• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

sangha said:
Actually, it had nothing to do with whether Carson could personally oppose gay marriage. It was about his claim that believed gays should have equal rights *and* that states should be able to deny them their rights. Those two beliefs of his contradict each other
Click to expand...

Why do these fools believe the middle ground will please anyone anyway? The extremists voting in the repub primary are not going to be impressed by "they should have equal rights" or leaving it up to states for that matter. They want a federal law banning SSM period

And those voting in the general election who actually favor gay rights will not be moved by calls to allow alabama to oppress its gay citizens
 
Paperview said:
For someone who likes to cite the 10th Amendment -- perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the 9th and 14th.
Click to expand...

You can read a newspaper and see how this works in the real world. Not all states grant the right for gays to marry. The reason for that is states rights. The Feds don't have the authority to interfere with states authority to regulate marriage. That fight is being fought in state legislatures. Familiarize yourself with that.
 
ernst barkmann said:
incorrect ...rights are only recognized by the constitution.


privileges are granted by government......privileges in other words are.....civil rights, and legal rights.

rights [natural] are negative law

privileges are positive law..or codified law
Click to expand...

Where do you think the constitution came from?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution does not grant you any rights.......it only recognizes rights exist.

the constitution only delegates POWERS to the federal government..article 1 section 1 clause 1
Click to expand...

You made me happy. I was afraid that you didn't know the constitution came from government.
 
sawdust said:
You can read a newspaper and see how this works in the real world. Not all states grant the right for gays to marry. The reason for that is states rights. The Feds don't have the authority to interfere with states authority to regulate marriage. That fight is being fought in state legislatures. Familiarize yourself with that.
Click to expand...

It's legal in 37 states right now. Buck up. SCOTUS is going to rule in June SSM is constitutional in every state.

Invest heavily in tissues, fainting couches 'n pearls -- prepare to clutch, cause baby -- its acoming.
 
Paperview said:
It's legal in 37 states right now. Buck up. SCOTUS is going to rule in June SSM is constitutional in every state.

Invest heavily in tissues, fainting couches 'n pearls -- prepare to clutch, cause baby -- its acoming.
Click to expand...

I don't care where it's legal or illegal. SCOTUS isn't supposed to legislate FYI. All they can do is uphold or overturn State law. It's that old states rights thing.
 
sawdust said:
I don't care where it's legal or illegal. SCOTUS isn't supposed to legislate FYI. All they can do is uphold or overturn State law. It's that old states rights thing.
Click to expand...

Case law.

"Familiarize yourself with that."

The Constitution and it's case law are inseparable,

The Constitution is the skeleton -- case law is the flesh.

*That's* what gives SCOTUS the power to rule SSM Constitutional. It's going to happen.

You're going to have to come to terms with that.
 
sawdust said:
You made me happy. I was afraid that you didn't know the constitution came from government.
Click to expand...

guy the constitution is not a statute.

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.

rights are negative / unwritten law

the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictions clause on the federal government not to create laws, which would violate the recognized rights of people

bill of rights preamble.
The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [federal] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
 
sangha said:
Windor's failure to describe SSM as a fundamental right is due to the fact that such a description was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the issue before the court
Click to expand...

No, it is due to the fact that Anthony Kennedy and the other justices on the Court understand constitutional law very well and do not want to embarrass themselves by making ridiculous claims. The claim that a right of homosexuals to marry each other is both "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty" is so utterly mindless that none of them would ever let their names be associated with it. As Justice Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion, any claim that same-sex marriage meets those standards, which the Court applies in determining whether a right is fundamental, would be "quite absurd."

That is exactly why Kennedy has been careful to avoid any discussion of fundamental rights or heightened scrutiny in all three of his "gay" decisions--Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Windsor v. U.S. He has his reputation and credibility to consider. It's good for a laugh to watch posters here who don't even know the ABC's of constitutional law desperately making up nonsense to try to support something so ludicrous that every justice on the Supreme Court knows better than to even suggest it. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that if and when the Court decides a same-sex marriage case, it will be a substantive due process decision involving fundamental rights and strict scrutiny. That is exactly the kind of decision Roe v. Wade was, and the last thing the Court wants is to lay another egg like Roe.[/QUOTE]
 
chromium said:
The legislature already deal with that when they passed the 14th amendment...it's therefore up to the federal courts to ensure the amendment is followed. That's pretty much the entire reason the courts exist

That is separation of powers. The legislature passed the 14th and, as circumstances change (such as new technology, special interest groups, and ballot drives) it's up to the courts to ensure the constitution is followed. They are the legal experts, not the impotent senate.

Basically some asshole tries to break an already existing law, that was already passed by the legislature, like equal protection, and the courts tell them no, you can't do that. That's how it's always been, from misdemeanors, to felonies, to civil rights violations

Since our constitution mostly enumerates negative rights, court interpretation will always play an integral role in upholding it. This is unfortunate in some ways, but that's how it is
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment did not exist when the courts were created.

The court can certainly administrate a proceeding to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but is bound by existing law that dictates the authority the court has to do that.

The court can certainly mediate disputes by interpreting what the law says and the LAW, not the court, determines what the court's ruling will mean for the disputing parties.

No court was intended to have authority to tell the President what bills he could sign into law and what bills he could not. No court was intended to have authority to tell the legislature what laws it could pass. If a law is challenged, the court can certainly rule on whether law is in conflict with any other law including the Constitution, but it must be up to the legislative body to then rescind or change that law to conform. It is not up to the Court to do so.

That way we have separation of powers. A court given power to dictate to the legislative body or chief executive what it must and must not do is a court with unlimited power.
 
sawdust said:
I just went back and reread post 1. It was something about a foolish comment Carson made about previously straight inmates engaging in homosexual activities while in prison.

This is my opinion. Our rights come from government and until those rights are codified into law they right doesn't exist. There is a right to marry for gays in California and some other states, the right doesn't exist where states have not granted that right. The issue here isn't the right for gay's to marry. The issue is wether the law should be changed in all the states to create the right.
Click to expand...

This is why the difference between rights and powers is important

The rights of people do not come from the govt. Instead, the powers of govt come from the people. So the issue is not if people have such a right; It's whether or not the govt has the power to limit marriage to certain people when it has no legitimate interest in doing so.

Amendment XIV

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.
Click to expand...

The constitution says no.
 
prometeus said:
Perhaps you can cite the case in which they did say it was only between a man and a woman. Of course you can not because it never did, but i 14 cases dating back as far as 1888 it did say it was a personal choice.
Click to expand...

Good luck with your "same-sex marriage is a fundamental right brief." All you'll need to do is to show it's a right that is both "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty." And who could doubt either of those things, even for a moment?
 
Redress said:
I am not briefing a case. I understand why your example of 9 year olds marrying fails, and what the various rulings on SSM say. I might suggest reading those rulings, you could learn allot.
Click to expand...

I'm learning allot just by reading your posts.
 
matchlight said:
Good luck with your "same-sex marriage is a fundamental right brief." All you'll need to do is to show it's a right that is both "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty." And who could doubt either of those things, even for a moment?
Click to expand...

"Fundamental right" isn't the argument. Equal protection under the law is. Why do you keep dodging that?
 
sawdust said:
You can read a newspaper and see how this works in the real world. Not all states grant the right for gays to marry. The reason for that is states rights. The Feds don't have the authority to interfere with states authority to regulate marriage. That fight is being fought in state legislatures. Familiarize yourself with that.
Click to expand...

So, do you think the states have the right to define marriage as between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman?
 
matchlight said:
Prove it. Cite even one case in which the Court so much as implied its comments about a fundamental right to marriage extended to any form of marriage beyond the one under consideration in that case--marriage between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

The court hasn't said I have right to put cream in my coffee, yet I certainly do.

But the court has said that marriage is a fundamental right. I have already proven that by linking to 14 cases where they have said so. Therefore, the question is not if it is a right, but under what conditions the state can limit that right
Amendment XIV

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.
Click to expand...

If your assertion were true, any comments the Court ever made about marriage being a fundamental right would mean there is a fundamental right to every kind of marriage. But it is obvious to most of us that the Court has never meant to imply there is a fundamental right to bigamy or incestuous marriage, for example.
Click to expand...

I have posted a SCOTUS quote that clearly and explicitly states why the state has an interest in prohiting such marriages. There is no legitimate interest in prohibiting SSM.


No, my argument was based on the fact that the Court has never subjected state laws against bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc. to strict scrutiny. If your assertion that the fundamental right to marriage is not limited to marriage between one man and one woman were true, there would be a fundamental right to those forms of marriage too. And the Court subjects laws which restrict fundamental rights to strict scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Why the bans on bigamy, polyfamy, etc are able to pass strict scrutiny has already been posted, along with a court citation that clearly and explicitly states why the state has an interest in prohibiting such marriages



I just recited the proof. If the Court considered bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, and child marriage fundamental rights, then state laws which prohibit those forms of marriage would be subject to strict scrutiny. Obviously they are not.
Click to expand...

Obviously they are, and the prohibitions have passed the scrutiny
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
Good luck with your "same-sex marriage is a fundamental right brief."
Click to expand...
I hardly need any luck, not to mention that is not what I asked. I take your diversion as a confirmation of what I said.

All you'll need to do is to show it's a right that is both "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty." And who could doubt either of those things, even for a moment?
Click to expand...
You mean like slavery was deeply rooted in our tradition? I really do not expect you to grasp the ordered liberty part.
 
matchlight said:
No, it is due to the fact that Anthony Kennedy and the other justices on the Court understand constitutional law very well and do not want to embarrass themselves by making ridiculous claims.
Click to expand...

The only ridiculous thing here is your believing that you know Justice Kennedy's motive.

Your position is so absurd that you've been reduced to claiming that you can read his mind.

The court is going to rule that bans on SSM are unconstitutional and they will do so on the grounds that I have said they will - because the govt has no legitimate interest in doing so.
 
sangha said:
The only ridiculous thing here is your believing that you know Justice Kennedy's motive.

Your position is so absurd that you've been reduced to claiming that you can read his mind.

The court is going to rule that bans on SSM are unconstitutional and they will do so on the grounds that I have said they will - because the govt has no legitimate interest in doing so.
Click to expand...

Word to matchlight: I've got your post bookmarked.

Come June, we'll talk.
 
sangha said:
Why the bans on bigamy, polyfamy, etc are able to pass strict scrutiny has already been posted
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? It is nigh on to impossible for any law about anything to survive strict scrutiny. Please cite specific cases that support your assertion that laws against bigamy and polygamy have ever been subjected to strict scrutiny by the Supreme Court. If you want to embarrass yourself further, you can cite Reynolds again. It was only decided about sixty years before the Court even first suggested the idea of heightened scrutiny, in Footnote Three of Carolene Products.
 
matchlight said:
What on earth are you talking about? It is nigh on to impossible for any law about anything to survive strict scrutiny. Please cite specific cases that support your assertion that laws against bigamy and polygamy have ever been subjected to strict scrutiny by the Supreme Court. If you want to embarrass yourself further, you can cite Reynolds again. It was only decided about sixty years before the Court even first suggested the idea of heightened scrutiny, in Footnote Three of Carolene Products.
Click to expand...

You are now resorting to making stuff up.

I did not say that the court subjected polygamy to strict scrutiny. I said such bans would be able to pass strict scrutiny. Do you understand the difference?

Your argument that we don't have a fundamental right to something unless SCOTUS explicitly states that we do is inane. The court will rule that SSM bans are unconstitutional and will do so for the reason I have stated - because they govt has no legitimate interest in such bans.
 
sangha said:
The court is going to rule that bans on SSM are unconstitutional and they will do so on the grounds that I have said they will - because the govt has no legitimate interest in doing so.
Click to expand...

Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.
 
JoeTrumps said:
the fact that "you people" base your votes on someone's stance on whether you are born gay or not........it's a perfect example of why you people are a danger to the health of the country. I mean, honestly, who bases their vote on that?! This guy could have every fix for the economy in his back POCKET and you wouldn't vote for him because of this dumb crap. unbelievable. and the rest of us have to try and argue with "you people" and rationally explain that their are a HUNDRED bigger problems to deal with that effect MANY, MANY more citizens than just the gay community. insane
Click to expand...

I'm sure that by saying what he said, Carson will look good to some conservative voters. I assume that's not the "you people" referred to.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The 14th Amendment did not exist when the courts were created.

The court can certainly administrate a proceeding to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but is bound by existing law that dictates the authority the court has to do that.

The court can certainly mediate disputes by interpreting what the law says and the LAW, not the court, determines what the court's ruling will mean for the disputing parties.

No court was intended to have authority to tell the President what bills he could sign into law and what bills he could not. No court was intended to have authority to tell the legislature what laws it could pass. If a law is challenged, the court can certainly rule on whether law is in conflict with any other law including the Constitution, but it must be up to the legislative body to then rescind or change that law to conform. It is not up to the Court to do so.

That way we have separation of powers. A court given power to dictate to the legislative body or chief executive what it must and must not do is a court with unlimited power.
Click to expand...

The courts have seized certain powers they were never intended for, you are right about that. However, enforcing equal protection is not one of those. It is in the constitution the same as the 1st or 2nd amendment. It's definitely in the court's purview. You know why? Because the amendment says "equal protection" NOT "equal protection of heterosexuals, right handers, people 6 foot or taller" etc. If these groups become oppressed in the course of time, the 14th has been violated. The courts are mandated to render judgment on whether that has occurred in specific cases, such as the ballots in 13 states that have still banned SSM

The legislature is free to repeal or create new amendments, as it tried to ban SSM under Bush II, but they failed. They lost, get over it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom