• 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!

Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban

Deuce said:
Try to stick to the topic. Two dudes getting married is not tyranny.
Click to expand...

if you force another person to give you a license, by using government as your muscle......you are threatening them!

you cannot exercise a right over a right..........to get a license

people have rights.

government does not have rights, it has powers...you can exercise a right over a power.

governments have to obey the law with you exercising your right .....YOU can force governments to marry you...you cannot force people, who have rights
 
ernst barkmann said:
the bill of rights did not apply to states until after the civil war by.... USSC RULING....states did not obey the bill of rights because the restrictions by it are only federal.

by the USSC ruling states had to obey it....it placed NEW restrictions on states...THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE.

state could regulate firearms before the ruling...now they cant according to constitutional law..its prohibited.
Click to expand...
The 14th amendment changed that, yes.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if you force another person to give you a license, by using government as your muscle......you are threatening them!

you cannot exercise a right over a right..........to get a license

people have rights.

government does not have rights, it has powers...you can exercise a right over a power.

governments have to obey the law with you exercising you right .....can force governments to marry you.
Click to expand...

"Another person" doesn't give the license to you. The state issues marriage licenses.
 
Deuce said:
The 14th amendment changed that, yes.
Click to expand...

YOU ARE CORRECT!

if tells states, they cannot deny [exercise] people their rights.........BUT ....it does not say people can force other people to excise their rights .

each citizen has rights, and no citizen can excise a right on top of another citizen RIGHTS... using the government as their tool.
 
Deuce said:
"Another person" doesn't give the license to you. The state issues marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

that is true...government recognizes the marriage...and they have to by law....14th

but a citizen is not bound to the 14th to do anything for you.....

using his rights/his liberty he excises his own decision whether he will do anything for you...that is what liberty means.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if you force another person to give you a license, by using government as your muscle......you are threatening them!

you cannot exercise a right over a right..........to get a license

people have rights.

government does not have rights, it has powers...you can exercise a right over a power.

governments have to obey the law with you exercising your right .....YOU can force governments to marry you...you cannot force people, who have rights
Click to expand...


No one is "forced" to issue a marriage license. You take a job, say as County Clerk, your job duties are to:

Maintain Marriage Records
Maintain Birth Records
Maintain Death Records​

When you voluntarily accept the job you voluntarily agree to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job, if you don't want to perform the functions as defined for the job - don't take the job. No one issues Civil Marriage licenses except government employees acting as agents of the government.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
No one is "forced" to issue a marriage license. You take a job, say as County Clerk, your job duties are to:

Maintain Marriage Records
Maintain Birth Records
Maintain Death Records​

When you voluntarily accept the job you voluntarily agree to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job, if you don't want to perform the functions as defined for the job - don't take the job. No one issues Civil Marriage licenses except government employees acting as agents of the government.



>>>>
Click to expand...

lets stay in correct respective here

government cannot discriminate......at all!


private citizens......non members of government...are not bound to constitutional law

every citizen has rights.......no citizen can excise a natural right or a civil right, ............on top of another citizens rights.

citizens can excise a right...on top of ..... powers of government
 
ernst barkmann said:
if you force another person to give you a license, by using government as your muscle......you are threatening them!

you cannot exercise a right over a right..........to get a license
Click to expand...
ernst barkmann said:
lets stay in correct respective here

government cannot discriminate......at all!


private citizens......non members of government...are not bound to constitutional law

every citizen has rights.......no citizen can excise a natural right or a civil right, ............on top of another citizens rights.

citizens can excise a right...on top of ..... powers of government
Click to expand...


Yes lets keep perspective as to what I responded to you said: "if you force another person to give you a license"

Civil Marriage licenses are obtained from the government, employees performing those duties are acting as agents of the government. You don't get Civil Marriage licenses from "private citizens", you get them from agents of the government.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Yes lets keep perspective as to what I responded to you said: "if you force another person to give you a license"

Civil Marriage licenses are obtained from the government, employees performing those duties are acting as agents of the government. You don't get Civil Marriage licenses from "private citizens", you get them from agents of the government.



>>>>
Click to expand...

ok....anything that has to do with government...they cannot deny you a license or getting married by a government official...they have to follow the 14th

a private citizen cannot be forced, to have to participate is any way in the marriage as a whole......because the couple cannot excise a right on another citizen to force them to do something for them using government as their tool.

you cannot exercise a right on top of a right......only on top of a power.......government have powers..
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok....anything that has to do with government...they cannot deny you a license or getting married by a government official...they have to follow the 14th

a private citizen cannot be forced, to have to participate is any way in the marriage as a whole......because the couple cannot excise a right on another citizen to force them to do something for them using government as their tool.

you cannot exercise a right on top of a right......only on top of a power.......government have powers..
Click to expand...



You are talking about two completely different aspects of the law: Same-sex Civil Marriage and Public Accommodation laws.


Civil Marriage laws are strictly between you (the couple) and the government.

Public Accommodation laws have to do with regulation of commerce. Such laws have been found constitutional at all levels of judicial review including State Supreme Court (under the 10th Amendment power of the State to regulate commerce) and from a federal level under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.



The government should not discriminate against it's citizens unless there is a compelling government interest in treating like situated citizens differently. I've watched the debate for going on 10 years and no one has articulated a compelling government interest as to why like situated couples (law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults) should be treated differently based on the gender composition of the couple.

Public Accommodation laws on the other hand are Constitutional, but just because the government is allowed to do something - doesn't mean it should. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws (as applied to private businesses) because - IMHO - they usurp the rights of property and free association of the business owner. Just because I disagree with a law though doesn't make it unconstitutional, the only way we will get rid of Public Accommodation laws is to convince the legislatures to repeal them.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
You are talking about two completely different aspects of the law: Same-sex Civil Marriage and Public Accommodation laws.


Civil Marriage laws are strictly between you (the couple) and the government.

Public Accommodation laws have to do with regulation of commerce. Such laws have been found constitutional at all levels of judicial review including State Supreme Court (under the 10th Amendment power of the State to regulate commerce) and from a federal level under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.



The government should not discriminate against it's citizens unless there is a compelling government interest in treating like situated citizens differently. I've watched the debate for going on 10 years and no one has articulated a compelling government interest as to why like situated couples (law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults) should be treated differently based on the gender composition of the couple.

Public Accommodation laws on the other hand are Constitutional, but just because the government is allowed to do something - doesn't mean it should. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws (as applied to private businesses) because - IMHO - they usurp the rights of property and free association of the business owner. Just because I disagree with a law though doesn't make it unconstitutional, the only way we will get rid of Public Accommodation laws is to convince the legislatures to repeal them.



>>>>
Click to expand...

i am staying as close to rights as close as i can.

you have natural rights from god....and you have civil rights [privileges /immunities] given to you by government.

since government gives you privileges/ immunities....it is the one who must honor those, by the 14th, a citizen does not honor privileges and immunities.

no citizen, can state they have a civil right or natural right on another persons property to exercise using it to force the property owner to do anything......that is excising a right on top of a right.

you cannot exercise a right on top of a right.........only on top of a power which government has....they are the ones bound to see your rights are secure..........not a citizen who has property.

and you cannot usurp rights....as you stated
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I'm not convinced it's all that important because I don't think same sex marriage bans can pass rational basis either. The state interest identified is usually procreation, and I'm not sure how someone can rationally believe same sex marriage bans create more babies.
Click to expand...

It probably won't matter because you are right in that SSM bans do not pass Rational Basis Review. However, I am a stickler for details and stuff, and there is less question under Intermediate Scrutiny.

The procreation argument for SSM bans fails in both logical and legal sense. People who cannot have children can get married and there is no test to a couple's ability to have children, so to deny a group based on procreation is arbitrary, which fai8ls Rational Basis clearly. Plus gay people can have children, and do...and a few other arguments I don't have time to delve into and you probably already know.
 
ernst barkmann said:
lets stay in correct respective here

government cannot discriminate......at all!
Click to expand...

The government can and does discriminate, every single day. There are limits to it's ability to do so, but it can discriminate.
 
