|
Post by redleg on Jun 28, 2015 19:25:00 GMT -5
What the court should have done was declare marriage a state issue, and drop the whole thing. It is. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds control over marriage. Go to a flat tax, and kill the whole argument. The 14th Amendment entitles everyone to equal protection under the law. So, yes, the Constitution does give Feds control over marriage where marriage results in inequal treatment. Again, though, that issue isn't a gay versus straight problem. It's a married versus single problem. Plus, the idea of going to the state for approval of ones relationship status is just creepy. So, the idea of incestous couples, pedohiles and their "lovers", and polygamists are equal to hetero couples is enshrined in the 14th?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 28, 2015 19:27:13 GMT -5
But they didn't "take power away from the government', they usurped state powers. Exactly. They took a power away from state governments. And they didn't just open the door to one perversion, but all of them. If gays can "marry", then so can polygamists, incestuous "couples", and pedophiles, eventually. Since there is no age lmit stated in the Constitution, there is nothing preventing the underage from suing for their "rights". The slippery slope argument's validity depends very much on how slippery and how steep the slope is. The hyperreligious 1 believe it's very slippery and steep. I tend to doubt it. 1 People whose decisions are controlled chiefly by their religious beliefs and almost never by other inputs. That's your Dobsons, Falwells, and suchlike.Which they had no authority to do. It was unConstitutional for that reason alone. And your "slippery slope" is already sliding. Polygamists are already firing up the LR media to start forcing states to recognize their "unions". NAMBLA is as well.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 28, 2015 19:30:08 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. Zero chance this goes anywhere. The First Amendment would prohibit it. The 1A has already been overridden in several high profile lawsuits. The judges decided that being gay outweighed the right of freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 28, 2015 19:32:07 GMT -5
I would have thought that about florists, caterers and photographers as well, but that hasn't worked out. Or, for that matter, finding ways to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions. 1. Not religions (they may be religious, but that is not the same thing. They have to resolve the conflict between their their religion and their responsibilities as a public accommodation in a legal way. If they can't, then maybe they need to be in another line of work. 2. If the electorate has decided that businesses have certain responsibilities to their employees, and those are irreconcilable with religion, then the churches can sell those businesses. Render unto Caesar, and all that. If you allow individuals to disregard basic laws such as those governing public accommodations for vague reasons, such as "my religion has a problem with it" then you're legalizing discrimination. Religious folks have been shrilling about the slippery slope as regards this particular USSC decision, but seem curiously unable to see the slippery slope of allowing individuals to discriminate for arbitrary reasons. Keep faith in church and home. At work, set it aside. Public accomodation violates the 1A. Just because someone opens a store, restaraunt, or some other business does not mean they automatically surrender their Constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 28, 2015 20:02:05 GMT -5
We already know you have your own interpretation of the Constitution: it says whatever you want it to say, allows what you like and forbids what you don't. And we know that you hold to this despite the fact that actual scholars who have studied the document disagree with you. There's no need to keep emitting your foolish ideas. We've heard 'em all, many times!
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 20:20:41 GMT -5
The 14th Amendment entitles everyone to equal protection under the law. So, yes, the Constitution does give Feds control over marriage where marriage results in inequal treatment. Again, though, that issue isn't a gay versus straight problem. It's a married versus single problem. Plus, the idea of going to the state for approval of ones relationship status is just creepy. So, the idea of incestous couples, pedohiles and their "lovers", and polygamists are equal to hetero couples is enshrined in the 14th? Pedophiles, no. That's criminal because the child lacks the ability to properly consent. As for incestuous couples and polygamists, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult, the government does not have the constitutional authority to intervene, does it? Of couse, If we deregulate marriage, none of those people will feel any reason to seek out marriage, and churches will be able to refuse it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 20:22:51 GMT -5
1. Not religions (they may be religious, but that is not the same thing. They have to resolve the conflict between their their religion and their responsibilities as a public accommodation in a legal way. If they can't, then maybe they need to be in another line of work. 2. If the electorate has decided that businesses have certain responsibilities to their employees, and those are irreconcilable with religion, then the churches can sell those businesses. Render unto Caesar, and all that. If you allow individuals to disregard basic laws such as those governing public accommodations for vague reasons, such as "my religion has a problem with it" then you're legalizing discrimination. Religious folks have been shrilling about the slippery slope as regards this particular USSC decision, but seem curiously unable to see the slippery slope of allowing individuals to discriminate for arbitrary reasons. Keep faith in church and home. At work, set it aside. Public accomodation violates the 1A. Just because someone opens a store, restaraunt, or some other business does not mean they automatically surrender their Constitutional rights. Unless Donald Trump or someone else EY doesn't like is the customer. It's ok to refuse service to people like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 23:09:29 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. The only way to protect the church is to end the claim that some sort of legal benefit can be obtained by getting married. That is the ONLY way to end the equal protection claim. I believe we've had this conversation before. I think you have a valid point, though. This whole matter could be simply be defused by getting the state out of the marriage business.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 23:34:19 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. The only way to protect the church is to end the claim that some sort of legal benefit can be obtained by getting married. That is the ONLY way to end the equal protection claim. I believe we've had this conversation before. I think you have a valid point, though. This whole matter could be simply be defused by getting the state out of the marriage business. It's not the first time I've made the argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 23:37:25 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.
