Author Topic: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court  (Read 16616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2013, 07:53:00 AM »

Once again, if you start letting folks vote on how they want to conduct themselves, it is a bit like letting liberals vote on how much to pay themselves from the treasury.   

I know.  If only there was a place, maybe a country, that people could go, where they could come together as a society and choose what the rules were for their society.  They could choose anything they wanted as long as it didn't violate the individual rights that every person must enjoy.  Those people could even come to a unanimous decision and write those rules down in a document, like a Constitution, that would protect those individual rights from the overall masses from taking those away. 

I could have seen something like that happening once.  Maybe whole groups of people from around the world where their governments were controlled by religion and chose the leaders for those people, and the religiously chosen ones would rule by divine right.  Those individuals would flee that and set up a new country, where religious leaders couldn't dictate how they chose to live and the laws of their society.  If only there was a place like that on this planet.

Offline flyingvan

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Welcome to the CP-Forum
    • flyingvan
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2013, 08:32:24 AM »
    Odd that people force diversity in every institution.   If one is to be consistent, shouldn't both genders be equally represented in the institution of marriage?
    Not really sure why government needs to recognize marriage in ANY form.  They couldn't care less about my baptism, and I'd never dream of mandating the public recognize my confirmation or first communion. 
Find what you love and let it kill you.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2013, 08:35:38 AM »
Polygamy.  Frequently brought up by politicians and religious officials and even in some legal arguments.  The courts have found that to be ridiculous under the law.  As long as the law is applied equally for all races, genders, and religions, it doesn't run afoul of the fourteenth amendment. Polygamy laws are based on the quantity of people who can enter the contract, not based on their race, gender, age, or religion. The law is uniform. It doesn't apply to any of the legal questions here.

Incest.  Legally moot.  Incest is defined differently in every state.  Some states have no definition and it is perfectly legal.  If you are married legally under one state as what would be defined as incest in another, my understanding is, the Federal government takes no position to decide which marriage is recognized at the Federal level. This renders the argument moot for Federal law purposes.   For hundreds of years you could marry your cousin in many parts of the country and the Federal government would apply the law uniformly.  As with general English tradition, it was not uncommon for marriages of such in aristocratic or royal families.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2013, 01:20:34 PM »
I know.  If only there was a place, maybe a country, that people could go, where they could come together as a society and choose what the rules were for their society.  They could choose anything they wanted as long as it didn't violate the individual rights that every person must enjoy.  Those people could even come to a unanimous decision and write those rules down in a document, like a Constitution, that would protect those individual rights from the overall masses from taking those away. 
...........................

Note to the admins, we need a 'Thumbs Up' smiley for posts like this.  Sorta like the 'cool' smiley but just the thumbs up part.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2013, 01:36:34 PM »
I forgot to mention, it looks like you have copied and pasted a large part of an article, if not disregard this, but if you have that is a major copyright violation that can get the site owner in big trouble.  That is the kind of thing that gets attorneys to call site owners and make big threats; it is written like an article, so I am not sure what is and what is not.

If you look back at the OP you would see there is a reference ti the Chicago Trib and a direct link. Maybe it's not quite kosher but I never claimed it was my words and the link back is plainly there.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2013, 01:42:32 PM »
RE: 
Quote
Quote from: Carla_M on March 22, 2013, 09:42:14

    We, in the USA have separation of state and church, a wall of separation is the term used.

I just read my pocket version of the constitution front to back I can't find any such use of this term; can you enlighten me as to where this term originated? 

You are correct, those esact words do not appear in the Constitution itself.

The idea of the separation of church and state is implied in the Constitution's First Amendment "Establishment Clause," where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  This has been widely interpreted to mean that the government should not involve itself in religion in any way, including providing funds to support religious teaching in public schools, or allowing organized prayer in activities or facilities that receive government funds.

The First Amendment's freedom of religion includes the freedom to refrain from practicing a religion or having someone else's religious rituals inflicted upon a person in a public (non-religious) setting.

Again, the question at hand is one of law not religion.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2013, 02:00:08 PM »
just because some religions do not condone homosexuality, does not mean that is why some governments do not condone it.  The laws could just as easily exist because the majority of the population supports this law

The majority view is not always the correct view. 

Example: in 1964 the Rumfeld Act was passed. This made it illegal for landlords to discriminate based on race. In 1966 People were upset they could no longer discriminate on race. In CA they put proposition 64 on the ballot. It passed by 65%, meaning 65% of the voters believed that everyone should be able to discriminate in housing. The revered by many Ronald Regan said, "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so."

The Supreme Court disagreed and overturned prop. 64.   Overturning that was the correct thing to do.  Wouldn't everyone agree? 

Now to prop. 8. It passed by a much smaller majority, 52%. Stay tuned.

EDIT - and don't forget that our government form is a Republic, where rights of all the people, including the minorities are protected. We are not a Democracy where the majority over rules the Minority. That's a fundamental reason why prop 64 was overturned.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 03:43:58 PM by Carla_M »
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2013, 03:31:16 PM »
The majority view is not always the correct view.

I agree with you, but lets analyze this for a moment.  Based on your belief system, justice is 100% created by man.  Even when you look at the supreme court, a majority in that court is required, made up of people who were appointed by someone who was elected by a majority.  Like I mentioned in the case of murder, a majority agrees this is wrong.  This is the case with most laws.  At what point does the will of the majority bend to the will of the minority?  In the case of the supreme court, it is when one majority, overrules another majority.  It's an issue of timing.

Opinion evolves, and as different arguments and evidence, and in some cases, popular ideas, become "popular" the old ways are viewed as wrong, but nonetheless, in a system where man is the source of morality, they are equally valid.  It is truly popular belief that is the basis of laws.

Before I hang up my philosophical hat, I feel it necessary to say that I firmly belief there is a static right and wrong, a right and wrong that can only come from a creator, but I have set those beliefs aside here for the sake of argument.




Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2013, 03:40:20 PM »
Why do some feel we need different names?  I suppose it could work, but it seems cumbersome and unnecessary. ???  Hey, let's go with two classes, two names: civil union and church union. Do away with the term marriage altogether and start all over.


But yes, if there was a complete foolproof guarantee that the two were the same in all meanings, for me the suggestion by mgramann could work for me. But no weasel language anywhere that let's an insurance company or whatever makes exclusions.

Assuming marriage and the other were equal, I suspect it would still not be enough, for the reasons others have said here.  As NM Shooter said, by calling it marriage, it gets a certain amount of "endorsement" -but endorsement is NOT a required required right by the constitution.  This means popular opinion can rule, as long as a truly equal alternative exists.

Offline Don_P

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,538
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2013, 09:41:34 PM »
I went to the seperate but equal school, it wasn't. We don't do that concept well.
I guess my take on it is that it does me no harm if a man believes in one god or a thousand. In the same light, it does me no harm if someone wants to fly behind the nearest passing asteroid and marry a wookie. I know what marriage means to me and mine, that is all that matters.  We had a married couple over for a potluck the other night. I fail to see the downside, they both cook  :)

The government needs to find a way not to use the word marriage, let us corrupt that on our own.

Offline firefox

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
  • Eureka NV or Bust
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2013, 03:53:03 PM »
 they both cook  :)

Now you're talking!!!
Bruce & Robbie
MVPA 23824

Offline flyingvan

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Welcome to the CP-Forum
    • flyingvan
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2013, 05:40:27 PM »
Seems to me the obvious solution is cut government completely out of the marriage business.  Government's endorsement doesn't mean much to me anyway.  Declaring a domestic partnership is pretty palatable to everyone; if government wanted to consider my marriage a domestic partnership, fine.  But forcing me to recognize a gay union to be the same thing as a marriage is forcing someone else's values on me, and that I have a problem with.  'Equal protection'?  Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender... 
But my main point is, leave it to couples to identify and define their relationship and don't turn to the government to somehow validate it.  When Anna Nicole Smith married J. Howard I hardly considered that a marriage either, but they had their reasons and didn't need my approval. 
Find what you love and let it kill you.

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2013, 08:59:25 PM »
Polygamy.  Frequently brought up by politicians and religious officials and even in some legal arguments.  The courts have found that to be ridiculous under the law.  As long as the law is applied equally for all races, genders, and religions, it doesn't run afoul of the fourteenth amendment. Polygamy laws are based on the quantity of people who can enter the contract, not based on their race, gender, age, or religion. The law is uniform. It doesn't apply to any of the legal questions here.

Incest.  Legally moot.  Incest is defined differently in every state.  Some states have no definition and it is perfectly legal.  If you are married legally under one state as what would be defined as incest in another, my understanding is, the Federal government takes no position to decide which marriage is recognized at the Federal level. This renders the argument moot for Federal law purposes.   For hundreds of years you could marry your cousin in many parts of the country and the Federal government would apply the law uniformly.  As with general English tradition, it was not uncommon for marriages of such in aristocratic or royal families.

You skirted my question.  Why not be arguing to allow siblings to marry as part of this "equality" ruse? 

Why should the issue of gays and marriage be before the supreme court and a federal issue but sibling marriage not?  For that matter, if this is truly about love (not endorsement of sexual practice), why not allow man to marry a beast?
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2013, 09:00:55 PM »
P.S.  I agree with Flyingvan.  Amen.  Get the government out of it.
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline Abbey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2013, 03:32:11 AM »
You skirted my question.  Why not be arguing to allow siblings to marry as part of this "equality" ruse? 

Why should the issue of gays and marriage be before the supreme court and a federal issue but sibling marriage not?  For that matter, if this is truly about love (not endorsement of sexual practice), why not allow man to marry a beast?

Nice straw man.

Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2013, 04:30:09 AM »
Nice straw man.

One flaw in an argument doesn't invalidate all of the points.  Take the beast part out, not so much...  "What two consenting adults do" and all of that...

Keep the government out of the title, and allow any 2 adults to enter into the rights associated with marriage(end of life, contractual, etc) romantic or not.


Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2013, 05:15:16 AM »
Why should the issue of gays and marriage be before the supreme court and a federal issue but sibling marriage not? 

I answered that the first time.  There is no federal law.  If you do marry a sibling in some states you will get full federal recognition and benefits, depending upon the state’s definitions.  It is actually an argument against DOMA, which is why it was actually not in any of the legal briefs I saw.  Proponents don't want to associate same sex marriage with such a taboo subject, and people against gay marriage know the argument hurts them legally.  So no one brings it up.  DOMA is the only federal law that discriminates against legally married couples solely on the basis of their gender.

Ah the old bestiality argument.  Great with religiously minded.  Ridiculous to the legally minded.  It fails on so many levels.  First it completely ignores the most basic requirement of every marriage.  Consent.  It is like saying because you decriminalize unmarried sex it leads to rape.  You still have that tricky little "consent" issue in between.  Animals don't have the mental capacity to give consent.  Some humans don't even have the mental capacity to legally give consent.

The second reason is because the law isn't discriminating against you based on the gender you were born.  If the law said if you are born a woman you can marry horses and if you are born a man you can marry cows, then you as a man could sue to be able to marry a horse so that you could be treated equal to a woman under the law.  The law would be discriminating against you based on the gender you were born.  Since the law is applied EQUALLY to all human beings regardless of gender, race, age, or religion, it is not unconstitutional.

A lot of these arguments are great for preaching to the like minded, but aren't used legally because if people did they would be thrown out of court for failing to grasp the basics of the law.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2013, 05:56:42 AM »
~~~~~~~~~~~~  Get the government out of it.

Impossible with the over 1100 federal laws that are intertwined with the word marriage and the incorrect assumption that marriage must be between a man and a woman only.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline Abbey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2013, 06:50:13 AM »
One flaw in an argument doesn't invalidate all of the points.  Take the beast part out, not so much...  "What two consenting adults do" and all of that...

Keep the government out of the title, and allow any 2 adults to enter into the rights associated with marriage(end of life, contractual, etc) romantic or not.

Perhaps not, however, it’s still a weak debating method.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2013, 07:15:20 AM »
For that matter, if this is truly about love (not endorsement of sexual practice), why not allow man to marry a beast?

 rofl
Who said marriage had anything to do with love?!

I don't remember any legal (or religious for that matter) requirement in the history of the human species that required love for two people to be married.  Simply because people aren't in "love" doesn't invalidate their marriage.

 [rofl2]
 
I've read a lot of marriage laws. I've never seen the word love in any of them.  That is not the question before the courts.

Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2013, 07:21:52 AM »
Impossible with the over 1100 federal laws that are intertwined with the word marriage and the incorrect assumption that marriage must be between a man and a woman only.

Incorrect according to who?  Many definitions are based upon popular opinion.

This is why moving to a more universal term would be best.  It could easily be legislated that all current married laws apply to the new term.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2013, 07:53:37 AM »
Incorrect according to who?  Many definitions are based upon popular opinion.

Popular opinion used to condone blacks having to sit in the rear of the bus. Times change and some people have still not caught up with that one.

I'd like to hear how the opponents of gay and lesbian marriage would react to a son or daughter disclosing that they are gay or lesbian. There seems to be a few changes of heart when that comes along.


It could easily be legislated ....

Nothing in legislating is easy. We see proof of that daily in Washington. When people treat legislating as easy is when we end up with unintended consequences and conflicts with other laws and sometimes pure garbage

It does seem that the word marriage is embedded in our language; it is here to stay. The only thing that does not seem clear is the definition.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2013, 09:35:45 AM »
Popular opinion used to condone blacks having to sit in the rear of the bus. Times change and some people have still not caught up with that one.

What makes this on par with the civil rights laws?  Does this lend credit to any minority held view?  How can one tell the difference?  These questions must be answered to warrant change.

Nothing in legislating is easy. We see proof of that daily in Washington. When people treat legislating as easy is when we end up with unintended consequences and conflicts with other laws and sometimes pure garbage
 

My apologies.  "Easy" was a poor choice of words on my part.  Still, I suspect this is a change that most of society could embrace without a problem.

It does seem that the word marriage is embedded in our language; it is here to stay. The only thing that does not seem clear is the definition.

Just because it is in our language, doesn't mean the definition needs to be legislated-especially when a social contract could accomplish the same thing.


Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2013, 11:50:36 AM »
Who said marriage had anything to do with love?!

I've read a lot of marriage laws. I've never seen the word love in any of them.  That is not the question before the courts.

No, but that is the argument that LGBTs use to justify their motives. 

I’d bet 99.999% of the people who get married believe love should be the catalyst for a marriage.  I’m not surprised that this does not resonate with you.  My apologies to the significant whatevers of people such as yourself who believe marriage is first and foremost about laws. 

Another good reason why marriage should be out of the government domain. 

No one said anything about bestiality.  (Look up the difference between bestial and bestiality)    Where does it say that that marriage has to have sexual practice as a requirement? 

Polygamy?  You are indicating that we can’t change those laws because the participants outnumber the legal amount for a contract?  How….. intolerant you are!

You are full of hot air.  You are only for equality when you can choose who gets to be equal and under what terms. 

Respect for others really isn’t part of your agenda… is it?

Let’s cut to the chase about this…. liberals refuse to do the work to allow civil unions to be recognized… too much effort.  No issues with a ~2100 page obamacare bill.  Heck no… writing, promoting, application… piece of cake.  But the work that it might take to include the term “civil union” to extend to benefits is too much.  In spite of the fact that you would gain moderate conservative support! 

No, this is nothing short of the fact that you want legal endorsement for sodomy under the title of marriage, and you want to rub it into the faces of those of use who firmly believe that marriage is a covenant bond between one man and one woman. 

When you insist upon things such as this, you lose the support from people such as myself who would approve of civil union benefits.
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2013, 12:39:04 PM »

Polygamy?  You are indicating that we can’t change those laws because the participants outnumber the legal amount for a contract?  How….. intolerant you are!

Again I never said that they outnumber the legal participants for a contract.  You can have as many participants as you want under normal contract law. 

Again the question is "Does the Federal Government have the right under the constitution to pass a law banning it?"  As long as the law doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or age, then usually it can.  That is not what DOMA does.  DOMA only applies based on gender.  So far every court that has looked at it says that is a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution.
Polygamy laws don’t choose based on the race, age, religion, or gender.

  If the law said a man can have three wives, but a woman can only have one husband, then there would be standing to challenge the law under the fourteenth amendment, because you are treating people differently under the law based on the gender they were born.

You are full of hot air.  You are only for equality when you can choose who gets to be equal and under what terms. 


Yes, I want the law to apply equally to people regardless of race, gender, age, or religion under the terms of the United States Constitution. 

Why is it such a difficult concept that the law is supposed to apply to men and women equally?

I too feel sorry for many of the people that put up with me.

 

Templates: 5: index (default), Ads (default), Portal (default), Display (default), GenericControls (default).
Sub templates: 12: init, html_above, adsheaders_above, body_above, adsindex_above, portal_above, main, portal_below, adsindex_below, body_below, adsheaders_below, html_below.
Language files: 3: SPortal.english (default), index+Modifications.english (default), Ads.english (default).
Style sheets: 1: portal (default).
Files included: 37 - 1132KB. (show)
Cache hits: 11: 0.00162s for 40,856 bytes (show)
Queries used: 29.

[Show Queries]