• 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!

Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Gay Marriage Ban

TheDemSocialist said:
The original constitution violated "natural rights" by your definition.
Click to expand...

do it did not..... because blacks [slaves] were property...they were not citizens, and had no natural rights or privileges.

voting was not a right under the founders, it was a privilege which you can have, if you must pay taxes and own property...why was this a condition?

because it you don't pay taxes, and don't own any property, then you will use your vote, to take property from those who have it..........this from the founders.

Madison -The right of suffrage [civil right] is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution recognizes two different rights..

natural rights which come from our humanity.

civil rights / legal rights/ IE..privileges which are dispensed by government to the people, these privileges are to be dispensed in an equal fashion to all people [EQULITY under the law], unless [as you and I have discussed before] the state can show it is in their interest not to give a person a privilege.

natural rights do not NEVER violate privileges, they have no power of force behind them to force another citizen to provide a good or service.

privileges created by government do sometimes violates the natural rights of people .......because they are created by governments.

therefore any privilege government creates and dispenses... which violates natural rights....life, liberty, and property of others citizen's is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Marriage is a natural right if you view it as a contract between two individuals that is simply recognized and enforced by the state because it generally pertains to the property, life, and liberty of the couple.

Marriage is a civil right if you view it as a license granted by the state and regulated to the extent that it can only violate Constitutional protections if doing so serves rational and legitimate state interests.
 
ernst barkmann said:
do it did not..... because blacks [slaves] were property...they were not citizens, and had no natural rights or privileges.
Click to expand...
So it depends on the time. That is exactly whats wrong with our Constitution.

voting was not a right under the founders, it was a privilege which you can have, if you must pay taxes and own property...why was this a condition?
Click to expand...
Also what was wrong with our Constitution

because it you don't pay taxes, and don't own any property, then you will use your vote, to take property from those who have it..........this from the founders.
Click to expand...
Or it what was, if you dont have a dick or land, or were white, then **** you!


Madison -The right of suffrage [civil right] is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
Click to expand...

In other words, if you were'nt a black, or a woman, or a peasant, THEN WE WILL DOMINATE YOU!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You are right it does not permit businesses directly. It overrides all laws that permit businesses that do not direct them to treat people equally. " It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."
Click to expand...

state government creates privileges for the people...business does not.

equality UINDER the law means..."all laws created by government will be applied to every person equally, no one will be exempt from the law.

in other words, ....you cannot be held accountable for breaking a law, and I am NOT held accountable if I perform the same action you did.

there is no EQULITY BY LAW.....

government cannot give you a privilege to use on my property, which violates my natural right i have .....because I am on my property
 
ernst barkmann said:
state government creates privileges for the people...business does not.
Click to expand...
That throws out the whole idea of federalism then.

equality UINDER the law means..."all laws created by government will be applied to every person equally, no one will be exempt from the law.
Click to expand...
Uhhh quick question.. How did you get the end of that quote?

in other words, ....you cannot be held accountable for breaking a law, and I am NOT held accountable if I perform the same action you did.
Click to expand...
Sooo.. If you break a law, you are not accountable? And neither am I? What the flying ****?

there is no EQULITY BY LAW.....
Click to expand...
So you are fundamentally against our Constitution?



government cannot give you a privilege to use on my property, which violates my natural right i have .....because I am on my property
Click to expand...
Except they have the right to tax you. Have fun arguing that in court. Or hell go hang out with Bundy.
 
ernst barkmann said:
state government creates privileges for the people...business does not.

equality UINDER the law means..."all laws created by government will be applied to every person equally, no one will be exempt from the law.

in other words, ....you cannot be held accountable for breaking a law, and I am NOT held accountable if I perform the same action you did.

there is no EQULITY BY LAW.....

government cannot give you a privilege to use on my property, which violates my natural right i have .....because I am on my property
Click to expand...

The state cannot enforce equality by law. It can only limit laws that are themselves discriminatory. That is the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause. Not to try to use law to enforce equality, but to limit states' rights to create laws that violate the Constitutional protections of various groups without serving any reasonable or legitimate state interests.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So it depends on the time. That is exactly whats wrong with our Constitution.
Click to expand...


wrong!....the constitution is not a liberating document....it does not give nor grant anything to the people, the constitution creates ....FEDERALISM.....THATS WHAT IT DOES.


TheDemSocialist said:
Also what was wrong with our Constitution!
Click to expand...


wrong......with voting it merely says states are in charge of voting....the constitution does not give the states any powers, it delegates few powers to the federal government, limiting them.


TheDemSocialist said:
Or it what was, if you dont have a dick or land, or were white, then **** you!!
Click to expand...

the founders wanted people who have a stake in America to vote.

example...if you don't pay income taxes....do you care if income taxes a raised?.....no,... so if a politician tells you he going to raise income taxes on people, and redistribute it to you, ..are you going to vote for him...more then likely you will..............income taxes is stealing to the founders.




TheDemSocialist said:
In other words, if you were'nt a black, or a woman, or a peasant, THEN WE WILL DOMINATE YOU!
Click to expand...

wrong!!!!!!!!...and you show you do not understand what he is saying, so you post such a foolish statement.

Madison is saying because of the feudal polity of history, we know that if you give the majority who don't have a stake in society the vote, they will use that vote, by measures of injustice to take property from those that due.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
The state cannot enforce equality by law. It can only limit laws that are themselves discriminatory. That is the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause. Not to try to use law to enforce equality, but to limit states' rights to create laws that violate the Constitutional protections of various groups without serving any reasonable or legitimate state interests.
Click to expand...

I said equality under the law.


it means all laws passed by a government must be applied equally to every person......no person is exempt from the law.

you cannot hold 1 person accountable for doing an action, but not another person for the same action.

equality by law is government creating laws, making[ forcing]people treat each other equally in society.....which they have no authority to do....I as a citizen do not have to treat you equally as I do another person.........it does not mean I can steal ,defraud you ...so don't go there.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
wrong!....the constitution is not a liberating document....it gives nor grants anything to the people, the constitution creates ....FEDERALISM.....THATS WHAT IT DOES.





wrong......with voting it merely says states are in charge of voting....the constitution does not give the states any powers, it delegates few powers to the federal government, limiting them.




the founders wanted people who have a stake in America to vote.

example...if you don't pay income taxes....do you care if income taxes a raised?.....no,... so if a politician tells you he going to raise income taxes on people, and redistribute it to you, ..are you going to vote for him...more then likely you will..............income taxes is stealing to the founders.






wrong!!!!!!!!...and you show you do not understand what he is saying, so you post such a foolish statement.

Madison is saying because of the feudal polity of history, we know that if you give the majority who don't have a stake in society the vote, they will use that vote, by measures of injustice to take property from those that due.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to the Founders, they were imperfect human beings who made an imperfect document, and granted to future generations the ability to AMEND that document. The income tax is one such amendment and it too can be amended if the populace decides upon that course.
 
ernst barkmann said:
I said equality under the law.


it means all laws passed by a government must be applied equality to every person......no person is exempt from the law.

you cannot hold 1 person accountable for doing an action, but not another person for the same action.

equality by law is government creating laws, making[ forcing]people treat each other equally in society.....which they have no authority to do....I as a citizen do not have to treat you equally as I do another person.........it does I can steal ,defraud you ...so don't go there.
Click to expand...

At this point I am completely lost on how your argument has any relevance to the thread topic.
 
CriticalThought said:
Marriage is a natural right if you view it as a contract between two individuals that is simply recognized and enforced by the state because it generally pertains to the property, life, and liberty of the couple.

Marriage is a civil right if you view it as a license granted by the state and regulated to the extent that it can only violate Constitutional protections if doing so serves rational and legitimate state interests.
Click to expand...

ok.... if marriage is natural right....then can you make[by force of law] a church or a business, a private citizen [ship captain] marry you..preform ceremony?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
At this point I am completely lost on how your argument has any relevance to the thread topic.
Click to expand...

because some people believe equality under the law means.....government is suppose to make laws to see everyone is equal in society. This is false....that is equity by law.

equally under law means.... governments will treat everyone equally.....not people or business.
 
CriticalThought said:
With all due respect to the Founders, they were imperfect human beings who made an imperfect document, and granted to future generations the ability to AMEND that document. The income tax is one such amendment and it too can be amended if the populace decides upon that course.
Click to expand...


the founders created a constitution that setup the federal government's structure, and instituted federalism between the states and the new federal government.......AND THATS ALL!

IT DID NOT GIVE OR GRANTS RIGHTS, IT DID NOT FREE PEOPLE, .....SO WHY DO PEOPLE BELIVE THE FOUNDERS CREATED A FAILED DOCUMENT.........WHEN ITS NOT ABOUT GIVING RIGHTS to THE PEOPLE, OR GRANTINGS ANY FREEDOMS.

the constitution was ratified by the states...not the people....because the states gave some of their powers to the federal government...the people gave nothing!
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
ok.... if marriage is natural right....then can you make[by force of law] a church or a business, a private citizen [ship captain] marry you..preform ceremony?
Click to expand...

No. The state will recognize my marriage but a church is private property and i have no right to acess it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution recognizes two different rights..

natural rights which come from our humanity.

civil rights / legal rights/ IE..privileges which are dispensed by government to the people, these privileges are to be dispensed in an equal fashion to all people [EQULITY under the law], unless [as you and I have discussed before] the state can show it is in their interest not to give a person a privilege.

natural rights do not NEVER violate privileges, they have no power of force behind them to force another citizen to provide a good or service.

privileges created by government do sometimes violates the natural rights of people .......because they are created by governments.

therefore any privilege government creates and dispenses... which violates natural rights....life, liberty, and property of others citizen's is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Every single right we have guaranteed by the Constitution can be limited in some way. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the power of the government and to help in determining where exactly the rights of one person begin and the other end when it appears that their rights overlap or are in conflict.
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok.... if marriage is natural right....then can you make[by force of law] a church or a business, a private citizen [ship captain] marry you..preform ceremony?
Click to expand...

Would you say that freedom of religion or freedom of speech is also a "natural right"? If so, then you have two "natural rights" in conflict here. So then it would just be a matter of determining whose rights are more important to be upheld given the circumstances here.

