It is highly possible that Goober is about to be banned from this site forever. We’ll see.
I finally worked up the courage to post this after considering it for a couple of days, and I hope that you all will read it for the points that I make in it, as opposed to taking this as a pro-gay-marriage stance.
What I am talking about is this:
The 9th Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly states that the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are not an all-encompassing, all inclusive list of every fundamental right that we, the citizens, enjoy. It is merely a “top ten” list of the ones that the Founding Fathers saw to be the most important, and worth putting into words. Many of them were totally against a Bill of Rights to begin with, because they feared that it would be interpreted as an “unabridged, complete listing” rather than a “top ten,” as was intended. The 9th Amendment was the compromise that got the Bill of Rights written on paper.
Additionally, the Founding Fathers feared democracy. See my posting on the Franchise, and also on voter pools and the proposition system. I could go into more detail on this here, but I won’t. They saw democracy as “majority mob rule” and did what they could to mitigate it’s ill effects via Constitutional Republic.
The Federal Government does not have a referendum system specifically because of that fact.
Constitutions are written to ensure that we, the people, and they, the government do not go too far in our desires of the moment, and in the process, trample the rights of the minority voter (the oppressed 49%). Many States, however, do have a referendum system, which is prone to the excesses, desires, and passions of the moment. Like the unintended consequences in Washington State when people voted to stop “the big bad hunter” from hurting Yogi and Booboo the bears, the popular passions of the moment often don’t accept the reality of a situation, and lead to a net detrimental effect on everyone. Likewise, many referenda are in direct violation of the Constitution, both State and Federal, and therefore need to be struck down by the courts afterwards to preserve and protect the basic law of the land. To not do so would ensure un-tempered majority mob rule, and the implications would be disastrous.
Gun ownership in Washington State would be illegal, if it were not for Courts striking down unconstitutional referendums. How many other states would have followed suit? Simply because the majority of voters approved something does not mean that it is right, just, or constitutional.
With these things in mind, I would like to apply this train of thought to Proposition 8, in the great State of California.
First off, we may first take notice that the Constitution, the State Constitution, and any case law on the subject fails to answer the question on whether or not it is illegal for same-sex couples to marry. Therefore, we must apply what we know about the Bill of Rights to determine if this is something that can be taken away from an individual by popular vote.
The specific rights detailed in the Bill of Rights do not approach this subject directly. The 9th Amendment, however, states that they don’t NEED to in order for it to still be an “untouchable” fundamental right. Typically, you need to apply a set of tests to something to see if it can, or should, be allowed to be denied to someone. Those include:
1.) Does it harm, or in any way impose upon the rights of other individuals?
2.) Does it harm the United States of America?
3.) Does it contribute to some other Constitutionally illegal activity?
4.) Is it in the best public interest to deny this activity in some way?
I cannot think of a single one of the above that would apply to gay marriage. Can you?
The preamble of the Constitution backs up a basic tenant of the American legal system, which was set in place in the first official document written by the US government; the Declaration of Independence. That basic tenant is the protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” “Life” is probably not relevant here, but the other two very much are. “Liberty” means the ability to do anything, without fear of legal sanction, that does not violate another individual’s rights, or in some other way harm the United States of America. “The pursuit of happiness” is a concept that guarantees an individual the right to pursue what makes him or her happy in their life, so long as that pursuit does not violate another individual’s rights, or in some other way harm the United States of America.
By my interpretation, that means gay marriage cannot be banned under our current Constitution. An individual has yet to make a compelling argument to me why the 9th Amendment should not apply to same-sex marriage, and until that is accomplished, I cannot, in good faith, say that Proposition 8 should not be ruled unconstitutional and eliminated.
The fact that an activity offends your sensibilities is not enough to say that it is not a right, and therefore legally sanction it. I give you despicable free speech as a perfect example. A man advocating the destruction of born-alive, viable infants in order to further the right to abortion, for instance, may disgust and enrage you, but the government doesn’t get to tell him that he can’t say it, no matter how many constituents disagree with him, even if it is a majority.
Whether or not I agree with the gay lifestyle, agenda, and subsequently, their ability to get married, is irrelevant. The same goes for you. The only relevant question is, does our Constitution give us the power or right to deny them their liberty and pursuit of happiness? I have yet to see a compelling argument that it does. I’d be interested to see what you intelligent folks have to say.
That the referendum system violated a right that you don’t agree with doesn’t make it right; it may be YOUR right that is violated next time, so I feel that it is of vital importance that we know and understand the referendum system, and whether we agree with the result or not, we push for the triumph of the Constitution over the passions of the moment. That due to religious beliefs, opinions, or sensibilities, you happen to agree with the Proposition 8 result should be irrelevant, as I believe that it is in violation of the 9th Amendment of our Constitution, and therefore, should be struck down. If we don’t apply this now, it opens the door to them doing the same thing when a referendum comes up banning guns, or taking personal property, or denying certain types of speech. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Constitution rules or it does not.
60 comments:
Until relatively recent times, you could only get married in a church or synagogue...because it is a religious rite.
Personally, I don't give a crap if two people with the same pluming want to get 'hitched', that is - enter into a binding, legal contract affording them the same rights and responsibilities of the Judeo-Christian marriage.
Just don't call it 'marriage'.
Or, use any of the standard descriptive terms of marriage in this relationship.
And, perhaps, wear the wedding band on the ring finger of the right hand, not the left, to signify this isn't a heterosexual
union.
This would end all the confusion, such as people assuming your married by a ring on your left hand and asking for your [opposite-sex-spouse's'] name.
Other than that, they can go for it all they want.
RT
Goober, it was a nice try, but you make many assumptions in your posting. First, you have to assume that gay marriage is implied by the 9th Amendment. Considering homosexuality was largely illegal at the time of the passing and marriage between same sex couples was unthinkable, I hardly think that would have been the case. To keep this concise for now, I will just answer the 4 questions you quickly glossed over to determine if it should be a right:
1.) Does it harm, or in any way impose upon the rights of other individuals? -- Yes. It violates the rights of parents to raise their children in their own religious tradition. It imposes a redefinition of marriage and family on the rest of society. Business owners, adoption agencies, and other groups are forced to recognize a union that their own beliefs condemn.
2.) Does it harm the United States of America? -- Again, the answer is yes. The redefinition of family and marriage undermines the building blocks of our society.
3.) Does it contribute to some other Constitutionally illegal activity? -- It does harm the free expression of religion.
4.) Is it in the best public interest to deny this activity in some way? -- Again, yes, for the same reasons as number 2.
I would also like to comment on your argument regarding "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I would buy your argument if homosexuals were looking to be left alone to their own desires. The fact is that they are not looking to be left alone (by the government) but to be recognized and legitimized by the government. They are not looking to be "free" but to be bound by a state-recognized contract. The referendums are merely a protective response to overreaching courts, of which the only sure protection is an amendment to a state constitution. In large part, these state votes are not just some ballot question but an actual change to the states constitution.
witch! burn the witch!!!!
then can have all the hot fudge sundaes you want. a goo bar with nuts.
Exercise a separation of church and state. Marriage has two components - the legal and spiritual.
The state should be incharge of the legal aspects: hospital visitation, inheritance, rights of survivorship, etc. This would generate taxes, and be a pain to dissolve. It would be called anything other than marriage (Formalized partnership, legal binding, other).
The church should be in charge of marriage, and in coferring the blessings of God on the spiritual bonds of the couple. If they find a church that will marry them to a pig - go for it. They will be happy, but have no "legal" status wrt to the same pig.
Regardless, the definition of "Marriage" does not belong in the constitution. This is a moral argument. Prohibition was a moral argument against drinking that was installed in the constitution. It proved a huge failure - lets not repeat that.
todd
Ditto to everything RT & Missy said. That's what I wanted to say, but would not have said it as well.
I must admit I've been making the same argument as Goober to my friends and family regarding gay marriage. As an American, I cannot see telling other people how to live their lives if it doesn't hurt me.
Missy, your arguments are completely wrong. How does gay people getting married violate parents rights to teach their kids their religion? Are you going to outlaw all non-christian religions because your kids might see them? My 3 oldest children all understand what being gay is. Why? Because I told them about it when they asked. Guess what? They still attend church every Sunday.
Undermind the building block of America? Over 50% of marriages in America end in divorce (mine did). How is that not destroying the American family? Maybe we should outlaw divorce.
29Hand .. we are not talking about merely allowing them but changing the laws to recognize them. They are allowed to live together, be together, and live their lives. They want more. How will it change? Well for example, already in California, you are not allowed to speak against homosexuality in schools. There are also laws regarding not hiring based on sexual preference. There is movement on adoption agencies being forced to adopt to homosexual families. In Canada and other countries where it is legal, preachers have been in trouble with the law for merely quoting the Bible. While you are correct that divorce is also troubling, that has absolutely nothing to do with
homosexual marriage. Just because one thing is bad for the family, that means we should allow another?
Missy, Now your going further. The discussion is whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to enter into the same government sponsered contract as heterosexuals.
You're going out on a limb saying that now all laws are going to change and religions are going to be outlawed. I am completely in agreement with you as far as giving special rights to anybody.
