Quote:You really should share whatever you were smoking yesterday, looks like it was good stuff. Made you a bit hostile though.
Not hostile at all. Just highly amused at the certitude you bring to each subject. But at least you have one person who always thinks you know it all. Well, and your mom.
Quote:Not hostile at all. Just highly amused at the certitude you bring to each subject. But at least you have one person who always thinks you know it all. Well, and your mom.
The difference between us I guess, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know best for you. You think government should force me to do what you think best.
This whole thing about equal rights doesn't pass the smell test to anyone who is objective. What is marriage. That's a fundamental question. From the point of view of the state its a legal binding of two people. THAT'S IT! So you can save all the hearts and flowers about devotion and freedom of intimacy blah blah blah. Technically speaking, that was legal before the supreme court made its ruling. No one was talking about arresting gay people for buying wedding rings. no one was trying to stop gay people from having wedding ceremonies. No one was trying to stop same sex couples from cohabitating. While I strongly disagree with those lifestyles, I would make the argument that the right to express them was covered clearly in the first amendment under freedom of religious expression.
At the same time, Marriage is an institution that fundamentally has to be defined. Just like a 401k has to be defined, or an IRA or a life insurance contract, or the terms of any other legally binding contract, partnership or institution that seeks to be recognized and endorsed by the state. As such, it is fundamentally incumbent on the people and or their elected representatives considering all compelling factors should determine how each state defines and recognizes marriage. Even if you want to talk about interstate commerce, then the federal elected representatives should have final say in fundamentally defining marriage. The idea that 5 men in black robes have the unilateral ability to overturn the expressed democratic will of the people, with respect to the fundamental definition of marriage, is inherently divorced from the democratic process.
As for the idea of comparing this to general minority rights, that doesn't even reach first base. First, in the very writings of the founders we find a contiguous lament about the institution of slavery and a desire to eventually see it abolished. It was those writings that were quoted when the 13th 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution were passed and also they fought a pretty public war in which all parties clearly understood that one of the major points of contention was the right to keep and bear slaves defining people as less than deserving of their inalienable human rights based solely on their melanin content. later during the 60's you had a massive bipartisan coalition between a president and his opposing party pass the civil rights act and the voting rights act as affirmation of the protections of the 14th ammendment. While there were several important court cases that aided in the plight of minorities at the time, those court cases were based on the laws and amendments that were not being enforced, not conjuring them out of whole cloth.
And last but not least, I think that the most hypocritical position of this century is the left claiming the banner of civil rights and human decency because they rush to absorb support of the lgbt community, when in reality it was the left that philibustered the civil rights act, the voting rights act, put MLK under surveillance, a democratic president called him a [BAD WORD REMOVED] the southern states who left the union were mostly democrat and oh yes, last but not least, the democratic party today as we speak has argued and maintained that before we have the right to be gay straight marry or life a bohemian lifestyle we don't fundamentally have the right to breathe or exist as humans in our mothers womb. This alone has led to the inane slaughter of some 70 million people, most of whom were women and minorities. That's six times greater than the holocaust. I don't want to hear anyone lecture me about freedom and equal rights while lynch mobs are closing down bakeries and flower shops that THEPY won't tolerate and standing idly by while we slaughter over a million unborn children a year for simple convenience.
Quote:And last but not least, I think that the most hypocritical position of this century is the left claiming the banner of civil rights and human decency because they rush to absorb support of the lgbt community, when in reality it was the left that philibustered the civil rights act, the voting rights act, put MLK under surveillance, a democratic president called him a [BAD WORD REMOVED] the southern states who left the union were mostly democrat and oh yes, last but not least, the democratic party today as we speak has argued and maintained that before we have the right to be gay straight marry or life a bohemian lifestyle we don't fundamentally have the right to breathe or exist as humans in our mothers womb. This alone has led to the inane slaughter of some 70 million people, most of whom were women and minorities. That's six times greater than the holocaust. I don't want to hear anyone lecture me about freedom and equal rights while lynch mobs are closing down bakeries and flower shops that THEPY won't tolerate and standing idly by while we slaughter over a million unborn children a year for simple convenience.
You are confusing "the left" with a particular political party. Southern Democrats from before the Civil War through the Jim Crow era were no more leftists than members of the John Birch society.
Just because the scale of slavery and discrimination of African-Americans is greater than that of denying the rights of people who want to enjoy the benefits of people who want to legally marry doesn't make the comparison invalid.
The debate over abortion is a completely different matter, one likely not a topic for discussion here due to board restrictions.
Quote:The idea that 5 men in black robes have the unilateral ability to overturn the expressed democratic will of the people, with respect to the fundamental definition of marriage, is inherently divorced from the democratic process.
This is a fundamentally flawed point because the democratic will of the people doesn't always line up with the rights the US Constitution conveys upon citizens. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind if the Westboro Baptist Church just went away but if a local, state or federal office passed a law to enact the democratic will of the people they be sued and they'd rightly lose because the US Constitution guarantees free speech.
It's the same with gay marriage; the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and since marriage is a legally binding contract under US law those protections should be afforded to gay people as well.
If you're not going to respond to the post that i made then why quote me? Did i say it was simply a matter of scale or did i articulate the difference between democracy and judicial tyranny?
And again the constitution doesnt say anything about gay marriage. If it Did then it would be a different ball game. It does however say that all powers not expressly spelled out in the constitution would be reserved by the states. So again five guys making a unilateral decree for all fifty states because the left is loosing at the ballot box is activism.
Quote:If you're not going to respond to the post that i made then why quote me? Did i say it was simply a matter of scale or did i articulate the difference between democracy and judicial tyranny?
And again the constitution doesnt say anything about gay marriage. If it Did then it would be a different ball game. It does however say that all powers not expressly spelled out in the constitution would be reserved by the states. So again five guys making a unilateral decree for all fifty states because the left is loosing at the ballot box is activism.
The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about black people either. Nor does the 1st amendment say anything about Native Americans. The Fourth Amendment doesn't mention Hispanics and the second doesn't mention whites. In fact, the Constitution does a quite wonderful job of speaking generalities when it comes to people it applies to. No doubt this was done intentionally to avoid this exact argument.
And people like to throw out the 10th Amendment whenever it suits their argument but if you'd actually brother to read the bloody thing you'd know the 10th actually furthers my argument. to save you the bother of looking it up, here's the text of the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Emphasis added by me)
See the "prohibited by it to the States" part? That's rather important because that helps enforce the 14th Amendment. See, the 14th prohibits unequal treatment under the law only referring to "any person within its jurisdiction". Since marriage is a contract whose terms are determined by the laws by the state and federal governments. To deny such a contract based on sexual orientation is to enforce unequal treatment something specifically prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
It's always funny seeing the sound bites politicians provide and their constituents spout off as if it makes them more knowledgeable
The equal protection clause doesn't mention gay marriage, no. It also didn't mention segregation. In fact Plessy v Ferguson was after the 14th amendment, and it was a Supreme Court decision that declared that Separate but equal satisfied the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Then in 1954 Brown vs Board of Education threw that all out.
You then have Loving V. Virginia. In 1967 it was declared that a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Like Brown v. Board of Education it was a unanimous decision.
I'm sure these people who were arguing Judicial Tyranny and wanting elected justices were fine with decisions like... Bush v Gore, and Citizens United case, as well as the Hobby Lobby case.
Quote:But literally it was equal treatment before this ruling. Both a straight person and a gay person were free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Straight people did not have a special right to marry someone of the same sex.
That's basically the same stupid argument that made "separate but equal" public policy.
Quote:But literally it was equal treatment before this ruling. Both a straight person and a gay person were free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Straight people did not have a special right to marry someone of the same sex.
That's...the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Quote:But odds are they would. There are already stories in the media of this happening, but there's no outrage when it does. Why is that? Why is it that activists jump out of the woodwork when a pizza restaurant owner says in an interview that if she was asked to cater a gay wedding, she wouldn't because of her religious beliefs? The fact that they'd never been asked to do so, and that they had gay customers that they provided service to as patrons was irrelevant. The activists had their sacrificial lamb.
It's not bigotry. It's fact. There is a legitimate gay mafia in our society today. Talk to our gay relatives or friends and ask them. It's not something I've concocted. But hey, call me a bigot if you feel the need.
I've never heard the term "gay mafia" in my life nor has anyone I know. I like it though and I plan to try to infiltrate their underground headquarters. I wonder if I'll get a jacket?!
But FBT I've known you "on here" for a long time and I know how you lean (not that there's anything wrong with that). It's all good.
Quote:You're really trying to have it both ways, aren't you? Perhaps you should run for office.
Whatever dude. I'm just able to see both sides of a subject. It's called being open minded. You should try it some time. Yes, I have my beliefs but I also try to respect the beliefs of others even if I don't agree.
So If I choose to not cater to a GLBT couple or community, I'm a bigot, or can be sued because of my religious beliefs?
I'm proud of Obama as a black man to another black man, but sometimes I just shake my head at him.
Quote:Excellent argument. This is what the left does rather than admit they are wrong.
No, when I'm wrong, I admit it. When someone's being a blathering idiot, I'll point that out as well.