Since those wishing to get married have numerous other options and don't require a church at all to marry them/perform their wedding in order to be legally married, then there is no legitimate reason to force any church/clergy to violate their religious beliefs to perform a ceremony they don't approve of for this couple. Just as you may have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to go into a church and disrupt a service or even just anyone in there by speaking within that church about whatever, whether it is speaking out against the church, ranting about something you feel the church did to wrong you or someone else, or even simply just babbling.
 
someone here really LIKES TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS WHEN DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION!!!
 
Deuce said:
No. The state will recognize my marriage but a church is private property and i have no right to acess it.
Click to expand...

alright, if its private property, can anyone who preforms a marriage, ..business ...ship 's captain be forced to perform a ceremony?
 
roguenuke said:
You are mistaken. Every single right we have guaranteed by the Constitution can be limited in some way. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the power of the government and to help in determining where exactly the rights of one person begin and the other end when it appears that their rights overlap or are in conflict.
Click to expand...

I stated you have natural rights and privileges

natural from your humanity.

privileges from government.

natural rights NEVER violate privileges.

privileges CAN violates natural rights.....because they are created by governments.

any privileges which government creates that violates natural rights is unconstitutional
 
roguenuke said:
Would you say that freedom of religion or freedom of speech is also a "natural right"? If so, then you have two "natural rights" in conflict here. So then it would just be a matter of determining whose rights are more important to be upheld given the circumstances here.

Since those wishing to get married have numerous other options and don't require a church at all to marry them/perform their wedding in order to be legally married, then there is no legitimate reason to force any church/clergy to violate their religious beliefs to perform a ceremony they don't approve of for this couple. Just as you may have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to go into a church and disrupt a service or even just anyone in there by speaking within that church about whatever, whether it is speaking out against the church, ranting about something you feel the church did to wrong you or someone else, or even simply just babbling.
Click to expand...

I am not making the point churches will be forced, ...at the root of what I am asking is......if SSM is legal....can it in any way force a citizen, business, to perform a ceremony for 2 people wanting be married?

because force, it something government has no authority to engage it if no rights are violated, or the health and safety of the public is not at risk
 
ernst barkmann said:
I am not making the point churches will be forced, ...at the root of what I am asking is......if SSM is legal....can it in any way force a citizen, business, to perform a ceremony for 2 people wanting be married?

because force, it something government has no authority to engage it if no rights are violated, or the health and safety of the public is not at risk
Click to expand...

well its the same as hetero sexual marriage so are you concerned that some 1 might be forced to marry an opposite sex couple? if not theirs no need to worry about ssm
 
ernst barkmann said:
sounds like someone has been rubbed the wrong way.
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. Your argument literally makes no sense. Its just typing in all caps a originalist arguments (many of which have been upheld opposite directions by the USSSC).
 
ernst barkmann said:
I am not making the point churches will be forced, ...at the root of what I am asking is......if SSM is legal....can it in any way force a citizen, business, to perform a ceremony for 2 people wanting be married?

because force, it something government has no authority to engage it if no rights are violated, or the health and safety of the public is not at risk
Click to expand...

Businesses do not perform ceremonies, people do. And it has held pretty firm for the last couple hundred years that no one can force another person to perform a ceremony for someone else unless the person performing the "ceremony" is being paid by the government.

And one of the problems we have is that this is a matter of someone's rights vs another's (actually two people's, as of right now) rights being in conflict. The details are what will determine whether the person is "forced" to perform the ceremony or not. With our laws and the Constitution, the only person who can be forced to solemnize a marriage between two people they might not agree with would be a JOP, and it would not necessarily be a ceremony (in fact, it wouldn't likely be a ceremony at all, but I have no idea really how a JOP works marriages). And the reason the JOP would be forced to do it (at least sign the marriage license, because really that is the only thing that legally matters when it comes to the legal involvement of the third most important person on the marriage license, that they sign it signifying only that the couple are consenting on their own to the marriage) would be because they are essentially state employees that maintain this responsibility for the state.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution recognizes two different rights..natural rights which come from our humanity. civil rights / legal rights/ IE..privileges which are dispensed by government to the people, these privileges are to be dispensed in an equal fashion to all people [EQULITY under the law], unless [as you and I have discussed before] the state can show it is in their interest not to give a person a privilege. natural rights do not NEVER violate privileges, they have no power of force behind them to force another citizen to provide a good or service.privileges created by government do sometimes violates the natural rights of people .......because they are created by governments. therefore any privilege government creates and dispenses... which violates natural rights....life, liberty, and property of others citizen's is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

There seems to be some major confusion here.
`
1) "Natural Rights" is a theory (see: philosophy), not a legal prescription or a statutory requirement. It is NOT directly mentioned in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

2) The idea of human rights is also closely and philosophically related to that of natural rights, but was also not mentioned. (Source)

3) The word "Privileges" as mentioned in The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution meaning was decided by SCOTUS in its 1869 decision, to wit;

"It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws"- Source​

There are no such things as "legal privileges", unless you have your own personal definition of the US Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom