• 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!

Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

CriticalThought said:
Lawrence v. Texas did not find a right to sodomy. Your question was pointless. You are arguing the state can violate individual liberty to criminalize consensual and private sexual conduct for absolutely no reason aside from moral antipathy. You are free to have that opinion, but you can never call yourself a friend of liberty. I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to DUE PROCESS. Do you know what that is? It means a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. The state cannot deny my individual liberty just because some people find certain sexual acts between consenting adults to be yucky.

And I did not "move" anything. You are just ignorant of the rational that SCOTUS used to justify throwing out state sodomy bans and you have created an innane "right to sodomy" straw man because you are too lazy to educate yourself about the decision. But please continue to argue for more government intrusion into our personal lives so I can quote you in future threads.
Click to expand...

I bolded the part that breaks your entire argument. Sodomy laws clearly are not unconstitutional and this is a prime example of the court abandoning it's oath.

You don't understand that the power of law, outside the grant given to the federal and the rights protected explicitly by the US Constitution resides in the states and the people BY CONSTITUTION. If the people of the state decide sodomy is unlawful, it is unlawful. The only question that remains is for the people of that state, "why would they wish to restrain themselves so?".

And just stop with the inane, "you are no friend of liberty". I don't support this law, nor would I vote for it. I would fight to overturn such a law in my state. However, that does not mean the law is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
I bolded the part that breaks your entire argument. Sodomy laws clearly are not unconstitutional and this is a prime example of the court abandoning it's oath.

You don't understand that the power of law, outside the grant given to the federal and the rights protected explicitly by the US Constitution resides in the states and the people BY CONSTITUTION. If the people of the state decide sodomy is unlawful, it is unlawful. The only question that remains is for the people of that state, "why would they wish to restrain themselves so?".

And just stop with the inane, "you are no friend of liberty". I don't support this law, nor would I vote for it. I would fight to overturn such a law in my state. However, that does not mean the law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

That would have been true if not for the 14th amendment.

"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."

The Texas statute furthered no legitimate state interest which could justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. The 14th amendment demands some legitimate state interest to justify a law that abridges individual liberty. That is why the bans were not Constitutional.
 
prometeus said:
Then you would be OK with state laws regulating such activities?
Click to expand...

Read my posts before you ask silly questions. No, I would not be okay with it, as I said. It just wouldn't be unconstitutional (federally and depending upon the language of the bill).
 
CriticalThought said:
That would have been true if not for the 14th amendment.

"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."

The Texas statute furthered no legitimate state interest which could justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. The 14th amendment demands some legitimate state interest to justify a law that abridges individual liberty. That is why the bans were not Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Read the 14th again, It does NOT demand a "legitimate state interest". Bold for us where in the text of the 14th this requirement is enumerated. And then inform us how laws banning sodomy for all violates the 14th.
 
clownboy said:
You're wrong. Those values, precepts, were all throughout British Common Law and American colonial law.
Click to expand...

No. They aren't. Those are common values of pretty much every society. Most societies make some forms of killing illegal. Most societies make stealing of some type illegal. Most societies make some sort of lying that harms others illegal.

Let's go through the list of Commandments shall we and compare them to US law.

Bible List Of The Ten Commandments

First Commandment, not only is not in our laws, it is in fact unconstitutional to make a law that would enforce it.
Second Commandment, again, not only not against the law but would be unconstitutional to make a law that enforced this Commandment.
Third Commandment, while there are some ordinances that could prevent taking the Lord's name in vain in certain places, this would be along with certain other words. Overall though this is a freedom of speech issue.
Fourth Commandment, while there are certain laws that are related to this (such as "Blue Laws), this isn't really able to be completely enforced. You cannot make it illegal to not recognize the Sabbath. If I want to work on Sunday, I can. I don't even have to take any day for my Sabbath.
Fifth Commandment, nope, don't have to follow this one by law. While parents hold certain power over children, that has nothing to do with "honoring" their mother and father and everything to do with that is what is good for society.
Sixth Commandment, now this one might depend on whether you believe it is "shall not murder" or "shall not kill". "Shall not murder" is circular. "Murder" means it is automatically against the law. We don't make all "killing" illegal.
Seventh Commandment, adultery is not a law that is enforced in the US outside of the military. It can be used in certain divorce cases, but that is a civil matter. Many things can be used in such cases.
Eighth Commandment, sure it's in our laws, just like it is in pretty much the laws of every other society that has existed in some form or another, long before the "Ten Commandments" even existed.
Ninth Commandment, this is in our laws to a certain extent. You cannot lie against your neighbor in a way that can cause them harm. However, this still goes back to using the laws to avoid causing harm. It isn't because it is a Commandment.
Tenth Commandment, this is not only not against our laws, it is the basis of our economy to break this Commandment. Commercialism, consumerism, capitalism runs off of "coveting" someone else's goods, wanting to have more, "keeping up with the Jones".
 
clownboy said:
A standard made entirely by the court out of whole cloth and unrelated to the constitution, in fact, in opposition to their oath.

This standard came about solely because the court could not through their grant of power, meddle where they really wanted to.
Click to expand...

Ah, I was wondering where the line in the sand was drawn. So then, by your logic, Loving v. Virginia struck down Constitutional interracial marriage bans.
 
CriticalThought said:
Ah, I was wondering where the line in the sand was drawn. So then, by your logic, Loving v. Virginia struck down Constitutional interracial marriage bans.
Click to expand...

The constitution is silent on the matter, so calling such a law "constitutional" is a simple semantics game you're playing. It should be noted that prior SCOTUS decisions found the law not to be unconstitutional. But the Warren court really, really wanted to interfere on his one. So, they spin an argument based on a standard they cooked up, a standard not at all based in constitution.

Look, I thought and still think that law was horrid, ugly. In fact, many of the marriages in my own family, my own included would not survive such a law. But it should have been dealt with the proper way rather than the SCOTUS taking the easy path and just making **** up because they really, really wanted to interfere on this one.
 
clownboy said:
The constitution is silent on the matter, so calling such a law "constitutional" is a simple semantics game you're playing. It should be noted that prior SCOTUS decisions found the law not to be unconstitutional. But the Warren court really, really wanted to interfere on his one. So, they spin an argument based on a standard they cooked up, a standard not at all based in constitution.

Look, I thought and still think that law was horrid, ugly. In fact, many of the marriages in my own family, my own included would not survive such a law. But it should have been dealt with the proper way rather than the SCOTUS taking the easy path and just making **** up because they really, really wanted to interfere on this one.
Click to expand...

I will give you points for consistency, but you are placing the importance of SCOTUS following a strict standard they have not followed since 1803 over the fundamental liberties of your own family members. Strictly speaking, the Constitution does not even give SCOTUS the power of judicial review, and that is a power they granted themselves in Marbury v. Madison. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution seems awfully naive. If the courts operated as you envision they should we would still have racial segregation and a whole host of other issues.
 
clownboy said:
The constitution is silent on the matter, so calling such a law "constitutional" is a simple semantics game you're playing. It should be noted that prior SCOTUS decisions found the law not to be unconstitutional. But the Warren court really, really wanted to interfere on his one. So, they spin an argument based on a standard they cooked up, a standard not at all based in constitution.

Look, I thought and still think that law was horrid, ugly. In fact, many of the marriages in my own family, my own included would not survive such a law. But it should have been dealt with the proper way rather than the SCOTUS taking the easy path and just making **** up because they really, really wanted to interfere on this one.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS is a valid way. We have to have someone to protect us from both the state and federal laws that restrict us from doing things just because the "majority" doesn't want people to do that thing. There needs to be a state interest shown to be furthered, not just "well the people want it". We are not a direct democracy, and we have the Constitution there to protect us from the government.
 
Deuce said:
Uhh. Yeah? You're not reading my posts correctly. Merely matching some religious morality doesn't make something unconstitutional. Nobody said it did.
Click to expand...

I noted in #166 that

"Most criminal laws in this country, in the end, reflect the teachings of Christianity about right and wrong. But the fact a state law that makes adultery a crime codifies one of the Ten Commandments, for example, does not mean that law is an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into government."

Your response in #169 was that it does "if that is the only demonstrable basis for the law." That's really just a restatement of the first prong of the "Lemon test" the Supreme Court has sometimes applied, which is that government action must have a significant secular purpose in order not to violate the Establishment Clause.

The quotation from McGowan v. Maryland shows how the Court has gone out of its way not to find that laws which are ultimately based on religious beliefs--a Sunday closing law in that case--are based solely on those beliefs. The Eighth Circuit followed this same course in Clayton v. Place, a 1989 case in which it found a school district's ban on dancing, even though it clearly was a response to pressure from conservative local churches, did not violate the Establishment Clause because it also served a secular purpose.

Considering that, just how would you go about showing a religious belief about right and wrong was the "only demonstrable basis" for a state criminal law? The only example I can think of is a law against worshiping a graven image. It could have no basis other than the Second Commandment, and therefore would violate the Establishment Clause by having a religious rather than a secular purpose.
 
matchlight said:
No who don't what?
Click to expand...