Please, somebody, tell me how two gay people getting married harms my family. Be specific.
Marriage is an institution created by religion that has been taken over, in part, by government. There was marriage - between one man and one woman ONLY - for centuries before our government was conceived. So why should our government have the right to usurp that institution and change it?
Also - studiy after study has shown that families with one mother AND one father are the best environment to raise children. Yes, children can do fine in other settings, but they are not the best for them. Kids need all the advantages they can get these days. Why make it harder for them?
If I choose to teach my child that homosexual behavior is wrong because it says so in the Bible (as well as being biologically wrong), why is it that the government can tell me that I can no longer teach that? Where is my freedom of religion?
If you want separation of church and state - try telling the state to stay out of church matters - not the other way around.
My thoughts on this are where will it end? If homosexual marriage is recognized, then why shouldn't Mormons be allowed to legally practice polygamy? I heard a pro-gay marriage spokes person say "Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry whomever I please?" That is pretty all encompassing-why can't a pediphile marry a 6 year old. Why can't two married couples marry each other-to gain better health insurance coverage. A gay couple, lesbian couple or heterosexual non married couple can obtain all the same rights as a married couple by going through a legal process-power of attorney. The whole issue isn't about rights but about recognition of their life style. I think this opens up a slippery slope.
"My thoughts on this are where will it end? If homosexual marriage is recognized, then why shouldn't Mormons be allowed to legally practice polygamy?"
And why shouldn't they, assuming that they are all consenting adults?
"why can't a pediphile marry a 6 year old."
Remember the acid test I listed above. This would definitely be a violation of the first requirement, as a 6 year old could not ever be mature enough to give consent for marriage, it would be a violation of his or her rights to bind them into a marriage without consent.
"Why can't two married couples marry each other-to gain better health insurance coverage."
This would really be stupid if they did that. THey would be risking 50% of everything theu own in order to get a lower copay. My guess is that it won't happen, but so what if it does?
"A gay couple, lesbian couple or heterosexual non married couple can obtain all the same rights as a married couple by going through a legal process-power of attorney."
I don't know if this is true or not, but it is sort of irrelevant. Two consenting adults want to get married, or whatever you want to call the LEGAL aspect of the union, if not marriage. I just don't see anywhere in our rules and laws that would allow a PROPOSITION or REFERENDUM to ban that. If a constitutional amendment were passed, after going through the proper channels and being ratified per the rules of our constitution, then I would support it. I cannot, however, support a ban created by Referendum.
"The whole issue isn't about rights but about recognition of their life style. I think this opens up a slippery slope."
I don't understand what you are getting at here. What do you mean by the "recognition of their lifestyle?" Are there really people that don't recognize that there are gay people, living a gay lifestyle, in America today, that would somehow become aware of and recognize this lifestyle by allowing them to form a civil union or a marriage or whatever you want to call it?
need some more Eat Me's around here....
homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms. What the agenda is on the part of these folks is not equal treatment. Thay already have that. They want to destroy traditional marriage and family units as well as any religion.
Sven, plural marriage has been practiced by many cultures for centuries. If you guys are so into freedom of religion, why shouldn't Mormons or Muslums be allowed to practice plural marriage as part of their religion? Aren't you infringing on their rights by telling them they can't?
CFC, you are right about the fraud aspect. As a matter of fact, two old Canadian guys did just that when gay marriage was legalized in Canada. They weren't gay but they got double pensions. But straight people can do it too.
I agree with about half of your arguments. I also believe there should be a "consumation" of the marriage before it is deemed legal. That should keep the heteros from getting gay-married for money.
29Hand .. First of all, allowing them to marry is a redefinition of marriage and family, how much more of a special right can there be? The fact is that homosexual marriage is a special right. As it stands, I can not marry a woman just as much as a lesbian can not. Our rights are equal. There is no right to marry whom you love because then the 6-year old girl argument comes into play. So does incest. If you only allow homosexual marriage then you are granting a special right.
I am not out on a limb. Already, laws are in place in California especially and in other parts of the world people really have been in legal trouble.
I don't understand what you are getting at here. What do you mean by the "recognition of their lifestyle?" Are there really people that don't recognize that there are gay people, living a gay lifestyle, in America today, that would somehow become aware of and recognize this lifestyle by allowing them to form a civil union or a marriage or whatever you want to call it?
OK, Goob, now you're being purposely obtuse. Here:
rec-og-nize
verb (used with object), -nized, -niz⋅ing. 1. to identify as something or someone previously seen, known, etc.: He had changed so much that one could scarcely recognize him.
2. to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics: I recognized him from the description. They recognized him as a fraud.
3. to perceive as existing or true; realize: to be the first to recognize a fact.
4. to acknowledge as the person entitled to speak at a particular time: The Speaker recognized the Congressman from Maine.
5. to acknowledge formally as entitled to treatment as a political unit: The United States promptly recognized Israel.
6. to acknowledge or accept formally a specified factual or legal situation: to recognize a successful revolutionary regime as the de facto government of the country.
7. to acknowledge or treat as valid: to recognize a claim.
8. to acknowledge acquaintance with, as by a greeting, handshake, etc.
9. to show appreciation of (achievement, service, merit, etc.), as by some reward, public honor, or the like.
10. Law. to acknowledge (an illegitimate child) as one's own.
11. Biochemistry, Immunology. to bind with, cleave, or otherwise react to (another substance) as a result of fitting its molecular shape or a portion of its shape.
Note especially #7: to acknowledge or treat as valid
THIS is what they're after. Not "recognition" in the sense that people will suddenly say, "Oh, look! Some homosexuals!"
They want people--specifically those In Charge--to view their relationships as valid and equal to natural hetero relationships.
Are they? Not IMO. While it sure can be enjoyable, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, be it in man or the other animals. In order for that to occur, The Act must be between two critters of OPPOSITE GENDER. Adam and Steve couldn't have had offspring any more than Bob and Bill. Missy hit it on the head when she said (using the proper legal language): "sexual preference". That's what it is. Not sexual identity, not sexual chromosomal mismatching, or some other garbage. You decided you wanted to jump the fence, don't expect equal treatment...no, scratch that. Expect equal treatment. But expect NO MORE than that. Because that's what this is. Not a plea for "equal rights", but for special privileges, based onj a decision you've made.
"...already in California, you are not allowed to speak against homosexuality in schools."
While I'm not a fan of this kind of PCascist shit, morals and what comprise them should be taught AT HOME, not in school. (you don't learn to not shop lift at Wal-Mart) Unless you send the kids to a school that follows your mind set on morals, you can't expect your teachings to be upheld.
I went to Catholic Grade School up to the 8th grade. In the 8th grade I switched to public jr high school. That was 1969, but even then there was a great difference in the "moral" allowances of the schools. But it was because of the vast differences in the moral mindsets of the families who sent their kids to the public schools. There were different standards expected by the parents, so the overall moral standard was more lax.
On the gay marriage issue, I could give a rats hat less if two men or two women want to call their living arrangement a marriage. I know what I believe a marriage is, emphasis on "I". But I don't let my beliefs rule what other people do or think.
How is it different that heterosexuals want to dictate to EVERYONE what a marriage is, any different than homosexuals / lesbians dictating to EVERYONE what a marriage is?
Two wrongs don't make a right simply because you are in the majority.
So...
If gays can enter into a civil contract that is recognized by the state and has all of the same legal aspects of marriage bis called something else (civil unions, ect) you're OK with that?
I'm planning on asking my girlfriend to be my wife but since we're not getting married in a church or in a religious ceremony, we can't call it a marriage?
Steve, heterosexuals are not defining marriage. Nature defines the family, religious tradition defines the family, all of human history defines the family. The question is not why should not homosexuals be allowed to marry, but why should the definition of marriage and family be changed? That is a question that has yet to be answered.
"The question is not why should not homosexuals be allowed to marry, but why should the definition of marriage and family be changed? That is a question that has yet to be answered."
Missy,
again, I don't care that the cat lady in the neighborhood calls her cats her "children" and she as their mommy makes it a family.
I know what I believe is a family. And I'm an old hippie freak on that. I've got non-blood, non-legal "family" members. Then again I've got blood, and legal "family" members, who I wouldn't cross the street to piss on.
And I've got to tell you, nature being the arbiter of family is quasi at best. It ain't civil contracts or ministers that make it a family, it's love and support.
And I'm not ruling out Godly love there.
29 Hand,
Yes, you can, since it's a union between one male and one female.
Steve .. its one thing if the lady down the street wants to call her cats her children, its another thing if the government legitimizes her claim and treats them as children. You seem to miss that point.
"And I've got to tell you, nature being the arbiter of family is quasi at best. It ain't civil contracts or ministers that make it a family, it's love and support."
Um steve, love and support do not produce children. We are talking actual definition of family as a building block to society. You know family treas, genealogy, blood relations etc .. the things that actually define a family in an objective manner. "love and support" is subjective and has nothing to do with family. If I do not love my father or support him, his is still my family.
Since I no longer have the ability to procreate, should I not be allowed to marry?
Hey guys, the issue isn't about the "rightness" of gay marriage here, it is about whether or not I think the referendum system has any ability or right to have a say on it.
However, a few things that I would like to clear up:
Missy, leave religion out of the conversation. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. Yes, it is probably true that marriage was created by religion, but it certainly wasn't created by Christianity. It was probably created by some pagan religion back in the old days, and back then, homosexuality wasn't the big no-no that it is today, so it is entirely possible that marriage, in it's original form, allowed two men to be married. Regardless of all of that, however, marriage, as a legal entity, is the purview of the state. As a spiritual entity, it is the purview of whatever church you attend, whether buddhist or presbyterian. The discussion at hand is the LEGAL aspect of marriage, meaning, the aspect controlled by the state. As Jesus said, "render unto Caesar." Religion doesn't have a place in this conversation, because not everyone in this country is of the same religion. YOu don't get to force your religious morals on anyone that doesn't want them, right wrong or indifferent.
Secondly, there is no "redefinition" of family happening here. A family has never required a mother and a father to be a family. I have two friends that were raised by their older brothers. They lived together as a family unit for almost 10 years before they started setting off on their own adventures. That is a family, just the same as any other family.
Likewise, family does not require marriage.
And even if it does "redefine" family, so what? How does it somehow change the status of YOUR family that a couple of men get married in california?
"Missy - Yes. It violates the rights of parents to raise their children in their own religious tradition."
I am not trying to be obtuse, despite earlier claims as such. You'll have to fill me in here on how this disallows you to raise your children however you want.
"It imposes a redefinition of marriage and family on the rest of society. Business owners, adoption agencies, and other groups are forced to recognize a union that their own beliefs condemn."
I already spoke to the "redefinition" idea in my previous post. And as far as requiring various entities to recognize the union, the way I read the acts already in place, they are not allowed to, already. Adoption agencies already adopt children to unwed homosexuals. How would this change anything?
"It does harm the free expression of religion."
Again, not trying to be obtuse, but HOW? How does this threaten your free expression of religion? Fred Phelps and his raggedy-ass gang of idiots have more or less proven that they can express their religion anyway that they see fit. Christianity doesn't have the monoploy on marriage. We have Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Jewish, and all other -ists that you could imagine happening every day. Do those threaten your free expression? The fact that it is made LEGAL doesn't mean that you or I have to AGREE with it. Tolerate is the more likely word.
I would like a bit more info from you on how this would "undermine the building blocks of society," to quote your words.
I simply cannot see why it would hurt a thing?
I believe that God created man & woman as the way things should be - before all the other religions or governments got started. The Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong. But by law I wouldn't be able to teach that to my children because someone's feelings might be hurt. So how can you say that freedom of religion doesn't enter into this discussion? I don't see marriage as a right - it is a privilege - to be entered into with reverence and much thought. Homosexuals want their lifestyle choices to be not tolerated but sanctified and even applauded. It is against the laws of God and of nature. Laws should be for the betterment of society, not to keep someone's feeling from being hurt. And just what does same-sex "marriage" do to better the world?
Hi, Goober,
No banishment here. I hope this place is about the free exchange of ideas and civil discourse about those ideas. Jack and I have a good many gay friends, so I find it difficult to work myself into a lather about two people who prefer the romantic company of someone of the same gender. I dislike the in-your-face attitude of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Act UP!, but so long as they leave me alone, I'm willing to live and let live. Possibly, I'm naive but I believe that we have much more important problems facing our country than gay marriage.
Goober you are again using a subjective definition of family, not the historical, natural, and purpose of family that is to rear the next generation. You can argue that it can be single parents or homosexual parents but those are far inferior and lead to (and this is proven) increased crime and other issues. Seriously, though, the longstanding (thousands of years) institution of marriage was heterosexual. The onus is not on the institution to prove its value but on the side of homosexuality to show why it is wrong. You, like many others, have fallen into the trap of trying to defend a position that should not be on the defensive. The burden of proof is to show why homosexual marriage will not change the definition of a family. And with your argument for redefining marriage, will you then allow polyamorous and or incestuous marriages? You also fail in your discussion to explain how the original framers of the Constitution could possibly have conceived that they were allowing homosexual marriage as part of the 9th amendment.
The framers of the Constitution would never have conceived they were allowing interracial marriage either...
Anonymous .. you are correct and bans on interracial marriage was allowed in America for a long time. However, you are wrong in using that as part of the argument. The 9th Amendment did not allow for interracial marriage, the 14th Amendment did and that is what SCOTUS used to overturn laws prohibiting interracial marriage. That only applies to race, not to sexual preference.
On another note, I used Goober's acid test and determined that the gratuitous torture of animals should also be allowed.
"But by law I wouldn't be able to teach that to my children because someone's feelings might be hurt."
Svenska, no disrespect intended, but you do realize that we are talking about gay marriage, not anti-defamation, right? I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage will somehow make it illegal to disagree with this lifestyle choice.
The anti-defamation issue is a completely different topic,a nd I agree with you. A person should be allowed to disagree. A person should be allowed to state opinions that disagree with other people's opinions. A person should be allowed to say whatever mean and nasty things they want to, so long as it is not direct threats.
And a person should be allowed to teach their kids according to their religious beliefs, and this would definitely be one of them.
“The onus is not on the institution to prove its value but on the side of homosexuality to show why it is wrong.”
This issue is not nearly as black and white as you are trying to paint it. Allowing gay people to marry will not crumble the foundations of our society, Missy. That is simply ridiculous. Families the nation over will still remain as they are and have been, we’ll just add a few more “non-typical” families to the ranks. Current non-typical families haven’t destroyed us. I don’t think these ones will, either. Besides, I fail to see how two gay men co-habitating and adopting a son together (which happens all the time) is any different from two MARRIED gay men doing the same, besides allowing for a bit more stability to the family via shared benefits, etc.
“You, like many others, have fallen into the trap of trying to defend a position that should not be on the defensive. The burden of proof is to show why homosexual marriage will not change the definition of a family.”
I still don’t understand why this would change the definition of family in our society, or why, even if it does, it will necessarily mean the death of our society. People will do what they’ve always done. Men will marry women, and they will have children and raise them. And for a small minority of people in this society that are born different from the rest of us, they will have the opportunity to live happily and securely in the same manner, if they so choose.
“And with your argument for redefining marriage, will you then allow polyamorous and or incestuous marriages?”
Yes to the first, no to the second. Per the tests laid out in the OP, the first one is between consenting adults, doesn’t hurt anyone else, and doesn’t hurt the Nation as a whole in any way. The second meets the first requirement, but neither of the subsequent two. The rights of the deformed children born to incestuous relations would trump the desire of the parents, and it is to the greater benefit of society to not have inbreeding going on. It is that simple.
“The 9th Amendment did not allow for interracial marriage, the 14th Amendment did and that is what SCOTUS used to overturn laws prohibiting interracial marriage.”
However, interracial marriage laws were still unconstitutional under the 9th amendment. The government had no right to pass those laws. The fact that they did speaks more to my point about democracy and the referendum system trampling the minority than it does about you being right that the 9th amendment doesn’t apply.
The 9th amendment is very brief and very simple. It simply states that the Bill of Rights is not a full and complete listing of all rights the individual possesses. Hundred of years of case law have backed up my above acid test in determining if something is constitutional or not.
"On another note, I used Goober's acid test and determined that the gratuitous torture of animals should also be allowed."
Please Missy. Seriously? Are you really stooping to "Goober thinks it should be legal to torture animals?"
There is no inherent or recognized right to torture animals. It is not in the best interest of the public to allow it, because it is twisted, harmful behavior.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a right. The state cannot deny marriage between two consenting adults, except for incest or in the case of polygamy (both of which I've already addressed).
Try again.
Goober,
Again nice try. You did not argue how homosexuality will not redefine marriage. You simply said it wouldn't.
You also mentioned that gay people were born that way. That is far from fact. There are people who changed sexual preferences and there is a high rate homosexual men being abuse victims. To say they are born that way is wrong. Even 'After the Ball' (the playbook of the homosexual movement) makes mention of the fact that not even they believe in gay-by-birth, but they were to present that as fact enough for it to be accepted as fact.
Nowhere has any court found that the 9th Amendment applies to interracial marriage. You simply made that up based on your own views.
As for incest, deformity only applies when there are genetic defects from the start. Science is probably not your strong-suit but by your argument, any person holding some genetic anomaly which can ultimately result in some genetic disease at some point in a child's life should not be allowed to procreate.
There is no inherent or recognized right to torture animals. It is not in the best interest of the public to allow it, because it is twisted, harmful behavior.
-- In your opinion, but what if in my opinion it is not twisted and harmful behavior. You are now contradicting the core of your original argument - that one must ignore the fact that something may be personally repugnant but if it passes those 4 points it must be allowed.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a right. The state cannot deny marriage between two consenting adults, except for incest or in the case of polygamy (both of which I've already addressed).
-- How is marriage a right? Where is your source other than your personal opinion that the 9th Amendment applies to marriage. Marriage is licensed and regulated. Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the consitution does not define "couples" rights, it defines personal rights. If it is a personal right, then that brings in the question of marrying a child. Of course, you would argue that would violate the rights of the child, which brings into question competing rights and deeming one right higher than another which becomes a confusing mess.
PS"
There is no inherent or recognized right to torture animals. It is not in the best interest of the public to allow it, because it is twisted, harmful behavior.
-- The majority of Americans (and medical science) would say the same of homosexual marriage.
"-- The majority of Americans (and medical science) would say the same of homosexual marriage."
Ooohhh, SMACK!
I think I just got hoist by my own petard...
It gets down to personal opinion pretty quickly, doesn't it? My opinion is that the US Government does not have the right to deny two consenting adults the right to marry. Yours is that they have a moral imperative to stop it.
Mine is based upon the idea that allowing it will be totally harmless to the country at large.
Yours is based upon the idea that it will be devastating to our social foundations.
I cannot help but point out that these were all the same arguments that were used by the segregationists to ban interracial marriages.
Do you have some sort of information that might lead me to believe that the foundations of our society will be shattered by allowing two men to marry? The only information that I hae is that the same thing was said about allowing blacks to marry whites, and yet, here we still are...
Goober, again you are arguing for the change, the burden is on you to prove how it will NOT be harmful to society.
As i've stated before when we discussed this topic, IMO, this has nothing to do with marriage per se. It does have to do with having congress or, (even better) the SCOTUS grant gays rights, privileges, and protections, above and beyond those enjoyed by everyone else, creating for them their own special class.
Thanks to radical gay activists and their decades-old manipulation of the courts, there are now many places in this so-called free country, (Mexifornia being a prime example) where to even disagree with gays is a hate crime! In fact, the idiotic and discriminating hate-crime laws were invented specifically to protect gays. (and blacks to a much lessor degree)
If two people want to join in a relationship with all of the protections that gays claim they want, all they need do is sit down with a lawyer. The govt. has no business being involved. That's assuming of course, that's what they really want. It is not! They want the govt./courts to force the overwhelming majority of Americans who disagree with their lifestyle, to be made to accept it.
No one, not the govt nor the courts, has the right to force people to go against their long-held religious beliefs! To do so is to plant the fast-growing seeds of revolution.
Goober -
In Canada it is basically illegal to teach the part of the Bible that preaches against homosexulaity, so it's not just a matter of opinion. (I know - we don't live in Canada, but we're headed the same way.)
Also, interracial marriage is not the same thing as same-sex marriage. You cannot help your race - it is genetic. There is no proof of genetic homosexuality. Homosexuality is a behavior. You can have homosexual feelings and decide not to act on them. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals, it condemns the act, just as it condemns the acts of murder, stealing or adultry. Although we may feel like commiting those acts at times, we are expected to not act on those feelings for our own good as well as for the greater good of society.
"Of course, you would argue that would violate the rights of the child, which brings into question competing rights and deeming one right higher than another which becomes a confusing mess."
Nothing confusing about it, Missy. Anything that violates the rights of another is simply not a right. Period. That is rather clearly spelled out in case law and precedent time and again.
"Goober, again you are arguing for the change,"
Actually, I am arguing AGAINST the change to making it illegal via proposition. Very different things. As I said before, if there was a constitutional amendment passed, via the proper channels and ratified per the rules of the constitution, then I would not oppose it.
" the burden is on you to prove how it will NOT be harmful to society."
I get very tired of people saying that you have to prove the negative. It is impossible, and if you don't understand that at this late age, then there is nothing that I can do for you.
Proving a negative is impossible, and therefore, the onus is on anyone willing to show that it WILL harm society.
Will you 2 STF-up already.
(not you Sven, I meant PrissyPissyMissy)
"There is no proof of genetic homosexuality. Homosexuality is a behavior."
I fail to see why genetics vs choice has anything to do with the conversation. It is a CHOICE to want to marry someone of a different race, and you have the CHOICE to not act on those feelings... Catch my drift?
"The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals, it condemns the act, "
The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Render unto Caesar, remember?
This is about making gay marriage LEGAL under the code of the United States of America, not MORAL under the dictates of the Christian Bible.
steers and queers. Can we talk about steers for a change? you'd think this place was filled with ky jelly with all the comments on this non-topic
Yes - interracial marriage is a choice, but the reasons for originally condemning it were based on race - a genetic factor, not a life-style choice. If I choose to live a life-style that is harmful to myself or to society, should it be made legal just to make me feel better about myself? That's what this is all about - to make homosexuals fell better about themselves and what they do. It has no benefit to society, but in my opinion, and that of many others, does do harm to the very fabric of our society. If they can have the same legal right through the courts, such as insurance, hospital visitation, etc - then why do they need to take over and re-define the centuries old definition of marriage? It's not necessary - whether it's by proposition or by amendment.
PS - OK Poots - I'm done now.
"Of course, you would argue that would violate the rights of the child, which brings into question competing rights and deeming one right higher than another which becomes a confusing mess."
Nothing confusing about it, Missy. Anything that violates the rights of another is simply not a right. Period. That is rather clearly spelled out in case law and precedent time and again.
-- But not allowing him to marry the child is violating the right to marry that you claim he has. According to you, he has a right to marry .. if you begin to put conditions on that right, then you are admitted that right can be regulated and if regulated then a ban on homosexual marriage is perfectly appropriate.
Goober you are much smarter to make the argument that I am arguing for the change because the vote was to bad something the courts allowed. It beneath you really.
To adress the topic Goob sez he really wants to talk about here:
I understand his concern about referenda potentially overriding what he sees as the constitutional rights of some. However, I believe the referendum can be a good thing precisely because of this. How many times recently have we seen one court or another issue an "opinion", and then tell its respective legislature, "Now make a law for it.", COMPLETELY subverting proper procedure and separation of powers. I personally am thinking about MA and CT. Mass I know for sure, and I haven't been able to find any case before the CT court that was decided upon to unleash the scourge of homosexual (I hate to use the term "gay", as it has been grievously misappropriated from its original intended definition) "marriage". Granted, up here in LibLand, I'm not sure how much difference it would have made; but the people would still have had their voice.
As far as the schools teaching your children that homosexual relationships are acceptable alternates to the traditional Judaeo-Christian model of a one man and one woman marriage, I have a solution for you. Find a private school that teaches your religious or moral beliefs, remove your chidren from the compulsory, government-run re-education camps and enroll them in the private school of your choice. I did this with my children and have started a fund to finance my grandchildren's private K-12 education. If you cannot find such a school, then band together with other like minded individuals and establish a charter school.
Anne .. while I agree with taking children out of public schools, you can not win a war just by retreating. They will soon come for private schools too with mandatory indoctrination.
Until they get school vouchers going, not all of us can afford to send our children to private school. Actually, my daughter graduated from public school and a state college. She's now in grad school. I've had to work very hard to counteract some of what she learned. And today's schools are much worse. I feel very sorry for young parents.
Missy,
What you say is probably true given the current mood in the country of "government can do everything for all from cradle to grave." That said, statutes and case law would suggest that the feds would have a very hard time mandating curriculum for private, religious schools. The case of the Catholic Diocese of Boston ceasing adoption placement for the State of Mass. in order to aviod placing childern with homosexual couples differs in that the Doicese was providing services to a governmental entity.
"-- But not allowing him to marry the child is violating the right to marry that you claim he has. According to you, he has a right to marry "
Missy, you are not understanding. NO ONE has a right to hurt another person. You have NO RIGHTS that infringe on the rights of others. It doesn't work that way.
It is for this reason that promoting violence towards an individual is not a protected "right" under the first amendment. it does harm to that person. It is not a right. Period.
How is that hard to understand?
To say that a person has rights, no matter if it hurts someone else is to say rape is legal because it made the person happy, and we have a right to pursue happiness..
Your argument is totally bunk. Gone. Wasted. Don't try it again.
My acid test wouldn't allow it, because it harms another and/or violates another's rights.
Case law in this country goes back 200 years, and the theme is very very clear:
If it violates the rights of another, it is simply not a right. Period. YOu have a right to marry, but the person you are marrying has the right to NOT marry. If they don't want to marry you (or are incompetent to make such decisions, as in a 6 year old) marrying him or her is a violation of their rights, and therefore not allowed.
That is actually a very simple concept, I'm surprised that you don't understand it. Your rights do not include the infringment or violation of another's rights. Full stop.
I understand, Svenska,
When Jack and I chose to put our kids in private high school it was a major financial hardship. That was in the 1980's & 1990's. I would imagine that private school is much more expensive now. Unfortunately, I believe that public education, or at least the way it is being administered in the US is a failed experiment. I had a master's level teacher with 20 years experience leave the classroom and come to work for me as a receptionist back in 2002 because she got absolutely no support from her administration. She described her job as being little more than a jail guard.
for private schools.....which are actually public schools, but home taught....google "California Virtual Academy" then go to the K12 site. They provide a list of which States have the program in place, I think there 20+
We started this program this year with our 3 youngest. It is public school, public funded (the local schools hate it because CAVA gets the tax money for our kids instead of them)
They provide everything, computers, books, lab equipment, etc. The only thing we have to pay for is the internet connection.
And we have to actually particiapte in our children's education. (I was surprised how much biology I have forgotten in the last 25 years)
The only way it works if if the parents and kids are willing to rearrange their schedules to make it work.....but it seems to be working pretty good....and I don't have to deal with the San Bernardino County school district
Post a Comment