Redress said:
The government can and does discriminate, every single day. There are limits to it's ability to do so, but it can discriminate.
Click to expand...

well its does, their is a condition to that

but for the most part it cannot discriminate against a citizen, because it must treat everyone the same...however .......if government can show[in court] it is IN their interest to deny a privilege to a citizen, then it can be found to be legal.
 
ernst barkmann said:
and you cannot usurp rights....as you stated
Click to expand...


I didn't say you cannot usurp rights, I said the government must demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify usurping rights.

Example:
1. Right: I have a right to own a fire arm.
2. Law: A violent felon cannot own a fire arm.
3. Justification: By breaking the law in a violent manner and individual has shown they cannot handle the responsibilities that go along with exercising a the right to bear arms.​

The legislatures have provided to the courts a plausible compelling government interest in regards for Public Accommodation laws, the courts have accepted their reasoning. The only thing we can do it try to convince the legislators that Public Accommodation laws do more harm than good compared to 3-generations ago.



>>>>
 
ernst barkmann said:
well its does, their is a condition to that

but for the most part it cannot discriminate against a citizen, because it must treat everyone the same...however .......if government can show[in court] it is IN their interest to deny a privilege to a citizen, then it can be found to be legal.
Click to expand...

And that is wrong too.
 
having some problems posting here...

Public Accommodation laws are not constitutional...why?


you have natural rights given to you by god........i cannot use those rights on your property...you can have me removed for trespassing.

you have civil rights [privileges]......how does civil rights created by man, have more power then a right created by god?
 
ernst barkmann said:
no i didn't say that, i said you and the left...i have never not know someone from the left who did not like democracy.

there are plenty of people on the right who like democracy, and plenty that dont

people who like democracy are either ignorant of what it really is, or are socialist.
Click to expand...

You do realize direct democracy is not the only form of democracy right?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You do realize direct democracy is not the only form of democracy right?
Click to expand...

yes i do, however when the people directly vote for laws by referendums, initiatives......that is what direct democracy is.

if you vote for an official, and he votes for laws and does the bidding of the people, ..that is Representative democracy.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is true...government recognizes the marriage...and they have to by law....14th

but a citizen is not bound to the 14th to do anything for you.....

using his rights/his liberty he excises his own decision whether he will do anything for you...that is what liberty means.
Click to expand...
Literally nobody in this country has ever been forced to officiate any marriage ceremony. Legalizing same sex marriage does not change this. (Public employees may be an exception, but they work for the government and therefore lack the right to make certain discriminations in regards to their duties)
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes i do, however when the people directly vote for laws by referendums, initiatives......that is what direct democracy is.

if you vote for an official, and he votes for laws and does the bidding of the people, ..that is Representative democracy.
Click to expand...

I know. So whats your point? There are strict regulations in states when a referendum can be used. Both republicans and democrats use referendums. But what does this have to do with the current situation?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I know. So whats your point? There are strict regulations in states when a referendum can be used. Both republicans and democrats use referendums. But what does this have to do with the current situation?
Click to expand...

because according to constitutional law..."the guarantee" in the constitution" referendums direct democracy is illegal.

you cannot use direct democracy of the people to vote on the rights of other people, ...that is majority rule!
 
Deuce said:
Literally nobody in this country has ever been forced to officiate any marriage ceremony. Legalizing same sex marriage does not change this. (Public employees may be an exception, but they work for the government and therefore lack the right to make certain discriminations in regards to their duties)
Click to expand...

ok...that is what i am saying......no one can ever be forced to preform a ceremony, or be part of a marriage by commerce acts...though civil rights.

natural rights, civil rights, have no power to force another citizen to do things against their will...it only has the power to force government to do things.

you cannot use a right, against a right!
 
ernst barkmann said:
because according to constitutional law..."the guarantee" in the constitution" referendums direct democracy is illegal.

you cannot use direct democracy of the people to vote on the rights of other people, ...that is majority rule!
Click to expand...

Show me where in the Constitution of the united states where it says state governments can or cannot have referendums? Which article exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom