You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I'd answer the rest of your post but I don't have time at this moment. For now consider the following....
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
what loop holes would let you endanger or exploit children if you alow gay marriage do to the that gay marriage is an identical situation and institution to heterosexual marriages that we allow?
...precisely why your mention of sexual identity earlier is erroneous.Yes, but there is no need to test whether is a person has a sexual slant for marriage.
Gender is a protected classification.Unless there is a specific prohibition in the Constitution the States can make any requirement for marriage even things like income if they chose. I would not favor any restriction beyond prohibiting marriage between second dgree or closer, multiple partners, 17 or older, and be mentally competent. The fact that both partners must consent is implied.
Same with gender!The prohibitions on mixed race marriages was Un-Constitutional since the Constitution requires equal protection with regard to race. The same with respect to the Jim Crow laws.
Well, it is that, actually. That's the intent: discrimination against homosexuals. Tradition doesn't matter. Your approval doesn't matter. My approval doesn't matter. Everyone had the same access to same-race marriages too.The problem is that this is not a discrimination a against a particular group of people treating them differently. The laws are not specifiably requiring that gay people cannot have the same access that every one else does but that States do have the Power to decide what marriage is. Marriage from the beginning of this country was between two people and between one man and one woman. Having marriage between two of the same gender is a change (and is new) and there is on support in the Constitution requiring this bo be so.
Why is your comfort level relevant here? "Too quickly?" Was interracial marriage done too quickly? Women's rights?States do not determine what Rights people have. Rights are inherent. Marriage is a sort of contract and contracts involve State Power and it is within State Power to determine what is a valid marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage at least in the United States is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too quickly on this. I do think that States will have to recognize the legitimacy of married gay couples from other States and this will be what determines whether most States will eventually adopt it.
Your disapproval of court action on a different issue affects your approval of their handling of same-sex marriage? That's bizarre.With respect on my being Libertarian, I do not oppose gay marriage but for now the States do have the authority rule it out unless we have an Amendment that says otherwise. I should also point out that States such as Illinois had undue restrictions against gun ownership even though the Constitution explicitly says that the Citizens have a right to own and bear them. I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE THE COURTS A PASS ON THIS IF THEY WOULD UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTHS JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PROPERTY THAT WAS WEAKENED BY THE COURTS.
One of you will end up here next!
Literally the opposite of the truth. Loving v. Virginia literally declared marriage to be a fundamental right.There is noting explicit in the Constitution that would make gay marriage a Right. Technically marriage is not a Right at all. Loving vs Virgina was delivered not due to a Right of marriage but due to a prohibition of a violation of equal protection on account of race. Also the question is does States have the Power to make laws respecting an establishment marriage or not?
Equal protection is not a universal magic bullet. The state can still uphold unequal protection when an important enough interest exists in doing so. With children, preventing them from entering permanent legal contracts is a pretty clear interest - children lack the emotional and intellectual capacity to make such decisions in their own best interests, or anyone else's for that matter.States forbid marriage to children for example. And there are people who want children to have the equal rights as adults. By the same reasoning States could be required to grant marriages to children also. This is an extreme example but I am thinking hypothetically here.
Such an interest does not exist in banning same-sex marriage. There are certainly state interests in the existence of marriage, and the promotion of stable families, procreation, and all that jazz that goes with marriage. But the banning of same-sex marriages does not in any way further any of those interests, nor does same-sex marriage cause any sort of demonstrable harm. Therefore same-sex marriage bans do not pass the test of equal protection, but the age requirement does pass the test of equal protection. Marrying animals and furniture are just stupid, desperate diversions from real discuss. Animals and furniture aren't people, they don't have rights.
Last edited by Deuce; 02-14-14 at 09:43 PM.
One of you will end up here next!