• 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

Thank you Ernst Barkmann and Boudreaux...I have appreciated your discussion.
 
things change

the founders were not immortal, and their successors had to implement what they believed would follow the founding fathers intentions.

you said 200 years..200 years of what..the founders were classical liberals [libertarians]... and america was run on those ideas for 100 years.....now we have been run on democratic ideas for the last 100 or so years.
 
i want to make a correction, ......a few times i said force people to give you a license......if should should have been .....force people/business to marry you.

worldwatcher ......caught my error, and brought it to my attention
 
i want to make a correction, ......a few times i said force people to give you a license......if should should have been .....force people/business to marry you.

worldwatcher ......caught my error, and brought it to my attention


Marriages are performed by members of the clergy or by authorized person action an as an agent of the government (County Clerks, Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Judges, etc.).

Other private entities or persons do not perform Civil Marriage ceremonies and they are not "marrying" someone. A business baking a cake does not equal performing a Civil Marriage, a Florist delivering flowers is not performing a Civil Marriage, a Photographer taking pictures is not performing a Civil Marriage. The "marriage" is performed by members of the clergy or a government agent.

As pointed out before "Civil Marriage" laws are not the issue, the government shouldn't discriminate against it's citizens without a compelling government interest. The problem you keep trying to address (in this vain of the discussion) are Public Accommodation law that require private for-profit business to provide full and equal services to customers and prevent discrimination in the delivery of those goods and services based on various factors that include race, religion, national origin (at the federal level) and additionally can include at the state level (which can vary by state) - gender, sexual orienation, veterans status, family status, parental status, age, etc.





The funny thing is that the recent high profile cases Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), Elane Photogrpahy (New Mexico), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) all occurred under Public Accommodation laws in states where there was no Civil Marriage.



>>>>
 
It is a somewhat important distinction since orientation would probably fall under Rational Basis Review, while gender falls under Intermediate Scrutiny.

And since you like details, on top of this not being a states rights issue the "scrutiny" is also in question. Its has been thrust into the grey and questionable areas. While of course its not national yet and SCOTUS bailed on making the distinction GSK v. Abbott did ask that very question and ruled it should be Heightened Scrutiny. Just an FYI but your probably already knew. If not the long name is GLAXOSMITHKLINE V. ABBOTT LABS and heres a link:

https://casetext.com/case/glaxosmithkline-v-abbott-labs#.U3QCX_mIDPw


this is why I include this in my equal rights "updates" I post because it could end up being a very HUGE piece of the puzzle helping completing equality.
 
Marriages are performed by members of the clergy or by authorized person action an as an agent of the government (County Clerks, Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Judges, etc.).

Other private entities or persons do not perform Civil Marriage ceremonies and they are not "marrying" someone. A business baking a cake does not equal performing a Civil Marriage, a Florist delivering flowers is not performing a Civil Marriage, a Photographer taking pictures is not performing a Civil Marriage. The "marriage" is performed by members of the clergy or a government agent.

As pointed out before "Civil Marriage" laws are not the issue, the government shouldn't discriminate against it's citizens without a compelling government interest. The problem you keep trying to address (in this vain of the discussion) are Public Accommodation law that require private for-profit business to provide full and equal services to customers and prevent discrimination in the delivery of those goods and services based on various factors that include race, religion, national origin (at the federal level) and additionally can include at the state level (which can vary by state) - gender, sexual orienation, veterans status, family status, parental status, age, etc.





The funny thing is that the recent high profile cases Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), Elane Photogrpahy (New Mexico), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) all occurred under Public Accommodation laws in states where there was no Civil Marriage.



>>>>
Well you missed a couple ,there are business and people like a captain of a ship that have authority to marry.
 
Well you missed a couple ,there are business and people like a captain of a ship that have authority to marry.


Ship Captains, by virtue of their maritime license are not authorized to perform Civil Marriages. They have to also fall under one of the other classifications of persons either clergy or someone acting as a government agent.

I checked the code of Virginia and there is no default authorization that allows a ships captain to officiate a Civil Marriage for licenses issued by the Commonwealth. To be entitled to perform Civil Marriages they must also be clergy of acting in another government agent capacity.

According to federal regulation Navy Captains are not allowed to perform marriages on ships.

Can Boat Captains Really Marry People? | Mental Floss
The Straight Dope: Are ships' captains allowed to marry people at sea?


>>>>
 
Last edited:
Ship Captains, by virtue of their maritime license are not authorized to perform Civil Marriages. They have to also fall under one of the other classifications of persons either clergy or someone acting as a government agent.

I checked the code of Virginia and there is no default authorization that allows a ships captain to officiate a Civil Marriage for licenses issued by the Commonwealth. To be entitled to perform Civil Marriages they must also be clergy of acting in another government agent capacity.

According to federal regulation Navy Captains are not allowed to perform marriages on ships.

Can Boat Captains Really Marry People? | Mental Floss
The Straight Dope: Are ships' captains allowed to marry people at sea?


>>>>

i concede a great deal on the ships captain ..but .......not all the way true on captains, in reading say CA LAW...... its states that a captain of a ship can solemnized marriage if he qualifies under Family Code, Section 400-401.

meaning he was once a judge, and no longer one...and now a captain of a ship, and i believe this also applies to other states.


Freedom of association
with two competing views of the world

[A]rights-oriented liberalism that holds that a person's identity comes from individual choices (and that government ought to create a framework of laws that remove barriers to choice) ....which would be supported by libertarians

communitarianism, that holds that a person's identity comes from the communities of which an individual is a part (and that communities are an important buffer between the government and the individual) which would he supported by progressives

rights-oriented liberalism is based on negative rights

communitarianism is based on positive rights

liberty liberty and the pursue of happiness are .......negative rights.

Negative rights can be respected simply by each person refraining from interfering with each other, while it may be difficult or even impossible to fulfill everyone's positive rights if the sum of people's claims outstrips the resources available.

NATURAL RIGHTS/LIBERTARIANISM

I The idea of natural rights

A. What is a right?
1. Restrictions on what others may do,
2. creating obligations to observe them,
3. which are enforceable (i.e., by justified coercion—resistance,
compensation, punishment);
B. What is a natural right?
1. A right (and obligation) that is universal;
2. held by all persons;
3. Grounded in the nature of persons.

II Rights, Dignity, and Respect

A. Universal human rights and the idea of human dignity
B. Dignity as the object of respect: all human beings are entitled to respect of
their human rights.

III. John Locke and natural rights

A. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) and the critique of the Divine
Right of Kings

B. Locke: “Men being, . . ., by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one
can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another
without his own consent.” (B, 531) Social contract theory: the authority of
political society depends upon mutual consent.
C. Each person has “by nature” an equal right to life, liberty, and property. (B,
534)
D. Property rights in things derive from a fundamental natural right each has “of
property in his own person.” (B, 527)
1. Start with the premise that each person owns him or herself.
2. Now consider things in the “state of nature” (i.e., to which no one has
a prior right)—call these “natural things”
3. Suppose a person “removes [something] out of the state that nature has
provided, and left it in,” and “mixe his labour” with it. (B, 527)
4. Suppose also that someone else could then make use of this thing (or
whatever was produced by it) without the first person’s consent.
5. Then, in effect, the second would be able to make use of the labor and
person of the first without his consent.
6. But that contradicts the premise that each person owns him or herself.
7. Therefore, no person may make use of the “appropriated” thing
without the (first) person’s consent
8. Therefore, that person has a property right to that thing.
9. Note, however, Locke’s qualification: property can be acquired by
labor on previously unowned parts of nature so long as “there is
enough, and as good, left in common, for others.” (B, 527)

III. Therefore, according to Locke’s theory of natural rights, any human being has an
equal natural right to life, health, liberty, and to acquire property.

IV. Contemporary libertarianism

A. Starts with a roughly Lockean view about natural human rights.
B. Distinguishes negative rights vs. positive rights.
1. A negative right is a right to other people forbearing from interference
in other’s lives: e.g., by violence, theft, fraud, etc.
2. A positive right is a right to other people acting in certain “positive”
ways for the person. E.g., a right to to education would be a positive
right; it would be violated unless education were provided.
3. A test: a right claim concerns a negative right if it can be respected by
doing nothing at all. Otherwise, it is a positive right.
C. Libertarians claim that only negative rights exist: There are no positive rights.
D. This is equivalent to holding that while people may be coerced not to interfere
with others (i.e., not to violate their negative rights), no one may be coerced to
provide positive benefits.
E. Consequently, libertarians argue, to force anyone to do so is to violate their
negative rights.

V. Hospers’ formulation.

A. Underlying Principles
1. Everyone his/her own master.
2. Others’ lives are not yours.
3. No one should be a “nonvoluntary mortgage” on the life of another.
B. Natural Rights
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Property
C. Laws
1. No laws protecting individuals against themselves.
2. Laws against aggression.
3. No laws requiring people to benefit or help others in need.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdarwall/355l499.txt
 
It's really easy. Do those other than religiously ordained officiants (those authorized to sign a marriage license for states) get to decide now who they will and won't sign a marriage certificate for? If so, then there is no difference here. They choose to get authorized by the state to sign marriage certificates in a way that is non-religious (since, if it were religious, they would be ordained, not secular officiants of some sort). They cannot claim a religious exemption to performing a civil act in a secular capacity. Just as a civil servant working in a public office cannot refuse to give or file paperwork pertaining to same sex couples or interracial couples or interfaith couples. It doesn't matter if it is a marriage license or adoption records.

So far, all you've shown is that you have a particular political opinion on how you believe the Constitution should be interpreted. That is not in legal reality how it is interpreted.
 
It's really easy. Do those other than religiously ordained officiants (those authorized to sign a marriage license for states) get to decide now who they will and won't sign a marriage certificate for? If so, then there is no difference here. They choose to get authorized by the state to sign marriage certificates in a way that is non-religious (since, if it were religious, they would be ordained, not secular officiants of some sort). They cannot claim a religious exemption to performing a civil act in a secular capacity. Just as a civil servant working in a public office cannot refuse to give or file paperwork pertaining to same sex couples or interracial couples or interfaith couples. It doesn't matter if it is a marriage license or adoption records.

So far, all you've shown is that you have a particular political opinion on how you believe the Constitution should be interpreted. That is not in legal reality how it is interpreted.

lets refresh my position....

you as a person don't get a license from another person who performs a ceremony.

you get it from the state, you apply for it.

if i as a person become an ordained minster, and you can without ever setting a foot in a church, ....i can perform a ceremony.

if i take my certificate from the church, which it gives me, and i setup a business and perform ceremonies, then it is possible for someone to sue me for not performing a marriage ceremony for them.

civil ceremonies are performed by the state, and must be performed under equality under the law...because of constitutional law.

however, an ordained minster who does make religious statements on paper to get his certificate, .....could .......be found outside of law by going into business.......which under business, i have right to commerce, association, and property.

right to a marriage...would apply to a state.....not to a citizen or business.

you can NEVER have a right to anything, and exercise it on another person using force.

nothing can be a right, which lays a cost or burden on another citizen be it civil or natural.
 
lets refresh my position....

you as a person don't get a license from another person who performs a ceremony.

you get it from the state, you apply for it.

if i as a person become an ordained minster, and you can without ever setting a foot in a church, ....i can perform a ceremony.

if i take my certificate from the church, which it gives me, and i setup a business and perform ceremonies, then it is possible for someone to sue me for not performing a marriage ceremony for them.

civil ceremonies are performed by the state, and must be performed under equality under the law...because of constitutional law.

however, an ordained minster who does make religious statements on paper to get his certificate, .....could .......be found outside of law by going into business.......which under business, i have right to commerce, association, and property.

right to a marriage...would apply to a state.....not to a citizen or business.

you can NEVER have a right to anything, and exercise it on another person using force.

nothing can be a right, which lays a cost or burden on another citizen be it civil or natural.

A person can bring a lawsuit against someone for pretty much anything. The chances of actually winning a lawsuit you bring against someone else though is dependent on what you are suing over. For refusing to perform a wedding ceremony, it is highly unlikely that anyone in the US would win such a lawsuit, unless it was actually being brought against someone who was employed by the state. Even then, we haven't seen such a lawsuit (not that I'm aware of) despite incidents where people have been turned away by someone employed by the state, rather than ordained by a church.

You continue to think that what you believe about rights is how the law works. It isn't. And you cannot show any evidence that anyone, even those who have businesses set up to marry others, has been sued in the US for refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for any couple. Until that time, your fears of this situation are unfounded.

It could happen, but it could happen now, without same sex marriage being legal so it doesn't matter if same sex couples can legally marry or not. And marriage has already been ruled as a right, long ago.
 
A person can bring a lawsuit against someone for pretty much anything. The chances of actually winning a lawsuit you bring against someone else though is dependent on what you are suing over. For refusing to perform a wedding ceremony, it is highly unlikely that anyone in the US would win such a lawsuit, unless it was actually being brought against someone who was employed by the state. Even then, we haven't seen such a lawsuit (not that I'm aware of) despite incidents where people have been turned away by someone employed by the state, rather than ordained by a church.

You continue to think that what you believe about rights is how the law works. It isn't. And you cannot show any evidence that anyone, even those who have businesses set up to marry others, has been sued in the US for refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for any couple. Until that time, your fears of this situation are unfounded.

It could happen, but it could happen now, without same sex marriage being legal so it doesn't matter if same sex couples can legally marry or not. And marriage has already been ruled as a right, long ago.

true, you can sue anyone...does not mean it will go anywhere.

rights....can you name a right you have...which makes other people do things for you or give you things?..........materials goods or services.

you have rights, like anyone else....and government secures them.......from who?........they secure them from government and other people.........

if government violates your rights, ......its a constitutional violation.

if a person violates your rights.......ITS A CRIME!

is it a crime if i refuse to serve you?.............NO! ..its not a crime.... and BECAUSE I AM NOT VIOLATING A RIGHT....you have no right to be served by me......because that would be a compulsion on me ...by you ,..........to give you a service....1 citizen cannot force another to give them something.

you cannot exercise a right on me though force......you exercise your right ...ON GOVERNMENT...NOT OTHER PEOPLE.

a citizen does not give another citizen rights , ..those do not come from MAN.......so why are you demanding that i give you a ......right of service?..........which does not even exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom