• 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

sawdust said:
States have rights, see tenth amendment. That's why you don't have a federal drivers license.
Click to expand...

Yes, states have rights. And those rights have limits.
 
Cardinal said:
Ah, I see. Here, let me help with that by copying and pasting the thread title: "Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice." All this time you've just been in the wrong thread.
Click to expand...

At the time you entered it the question was wether Carson could personally oppose gay marriage but support the states right to legislate it. Some people, including you, couldn't understand the dicotomy.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, states have rights. And those rights have limits.
Click to expand...

Actually the constitution is intended to limit the FEDERAL governments rights and powers.
 
sawdust said:
States have rights, see tenth amendment. That's why you don't have a federal drivers license.
Click to expand...

Only because the fed hasn't decided to strip the states of that power, as with everything else
 
sawdust said:
At the time you entered it the question was wether Carson could personally oppose gay marriage but support the states right to legislate it. Some people, including you, couldn't understand the dicotomy.
Click to expand...

Your and others' inability to explain that dichotomy clearly (instead of simply regurgitating the same old platitudes on state rights) tells me you don't know how it operates either. But your inability to answer it is, in fact, answer enough, and confirms the ridiculousness of Carson's comment.

Yes, yes, go ahead and tell me I just don't get it, or that "you answered it already" without specifying how or where, or tell me how state rights works, or that gay marriage doesn't interest you, or just post a random cat video to switch it up a little. Anything but actually address the question directly.
 
Chainsaw said:
Actually the constitution is intended to limit the FEDERAL governments rights and powers.
Click to expand...

No, it explains and quantifies the Federal government's rights and powers. This semantic difference is important. That you wouldn't understand something as basic as this can help to explain your confusion in the gay marriage conflict.
 
Redress said:
The Supreme court has stated, repeatedly, that marriage, not certain types of marriage, but simply marriage itself, is a fundamental right. They have not stated only certain types of marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

Good luck briefing your case.
 
Cardinal said:
Your and others' inability to explain that dichotomy clearly (instead of simply regurgitating the same old platitudes on state rights) tells me you don't know how it operates either. But your inability to answer it is, in fact, answer enough, and confirms the ridiculousness of Carson's comment.

Yes, yes, go ahead and tell me I just don't get it, or that "you answered it already" without specifying how or where, or tell me how state rights works, or that gay marriage doesn't interest you, or just post a random cat video to switch it up a little. Anything but actually address the question directly.
Click to expand...
Please go back and read how I answered your question.
 
Paperview said:
Because people use the term does not change the fact: States don't have "rights." People have rights.

States have powers or authority.
Click to expand...

If you want to exchange ideas you can't do it by making up definitions for terms used in the conversation which are different than the ones used by others. In this thread we are using the phrase states rights as defined in the Wiki link I posted. Hope you can deal with that.
 
matchlight said:
Good luck briefing your case.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sawdust said:
At the time you entered it the question was wether Carson could personally oppose gay marriage but support the states right to legislate it. Some people, including you, couldn't understand the dicotomy.
Click to expand...

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
 
sawdust said:
If you want to exchange ideas you can't do it by making up definitions for terms used in the conversation which are different than the ones used by others. In this thread we are using the phrase states rights as defined in the Wiki link I posted. Hope you can deal with that.
Click to expand...

I'm not making up a definition. I am telling you the facts.

Hope you can deal with that.
 
chromium said:
He gets to pick SCOTUS nominees so yeah, it's a safe bet that would be a litmus test for any repub elected in 08-2012, since they were all deathly opposed to gay rights whenever the topic came up (and often when it didn't). Fortunately that did not come to pass
Click to expand...

I am 100% opposed to SCOTUS or any other court having power to make law or change the law from what the authorized legislative body passed. Certainly the court can rule on whether a law is constitutional. But if it rules that a law is unconstitutional, it should be up to the legislative body to deal with that and not the court.

To give the court authority to dictate what the law must be is to give a single person or a tiny oligarchy total authority to do anything to anybody it chooses to do. That violates all the concepts of separation of powers that the Constitution intended.
 
sawdust said:
No, you just want to quibble.
Click to expand...

It's an important quibble. Language matters.

You said: Quote:
"States have rights, see tenth amendment."

To which I reply: Read the tenth Amendment and tell me - does that grant the states rights, or powers?

It's a salient distinction.
 
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...

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.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I am 100% opposed to SCOTUS or any other court having power to make law or change the law from what the authorized legislative body passed. Certainly the court can rule on whether a law is constitutional. But if it rules that a law is unconstitutional, it should be up to the legislative body to deal with that and not the court.
Click to expand...

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

AlbqOwl said:
To give the court authority to dictate what the law must be is to give a single person or a tiny oligarchy total authority to do anything to anybody it chooses to do. That violates all the concepts of separation of powers that the Constitution intended.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 notified 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...

For someone who likes to cite the 10th Amendment -- perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the 9th and 14th.
 
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
Click to expand...

it is up to the court to determine if a law is constitutional or not, ..the court does not have the power to change the laws wording or add anything new to the law.
 
sangha said:
Actually, they have said that marriage is a fundamental right in a number of cases. Period.
Click to expand...

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. 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.

Regardless, the prohibitions you mention are not allowed because marriage is not a fundamantal right which is why you can't quote SCOTUS saying something that supports your claim that marriage is not a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that sentence means, if anything. You just finished claiming the Court has said in a number of cases that marriage is a fundamental right.

Your argument is based on the absurd claim that because the state can limit a right, the right does not exist.
Click to expand...

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.

You have provided absolutely no proof that "one man, one woman" marriages are the only marriages that are considered a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

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. You would like to extend the Court's comments about a fundamental right to marriage just far enough to include same-sex marriage, but not extend it to include bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc. Where in that "number of cases" in which the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a fundamental right has it ever implied that right extends beyond marriage between one man and one woman in such an uneven, arbitrary way?
 
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...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom