The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Kyle Ricky on September 02, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
-
I put this in the DUmpster because I want the DUmmies to see it.
Anyway - I been hearing from people who are sternly for gay marriage claiming that it infringes on their rights. Well, I would like to know where it says in the constitution that marriage is a right?
-
It doesn' but that's not their argument.
They argue that if you allow A to marry than "equality under the law" requires you allow B, C and D marry as well.
-
I'm sure they'd happily extend that right to their young children, to all first cousins, to incest victims... ::)
-
It doesn' but that's not their argument.
They argue that if you allow A to marry than "equality under the law" requires you allow B, C and D marry as well.
With that being the case, would they agree with me if I told them that I want it to be legal for men to marry goats? Not that I actually do. It would be just to make a point.
-
It doesn' but that's not their argument.
They argue that if you allow A to marry than "equality under the law" requires you allow B, C and D marry as well.
In 1967, the Supreme Court defined marriage as a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia). The Loving decision invalidated the Tenth Amendment right of the state of Virginia at the same time it defined an individual's right under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The argument for legalization of same-sex marriage is based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The counter-argument is based on the states' rights under the 10th Amendment to define marriage under state law; that marriage is a contract between two parties and subject to state regulation; and that the ability to enter a contract for marriage is equally available to each individual.
-
With that being the case, would they agree with me if I told them that I want it to be legal for men to marry goats? Not that I actually do. It would be just to make a point.
Oh, hell yes. Goats should have the right be miserable, like the rest of us!
-
In 1967, the Supreme Court defined marriage as a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia). The Loving decision invalidated the Tenth Amendment right of the state of Virginia at the same time it defined an individual's right under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The argument for legalization of same-sex marriage is based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The counter-argument is based on the states' rights under the 10th Amendment to define marriage under state law; that marriage is a contract between two parties and subject to state regulation; and that the ability to enter a contract for marriage is equally available to each individual.
That is interesting. I never knew about that. I agree with it being a state issue, and letting the citizens of said state vote on it. The thing with the states that recognize is that the federal Gov. doesn't recognize it. So when a 'PARTNER' dies, the surviving 'PARTNER' will not be eligible for federal benefits, like SSI and such.
Oh, hell yes. Goats should have the right be miserable, like the rest of us!
:lmao: :rotf: :rofl:
-
Marriage is not a right.
Not for homos, not for heteros, not for anyone.
Millions who would like to marry cannot, and sometimes that's a lifelong situation.
You have as much right to marry as you have to play professional polo. It can be done if you gain the qualifications, but most likely you'll be in an amateur league. Even that requires a rider and a horse; two riders can't play polo-- any more than two men can truly make a married couple.
-
Marriage is not a right.
Not for homos, not for heteros, not for anyone.
Millions who would like to marry cannot, and sometimes that's a lifelong situation.
You have as much right to marry as you have to play professional polo. It can be done if you gain the qualifications, but most likely you'll be in an amateur league. Even that requires a rider and a horse; two riders can't play polo-- any more than two men can truly make a married couple.
The US Supreme Court disagreed with you, back in 1967. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html)
From the unanimous decision:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)."
-
The US Supreme Court disagreed with you, back in 1967. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html)
From the unanimous decision:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)."
I take the liberty of disagreeing right back at 'em. They were wrong. Apparently, unanimously wrong.
As wrong as they were 110 years before (Dred Scott v. Standford) which was not only wrong, but contributed to the outbreak of civil war; as wrong as they were in 2005 (Kelo v. City of New London), which may contribute to another.
I am aware that Contempt of Court is a jailable offense; I live with the knowledge that since my contempt for courts generally is so much a part of my personal philosophy, given the way some of these courts are abusing their authority, the day could come that I would be subject to arrest on sight, and I would have no honest plea but "guilty."
-
I take the liberty of disagreeing right back at 'em. They were wrong. Apparently, unanimously wrong.
As wrong as they were 110 years before (Dred Scott v. Standford) which was not only wrong, but contributed to the outbreak of civil war; as wrong as they were in 2005 (Kelo v. City of New London), which may contribute to another.