The only way to protect the church is to end the claim that some sort of legal benefit can be obtained by getting married. That is the ONLY way to end the equal protection claim. And that's my real problem with this whole thing. It's the old Give them an Inch scenario.
I've already seen quotes from gay rights advocates stating, as you said, that this fight isn't over. My guess is that they're going to try and push for the passage of ENDA, which would make gays, lesbians and transgenders a protected class in the workplace. I've suspected all along that simple equality at the altar (metaphorically speaking) wasn't the ultimate goal.
One of the problems I have with advocacy, be it about gays, minorities, the environment, what have you, is that it never packs up its tent and says "Mission accomplished." Quite the contrary, in fact. If your job is to stump for a cause, the worst thing that can actually happen is to have people agree with you. Now it's like the dog who caught the bus. What the hell do you do now? There are really only two choices: close up shop and go quietly into the night, or keep taking more and more radical positions. Since the former rarely, if ever, happens, I think we know, as you alluded to regarding the Catholic Church, where this may be headed.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 29, 2015 8:17:15 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.
The only way to protect the church is to end the claim that some sort of legal benefit can be obtained by getting married. That is the ONLY way to end the equal protection claim. And that's my real problem with this whole thing. It's the old Give them an Inch scenario.
I've already seen quotes from gay rights advocates stating, as you said, that this fight isn't over. My guess is that they're going to try and push for the passage of ENDA, which would make gays, lesbians and transgenders a protected class in the workplace. I've suspected all along that simple equality at the altar (metaphorically speaking) wasn't the ultimate goal.
One of the problems I have with advocacy, be it about gays, minorities, the environment, what have you, is that it never packs up its tent and says "Mission accomplished." Quite the contrary, in fact. If your job is to stump for a cause, the worst thing that can actually happen is to have people agree with you. Now it's like the dog who caught the bus. What the hell do you do now? There are really only two choices: close up shop and go quietly into the night, or keep taking more and more radical positions. Since the former rarely, if ever, happens, I think we know, as you alluded to regarding the Catholic Church, where this may be headed.
Exactly. Tolerance is NEVER enough. If these groups don't have you thinking exactly the way they do, and outright celebrating their existence, you're still a bigot that has to be brought to heel. That's what PC is all about. The thing is, it's gotten to the point where they've started eating their own. There are some very interesting fights brewing between the feminists and the trans community. And that's just for starters. The simple truth is, they've expanded these classes so much that virtually EVERYONE is a minority... And if you're not, all you have to do is dress up in blackface and spout leftist pablum to become one and get yourself elected president of the local NAACP chapter. Let us hope that it all descends into self-parody rather than something more violent.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 29, 2015 8:35:07 GMT -5
We already know you have your own interpretation of the Constitution: it says whatever you want it to say, allows what you like and forbids what you don't. And we know that you hold to this despite the fact that actual scholars who have studied the document disagree with you. There's no need to keep emitting your foolish ideas. We've heard 'em all, many times! So, a gay bakery should be fined, the owners even imprisoned, for refusing to cater a Catholic event, and print anti gay slogans on the cakes? A black florist should be shut down for refusing to cater a KKK (Democrat) event? Or is it only those that disapprove of homosexual deviancy that should be punished under "equal protection"?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 29, 2015 8:37:47 GMT -5
So, the idea of incestous couples, pedohiles and their "lovers", and polygamists are equal to hetero couples is enshrined in the 14th? Pedophiles, no. That's criminal because the child lacks the ability to properly consent. As for incestuous couples and polygamists, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult, the government does not have the constitutional authority to intervene, does it? Of couse, If we deregulate marriage, none of those people will feel any reason to seek out marriage, and churches will be able to refuse it. Given that there is no age limit on the rights in the Constitution, how long before we see, say, a 14 y/o suing for his/her rights? And no, the Feds have no more authority to intervene in those than it did in the gay "marriage" argument. That's for the states to decide. And since this court relied, at least partially, on "concensus" for their ruling, and given that most of that "consensus" was instituted by judicial fiat, it was a false argument to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 29, 2015 10:03:38 GMT -5
We already know you have your own interpretation of the Constitution: it says whatever you want it to say, allows what you like and forbids what you don't. And we know that you hold to this despite the fact that actual scholars who have studied the document disagree with you. There's no need to keep emitting your foolish ideas. We've heard 'em all, many times! So, a gay bakery should be fined, the owners even imprisoned, for refusing to cater a Catholic event, and print anti gay slogans on the cakes? A black florist should be shut down for refusing to cater a KKK (Democrat) event? Or is it only those that disapprove of homosexual deviancy that should be punished under "equal protection"? You already know that answer. You remember his Neil Young thread, where he made it clear that liberal musicians may refuse service to people they don't like. I'm not sure if that means Neil Young doesn't need to let his music be heard at a gay wedding if he doesn't endorse gay weddings. But it definitely means he doesn't need to let his music be heard at GOP campaign events. Even if the organizer has paid for it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 29, 2015 10:05:05 GMT -5
Pedophiles, no. That's criminal because the child lacks the ability to properly consent. As for incestuous couples and polygamists, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult, the government does not have the constitutional authority to intervene, does it? Of couse, If we deregulate marriage, none of those people will feel any reason to seek out marriage, and churches will be able to refuse it. Given that there is no age limit on the rights in the Constitution, how long before we see, say, a 14 y/o suing for his/her rights? And no, the Feds have no more authority to intervene in those than it did in the gay "marriage" argument. That's for the states to decide. And since this court relied, at least partially, on "concensus" for their ruling, and given that most of that "consensus" was instituted by judicial fiat, it was a false argument to begin with. Probably not until they turn 18, and can legally file the suit without their parents or guardians getting involved.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 29, 2015 19:58:05 GMT -5
Given that there is no age limit on the rights in the Constitution, how long before we see, say, a 14 y/o suing for his/her rights? And no, the Feds have no more authority to intervene in those than it did in the gay "marriage" argument. That's for the states to decide. And since this court relied, at least partially, on "concensus" for their ruling, and given that most of that "consensus" was instituted by judicial fiat, it was a false argument to begin with. Probably not until they turn 18, and can legally file the suit without their parents or guardians getting involved. And you think their parents won't get involved? The parents would see a huge payday. Besides, one doesn't have to be 18 to file a lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 29, 2015 20:04:22 GMT -5
Probably not until they turn 18, and can legally file the suit without their parents or guardians getting involved. And you think their parents won't get involved? The parents would see a huge payday. Besides, one doesn't have to be 18 to file a lawsuit. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 30, 2015 8:50:45 GMT -5
And you think their parents won't get involved? The parents would see a huge payday. Besides, one doesn't have to be 18 to file a lawsuit. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. It's already starting. Some in the LR media are already pandering for polygamist 'marriage', and NAMBLA is gearing up for a few good lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 30, 2015 9:39:34 GMT -5
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. It's already starting. Some in the LR media are already pandering for polygamist 'marriage', and NAMBLA is gearing up for a few good lawsuits. Which is why it's so important to end civil marriage. It's the only way to end the legal complaints. Poly marriage is going to happen. Sexual abuse of minors will remain a crime. But I do have good news for you redleg: the 1950s style marriage you no doubt have, is now considered 'kinky' and some guys in leather will be coming by to welcome you into the BDSM community. Where is marriage even mentioned in the Constitution?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 30, 2015 9:46:02 GMT -5
So, a gay bakery should be fined, the owners even imprisoned, for refusing to cater a Catholic event, and print anti gay slogans on the cakes? A black florist should be shut down for refusing to cater a KKK (Democrat) event? Or is it only those that disapprove of homosexual deviancy that should be punished under "equal protection"? This statement pretty much proves you don't understand Constitutional law. One case is about what the government is forbidden from doing. The other is about what private citizens are forbidden from doing.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 30, 2015 19:37:24 GMT -5
It's already starting. Some in the LR media are already pandering for polygamist 'marriage', and NAMBLA is gearing up for a few good lawsuits. Which is why it's so important to end civil marriage. It's the only way to end the legal complaints. Poly marriage is going to happen. Sexual abuse of minors will remain a crime. But I do have good news for you redleg: the 1950s style marriage you no doubt have, is now considered 'kinky' and some guys in leather will be coming by to welcome you into the BDSM community. Where is marriage even mentioned in the Constitution? It's not. Which is why the SCOTUS should have refused to hear the case, and simply said that was a state issue. And since both Sotomayor and Ginsburg refused to recuse themselves from the case, despite the fact that they had preruled for it by performing gay "marriages", the states should simply declare the ruling null and void.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 30, 2015 20:40:39 GMT -5
Which is why it's so important to end civil marriage. It's the only way to end the legal complaints. Poly marriage is going to happen. Sexual abuse of minors will remain a crime. But I do have good news for you redleg: the 1950s style marriage you no doubt have, is now considered 'kinky' and some guys in leather will be coming by to welcome you into the BDSM community. Where is marriage even mentioned in the Constitution? It's not. Which is why the SCOTUS should have refused to hear the case, and simply said that was a state issue. And since both Sotomayor and Ginsburg refused to recuse themselves from the case, despite the fact that they had preruled for it by performing gay "marriages", the states should simply declare the ruling null and void. Except that "equal protection" is in the Constitution. If marriage is to exist as a government matter - even at the state level - the law has to be applied equally. That's why it needs to cease to exist as a government matter. Unfortunately, by it's nature, civil marriage creates inequality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 1:16:02 GMT -5
It's not. Which is why the SCOTUS should have refused to hear the case, and simply said that was a state issue. And since both Sotomayor and Ginsburg refused to recuse themselves from the case, despite the fact that they had preruled for it by performing gay "marriages", the states should simply declare the ruling null and void. Except that "equal protection" is in the Constitution. If marriage is to exist as a government matter - even at the state level - the law has to be applied equally. That's why it needs to cease to exist as a government matter. Unfortunately, by it's nature, civil marriage creates inequality. Equal protection, however, applies to people and not actions. Laws are in place to discriminate between different types of actions. Pedestrians, for example, are not allowed to walk in the middle of highways, but if that same pedestrian gets behind the wheel of a car, he is perfectly free to use it. That doesn't qualify as discrimination against any person or persons.
In a free society, any number of things are neither forbidden nor condoned. They're just considered nobody else's damn business. If two homosexuals want to enter into an intimate relationship, they are obviously free to do so. In fact, I think that was where the whole gay marriage argument was on its strongest ground--the government has no right to interfere into the relations between consenting adults. I wholeheartedly agree. But I don't agree with the 14th Amendment argument of so-called "equal protection" in this instance because marriage is an act between two people. Until now, gays could not marry each other, but then again, if two hetero males or two hetero females wanted to enter into a same-sex marriage, they couldn't do so either.
Equal protection against discrimination comes into play when the same laws are applied differently to people engaging in the same sort of action. Blacks, for example, were typically forced to sit at the back of the bus, or enter and leave restaurants (if they were admitted at all) through the back door. That's racial discrimination because the act of patronage was the same regardless of skin color. A black person got on a bus for the purpose of getting where he or she needed to go and paid the fare for the service, the same as the white riders. Likewise in a restaurant. Once patronage is accepted, the color of one's skin goes out the window. A paying customer is a paying customer.
Likewise with bans against interracial marriage, since race is not part of the definition of marriage. Marriage equality, however, is more analogous to petitioning the government to approve a different type of act--for lack of a better term. No one is entitled to anyone else's approval.
Again, I agree with your argument of taking the state out of the marriage business entirely. It's actually kind of ironic that gay rights activist paint the equality in marriage issue as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled. In many ways, marriage is a restriction of rights since it imposes certain legal restrictions that an individual may otherwise have.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 1, 2015 12:53:12 GMT -5
Except that "equal protection" is in the Constitution. If marriage is to exist as a government matter - even at the state level - the law has to be applied equally. That's why it needs to cease to exist as a government matter. Unfortunately, by it's nature, civil marriage creates inequality. Equal protection, however, applies to people and not actions. Laws are in place to discriminate between different types of actions. Pedestrians, for example, are not allowed to walk in the middle of highways, but if that same pedestrian gets behind the wheel of a car, he is perfectly free to use it. That doesn't qualify as discrimination against any person or persons.
In a free society, any number of things are neither forbidden nor condoned. They're just considered nobody else's damn business. If two homosexuals want to enter into an intimate relationship, they are obviously free to do so. In fact, I think that was where the whole gay marriage argument was on its strongest ground--the government has no right to interfere into the relations between consenting adults. I wholeheartedly agree. But I don't agree with the 14th Amendment argument of so-called "equal protection" in this instance because marriage is an act between two people. Until now, gays could not marry each other, but then again, if two hetero males or two hetero females wanted to enter into a same-sex marriage, they couldn't do so either.
Equal protection against discrimination comes into play when the same laws are applied differently to people engaging in the same sort of action. Blacks, for example, were typically forced to sit at the back of the bus, or enter and leave restaurants (if they were admitted at all) through the back door. That's racial discrimination because the act of patronage was the same regardless of skin color. A black person got on a bus for the purpose of getting where he or she needed to go and paid the fare for the service, the same as the white riders. Likewise in a restaurant. Once patronage is accepted, the color of one's skin goes out the window. A paying customer is a paying customer.
Likewise with bans against interracial marriage, since race is not part of the definition of marriage. Marriage equality, however, is more analogous to petitioning the government to approve a different type of act--for lack of a better term. No one is entitled to anyone else's approval.
Again, I agree with your argument of taking the state out of the marriage business entirely. It's actually kind of ironic that gay rights activist paint the equality in marriage issue as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled. In many ways, marriage is a restriction of rights since it imposes certain legal restrictions that an individual may otherwise have. You're right mostly - except that the equal protection problem didn't arise out of the marriage itself. Even before this ruling, gay people could go to a local holy-person and have what amounted to a religious wedding. Provided, of course, said holy-person was willing to perform the ceremony. The equal protection issue arose because the government treats married people differently from singles in a variety of ways, from income taxation, to inheritance issues, to whether or not such people could apply for health care benefits, etc. To my mind, this was the best argument against legalizing gay marriage. More specifically: the government isn't treating you any differently because you're GAY. It's treating you differently because you're SINGLE. The root of the different treatment is, and always was, marital status, NOT sexual orientation. Gay people have always had all the same rights and privileges under the law as single people do. And that's also why making this a 'civil rights' issue was always a fraudulent argument. Gays didn't want the government to stop treating people differently, they just wanted to get in on the benefits that marriage creates for married people. Which is why the correct, constitutional answer to this question is to end 'discrimination' based on marital status, and have the government treat everyone as individuals.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 1, 2015 19:31:20 GMT -5
So, a gay bakery should be fined, the owners even imprisoned, for refusing to cater a Catholic event, and print anti gay slogans on the cakes? A black florist should be shut down for refusing to cater a KKK (Democrat) event? Or is it only those that disapprove of homosexual deviancy that should be punished under "equal protection"? This statement pretty much proves you don't understand Constitutional law. One case is about what the government is forbidden from doing. The other is about what private citizens are forbidden from doing. Obviously, you haven't been keeping up. There's a bakery in WA that has been shut down, and the owners smacked with over $100 k in "fines" from a lawsuit brought by one of her competitors. All because she wouldn't cater a gay "wedding". In CO, a baker was also "fined" because of the same thing. That's the government punishing individuals for not "celebrating" perversion.
|
|