|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 29, 2015 13:58:08 GMT
This is the problem...
Everyone is running around saying the Court "legalized" gay marriage. They didn't. SCOTUS did not, and can not, "legalize" anything.
What they, and various plaintiffs, did was circumvent established legislative process and created this touchy-feely, nebulous "right to dignity" - contained nowhere in the 14th amendment.
Federal supremacy is only applicable to the responsibilities assigned to the federal government. If federal supremacy applies to anything and everything, then the 9th and 10th amendments along with Constitution mean nothing.
But, as we have seen, the best way to force the progressive agenda on an unwilling populace, is to get the feds involved.
So, a question remains - when did one man / one woman marriage become unconstitutional?
At our country's founding? At the time of the Civil War? When?
The fourteenth amendment made it unconstitutional. Can you explain to me how the supreme court cannot legalize anything. They determine that bans on gay marriage were illegal, which is just another way of saying gay marriage is now legal, right? The 14th did not make it unconstitutional. The 14th is not applicable at all in this matter. You are reading into general equal protection and due process language of the U.S. Constitution a substantive right of same sex couples to “marriage” that the Founders and the Civil War generation, who were responsible for the constitutional text, would have ridiculed your position as complete and utter nonsense. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause is only applicable in cases involving matters of segregation-related issues, which is precisely why the Loving case was appropriate and Obergefell is not appropriate. The Supreme court cannot "legalize" anything, as legislative powers are reserved to the Legislative Branch. SCOTUS may interpret. Even assuming an acceptance of judicial review, there still has to be a constitutional basis for striking down a state law that is not just a matter of judges’ personal policy preferences. And I don;t by the leftwing narrative that there are "bans on gay marriage"....what state laws have done is defined marriage as one man and one woman. The claim that this violates the 14th Amendment has always been a legal stretch. It’s been obvious that judges who overturn the state laws are rationalizing as necessary to get the result they want. If marriage was a “fundamental right” you would not need a license to engage.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 30, 2015 8:21:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 30, 2015 12:04:33 GMT
How does the Pope "secretly" go anywhere??
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 30, 2015 12:05:25 GMT
That should be in news of the weird. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 30, 2015 21:49:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 30, 2015 23:47:45 GMT
So... Kim went to Washington, to meet with the Pope... but, the Vatican won't confirm it. So, they leave open the possibility that she is a whacko and is lying about the visit.
I'm not sure that really helped anything.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Oct 1, 2015 0:19:57 GMT
The fourteenth amendment made it unconstitutional. Can you explain to me how the supreme court cannot legalize anything. They determine that bans on gay marriage were illegal, which is just another way of saying gay marriage is now legal, right? The 14th did not make it unconstitutional. The 14th is not applicable at all in this matter. You are reading into general equal protection and due process language of the U.S. Constitution a substantive right of same sex couples to “marriage” that the Founders and the Civil War generation, who were responsible for the constitutional text, would have ridiculed your position as complete and utter nonsense. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause is only applicable in cases involving matters of segregation-related issues, which is precisely why the Loving case was appropriate and Obergefell is not appropriate. The Supreme court cannot "legalize" anything, as legislative powers are reserved to the Legislative Branch. SCOTUS may interpret. Even assuming an acceptance of judicial review, there still has to be a constitutional basis for striking down a state law that is not just a matter of judges’ personal policy preferences. And I don;t by the leftwing narrative that there are "bans on gay marriage"....what state laws have done is defined marriage as one man and one woman. The claim that this violates the 14th Amendment has always been a legal stretch. It’s been obvious that judges who overturn the state laws are rationalizing as necessary to get the result they want. If marriage was a “fundamental right” you would not need a license to engage. Why does it have to be a matter of segregation for the 14th amendment to apply? Your other points are semantics. Defining marriage as one man and one woman is effectively a ban on gay marriage. The supreme court striking down that definition of marriage is effectively legalizing gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Oct 1, 2015 0:40:11 GMT
But did the founding fathers intend the first amendment to apply to private organizations? I don't think so.
The proper question is: Did the original writers intend freedom of religious expression to be an individual right?
I'd have to go back and read some of their other writings on the subject. But, I suspect they wouldn't have much of a problem with this. Obviously, they didn't feel strongly enough to codify in the constitution. But, neither did they forbid such an extension.
The right extended by Congress in 1964 is not an absolute right. It's one that tries to define the compromises that should be reasonably made. Only people with an extreme anti-religion bias would really object to them.
Exactly. You suspect they don't have a problem, but they didn't codify it into the constitution, nor did they forbid it. In other words there was no intention for the first amendment to apply to private organizations; they didn't even think about private organizations limiting exercise of religion. If there was intention, there would be words supporting that. My point remains: Limiting ourselves to the "intentions" of the founding fathers is ridiculous, and is often conveniently ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 1, 2015 0:55:53 GMT
My point remains: Limiting ourselves to the "intentions" of the founding fathers is ridiculous, and is often conveniently ignored. LOL... that's now your point? It sure has changed a lot over the course of this thread. I still say... If we ignore the "intent" of the people who wrote the constitution, or the amendments... and, ignore the ACTUAL WORDING of what is written.. then, what's the point of even having a constitution? If we know what was meant, we should respect it.. and, change it only by amendment, not by "re-interpretation".
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Oct 1, 2015 1:05:57 GMT
My point remains: Limiting ourselves to the "intentions" of the founding fathers is ridiculous, and is often conveniently ignored. No, my point has remained consistent across the thread, from my first post until now. That was the point I brought up, we love to argue the founding father's intentions, until we disregard them, or extend them, as you have. I'm looking at the actual wording of the first amendment. What law has congress passed that prohibits Kim Davis's free exercise of religion? And further into the conversation: What does a private organization limiting my employment opportunities because I want Football days off have to do with the wording of the first amendment? We've interpreted the first amendment WELL BEYOND the intentions of the founding fathers (Citizens United is a great example). I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm saying this is hypocritical of everyone who says we should adhere to the founding father's intentions.
|
|
|
Post by kentflash_05 on Oct 1, 2015 3:18:06 GMT
I could have sworn today that the Vatican confirmed it
|
|
|
Post by kentflash_05 on Oct 1, 2015 3:26:25 GMT
what I don't get is....in my opinion Marriage was created by and large by religion not the government. Marriage for centuries was a religious rite of passage for men and women when they got old enough.....so how the hell does the government think they can re-define the institution of marriage, when it was never there's to define? I mean is there not a separation of church and state? I'm all for Gay people spending lives together with their loved ones, and calling it a domestic partnership....and giving them the same rights as married couples..........but in my opinion the government should not be imposing on religious institutions what marriage is either. Give gay people Domestic Partnership, let them have a ceremony in court houses, and give them all the rights of a married couple....but don't call it marriage, and if you do that...I really don't see what anyone would have to complain about!
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 1, 2015 10:12:53 GMT
Dennis Miller was on fire the other night- talking about he simlarities between Obama and the Pope The drives a fiat, Obama rules by fiat...both were born in Kenya...
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 1, 2015 12:07:15 GMT
Let me try it this way... to AuFan; Your first point was; The First Amendment has been too loosely interpreted. Now, you're saying it's ridiculous to consider the intentions of the Founders. Those are different contentions. They're only similar in the fact that the are both incorrect. I didn't extend the rights guaranteed by the founders, Congress did when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You really should go read it. It might improve your understanding. That LAW, extended the right of free exercise to individuals in the workplace. Clearly, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law. In no way does it violate the First Amendment. There has been NO loose interpretation of the first with regards to religious rights... except perhaps, to excessively limit religious symbols and practice in the public arena.
When people talk about Founder's Intent, that doesn't mean we're required to keep every single law or custom as they knew it in 1790. What it mean is this: What was the intent, or meaning of language in the constitution, including amendments added to it. The constitution is the STANDARD that laws are supposed to be judged against. There should be no arbitrary re-interpretation of the STANDARD.
For example: The fourth amendment says
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
It's pretty clear that, for a warrant to be issued, there must be a NAMED accuser. The Founders wrote a LOT on this point. It was important to them. There is no ambiguity. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that police can obtain warrants based on an "Anonymous" tip. THAT, is complete an utter disregard for the intent of the people who wrote the constitution. It is judicial over-reach of the worst kind.
Another example is, the 14th amendment. Its pretty clear, for anyone who cares to research it, that the guy who wrote it NEVER intended for babies born in the US, to parents who are in the country illegally, to be given US citizenship. It was meant to provide birth citizenship only to babies born of people here LEGALLY (ie: under the jurisdiction of... ). I don't actually think the Supreme Court has over-reached on this one...yet. Legal pundits have. No case has ever reached the Supreme Court that clearly tests the merits of citizenship for illegal alien children.
Those are cases where Founder's intent are important. To make sure we all understand what the STANDARD is... then, laws are judged against a firm standard.
What law has congress passed that prohibits Kim Davis's free exercise of religion?
Congress wrote the Civil Rights Act, which protects the right of religious expression using 'reasonable means'. Now, the courts are trying to force Davis to do an act that contradicts her firmly held religious belief. The courts should be providing her with the protections required by law. Reasonable accommodations can easily be made, and SHOULD be allowed.
What does a private organization limiting my employment opportunities because I want Football days off have to do with the wording of the first amendment?
It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It's compliance with the Civil Rights Act. It came up in discussion only because you wanted to know why the government gets to decide whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held. It's because, the courts have to decided (when asked) to determine whether or not a law is being followed. And, this has to be PART of the decision.
You seem to think everyone in the world is hypocritical, except yourself of course...
Intentions matter, as it applies to meaning of the language in the constitution. Nothing more. They granted us the FREEDOM to pass laws to govern ourselves as our society is want to do. Laws that are required to remain within the framework of the constitution.... which, is itself, changeable... in a proper manner.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 1, 2015 12:22:19 GMT
Man... formatting multiple quote replies really SUCKS on this new board.
|
|