I am aware that Contempt of Court is a jailable offense; I live with the knowledge that since my contempt for courts generally is so much a part of my personal philosophy, given the way some of these courts are abusing their authority, the day could come that I would be subject to arrest on sight, and I would have no honest plea but "guilty."
Upon what Constitutional, legal, moral, or ethical basis do you hold that opinion?
-
Upon what Constitutional, legal, moral, or ethical basis do you hold that opinion?
I am unaware of any prohibition on holding an opinion; I therefore believe I am Contitutionally, legally, morally and ethically entitled to hold that or any other opinion, and have utter contempt for any person, entity, or court which would question, much less deny, that right.
Your opinion may differ; I have at one time or another sworn to defend with my life your right to hold and express your opinion, and fully respect it now.
Kindly grant me the same courtesy.
-
The entire discussion of equality is ridiculous. All U.S. citizens of legal age are free to find an allowable mate of the opposite sex and marry that person. We are all equal in that regard.
Some among us choose not to utilize that freedom because they would rather get their naked jollies with members of their own gender. They choose not to marry because it does not suit their desires or the needs of such perverse relationships.
It's like most of the DUmmies and gun ownership. They have the same freedom to keep and bare arms as the rest of us law abiding citizens. They choose not to utilize that freedom.
That's the beauty of freedom. It is sometimes inactive.
-
I am unaware of any prohibition on holding an opinion; I therefore believe I am Contitutionally, legally, morally and ethically entitled to hold that or any other opinion, and have utter contempt for any person, entity, or court which would question, much less deny, that right.
Your opinion may differ; I have at one time or another sworn to defend with my life your right to hold and express your opinion, and fully respect it now.
Kindly grant me the same courtesy.
I took the same oath.
I grant you every courtesy, sir. I have not said, nor implied, that you should not hold or express your opinion. I asked for the intellectual or emotional basis of that opinion. You are free to respond, or not.
If you are inclined to answer, I'll rephrase the question: Given you stated the opinion that marriage is not a fundamental individual right in the United States, and that you disagree with current stare decisis that marriage is a fundamental individual right, what is the basis (Constitutional, legal, moral, or ethical) for that opinion?
-
If marriage is a right, it must be defined, it can't be nebulous, and be whatever anyone wants it to be.
-
If marriage is a right, it must be defined, it can't be nebulous, and be whatever anyone wants it to be.
We have many rights which were not enumerated in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment specifically addresses the existence of those rights.
Three natural rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution:
1. The right to own property
2. The right to enter into private contracts
3. The right to have children (upheld in Skinner v. Oklahoma, and a basis for the current argument on same-sex marriage)
The Supreme Court recognized marriage as a right in Loving, but did not create the right. States define "marriage", per the 10th Amendment.
-
I took the same oath.
I grant you every courtesy, sir. I have not said, nor implied, that you should not hold or express your opinion. I asked for the intellectual or emotional basis of that opinion. You are free to respond, or not.
If you are inclined to answer, I'll rephrase the question: Given you stated the opinion that marriage is not a fundamental individual right in the United States, and that you disagree with current stare decisis that marriage is a fundamental individual right, what is the basis (Constitutional, legal, moral, or ethical) for that opinion?
I'm a third-shifter, and my "night" is beginning. I'll give you a short answer now, and if you would like me to expand upon it, please say so; I'll next be able to comment during my "lunch", 1:45 AM Eastern.
Short answer: My basis is "common sense", which tells me marriage is not an individual right in any place, at any time. Stare decisis hath been shewn in my answer above to be a very poor basis for coming to any alternate conclusion.
-
It is presently stare decisis (Federal District Court) that the taxpayers shall pay for a chopadickoffamy for a murderer/prisoner.
Federal judge orders taxpayer-funded sex change for wife killer (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20120904judge_orders_taxpayer-funded_sex-change_surgery_for_inmate/srvc=home&position=recent)
It's crap like this that fills me with contempt for US courts, including the "supremes", and to disregard their rulings, particularly when they flout common sense to such an enormous degree. Ain't no freakin' way a murderer in prison should get more than basic medical care, especially at taxpayer expense. I'd be against authorizing this surgery even if it was paid for in full by some misguided philanthropist.
A court's delaration that something is a "right", whether it be a chopadickoffamy or a wedding, does not make it one.
-
The Supreme Court recognized marriage as a right in Loving, but did not create the right. States define "marriage", per the 10th Amendment.
At the expense of sounding trite: while SCOTUS may call it a right I'm curious as to how they view incest and polygamy in this regard. If it were as much a right as they seem to suggest why should a man be limited in the number of wives he has when he can have as many books or guns as he sees fit? Siblings have a right to a contractual relation but do they have a right to coital relations?
-
At the expense of sounding trite: while SCOTUS may call it a right I'm curious as to how they view incest and polygamy in this regard. If it were as much a right as they seem to suggest why should a man be limited in the number of wives he has when he can have as many books or guns as he sees fit? Siblings have a right to a contractual relation but do they have a right to coital relations?
Marriage is a legal status conferred by contract.
Each citizen has the right to enter into a contract, in this case a marital contract. 9th Amendment.
Each state has the power to place limitations upon the marital contract; age, consanguinity, sex, mental fitness, or number of contracting parties. Different states have different limitations, with the exception of the number of parties, which is limited to two in all states. 10th Amendment.
The Loving decision explicitly stated the prior and current existence of the right to marry (9th Amendment), and declared that race was not a Constitutional basis upon which to limit the ability of the parties to contract. 14th Amendment, 'equal protection' clause.
The Constitutional conflict exists between the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. I predict the decision which will legalize same-sex marriage will be based on the balance of the right of the individual under the 9th and 14th vs. the power of the states under the 10th.
I subscribe to the principle that the government (federal and state) exists to protect the rights of the citizen. The rights of the citizen must take precedence over the power of the government, unless the government's compelling interest can be proven.
-
It is presently stare decisis (Federal District Court) that the taxpayers shall pay for a chopadickoffamy for a murderer/prisoner.
Federal judge orders taxpayer-funded sex change for wife killer (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20120904judge_orders_taxpayer-funded_sex-change_surgery_for_inmate/srvc=home&position=recent)
It's crap like this that fills me with contempt for US courts, including the "supremes", and to disregard their rulings, particularly when they flout common sense to such an enormous degree. Ain't no freakin' way a murderer in prison should get more than basic medical care, especially at taxpayer expense. I'd be against authorizing this surgery even if it was paid for in full by some misguided philanthropist.
A court's delaration that something is a "right", whether it be a chopadickoffamy or a wedding, does not make it one.
There is a difference between declaring that marriage is not a right (which is a statement of fact, and incorrect) and saying that you disagree with it (which is an opinion). I replied to the incorrect assertion of fact.
As far as the Massachusetts case, that's just bizarre. If I was a Massachusetts taxpayer, I'd expect my state to appeal.
-
There is a difference between declaring that marriage is not a right (which is a statement of fact, and incorrect) and saying that you disagree with it (which is an opinion). I replied to the incorrect assertion of fact.
As far as the Massachusetts case, that's just bizarre. If I was a Massachusetts taxpayer, I'd expect my state to appeal.
Very well then:
I was denied my individual right to marry for 24 years beyond age of majority and in three particular instances. To whom may I apply for redress, or does the fact that I eventually did marry strip me of standing?
-
Very well then:
I was denied my individual right to marry for 24 years beyond age of majority and in three particular instances. To whom may I apply for redress, or does the fact that I eventually did marry strip me of standing?
You wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex and you were STOPPED? What were you? In prison?
-
I wanted to get married and couldn't. You don't have to be in prison for that.
What you have to do is get your desired person to want to marry you back.
This is why I continue to deny that marriage is an individual right. You can't just get married because you want to.
When you have a right to do something, you can just go out and do it, right then. Like speaking, or worshipping God, or refusing to consent to a search and requiring a warrant.
Common sense...
-
Very well then:
I was denied my individual right to marry for 24 years beyond age of majority and in three particular instances. To whom may I apply for redress, or does the fact that I eventually did marry strip me of standing?
Who denied you that right?
-
I wanted to get married and couldn't. You don't have to be in prison for that.
What you have to do is get your desired person to want to marry you back.
This is why I continue to deny that marriage is an individual right. You can't just get married because you want to.
When you have a right to do something, you can just go out and do it, right then. Like speaking, or worshipping God, or refusing to consent to a search and requiring a warrant.
Common sense...
Oh, so you weren't denied any right to marry. You wanted special rights. There is a HUGE difference. Words mean things. You were denied nothing. We all have the same rights.
-
I subscribe to the principle that the government (federal and state) exists to protect the rights of the citizen. The rights of the citizen must take precedence over the power of the government, unless the government's compelling interest can be proven.
Alas, I have come to the proposition that far too often people decalre things they personally desire to be "rights" as a means to tell others "no, you can't say no."
If we continue to declare marriage a right than we will lose the ability to regulate it and with it the right to regulate our society. No, I'm not advocating social engineering, I'm advocating free people being able to consent to the laws governing them and being able to vote for issues according to their conscience. It's a balancing act and one that people have seldom been able to affect but we cannot impose a reverse tyranny of license in the name of freedom.
-
I wanted to get married and couldn't. You don't have to be in prison for that.
What you have to do is get your desired person to want to marry you back.
This is why I continue to deny that marriage is an individual right. You can't just get married because you want to.
When you have a right to do something, you can just go out and do it, right then. Like speaking, or worshipping God, or refusing to consent to a search and requiring a warrant.
Common sense...
You are confusing rights with opportunities.
A mute person has the right to "freedom of speech", even if he can't talk.
A man who lives alone has the right of "freedom of assembly", even if there is no one around to assemble with.
A man has the right to keep and bear arms, even if he doesn't have a gun in his house or live near a gun store, or has no hands with which to hold a rifle.
A man has the right to "freedom of the press", even if he is illiterate.
And an unborn baby has a right to life, even if he has no knowledge that the right exists.
-
Who denied you that right?
Uh...I think he's telling a stevenumbers story...he asked and she said no.
-
For what it's worth, this is my last word on the subject.
Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person. A=/=B.
That which depends on the agreement or permission of another person, is not an individual right. B=/=A.
It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.
In the event, however, it appears that such "right" is subject to the permission-- licensure-- of the State (Federal, Local, whatever)--which can be denied under such conditions as the State has decided. This argues against it being a right, but rather a privilege extended to those favored by the State and denied to those disfavored.
-
For what it's worth, this is my last word on the subject.
Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person. A=/=B.
That which depends on the agreement or permission of another person, is not an individual right. B=/=A.
It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.
In the event, however, it appears that such "right" is subject to the permission-- licensure-- of the State (Federal, Local, whatever)--which can be denied under such conditions as the State has decided. This argues against it being a right, but rather a privilege extended to those favored by the State and denied to those disfavored.
Too bad you ceded the field, friend. I encourage you to return.
You made several errors.
1. Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person.
Incorrect.
Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Each citizen has the right to peaceably assemble, yet it is physically impossible for one person to "peaceably assemble" alone. An enumerated individual right, which requires the assent and participation of at least two people.
2. It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.
Incorrect. But, I'll give you credit for misunderstanding my position, rather than deliberately mischaracterizing it.
Each person has the right to get married. Two people do not have the right to get married, as each right exists for an individual, even if exercising that right requires more than one person (see #1 above, or see "the right to make a contract".) The state has the power to place restrictions on the exercise of that right, as exists for every other right.
In conclusion, if you can convince the Supreme Court that your unsupported opinion trumps law and precedent, you may succeed in having "the right to marry" delisted from the rights the rest of us enjoy; but you're probably going to have to come up with a better argument than the one you presented here.
-
For what it's worth, this is my last word on the subject.
Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person. A=/=B.
That which depends on the agreement or permission of another person, is not an individual right. B=/=A.
It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.
In the event, however, it appears that such "right" is subject to the permission-- licensure-- of the State (Federal, Local, whatever)--which can be denied under such conditions as the State has decided. This argues against it being a right, but rather a privilege extended to those favored by the State and denied to those disfavored.
Don't bow out of this debate now, I am enjoying following your very strong arguments and logic.