# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Gay marriage guaranteed under originalism/strict constructionism

## maybemaybenot

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is just gender discrimination, no? And the 14th amendment's drafters made it purposely open-ended, so to say it doesn't apply to gender (or to sexual orientation without the gender connection) is baseless, its open-ended and inclusive by default. It would be unusual and bizarre for any arbitrary legal category to "get around" the 14th amendment, and gay marriage bans are as arbitrary as it gets.

I'm not saying this as a supporter of it, its just clearly they're in the constitution, its equal protection. I don't think abortion is guaranteed even though I'm pro-choice, but gay marriage is. Lol the entire purpose of the law is to "make a statement." That's just admitting to violating the Equal Protection Clause, its labeling ppl for the sake of labeling ppl.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Marriage is a 1st amendment issue. (see the religion clause.  Marriage is a religious institution)  No doubt some clergy/ministers/etc would marry teh gheys, but lots would refuse and be within their rights.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Marriage is a 1st amendment issue. (see the religion clause.  Marriage is a religious institution)


Not really.  There were marriages long before the institution became involved with religion.  The issue isn't whether the government can force a religious body to marry a same-sex couple (it can't), but whether the government can discriminate against such couples by refusing to allow them to be married in a civil ceremony.

----------


## tod evans

> Not really.  There were marriages long before the institution became involved with religion.


Oh bull$#@!!

----------


## maybemaybenot

Its not *just* a religious institution. The fact that atheists get married contradicts this. An atheist has a constitutional right to get married, just like theists, simply on equal protection (theists and atheists get the same rights), and first amendment (right to association). The fact that its history is religious doesn't permanently tie it to religion. Private property, government, corporations, armies, all of these have religion intertwined with their history. To say that the First Amendment, which bans endorsement of religion of any kind (unless you wanna pretend Christianity is there when its not, because our founders *did not intend to put it there*), creates a governmental benefit of some kind (tax benefits, recognition, etc.) that only involves religion is ridiculous.

Your interpretation of the First Amendment contradicts the First Amendment, government can't endorse religion. By your logic, government-marriage should be banned. (Actually, are you saying this? Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions about you.)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Yes, government based marriage should be banned.

----------


## Southron

The 14th amendment was ratified by coercion. Forgive me if I dont think too highly of it.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Yes, government based marriage should be banned.


Suppose it were.  If a person dies without a will, who gets his or her property?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Are you implying that you need a government marriage in order to ensure the wife/husband gets it?


How else is the government to determine who a person's "spouse" is, especially where there are competing claims to the estate?

----------


## specsaregood

> How else is the government to determine who a person's "spouse" is, especially where there are competing claims to the estate?


Well there is always a private contract option, I'd say a witnessed religious ceremony should count or even there used to be this concept called a common-law marriage.   If 2 people simply say they are married and there are witnesses to it, that should be enough.  If marriage is a right, why do you need the government to give them the privilege to do so?

----------


## jmdrake

> Not really.  There were marriages long before the institution became involved with religion.


Absolutely not true.




> The issue isn't whether the government can force a religious body to marry a same-sex couple (it can't), but whether the government can discriminate against such couples by refusing to allow them to be married in a civil ceremony.


Gays, unlike polygamists, can be married in a civil ceremony in any state in the union.  The question is can does the government then have to recognize said private ceremony.  Further in many states if you wish to marry your first cousin or closer you can be arrested.  Genetic preference discrimination?  Does having different marriage ages in different states constitute age discrimination?

----------


## jmdrake

> Suppose it were.  If a person dies without a will, who gets his or her property?


That's really a silly argument.  Seriously.  Don't die without a will.  If you can take the time to fill out an application for a marriage certificate you can take the time to write on a piece of paper "I leave all of my possession to X."  And if you don't like wills do a living trust.  Have a joint checking account.  There are lots of ways to pass possessions on to someone else when you die.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Well there is always a private contract option, I'd say a witnessed religious ceremony should count or even there used to be this concept called a common-law marriage.


True, but if there's a dispute a common-law marriage (or a valid contractual one) has to be proved in court, so you still have the government (i.e., the judicial system) determining the existence of a marriage.  And many states have abolished the common-law marriage concept because of the uncertainties of proof, relying instead on an objective test: marriage license plus a ceremony before someone authorized to legally marry people.

And relying on a religious ceremony is problematic because you have the government deferring to a religious institution; in case of conflicting claims (e.g., did the marriage comply with all the necessary religious formalities?) the court could get forced into determining theological matters, which it should not be doing.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> That's really a silly argument.  Seriously.  Don't die without a will.


