]

But on second though I agree with jerry--it's hard to say "I'm unionized" or something. Plus there's confusion whether you're talking a civil union or a labor union. So I think everyone should be able to get "married" but not necessarily "church married"

I think we are confusing two different swim lanes of thought into one.

 

What I'm saying is that today, with gov't in the business of stealing 'marraige' so they could tax it, then its going to be impossible to get that toothpaste back in the tube. That's why in my State I went ahead and voted against our Marriage Amendment. It's to late now so give the gheys their gov't rights.

 

However stepping back, taking a historical perspective, if we had a time machine and could put toothpaste back int the tube the term Marraige wouldn't be used by the government. It would be a Church/Religious term that couples did in their respective religion and Church/Mosque/Synagogue. In other words it wouldn't be hard to say or weird to you, as that was the way it has always been. The only reason its weird to you to say "Unionized" is because you are not used to it and its new.

 

See what I'm saying?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Every state Constitution has always explicitly defined marriage as one man and one woman ... really?

 

 

 

States are allowed to amend their own constitutions , right? They gave themselves that right. Question answered.

The definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman. People in 33 states have voted to put that into their legal code in one form or another. They did not change the definition of marriage, as you falsely claimed.

 

No, still didn't answer the question. I'll ask again, by what authority do you get to decide gheys get the right to marry, and then the changes stop? Why stop there?

 

You seem to want to overrule the will of the people of Cali, who passed Prop 8 in a landslide, on nothing more than your personal belief.

[nikki2200 4]

I see nothing about a "right" to marry in there.

 

Keep digging, Kleagle.

 

For a staunch Constitutionalist, I'm often surprised by some of the comments you make.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

 

WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

388 U.S. 1

 

Loving v. Virginia

 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

 

No. 395 Argued: April 10, 1967 --- Decided: June 12, 1967

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

 

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

...

 

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [n11] We have consistently denied [p12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

 

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

 

 

There's more in there if you care to read. Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees with your stance that marriage is not a constitutional right.

[OldMaid 2,134]

Same here. It is unquestionably the most reasoned approach.

 

 

I forgot and left out the kicker, though. If you decide to go to a church and get "married", you forfeit the right to a divorce decree. You know... because marriage was meant to be 'til death do you part and stuff.

 

[rholio 339]

Like I said the toothpaste is out of the tube on this. When government muddied the waters decades and decades ago it changed everything.

 

Being truely married is in front of your God. So no going down to the courthouse and signing a document doesn't make you married by the true sense of the word. I know its hard to understand because its not how its been percieved in our lifetime...because gov't focked it all up.

 

To answer your question, if I was a religious person who believed in true meaning of Marriage then no, Jim and John would not be considered married in my and my churches eyes. Just like Jim Bob who decided to go to some redneck made up church and got Married to 4 women at the same time would not be considered "married" in my eyes and my churchs eyes either.

 

But that's not the way it is now, gov't bastardized the whole thing back then. They are just finishing it off now.

Amen. I would add that a legal marriage between a man and woman is called a marriage, regardless if a church was involved or not. I see no reason to call a legal marriage a civil union because it isn't recognized by the church.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

You know... there was actually a pretty reasonable solution offered on this in one of the last discussions we had here on this issue. I wish I could remember who's it was so I could give them credit. It went something like this: Under the law everyone is entitled to a civil union. Then, if you still wanted a marriage, you could do so through the church, and it would be left up to them to decide which couples they wanted to marry.

 

 

What if you get married at the VFW hall by some internet certified pastor who also sells olive oil out of the trunk of her Hyundai?

[jerryskids 7,053]

What if you get married at the VFW hall by some internet certified pastor who also sells olive oil out of the trunk of her Hyundai?

 

I think they give you a reality show on Lifetime Network.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Like I said the toothpaste is out of the tube on this. When government muddied the waters decades and decades ago it changed everything.

 

Being truely married is in front of your God. So no going down to the courthouse and signing a document doesn't make you married by the true sense of the word. I know its hard to understand because its not how its been percieved in our lifetime...because gov't focked it all up.

 

To answer your question, if I was a religious person who believed in true meaning of Marriage then no, Jim and John would not be considered married in my and my churches eyes. Just like Jim Bob who decided to go to some redneck made up church and got Married to 4 women at the same time would not be considered "married" in my eyes and my churchs eyes either.

 

But that's not the way it is now, gov't bastardized the whole thing back then. They are just finishing it off now.

 

If God is everywhere, how am I not married "in front of my God"?

[porkbutt 897]

why can't a consenting brother and sister marry?

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I forgot and left out the kicker, though. If you decide to go to a church and get "married", you forfeit the right to a divorce decree. You know... because marriage was meant to be 'til death do you part and stuff.

 

 

[IGotWorms 4,062]

why can't a consenting brother and sister marry?

 

Incest is a crime in most every state

[porkbutt 897]

Incest is a crime in most every state

we should get that overruled too then..don't you think? why draw the line there?