free hit counter
Someone please 'splain it to me - opposite sex-only marriage and equal protection - Page 3 - Redneck Clubhouse - Of, By and For Rednecks!

Jaw Jackin' General shootin' the bull topics here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 10th, 2013, 01:57 PM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,697
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,302 in 1,931 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default

Perhaps it is just semantics but it can't be gender bias, it has to be sexual orientation bias but the Constitution is even mummier on that then frackin' gender bias. WHich would, in a perfectly constitutionally rational world, leave it up to the states to determine per the ninth and tenth amendments.
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
  #22  
Old April 10th, 2013, 03:32 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,198
Likes Given: 7,681
Liked 2,904 in 2,354 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walruskkkch View Post
Perhaps it is just semantics but it can't be gender bias, it has to be sexual orientation bias
IF sexual orientation were asked, yes. It's not, currently (although the gay marriage forces want it to be.) If you and I tried to get a marriage license to marry, we would be told "no" merely because we're both males.
Quote:
but the Constitution is even mummier on that then frackin' gender bias. WHich would, in a perfectly constitutionally rational world, leave it up to the states to determine per the ninth and tenth amendments.
This is why we have the 14th Amendment, so states cannot themselves violate equal protection. It's why Texas for example can't make a law saying only males can be issued drivers licenses, hunting licenses, etc.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #23  
Old April 10th, 2013, 03:55 PM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,697
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,302 in 1,931 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default

I'm reading what's at Wikipedia on the 14th Amendment and I have to agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes on this.

Quote:
By the early 20th century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments."
I see nothing in the wording that extends protections to people who don't want to meet the definition of an noun.

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I guess you can argue that by relying on the common law definition of marriage as it was understood at the time of creation of this amendment is somehow an abridgement of a privilege held by a citizen but then that does mean that the state cannot, realistically, enforce any restrictions on who marries, can it? The question still remains if the meaning of a word is what it means or not. Marriage, by it's traditional definiton does not include anything other than a recognition of the specific relationship between one man and one woman. It's not a question of discrimination against a particular sex, it's a question of meeting the proper definition of the condition that is being requested. YOu can call me a "mother" [go ahead I dare you] but by any biological sense of the word I can't be one because I am male. Am I also being discriminated against? Shouldn't I have the same rights, benefits and what not as any other "Mom"? Egads, this is almost Pythonesque in its absurdity. No, I don't really find the equal protection argument compelling enough to basically overturn commonsense. While I certainly commiserate with those who want the benefits that come with falling under the definition of a term I still think that it is within the power of the states or the Federal Government if it so chooses, to make the definition whatever they want it to be. I simply don't see how the Constitution speaks to this issue other than being silent. Which brings me back to the safety of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. They are there, use them.
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
  #24  
Old April 10th, 2013, 03:59 PM
MJH's Avatar
MJH MJH is offline
Don't Tell Me What To Do
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 35
Likes Given: 3
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
MJH is on a distinguished road
Default

The legal argument? There isn't one. When the Constitution was written, sodomy was illegal. Homosexuality is not a civil right under any amendment. Not even the Supreme Court wants anything to do with this issue, and they are five ninths liberal. They are not going to overturn Prop 8, and they said they shouldn't have even taken the inheritance tax case. Justice Alito said, “You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?” That doesn't sound to me like anything covered in the Constitution. The Justice also questioned the fact as to whether or not the Supreme Court or Federal Government has any jurisdiction over marriage at all. Marriage is regulated by individual states. The only argument at all comes in where the Federal Government offers tax breaks to legally married couples. These tax breaks could be ruled illegal much quicker than ruling gay marriage Constitutional.
  #25  
Old April 10th, 2013, 04:04 PM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,697
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,302 in 1,931 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default

Keep the government out of the Nuptials!
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
  #26  
Old April 10th, 2013, 05:48 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,198
Likes Given: 7,681
Liked 2,904 in 2,354 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJH View Post
The legal argument? There isn't one. When the Constitution was written, sodomy was illegal. Homosexuality is not a civil right under any amendment. Not even the Supreme Court wants anything to do with this issue, and they are five ninths liberal. They are not going to overturn Prop 8, and they said they shouldn't have even taken the inheritance tax case. Justice Alito said, “You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?” That doesn't sound to me like anything covered in the Constitution. The Justice also questioned the fact as to whether or not the Supreme Court or Federal Government has any jurisdiction over marriage at all. Marriage is regulated by individual states. The only argument at all comes in where the Federal Government offers tax breaks to legally married couples. These tax breaks could be ruled illegal much quicker than ruling gay marriage Constitutional.
I think my argument might be better than the one currently in use by the pro gay marriage crowd. I don't claim marriage is a civil right, any more than I claim driving a car is.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #27  
Old April 10th, 2013, 06:48 PM
MJH's Avatar
MJH MJH is offline
Don't Tell Me What To Do
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 35
Likes Given: 3
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
MJH is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder View Post
I think my argument might be better than the one currently in use by the pro gay marriage crowd. I don't claim marriage is a civil right, any more than I claim driving a car is.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Agreed, but the right of due process and equal protection does not create substantive rights. Not all facts and opinions are a matter of law. Nor have homosexuals been targeted as a specific class of people to be denied their fundamental rights. Homosexuality is not a race or a class of people. Neither are tax breaks a fundamental right, which is what all the bellyaching is about here: Money. To paraphrase a statement by Pat Robertson; when these homosexuals bear life through that part of the anatomy that they seem to be so fond of, I will admit I'm wrong. We are not supposed to talk about homosexuals because they are sensitive about it, but it is okay that they try to force us to accept their lifestyle. No. They will not have their say, then call me a hatemonger because I voice my disagreements based on my own beliefs and morals. What makes them right, and me wrong? That, Sir, is an example of equal protection under the law.
  #28  
Old April 10th, 2013, 07:13 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,198
Likes Given: 7,681
Liked 2,904 in 2,354 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJH View Post
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
As is obtaining a hunting license, and so on.

However it HAS been ruled in the courts that marriage is a "fundamental human right" via the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision of 1967, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

In the 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California's Proposition 8 (which restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender."

That's what this most recent SCOTUS case is about, the overturning of prop. 8 on those grounds. And despite what you might think, the SCOTUS WILL issue a ruling on that later this summer. July I believe.

Whether we like it or not, our founders and framers gave the SCOTUS the power to rule on items not specifically covered in the Constitution, and their word is the law of the land.

I was told over the phone by [MENTION=32]trlrtrash13[/MENTION] a little earlier he would come in here and set me straight - he says I have it all wrong. When his driving time is finished later tonight he promises to come in here and educate us all, and from the preview he gave me, he has a compelling argument to offer. So we shall see.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #29  
Old April 10th, 2013, 07:56 PM
MJH's Avatar
MJH MJH is offline
Don't Tell Me What To Do
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 35
Likes Given: 3
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
MJH is on a distinguished road
Default

Yes, the case will be heard in June. Of course they will have to make a ruling since they accepted the case to their court. I can only predict how that ruling will go, since they don't want any part of it to begin with. In the Perry case, Walker's ruling will not hold up. I'm not sure if Walker cited Loving or not, but that case had nothing to do with same sex marriage. It's not like we make gay people drink from separate water fountains or sit in the back of the bus or anything. Walker had no right to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. The people voted. Among those who voted were the people in favor of same sex marriage. They were not denied their right to vote. They were just outnumbered.

As far as Steve's take on this issue, I actually agree with a lot of... No, wait. Some of..? No, that's not right either. Okay, I hardly agree with anything that guy ever has to say. It's like he makes shit up as he goes along or something, but he does have his opinions and they are quite entertaining to listen to. I would love to be there to hear you two discuss this. It will have to be hilarious.
  #30  
Old April 10th, 2013, 08:02 PM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,697
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,302 in 1,931 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Whether we like it or not, our founders and framers gave the SCOTUS the power to rule on items not specifically covered in the Constitution, and their word is the law of the land.
That is a very debatable point. Consider...

Quote:
The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.[9]

The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:
“ The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ”

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ”

The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says "[t]his Constitution" is the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2000 - 2018 usmessageboards.com all rights reserved