That's excellent advice that unfortunately isn't always followed.  The point isn't what should one do to avoid intestacy; the point is, what happens to an intestate's property?  If you want it to go to a surviving spouse, how is the relationship of "spouse" to be determined?

----------


## specsaregood

> True, but if there's a dispute a common-law marriage (or a valid contractual one) has to be proved in court, so you still have the government (i.e., the judicial system) determining the existence of a marriage.  And many states have abolished the common-law marriage concept because of the uncertainties of proof, relying instead on an objective test: marriage license plus a ceremony before someone authorized to legally marry people.
> 
> And relying on a religious ceremony is problematic because you have the government deferring to a religious institution; in case of conflicting claims (e.g., did the marriage comply with all the necessary religious formalities?) the court could get forced into determining theological matters, which it should not be doing.


Its not a perfect world.  I didn't think the argument was to get rid of courts or the judicial system, I didn't think that was your question either.   The point remains there are plenty of options other than the need for a government licensed marriage.    Yes, if 2 people decide to use a religious institution to marry, why not defer to it?  That was THEIR choice.

I'm of the opinion that if 2 people say they are married, they are married. That should be enough.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The question is can does the government then have to recognize said private ceremony.  Further in many states if you wish to marry your first cousin or closer you can be arrested.  Genetic preference discrimination?  Does having different marriage ages in different states constitute age discrimination?


There are valid reasons to prohibit marriages between close relatives, and since some minimum age limit has to be set it isn't age discrimination.  On the other hand, no one has yet come up with a valid reason to deny same-sex couples the right to legally marry.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's excellent advice that unfortunately isn't always followed.  The point isn't what should one do to avoid intestacy; the point is, what happens to an intestate's property?  If you want it to go to a surviving spouse, how is the relationship of "spouse" to be determined?


You didn't actually address what I said.  I will repeat it.  It takes no more effort to fill out a will than it does to fill out a marriage certificate.  Seriously.  It doesn't.  The point of the government isn't to protect people from their own stupidity.  If the government got out of the marriage licensing business, responsible clergy (or ship captains or whoever atheists will get to marry them) will be on notice that instead of running couple down to make sure they've signed the government sanctioned marriage certificate, they will run couples down to make sure they've signed the church (or ship or whatever) sanctioned "marriage contract".  Really.  It's just a freaking piece of paper.  What makes one any better than the other?  (Rhetorical question there.)  When I got married the preacher chased us down afterwards to make sure we got the marriage license signed.  Whoopteedoo!  The state says we're married.  (I'm divorced now.  Fat lot of good that piece of paper did.)  So no.  I don't at all believe that someone having to sign a document that actually spells out their wishes is somehow worse than someone having to sign a document where only the lawyers ultimately know what it means.  Seriously.  In different states spouses get different amounts when the other spouse dies.  If you think being married means your spouse gets everything, then you don't really know anything about estate law.  In some states the spouse only gets 50% or less.  But that's not written on the marriage certificate.  That's written in the state statute which most likely nobody at the wedding ceremony has read.  If getting the state out of marriage means more people write wills or do trusts instead of counting on the state to make up for their own stupidity, I fail to see why that is a bad thing.

Edit: More on elective share.  In Florida the spouse only gets 30% if there is no will.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0732/0732.html

Dying without a will or a trust is dying intestate regardless of whether you are married or not.  Gays who sit down with a lawyer (or a good do it yourself legal book) and figure this out for themselves are better off than straight couples who naively think the government's going to handle it for them.

----------


## William Tell

> The 14th amendment was ratified by coercion. Forgive me if I dont think too highly of it.


Agreed, but even if one considers the 14th amendment legitimate. There is still the fact that sodomy laws were common place until recently. 'Same sex marriage' is an absurd joke made up by modern liberals.

----------


## jmdrake

> There are valid reasons to prohibit marriages between close relatives, and since some minimum age limit has to be set it isn't age discrimination.  On the other hand, no one has yet come up with a valid reason to deny same-sex couples the right to legally marry.


Really?  Because I can't think of any.  The whole "They might have birth defects?"  Well gays can't have kids at all without outside help.  Maybe cousins are willing to do that.  Once we decide marriage is not about having children, then to discriminate against incest "for the children" is silly.  As for the minimum age, it's inflated.  People used to get marriage much younger than they do now.  Why is it 18 in most states?  To encourage young people to finish high school.  But say if someone gets his/her GED at 18?  And before you had minimum ages, you didn't typically have 4 year olds getting married.  People used some common sense.  Imagine that?  Now "common sense" is a HS senior becoming a registered sex offender for life for sleeping with his girlfriend that's two years younger than him.  That seems pretty stupid to me.  But that's the world we live in.  Yeah big government!

----------


## jmdrake

> Agreed, but even if one considers the 14th amendment legitimate. There is still the fact that sodomy laws were common place until recently. 'Same sex marriage' is an absurd joke made up by modern liberals.


Interestingly enough, in her concurrence in Loving v. Texas, Sandra Day O'Connor indicated that she might have upheld general sodomy laws, but went along with striking Texas' sodomy law because it was same sex specific.

----------


## CaptUSA

People have a natural right to associate with whoever they want.  Government should not interfere with that.  Period.  If they want to make some sort of contract, government should not interfere.  It's a 1st amendment issue; not a 14th amendment issue.

There are no "valid" reasons to interfere when both (or more) parties are consenting.  It's none of government's business.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Gays, unlike polygamists, can be married in a civil ceremony in any state in the union.  The question is can does the government then have to recognize said private ceremony.  Further in many states if you wish to marry your first cousin or closer you can be arrested.  Genetic preference discrimination?  Does having different marriage ages in different states constitute age discrimination?


Wait, are you justifying the discrimination against gays by saying that other kinds of discrimination exist? You can't actually justify the categorization that states have created, so you're just going to flatly defend discrimination in general?

Unlike gay discrimination, discrimination based on age or blood relation (not family relation) actually does have a justification:

Young ppl cannot consent to sex or any serious contracts under our legal system. And no, different ages for different states is not discrimination, that has nothing to do with discrimination, that's different rules in different states. Discrimination is where a state applies the rules differently (or applies different rules) to different ppl within their jurisdiction. The fact that two separate entities make two separate decisions on the same issue is not discrimination, its two different entities.

Banning marriage based on blood relation (or at least banning intercourse) has a basis, and this was the rational, secular reason for our laws against incest. Centuries ago, adoption was almost nonexist, and so incest really did imply blood relation. Today, obviously that's not the case, and there is no justification for a category where ppl can't married or have sex if they have no blood relation.

But unlike banning child marriages or incestuous marries, *there is no justification at all for banning gay marriage, hence you cannot articulate one.* And if you could articulate one, I suggest you go to law school and become a lawyer, because you'd become the wealthiest attorney of all time. The argument doesn't exist, federal judges laugh out loud and say "You just can't come up with it, can you?," its like alchemy. Its not happening.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How else is the government to determine who a person's "spouse" is, especially where there are competing claims to the estate?


In the absence of government coercion, it would simply be another 10 seconds worth of time to sign a document during the marriage process that assigns the spouse as next of kin.  There is absolutely no need for government guns and coercion to get involved.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wait, are you justifying the discrimination against gays by saying that other kinds of discrimination exist? You can't actually justify the categorization that states have created, so you're just going to flatly defend discrimination in general?


SMH.  Learn to read.  I'm saying if way to end all government discrimination in marriage is *to get the government all the way out of marriage*.  It's retarded to push for state recognition of gay marriage when polygamy is actually *criminal* and the fact that most of those pushing for gay marriage aren't pushing for even decriminalization of polygamy shows they're a bunch of liberal hypocrites.

----------


## jmdrake

> In the absence of government coercion, it would simply be another 10 seconds worth of time to sign a document during the marriage process that assigns the spouse as next of kin.  There is absolutely no need for government guns and coercion to get involved.


Exactly!  I don't get why people think it's harder to sign a will than it is to sign a marriage certificate.  Plus with marriage your spouse is only guarantee 30% of your estate in some states.  If you want to guarantee your spouse gets everything, or even half, you need a will or a trust or something other than a marriage certificate.  Why people would allow the government to decide how their goods would be disposed of upon death is beyond me.  You don't even need a lawyer.  Write it out on a piece of notebook paper and sign it.  That's a legal will in many states.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Exactly!  I don't get why people think it's harder to sign a will than it is to sign a marriage certificate.  Plus with marriage your spouse is only guarantee 30% of your estate in some states.  If you want to guarantee your spouse gets everything, or even half, you need a will or a trust or something other than a marriage certificate.  Why people would allow the government to decide how their goods would be disposed of upon death is beyond me.  You don't even need a lawyer.  Write it out on a piece of notebook paper and sign it.  That's a legal will in many states.


Too many people worship government as though it were a god.  Even Christians.  The 501(c)3 tax status has _a lot_ to do with this.

----------


## euphemia

The issue with marriage has nothing to do with sentiment.  It has everything to do with property rights and legitimacy of children.  And taxes.  Don't forget about the taxes.  

1.  There should be a date certain beyond which the current tax code is declared null and void.  It should be replaced with a flat tax for every man, woman, and child, regardless of age, marital status, and income.

2.  There should be a simple, legal way to dispose of property at one's death that does not involve courts or taxes.  

3.  There should be a simple, legal way to determine medical decisions.  This should be determined by the patient, not the law.

Change these, and it does away with any advantage or disadvantage to marriage.  Of course, the legitimacy of children will still be an issue, but lacking documentation, the woman who bears the child will likely end up with the authority to make decisions about the child.  If there is a legal marriage, then both parents will bear equal responsibility and have equal authority to make those decisions.

----------


## erowe1

Take all of the things the federal government does that distinguish between married and unmarried people, which are a prerequisite for making the issue the OP brings up meaningful.

Each and every one of those things is excluded by the very same argument of strict construction of the 14th amendment that the OP appeals to.

----------


## euphemia

I am all about making people be responsible for the children they bear or father.  

My personal morality and faith tradition protects marriage as one man and one woman, and for resulting pregnancies be carried to term.  The Constitution does not define marriage in any way, and while the government has a vested interest in the disposition of property (because it might end up in a court), it should declare responsibility for a child born of a sexual relationship.  The parents must be held to account in that regard, married or not.  

Perhaps if a pregnancy results from sexual activity, a legal marriage should be declared. It might make people more responsible for their actions in general if there was a legal obligation that all property would then be held jointly and children would be supported fully by the parents of those children.

Just throwing that out there as a deterrent to irresponsibility that results in more government through welfare and other programs designed to support children.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> SMH.  Learn to read.  I'm saying if way to end all government discrimination in marriage is *to get the government all the way out of marriage*.  It's retarded to push for state recognition of gay marriage when polygamy is actually *criminal* and the fact that most of those pushing for gay marriage aren't pushing for even decriminalization of polygamy shows they're a bunch of liberal hypocrites.


Okay, you're being a bit ambiguous here, its why my post blatantly asked if I was interpreting you correctly. Don't jump on me cuz you won't state your position. *If the government is involved in marriage, must it not also allow gay marriage?*

And no, polygamy and gay marriage are not the same here, two reasons:

1. The constitutional (and human rights) violation in banning gay marriage is that its blatant gender discrimination, the only difference from heterosexual marriage is who a man can marry versus who a woman can marry, which goes against the Equal Protection Clause because there is zero rational basis behind the law. Allowing everyone to marry in 2-person marriages does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because every individual has the exact same rights to marry one consenting adult of their choice. Maybe there's zero rational basis for banning polygamy, but there's also zero discrimination behind, too, so no constitutonal violation. That's like saying Bob can eat a burger but Jane can't eat dolphin cuz its banned, that's not discrimination, they have the exact same rights, but banning gay marriage results in individuals that do NOT have the same rights.

2. In practice, polygamy actually has been shown to be abusive and sexist, even if polygamy in theory is not. Polygamy isn't some open marriage, hippie thing, its men treating women like maids/workers in an agricultural setting (usually). The very religious scriptures justifying it always involve gender discrimination, and virtually no one is trying to start a marriage with multiple husbands. Now, its possible that polygamy is just as backwards as monogamy was two hundred yrs ago, but the government turned polygamy into a black market $#@!hole like prostitution and drugs, so we're actually only seeing the worst of polygamy probably. But even then, there is a rational basis for saying "polygamy is a bad thing," even if its an illusion created by the legal prohibition of polygamy. We cannot look at gay marriage and point to a fact saying "gay marriage is a bad thing." As federal judges have routinely told attorneys, "you are clearly unable to articulate a single fact against gay marriage," (paraphrasing) which is not the case for polygamy.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> The issue with marriage has nothing to do with sentiment.  It has everything to do with property rights and legitimacy of children.  And taxes.  Don't forget about the taxes.  
> 
> ...
> 
> Change these, and it does away with any advantage or disadvantage to marriage.  Of course, the legitimacy of children will still be an issue, but lacking documentation, the woman who bears the child will likely end up with the authority to make decisions about the child.  If there is a legal marriage, then both parents will bear equal responsibility and have equal authority to make those decisions.





> Take all of the things the federal government does that distinguish between married and unmarried people, which are a prerequisite for making the issue the OP brings up meaningful.
> 
> Each and every one of those things is excluded by the very same argument of strict construction of the 14th amendment that the OP appeals to.


Okay, but in reality, government marriage is here to stay. That being the case, it violates the equal protection clause and basic human rights to limit it based on gender. You can't just say "Oh, well I oppose this system entirely, so therefore I oppose discrimination." Do you think its constitutional to keep black ppl out of public schools, or to not send them social security checks? Equal protection, come on, ppl. We all pay for this institution (courts for divorce/kids, tax benefits, etc.), and therefore every citizen should get the same benefits from this institution. Its that simple.

You can't just say its ok because it would be awesome if government marriage didn't exist, this is a copout so homophobes can still pretend to be libertarians. (Btw, pro-lifers are still libertarians, its just a weird theoretical debate about individuals and life; homophobes are not libetarians, they're subscribers to the largest and dumbest bigotry of our era, and support discriminatory laws on that basis.)

----------


## euphemia

I don't care what people do in their own homes or spaces they rent or own.  Seriously.  

I think government should not try to sanction relationships.  Or not.  Welfare laws actually discourage marriage of any kind.  It's all a way to control behavior through tax policy, while not really restricting anything except the right to make choices or use my money the way I want to.  

My opinion about what people do privately is nobody's business but mine.  At the same time, I should not have to violate my conscience by being forced to pay for something I might not agree to.  Either way, the government is using my money to make a choice for me, or for someone else.  It is not Constitutional.  We all have freedom to choose what we want to believe without any penalty or endorsement by government at all.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> I don't care what people do in their own homes or spaces they rent or own.  Seriously.  
> 
> I think government should not try to sanction relationships.  Or not.  Welfare laws actually discourage marriage of any kind.  It's all a way to control behavior through tax policy, while not really restricting anything except the right to make choices or use my money the way I want to.  
> 
> My opinion about what people do privately is nobody's business but mine.  At the same time, I should not have to violate my conscience by being forced to pay for something I might not agree to.  Either way, the government is using my money to make a choice for me, or for someone else.  It is not Constitutional.  We all have freedom to choose what we want to believe without any penalty or endorsement by government at all.


But the government cannot discriminate based on gender. Again, this is a copout. Are you saying the government can block blacks from getting married, too?

----------


## euphemia

> this is a copout so homophobes can still pretend to be libertarians.


So does that make you a Christophobe?  The Constitution is the basis for our liberty here in the US.  People have freedom of faith and philosophy and the freedom of association.  Just want to be clear on that.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> So does that make you a Christophobe?  The Constitution is the basis for our liberty here in the US.  People have freedom of faith and philosophy and the freedom of association.  Just want to be clear on that.


You're right, I misspoke, homophobes can be libertarians if they still believe in equal treatment, regardless of their personal views. So a homophobic libertarian has to say that government marriage, if in existence, has to be expanded to gays, based on libertarianism, the constitution, and general concepts of human rights.

----------


## euphemia

No, you misspoke by broadbrushing people who disagree as "homophobes."  

I asked you a question.  If you think people of faith should not be allowed to disagree, where does that put you on liberty issues, and does it make you a Christophobe?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Not really.  There were marriages long before the institution became involved with religion.


Prove it. Sociology says religion is one of the first things humanity invented. Religion says God (or the gods) revealed themselves to the earliest people. Either way you go religion is one of the oldest, if not *the* oldest, human institution. Fools just seem to not realize it because you go back far enough and our modern separation of church and state vanishes. The religion *is* the state. Pharaoh is a God. Gilgamesh is 2/3s a God. The reaosn people think marriage is purely a political institution is because of modern idiocy seeking to devoid religion of its historical purpose.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## euphemia

I do not think this is a 14th amendment issue at all.  It's not even a Constitutional issue.  The government does not establish marriage.  The Census did not list it unitl 1850.  States have taken the lead on determining the legality of marriage for a while, but every state did it differently, and continues to do it differently.  For example, South Carolina had a common-law marriage statute, but now does not.  Tennessee never recognized common-law marriages.

It still is not a federal issue.

----------


## HVACTech

I like this idea..

 "strict constructionism"

In the United States, strict constructionism refers to a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> this is a copout so homophobes can still pretend to be libertarians.


Um.  I was the only Republican in the NCGA to oppose the NC Marriage Amendment.  I did so at GREAT personal cost to myself and my "political 'career.'"  Does that sound "homophobic" to you? 

If the government is rolling around killing everyone whose last name begins with "M," then I would likewise oppose a plan to 'start killing W's in the name of fairness.'  This makes me afraid of W's?  Have you even thought any of this out or are you just working from emotion?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

And yes, I don't care if every last "W" on the planet came up to me just _begging_ to let the government murder them.  Not gonna do it.  Evil is evil, and expanding this evil to cover more people is in no way, shape, or form "less evil."

----------


## euphemia

> Bovine Fecal Material.
> 
> A marriage is what individuals involved in a relationship consensually agree to - not what's imposed upon them by those outside the relationship



Not when children result from that relationship.  In having sex and giving birth to a child, they have a tacit agreement to be responsible for supporting that child.  What they do not have is an agreement with me that I will pay for the support of the child.

----------


## euphemia

> Um.  I was the only Republican in the NCGA to oppose the NC Marriage Amendment.  I did so at GREAT personal cost to myself and my "political 'career.'"  Does that sound "homophobic" to you? 
> 
> If the government is rolling around killing everyone whose last name begins with "M," then I would likewise oppose a plan to 'start killing W's in the name of fairness.'  This makes me afraid of W's?  Have you even thought any of this out or are you just working from emotion?


I do not think you should try to justify or explain your position to a poster who is stretching the Constitution to make it do something it was not written to do.  Don't let the name calling push your buttons.  In the OP, he suggests that a prohibition of same-sex marriage is gender discrimination.  I'm not sure how that works since same-sex relationships happen between men and between women.  And there are people who are on record as having sexual relationships with both men and women.  If they decide to marry someone, it can't really be said they have a discriminatory orientation. 

Marriage is actually one of the most discriminatory relationships there is.  I have routinely discriminated against all other men for several decades, and my husband discriminates against all other women.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Okay, you're being a bit ambiguous here, its why my post blatantly asked if I was interpreting you correctly. Don't jump on me cuz you won't state your position. *If the government is involved in marriage, must it not also allow gay marriage?*
> 
> And no, polygamy and gay marriage are not the same here, two reasons:
> 
> 1. The constitutional (and human rights) violation in banning gay marriage is that its blatant gender discrimination, the only difference from heterosexual marriage is who a man can marry versus who a woman can marry, which goes against the Equal Protection Clause because there is zero rational basis behind the law. Allowing everyone to marry in 2-person marriages does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because every individual has the exact same rights to marry one consenting adult of their choice. Maybe there's zero rational basis for banning polygamy, but there's also zero discrimination behind, too, so no constitutonal violation. That's like saying Bob can eat a burger but Jane can't eat dolphin cuz its banned, that's not discrimination, they have the exact same rights, but banning gay marriage results in individuals that do NOT have the same rights.
> 
> 2. *In practice, polygamy actually has been shown to be abusive and sexist, even if polygamy in theory is not. Polygamy isn't some open marriage, hippie thing, its men treating women like maids/workers in an agricultural setting (usually).* The very religious scriptures justifying it always involve gender discrimination, and virtually no one is trying to start a marriage with multiple husbands. Now, its possible that polygamy is just as backwards as monogamy was two hundred yrs ago, but the government turned polygamy into a black market $#@!hole like prostitution and drugs, so we're actually only seeing the worst of polygamy probably. But even then, there is a rational basis for saying "polygamy is a bad thing," even if its an illusion created by the legal prohibition of polygamy. We cannot look at gay marriage and point to a fact saying "gay marriage is a bad thing." As federal judges have routinely told attorneys, "you are clearly unable to articulate a single fact against gay marriage," (paraphrasing) which is not the case for polygamy.


Stossel did a show on this some years ago (can't find toobz ATM), and demonstrated your statement (bolded) to be false (or at least not universally true enough to make such an absolute statement).

----------


## euphemia

I'm wondering how a man married to more than one woman, living with them, and being a responsible parent to his children is worse than a man who fathers many children by different woman, lives with none of them and has never met any of those children and doesn't support them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The 14th amendment was ratified by coercion. Forgive me if I dont think too highly of it.


That.  

Also, to my knowledge pretty much every one of the founders wanted to criminalize homosexuality.  I disagree with them, mind you ,but it would be odd to use the words they wrote to argue that homosexual relationships should be recongized by the government.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Okay, but in reality, government marriage is here to stay. That being the case, it violates the equal protection clause and basic human rights to limit it based on gender. You can't just say "Oh, well I oppose this system entirely, so therefore I oppose discrimination." Do you think its constitutional to keep black ppl out of public schools, or to not send them social security checks? Equal protection, come on, ppl. We all pay for this institution (courts for divorce/kids, tax benefits, etc.), and therefore every citizen should get the same benefits from this institution. Its that simple.
> 
> You can't just say its ok because it would be awesome if government marriage didn't exist, this is a copout so homophobes can still pretend to be libertarians. (Btw, pro-lifers are still libertarians, its just a weird theoretical debate about individuals and life; homophobes are not libetarians, they're subscribers to the largest and dumbest bigotry of our era, and support discriminatory laws on that basis.)


Homophobe = fear of homosexuals.

You're confusing fear with disgust.  You're also confusing non-aggression with open armed acceptance.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> No, you misspoke by broadbrushing people who disagree as "homophobes."  
> 
> I asked you a question.  If you think people of faith should not be allowed to disagree, where does that put you on liberty issues, and does it make you a Christophobe?


Well I like most Christians, even homophobes (and I don't say that in a joking way or anything), so no, wouldn't say I'm a christophobe. But if you think the government can discriminate based on gender, that's bigotry. You don't have to endorse it, the government doesn't belong to you, it serves all of us equally. I would get rid of government marriage too, but that doesn't mean the government can discriminate. Can blacks or Muslims be forbidden from getting married?




> I do not think this is a 14th amendment issue at all. It's not even a Constitutional issue. The government does not establish marriage. The Census did not list it unitl 1850. States have taken the lead on determining the legality of marriage for a while, but every state did it differently, and continues to do it differently. For example, South Carolina had a common-law marriage statute, but now does not. Tennessee never recognized common-law marriages.
> 
> It still is not a federal issue.


Nope, its a federal issue. The Fourteenth Amendment says states cannot deprive anyone of equal protection under the law. Further, the supremacy clause says that the constitution is on top. So its a federal issue. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to be redundant, expansive and just impossible for anyone to get around. *The Fourteenth Amendment is basically the libertarian amendment*, along with the ninth or tenth (whichever is individuals, $#@! the states, that's a different philosophy that we also kindof like).




> I like this idea...
> 
> "strict constructionism"
> 
> In the United States, strict constructionism refers to a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.


Strict constructionism isn't about limiting judicial interpretation, Scalia and Thomas interpret the constitution as much as anyone else. Its about strictly reading it, according to the plain meaning of the words, not pulling $#@! out of your asses like intellectually dishonest liberals. I'm totally serious, *"living constitutionalism" is not simply wrong, its obvious bull$#@!, they just say "it should be about modern values, so therefore my value wins" as if gun control, abortion, and socialized healthcare are automatically modern values because liberals declare them to be.* That is the beginning and end of strict constructionism versus "living constitutionalism" bull$#@!. But, that's what you guys are doing here with marriage equality, you're just saying your values wins because the constitution was written when everyone agreed with you. Read the constitution. Look at the words and their meaning. Thomas Jefferson's brain isn't the constitution, or the drafters of the fourteenth amendment or w/e, its the rules they created.

*Marriage equality is strict constructionism. Read the Fourteenth Amendment:
*
*Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.*

Strict construtionism isn't conservative social values, and its not every political preference held by the drafters. Its the rule they put down and what they intended it to mean. *Equal protection means equal protection. No one can dispute the fact that this is gender discrimination, you're saying men and women have different options, that's discrimination.*

Further, no state can deny a citizen the privileges and immunities of being a US citizen. *The ability to marry is a privilege of being a citizen.* Gay/lesbian citizens cannot be denied this. Lol and don't say that its not a citizenship privilege being noncitizens can marry. The fact that even noncitizens can marry proves that citizens absolutely, positively have the ability to get married. *How f'n horrible that two noncitizens can marry, but not US citizens that paid taxes and love eachother, solely because of religious objection.
*
Finally, the First Amendment says no religion can be endorsed. This means that no matter how religious or secular marriage is, government cannot have marriage laws based on religion, period. It has to be as nonreligious, and inclusive of everyone's religious views, as possible. You can't say its only marriage based on your religion, you can't say that its only individuals who think of marriage or religion the same way you do. Your objection to another person doing something *that you yourself do* is that your religion doesn't allow it? Its hypocritically pissing on the US constitution, and the very amendment that protects your right to practice your religion, and treat it in a religious manner. Communist countries banned religion, and religious involvement in marriage, but the state can't do that here because of the First Amendment.




> Um. I was the only Republican in the NCGA to oppose the NC Marriage Amendment. I did so at GREAT personal cost to myself and my "political 'career.'" Does that sound "homophobic" to you? 
> 
> If the government is rolling around killing everyone whose last name begins with "M," then I would likewise oppose a plan to 'start killing W's in the name of fairness.' This makes me afraid of W's? Have you even thought any of this out or are you just working from emotion?





> And yes, I don't care if every last "W" on the planet came up to me just _begging_ to let the government murder them. Not gonna do it. Evil is evil, and expanding this evil to cover more people is in no way, shape, or form "less evil."


