Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

Polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage, or this thread

- - - Updated - - -

The intent of the clause is irrelevant. The text of the clause is what is relevant. You seem to either not understand or have a problem with the US judicial system and case law.

 

What historical rights have the states voted away?

 

You did not hear a thing I said. And it has nothing to do with ideology, unless you think that all conservatives are anti-gay, which is the furthest thing from the truth.

Keep trying though. Your argument keeps getting thinner and thinner.

 

That is an interesting assessment considering constructionism is the most fundamental method of constitutional law, but if you want make a textualism argument, you cannot run to a dictionary.

 

The reliance on personal insults is a pretty solid gauge of one's knowledge base.

I struggled responding to your statement due to its lack of relevance or basis in law, which I presume is a side effect of your debate style. But feel free to dispute what I stated on the merits.

 

Where did I personally insult you?

You absolutely did not respond to anything I said. Then you said that we are simply relying on ideology in order to change the law. Did you not? Now, what "ideology" would that be? If you think it's just liberals who are for equal rights for same sex couples, you could not be more wrong.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/the-republican-partysgenerational-shift-89712.html

 

Marriage, gun ownership...........

- - - Updated - - -

I don't need a dictionary. I have 200 years of case law.

 

Is this on the merits: "Keep trying though. Your argument keeps getting thinner and thinner."

It is ideology, and has no basis other than that. It doesn't matter if it is from the left or the right.

 

What ideology?

And that was hardly a personal insult. It was a comment on your argument.

 

It's not really about the law, it's the culture that has changed, gays are cool, people who don't want same sex marriage are not.
Those are the new fundamental values of America, and Western Civilization.
And ever since the Culture turned the corner on this issue, judges have been finding the right to same sex marriage in words that have been in place for over a century. It's not going to stop. This is a cultural sea change. 30 years ago less than 10% of people said they'd would approve of same sex marriage.
Today the majority of the country approves, and in the demographics it's heading to 90+% approval.
Judges are part of the culture, they are affected by the culture, it's not all cut and dried legal logic, it's how the system actually works.

 

Marriage and guns laws have always been left up it the states. Any gun or marriage law has since the inception of this country been left up to the states. This is based on over 400 years of law.

You cannot use 200 years of case law and textualism in the same sentence. And the reason I said you cannot run to a dictionary is because it will do you no good in discerning a 200 year one law as written. You would need to know what the words meant at that time, and study how the words and language were used as well.

 

And when a state tried to ban those rights, they were slapped down. That is the purpose of the judiciary.

No it hasn't. Federal law trumps state law.

Lol, of course I can

Nope. You're back to intent again, which is irrelevant.

 

The equal protection clause, along with everything else in the U.S. Constitution, is about the rights of the individual. Your rights as an individual are prohibited from infringing upon the rights of another person, which means that the U.S. Constitution does not pertain to "couples". So your argument is false.

 

So as long as the rights and privileges are formulated in a way that they can only effect two or more people applying for it together instead of just one, they can't be evaluated for equal protection? If that's the case, it's a pretty disgusting loophole, and could extend well beyond marriage.

Let's just make a simple parallel example. Instead of talking about marriage, let's imagine we're talking about some generic business contract. And a law is made that says: "Only two people of the same sex may enter into a business contract with one another". Is the basis for such a law not subject to review and constitutional scrutiny, because it applies to two people instead of one?

It seems like you're splitting hairs. Government and laws often work by classifying people, such as a marriage law that classifies "men" and "women". And those classifications are often subject to review to make sure that they are not discriminating against that classification of people (or a subset of them which may be targeted by proxy). Couples, groups and classifications are, after all, composed of individuals who's rights are the concern of the constitution, and it is very rare that a law can or would target people individually... it targets via classifications.

 

This is why the U.S. Constitution is not the "living document" that people like to think that it is; you don't just make stuff up as you go along and then add it to the Constitution "just cuz". As the U.S. Constitution is written, it solely protects the rights of the individual, and only the individual. Even when it addresses a specific group of people, particularly the only group of people specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, in the 14th Amendment; the "Indians not taxed" that are excluded from representation in Congress; even then it is addressing the individuals of that group.

It never mentions partnerships, couples, or anything related to marriage. Because once again, marriage is not an inalienable right in the broadest sense. It was addressed as such in Loving vs. Virginia, but only as it pertained to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because sexual preference and/or orientation is not a civil right, you see.

 

Sigh. Read the decision. The decision said that if a couple is legally married in a state, the federal government must recognize that marriage. It does NOT say that states have a blank check. The issue of what sorts of marriage can be prohibited by a state was not being decided.

 

That was not the purpose of the judiciary. No state was slapped down until 20th century judicial activism. To make your argument you will have to show a case of the Bill of a rights being applied the states prior to this, and your stated purpose of the judiciary in Article III, or the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Do you want to discuss common law, federal law, the Bill of Rights, or the limits on the Supremacy Clause?

Do you know what textualism is? Or constructionism? Do you know how the courts determine the constitutionality of a law?

 

Except for your own, of course. Since you didn't choose it, and can't change it. But that's different, right?

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose that's correct, but not relevant here. The issue here is one of tolerance. You are fighting in the cause of intolerance, to deprive others of basic rights for no reason other than that they're different from you. This is bigotry. I'm arguing that granting others the rights I enjoy is not bigotry, especially if I am not inconvenienced in any way if others enjoy the same rights I do.

 

In other words, you agree that a law that says something like "Only two people of the same sex may enter into a business contract with one another" would pass constitutional scrutiny. That seems to be what you're saying, and it makes no sense so me. I mean, maybe that really is what the constitution says, but again, that seems like a huge loophole.

Groups are composed of individuals, and individuals make up groups. If you discriminate against groups, then you are discriminating against individuals. There should be a legitimate basis for preferential treatment to groups, as there is to preferential treatment of individuals, as well as for classifications that designate what individuals can make up a group. It is individuals, after all, who decide to make up a group.

 

The right of consenting adults to marry the partner of their choice. Remember that? It's the topic of this thread. Surely you remember!

Just out of curiosity, why are you so dead set against same-sex marriage? Here we have something that potentially can benefit a great many people, and cannot even in principle harm anyone in any way, and yet you twist yourself into a pretzel finding excuses to punish some people solely for the sake of punishing them. Why? What do you have to gain by harming others you don't even know? What do you have to lose if they enjoy the rights you do? Are you that insecure?

 

You can't vote away a right that does not exist.

Now I would like you to point out where I said I was against same sex marriage. My problem is the method used of abusing the Constitution by forcing meaning out of it that is not there, and the violation of state's rights. If a state wants to recognize same sex marriage through an amendment or legislation, good for them. If the federal government wants to recognize that state's decision, good for them. But if a state does not want to recognize same sex marriage through legislation or amendment, that is the right they retained when they ratified the Constitution.

 

Ah, but this begs the question. If a right is guaranteed but not honored, is it a right at all? Did slaves have a right to be free, but it took a war to grant it to them? Or was freedom a brand new right because before that slaves were not people?

Be serious. Every post you've made has argued against it, and never once have you hinted otherwise.

And of course, the slave states voted to retain slavery. It was clearly the will of the people, except for a minority. Are you seriously suggesting that minorities do not have rights, nor deserve them, because they don't have enough votes?

Then how DOES a voting minority gain the rights the majority vote FOR themselves and AGAINST the minority? You seem to have limited options here. You might say that minorities simply don't have right, period. Or you can say that the rights of the minority are "on hold" until they become the majority, if that should ever happen. Or you might say that one of the functions of the judiciary is NOT to protect the rights of the minorities.

If you should exert youself to be particularly honest, do you think you would feel the same way if you were a member of a minority deprived of the rights of the majority EVEN THOUGH that deprivation did you injury while extending NO benefit to the majority? Would you be here arguing "I don't deserve civil rights, because people like me don't have enough votes"?

You seem to be evading the question here. HOW should the rights of minorities be protected? Or even, should their rights be protected at all?

 

Call it whatever you want, but it is still the law of the land. I doubt that any law that said "Only two people..." would pass constitutional scrutiny because it would upset the broad legal precedent regarding the rights of the individual. Plus why stop at only two people at that point? Why not "only three people" or four? Heck, why not only white people or black people..."excluding Jews not taxed". See where that could lead to?

Actually, you may very well be on to something, as the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that corporations are people back in 2010. I didn't know that you were a conservative, Jeff. Nice to meet you! I'm Paco, proud member of the Constitution Party of Alaska.

 

Thats what I just said.

 

Except that choice has always been restricted by law and even in states with "gay marriage" it continues to be restricted.