Most of the laws in our country do not reflect teachings of Christianity. They reflect trying to protect people, either from others, from the government, or in some cases from themselves. And most of our laws are also found in one or more non-Christian or even non-Abrahamic based societies.
 
roguenuke said:
Most of the laws in our country do not reflect teachings of Christianity. They reflect trying to protect people, either from others, from the government, or in some cases from themselves. And most of our laws are also found in one or more non-Christian or even non-Abrahamic based societies.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate. When most people believe an act is so immoral that it deserves to be punished, they make it a crime. Most of the criminal laws in the U.S., which are largely state laws, today are codified as statutes. And those criminal statutes almost always incorporate the principles and language of the common law. That common law developed through decisions by English judges that date back at least to the 1500's. Those decisions, in turn, reflect the views that most people in England, which was almost exclusively a Christian country, held about which actions are right or moral, and which are wrong or immoral.

Christian teaching that murder, burglary, robbery, adultery, fraud, rape, and other acts are wrong is not the only reason those acts were crimes at common law and still are, but it is a very important one. Widely held moral convictions do not just spring out of thin air, but are taught. Most of our state criminal laws developed through accretion, and the moral values they affirm derive directly from the moral values Christian churches were instilling in Englishmen--including English judges--centuries ago. Contrary to what you are implying, they were not created one day by some secular committee sitting in a room studying the most utilitarian ways to regulate society by law.

Whether religions other than Christianity consider some of the same acts wrong or immoral, or disagree with other religions about the morality of an act, it does not change the fact criminal prohibitions of those acts are largely based, in the end, on Christian teaching. As the Court noted in McGowan v. Maryland:

"[F]or temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc., because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue."
 
clownboy said:
They did so in direct violation of their oath then. Sodomy is not protected in the US constitution, nor by it's intent.
Click to expand...

9th amendment, quit being such an authoritarian.
 
matchlight said:
I noted in #166 that

"Most criminal laws in this country, in the end, reflect the teachings of Christianity about right and wrong. But the fact a state law that makes adultery a crime codifies one of the Ten Commandments, for example, does not mean that law is an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into government."

Your response in #169 was that it does "if that is the only demonstrable basis for the law." That's really just a restatement of the first prong of the "Lemon test" the Supreme Court has sometimes applied, which is that government action must have a significant secular purpose in order not to violate the Establishment Clause.

The quotation from McGowan v. Maryland shows how the Court has gone out of its way not to find that laws which are ultimately based on religious beliefs--a Sunday closing law in that case--are based solely on those beliefs. The Eighth Circuit followed this same course in Clayton v. Place, a 1989 case in which it found a school district's ban on dancing, even though it clearly was a response to pressure from conservative local churches, did not violate the Establishment Clause because it also served a secular purpose.

Considering that, just how would you go about showing a religious belief about right and wrong was the "only demonstrable basis" for a state criminal law? The only example I can think of is a law against worshiping a graven image. It could have no basis other than the Second Commandment, and therefore would violate the Establishment Clause by having a religious rather than a secular purpose.
Click to expand...

Yes. If there's a secular value or basis as well, you have a better leg to stand on. (although merely having a secular basis doesn't necessarily comply with constitutional scrutiny either)

I'm not sure what your disagreement is. Courts will sometimes stretch for that "secular purpose," but if there really isn't anything other than religion it's not likely to stand.
 
clownboy said:
Read my posts before you ask silly questions. No, I would not be okay with it, as I said. It just wouldn't be unconstitutional (federally and depending upon the language of the bill).
Click to expand...
The point of the question is on what grounds would YOU object?
 
clownboy said:
Read my posts before you ask silly questions. No, I would not be okay with it, as I said. It just wouldn't be unconstitutional (federally and depending upon the language of the bill).
Click to expand...

The vast majority of things ruled on today are unconstitutional because nobody writing the constitution had the slightest clue these things would ever exist.
 
matchlight said:
That is not accurate. When most people believe an act is so immoral that it deserves to be punished, they make it a crime. Most of the criminal laws in the U.S., which are largely state laws, today are codified as statutes. And those criminal statutes almost always incorporate the principles and language of the common law. That common law developed through decisions by English judges that date back at least to the 1500's. Those decisions, in turn, reflect the views that most people in England, which was almost exclusively a Christian country, held about which actions are right or moral, and which are wrong or immoral.

Christian teaching that murder, burglary, robbery, adultery, fraud, rape, and other acts are wrong is not the only reason those acts were crimes at common law and still are, but it is a very important one. Widely held moral convictions do not just spring out of thin air, but are taught. Most of our state criminal laws developed through accretion, and the moral values they affirm derive directly from the moral values Christian churches were instilling in Englishmen--including English judges--centuries ago. Contrary to what you are implying, they were not created one day by some secular committee sitting in a room studying the most utilitarian ways to regulate society by law.

Whether religions other than Christianity consider some of the same acts wrong or immoral, or disagree with other religions about the morality of an act, it does not change the fact criminal prohibitions of those acts are largely based, in the end, on Christian teaching. As the Court noted in McGowan v. Maryland:

"[F]or temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc., because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue."
Click to expand...

What you fail to grasp is that Christianity developed its rules from other, earlier concepts of right or wrong, and just as they adapted from other beliefs, religions, with time, so too have they adapted since, as have our secular laws.

Murder is always illegal. The definition of murder is unlawful killing. Adultery is not illegal (outside of the military), and polygamy is only not recognized under our laws. It is not technically illegal to be in a group relationship or a relationship of more than one spouse so long as they are not legally recognized spouses.
 
roguenuke said:
What you fail to grasp is that Christianity developed its rules from other, earlier concepts of right or wrong, and just as they adapted from other beliefs, religions, with time, so too have they adapted since, as have our secular laws.
Click to expand...

I am sure the historical roots of Christianity make a fascinating subject, but they are irrelevant here. From the earliest days of America, our major criminal laws have derived directly from English common law. And that body of law was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Church of England about right and wrong. State criminal statutes have certainly modified the common law in some ways. At common law, for example, a burglary could only be committed at night and against another person's dwelling. I doubt if even one state today has not extended the definition of that crime by statute to include daytime acts against commercial buildings. But the reason for making burglary a crime has not changed, and it largely reflects the Christian teaching that it is a sin to steal. Whether Islam or some other religion shares that view is beside the point--judges in England and America were not consulting the Koran.

Murder is always illegal. The definition of murder is unlawful killing. Adultery is not illegal (outside of the military), and polygamy is only not recognized under our laws. It is not technically illegal to be in a group relationship or a relationship of more than one spouse so long as they are not legally recognized spouses.
Click to expand...

Your definition is pretty lax--not every unlawful killing is murder, in any state. And your statement about adultery is false. It is a crime in most states, if not all, even if it the laws against it are seldom enforced. What you say about polygamy is not accurate, either. Polygamy, like bigamy and adult incest, is illegal in every state in this country, and it always has been. It refers to plural marriage, not to sex acts among a group of people who are not married to each other but choose to call themselves "spouses."
 
matchlight said:
I am sure the historical roots of Christianity make a fascinating subject, but they are irrelevant here. From the earliest days of America, our major criminal laws have derived directly from English common law. And that body of law was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Church of England about right and wrong. State criminal statutes have certainly modified the common law in some ways. At common law, for example, a burglary could only be committed at night and against another person's dwelling. I doubt if even one state today has not extended the definition of that crime by statute to include daytime acts against commercial buildings. But the reason for making burglary a crime has not changed, and it largely reflects the Christian teaching that it is a sin to steal. Whether Islam or some other religion shares that view is beside the point--judges in England and America were not consulting the Koran.



Your definition is pretty lax--not every unlawful killing is murder, in any state. And your statement about adultery is false. It is a crime in most states, if not all, even if it the laws against it are seldom enforced. What you say about polygamy is not accurate, either. Polygamy, like bigamy and adult incest, is illegal in every state in this country, and it always has been. It refers to plural marriage, not to sex acts among a group of people who are not married to each other but choose to call themselves "spouses."
Click to expand...

You can't ignore though where those English laws came from.

Marrying multiple people legally is not allowed. But you can get into personal marriages with as many as you wish so long as not more than two people are tied legally to each other as spouses. That is what I said. Nothing about sexual activities.

There are only a few states with adultery still in the criminal statutes. They haven't been enforced in those states in at least a decade, and this is mainly because prosecutors do not want to face a constitutional challenge that is likely to end like Lawrence. Either way it goes, it would look bad.
 
roguenuke said:
But you can get into personal marriages with as many as you wish so long as not more than two people are tied legally to each other as spouses.
Click to expand...

You can call relationships of whatever nature among several people "personal marriages" if you want. You could just as easily say the people in a Toastmasters' group or a bird watching club are in personal marriages with each other, and if they chose to, they could call each other spouses. After all, as you just emphasized, personal marriages do not necessarily involve sex. But calling amorphous personal relationships "marriages," when they are not legally recognized, does not make them that.

There are only a few states with adultery still in the criminal statutes. They haven't been enforced in those states in at least a decade, and this is mainly because prosecutors do not want to face a constitutional challenge that is likely to end like Lawrence. Either way it goes, it would look bad.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are misstating the facts. According to a 2012 New York Times article, adultery was a crime in twenty-three states--nearly half--and a felony in five of them. I doubt most people would describe twenty-three states as "only a few." And your speculation about why adultery is seldom prosecuted aside, the fact remains that your statement that it is not a crime, except in the military, was false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom