|
Post by Bevo on Oct 1, 2015 12:24:02 GMT
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!
California did exactly what you described... the gay activist were STILL not happy. It's not "equal rights" they seek... it's public acceptance. That's not something that can be legislated.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 1, 2015 13:41:47 GMT
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. For one, the 14th amendment was one of 3 CIvil War era amendments design to resovles "segregation issues of the Negroes". Secondly, the contemporaray Justices of the time clearly opined that applicability of the 14th amendment is limited to such cases (as they were contemporaries of the authors and would best know legislative intent). Further, the authors and contemporary justices have also stated that the 14th amendment did not create any new rights (including the touchy-feely, amoeba-like "right to dignity"). Third, in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state. So, do we believe that the 14th amendment provided for gay marriage, when said couples would have been immediately jailed for consummating their marriage? Perhaps semantics to the public, but legally they are very different. The 14th has been so bastardized, we might as well consider it repealed at this point. Just like with anchor babies, poeple say the get US citizenship, they don't and were never intended to be given such.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 1, 2015 13:49:44 GMT
So many of my facebook friends who have, since Francis acended to the Papacy, lauded his virtues, have been so butthurt since the news of his meeting with Kim Davis. They Hate him and don't think he is "cool" anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 1, 2015 14:57:25 GMT
So many of my facebook friends who have, since Francis acended to the Papacy, lauded his virtues, have been so butthurt since the news of his meeting with Kim Davis. They Hate him and don't think he is "cool" anymore. Butthurt?? heheh hhehe
you said, "butthurt"...
how appropriate
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Oct 2, 2015 0:01:48 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! Government redefined it a long time ago, to be an government sanctioned institution. They defined it as being between a legal agreement between one man and one woman of the same race. If you claim the problem is that government is defining marriage, it has been a problem long before this ruling. Your problem is not government redefining marriage. It is government redefining marriage in a way that doesn't coincide with your definition of marriage. Also, on your line: I agree with you. But is this actually happening?
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Oct 2, 2015 0:07:05 GMT
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!
California did exactly what you described... the gay activist were STILL not happy. It's not "equal rights" they seek... it's public acceptance. That's not something that can be legislated.
So gay couples get separate recognition, but it is equal.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Oct 2, 2015 1:02:48 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 actually said both at the same time: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is interpreted way too loosely, well beyond the intent of the founders. I'll forgive you for this sentence truncation that you are famous for, because formatting is difficult. 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. It is not a violation of the first amendment, but it is not how they intended the law to be applied. 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. I agree. To abide by the STANDARD that was set, there is no need for us to judge their intentions. The STANDARD is written in clear English. 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.
I agree, the courts should provide her the protections required by law. However this is not a law that prohibits her exercise of religion. This is a law that enables her exercise of religion. How does this a law, passed by congress, prohibit her free exercise of religion?
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.
Exactly my point. It is outside the intention of the first amendment.
I'm saying this is hypocritical of everyone who says we should adhere to the founding father's intentions. 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.
Everyone is hypocritical, including myself. It seems we ultimately agree. If we say the "intention" of the founding fathers is the written words in plain English in the constitution, then yes we should follow the "intention" of the founding fathers. In this case, the wording of the amendment and the intent of the amendment are the exact same thing. If it is like the bullshit TigerCPA is spewing about the 14th amendment, where equal protection should only be applied in matters where segregation of the negroes is an issue, because that was the "intent" of the 14th amendment, then the "intent" of the writers is non-sense. Equal protection applies to everyone, not just when segregation of negroes is involved. P.S. just use quotation marks. I'm not going to clean up another post of yours with the new forum format.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Oct 2, 2015 1:13:19 GMT
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. For one, the 14th amendment was one of 3 CIvil War era amendments design to resovles "segregation issues of the Negroes". Secondly, the contemporaray Justices of the time clearly opined that applicability of the 14th amendment is limited to such cases (as they were contemporaries of the authors and would best know legislative intent). Further, the authors and contemporary justices have also stated that the 14th amendment did not create any new rights (including the touchy-feely, amoeba-like "right to dignity"). Third, in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state. So, do we believe that the 14th amendment provided for gay marriage, when said couples would have been immediately jailed for consummating their marriage? Perhaps semantics to the public, but legally they are very different. The 14th has been so bastardized, we might as well consider it repealed at this point. Just like with anchor babies, poeple say the get US citizenship, they don't and were never intended to be given such. Since the 14th amendment was only intended for discrimination against negroes, you'd be fine if it applied to other races? Religions? Genders? Allowing gay couples to marry is not creating a right to marriage. It is protecting an already existing right to be treated equally under the law. If under the law straight couples have the privilege to marry, then so do gay couples. No new right created.
|
|