| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
 Posted: Mar 26, 2013 11:09 am Post subject: Supreme Court - Gay Marriage |
 |
|
Looks like there will be a ruling today on Prop 8 and a ruling to follow on DOMA. Glad to see they are taking this on and I hope they rule in a Constitutional manner.
I saw this in a yahoo article, which seems a bit disturbing...
| Quote: | | Even justices who didn't have a problem with same sex marriage weren't sure that now is the time for the court to impose its will on the states. |
Saw this on FB and couldn't agree more...
| Quote: | Thanks to the Human Rights Campaign for sharing this image, and for all the work they have done to protect the unalienable rights of so many parts of the LGBTQIAP community. We encourage those who recognize that the government has no right restricting gay marriage to take the next step:
Recognize that government has no right restricting ANY marriage, or any consensual relations between any number of any gender of consenting adults. (We added the 'P' to the above acronym on purpose. We also considered adding ATHEYW, which stands for "Anything the <heck> else you want", but that seemed a bit clunky.)
Why should gay monogamists get special government benefits over gay polygamists, or over single people? By what right does the government give any people special privileges based on their marital or sexual practices? Marriage Equality is a step in the general right direction. But it's a far cry from true equality. That can only happen once the gover...nment is entirely out of marriage.
The Libertarian Party recognizes that government has absolutely no business regulating or restricting any voluntary, consensual behavior or agreement between any number of any gender of consenting adults.
To learn more about our positions, or to get involved in online or offline activism, please visit www.facebook.com/libertarians/info |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
37.84 KB |
| Viewed: |
15907 Time(s) |
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Haha, there you go again with the pursuit of happiness  ...that is not a constitutional right! I suppose you think marriage is an inalienable right, just like owning guns right?
I think it should be a state issue and a state issue alone, I have no idea what this case is about, but I do not see a right to marry anyone or anything in the constitution. I don't think the federal government has the power to allow it or disallow it.
If anything the federal government penalizes people who are married via the marriage tax penalty.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goofyboy
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Posts: 4463
City: Houston
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I really just don't care anymore about this. I hope they leagalize it or whatever so we can move on from these stupid social issues and maybe, just maybe get to some serious fiscal policy discussions.
_________________
Work SUX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I suppose you think marriage is an inalienable right, just like owning guns right?
|
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the concept our FF's discussed with regards to the inalienable rights endowed by our creator. If your definition of happiness is marrying another man, jgriffith, nobody should be preventing you from doing so, especially the government. No, marriage is not specifically spelled out as being protected in the Constitution or BOR, but you could make an argument that it falls into the realm of the statement in the DOI. Not sure how legally binding that would be relative to a lawsuit, though.
| Quote: |
I don't think the federal government has the power to allow it or disallow it.
|
Exactly.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RampageWake
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 2002
City: Houston
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| goofyboy wrote: | | I really just don't care anymore about this. I hope they leagalize it or whatever so we can move on from these stupid social issues and maybe, just maybe get to some serious fiscal policy discussions. |
X1000.
_________________
| Rhawn wrote: | You should have a less retarded friend read over your posts before you hit "Submit"
|
RIP M.H.Legge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think the federal government has the power to allow it or disallow it. |
Agreed. It seemed to me this is the argument the SG was making in his amicus. Basically, the argument was if a state allowed certain rights to same-sex couples, that they had acknowledged a class and therefore the state could not disallow equal-rights under the fourteenth - including the right to marry.
So, in his opinion, a ruling on that basis would only affect the states that acknowledged same-sex couples (through civil-union or otherwise). To date, that's only 17 states or so, but could possibly include others (I don't know all the laws across the land).
That opinion, to me, makes the most sense. I'd really like to see a broad change and just call them a suspect class in their ruling and make it legal across the board and eliminate the question entirely, but the narrower application would preserve states "rights" and allow the stragglers to eliminate their bigotry on their own time.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pet575
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 3630
City: Kansas City, MO
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 12:36 pm Post subject: Re: Supreme Court - Gay Marriage |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | I hope they rule in a Constitutional manner. |
What exactly is that? You do know that the sole function of the Supreme Court is to determine whether laws are constitutional, yes? If you agree, then every time they rule they are ruling in a constitutional manner.
_________________
| Wakebrad wrote: | | I honestly think it has to do with internet penetration... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's only constitutional if he agrees with it. 
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pet575, yes, I agree that is what they are supposed to do. But, they could rule unconstitutionally, could they not? If a law was being reviewed to reinstate slavery and they ruled in favor of that law, would it be a Constitutional ruling?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | pet575, yes, I agree that is what they are supposed to do. But, they could rule unconstitutionally, could they not? If a law was being reviewed to reinstate slavery and they ruled in favor of that law, would it be a Constitutional ruling? |
It is literally impossible for the USSC to rule unconstitutionally. When they ruled that separate but equal was constitutional, it was constitutional; when they ruled it was not constitutional, it was not constitutional.
Whether you or I think a ruling is constitutional doesn't matter.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, in this case, either way they rule would be Constitutional?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | So, in every case, either way they rule would be Constitutional? |
FIFY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, if there was a law that eliminated our 1st Amendment rights, it went to the SCOTUS, and they upheld the law, that is Constitutional?
Does that mean this is not true:
| Quote: | | The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. |
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Last edited by Okie Boarder on Mar 26, 2013 1:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | So, if there was a law that eliminated our 1st Amendment rights, it went to the SCOTUS, and they upheld the law, that is Constitutional? |
What are these 1st Amendment rights that you speak of? They don't exist.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
???
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are you confused about? What did you think the USSC did?
Serious question, do you understand how the 3 branches of government work?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you being facetious about the 1st Amendment? Also, did you notice my edit?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My brain just exploded.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess you missed the point...if the USSC says there are no 1st amendment rights, guess what? Poof, they don't exist.
Not sure what your edit was.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nmballa
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3906
City: Milwaukee
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jgriffith wrote: | I guess you missed the point...if the USSC says there are no 1st amendment rights, guess what? Poof, they don't exist.
Not sure what your edit was. |
This was my edit:
| Quote: | | The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. |
It has been my understanding that the SCOTUS can only rule against what is in conflict with the Constitution. Protecting 1st Amendment rights, or any other Constitutional rights would be correct for them to do...to go against those rights would not. You're saying the SCOTUS can rule however they want and it becomes Consitutional and potentially fundamentally changes the Constitution itself?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nmballa...
Why are you and eeven mind blown?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: |
You're saying the SCOTUS can rule however they want and it becomes Consitutional and potentially fundamentally changes the Constitution itself? |
Yes, that is how it works. I have tried to explain this to you on several different threads...however, in your mind the constitution doesn't even really matter (its all about natural rights on select issues) so who cares?
Last edited by jgriffith on Mar 26, 2013 6:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That doesn't jive with what I've learned and the idea of balanced power. Can you provide some references that show that the SCOTUS overriding the Constitution is Constitutional?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | That doesn't jive with what I've learned and the idea of balanced power. Can you provide some references that show that the SCOTUS overriding the Constitution is Constitutional? |
Does it jive with the cases you have actually read and studied?
Examples? Roe v wade and the spd cases leading up to it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No it doesn't. I haven't read and studied many cases, but none I've looked at directly ruled in a way that violated the Constitution.
How does Roe v Wade override the Constitution?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: |
How does Roe v Wade override the Constitution? |
Where is the right to abort in the constitution?
See also the 10th amendment
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | No it doesn't. I haven't read and studied many cases |
So what are your opinions based on? What you assume? What you hear from the news? Natural rights?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jgriffith wrote: | | Okie Boarder wrote: |
How does Roe v Wade override the Constitution? |
Where is the right to abort in the constitution?
See also the 10th amendment |
There is no right to abort except looking at it as the idea for personal liberty to decide what to do with your own body. The Constitution does not protect abortion, nor does it protect prohibiting abortion, per se. How is the Roe v Wade decision a direct infringement on individual rights specifically protected by the Constitution?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 26, 2013 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Did you ever read the 10th amendment; its pretty straightforward...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: |
There is no right to abort except looking at it as the idea for personal liberty to decide what to do with your own body. |
Where is this in the constitution?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | The Constitution does not protect abortion, nor does it protect prohibiting abortion, per se. |
So you now agree that the ussc can rule however they want and it becomes contitutional even though it potentially changes the constitution itself?
If the constitution does not protect abortion how can they rule a law preventing it is unconstitutional?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is my point that you don't seem to be getting. Let me review the points:
1. It is my understanding that the SCOTUS is not supposed to rule in direct conflict with the Constitution.
2. If they ruled to take away 1st Amendment rights, this would be a ruling directly against something explicitly protected by the Constitution.
3. You used Roe v Wade as an example of something they've ruled upon that goes against the Constitution.
4. How does Roe v Wade go against the Constitution when there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Mar 27, 2013 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | That is my point that you don't seem to be getting. Let me review the points:
1. It is my understanding that the SCOTUS is not supposed to rule in direct conflict with the Constitution.
2. If they ruled to take away 1st Amendment rights, this would be a ruling directly against something explicitly protected by the Constitution.
3. You used Roe v Wade as an example of something they've ruled upon that goes against the Constitution.
4. How does Roe v Wade go against the Constitution when there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion? |
See above for answers to all of your questions...I think its pretty clear that you are unwilling to budge from your random and conflicting opinions on how the USSC and the constitution works.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