What's the NC marriage amendment? If you opposed it a ban on gay marriage, then I'm not sure how I called you a homophobe in my post. Btw, I'm not trying to say homophobe in a horrible way, as weird as that sounds, to me its like saying somebody's grandmother is a little racist. You're not lynching anyone, its just a weird time in our history, I don't hate you guys.




> I do not think you should try to justify or explain your position to a poster who is stretching the Constitution to make it do something it was not written to do. Don't let the name calling push your buttons. In the OP, he suggests that a prohibition of same-sex marriage is gender discrimination. I'm not sure how that works since same-sex relationships happen between men and between women. And there are people who are on record as having sexual relationships with both men and women. If they decide to marry someone, it can't really be said they have a discriminatory orientation. 
> 
> Marriage is actually one of the most discriminatory relationships there is. I have routinely discriminated against all other men for several decades, and my husband discriminates against all other women.


Mary can marry Bob. John cannot marry Bob. This is discrimination.




> Stossel did a show on this some years ago (can't find toobz ATM), and demonstrated your statement (bolded) to be false (or at least not universally true enough to make such an absolute statement).


So... you can't tell me why?




> That. 
> 
> Also, to my knowledge pretty much every one of the founders wanted to criminalize homosexuality. I disagree with them, mind you ,but it would be odd to use the words they wrote to argue that homosexual relationships should be recongized by the government.


$#@! man, you got me stumped on the Fourteenth Amendment being coerced. Its so true. I got nothing on that. My constitutional law professor (huge libertarian, might not like Ron Paul but likes ppl who do) talked about it. But as for the founders, their brains didn't become the law, they wrote the law to be interpeted by human beings based on the plain meaning of the words. Further, the fourteenth amendment was by different drafters, 'new founders' (very new country kindof). But, to go back to your pt, they opposed allowing whites and blacks to marry, this is why the Supreme Court allowed the ban on interracial marriage. But that's not what the Equal Protection clause says. (Not trying to guilt you with race, just to make a pt about consistently following rules, its my whole pt)




> Homophobe = fear of homosexuals.


*You're a bigot.* How about that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So... you can't tell me why?


The cost/benefit ratio of typing it out is not in my favor.

----------


## Danke

Your so stupid.  Does the 14th A  allow plural marriages? How about sister brother marriages?

Such a stupid argument.  Why bring up the 14th A.  It was for a specific class that had nothing to do with most State Citizens.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Your so stupid.  Does the 14th A  allow plural marriages? How about sister brother marriages?
> 
> Such a stupid argument.  Why bring up the 14th A.  It was for a specific class that had nothing to do with most State Citizens.


And where does it say "race" in the fourteenth amendment? Where does it name any category or "specific class" of any kind? Its purposely open, not purposely limited in the way you're describing.

Banning polygamy does not give ppl different rights based on gender. Banning homosexual marriage *does* give ppl different rights based on gender.

----------


## Danke

> And where does it say "race" in the fourteenth amendment? Where does it name any category or "specific class" of any kind?


It doesn't... Know history?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What's the NC marriage amendment? If you opposed it a ban on gay marriage, then I'm not sure how I called you a homophobe in my post. Btw, I'm not trying to say homophobe in a horrible way, as weird as that sounds, to me its like saying somebody's grandmother is a little racist. You're not lynching anyone, its just a weird time in our history, I don't hate you guys.


Actually, you said that anybody who opposes expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage is a homophobe, and that the libertarian justification that government should not be involved in marriage is just an excuse.

I consider government-licensed marriage to be an aggressive crime against those so-licensed.  I oppose government sponsored marriage, and while I am working to end the government licensure of marriage, I adamantly refuse to expand that crime over more classes of people.

Those are the characteristics you listed to call people homophobes.

There is a pretty solid chance that had I not opposed the NC Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, that I would still be in the General Assembly.  Government sponsored marriage is a crime against God.  

So the government is committing crimes against people by requiring that marriages be recognized by the government.  My refusal to add more classes of victims to this government crime, in your opinion makes me a homophobe.

In my opinion, that makes you irrational and driven purely by emotion.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> It doesn't... Know history?


So you you're just ignoring the constitution's text. You're not saying "Oh, this is actually what it means." You're just saying some human being who wrote it had a particular belief, *even though he didn't write it down in the constitution.* This isn't even ambiguous text, because you're not even basing your argument on the constitution. You're just saying your views are what the constitution must mean, like "living constitutionalists," only you're imputing 1800 rules into a document that doesn't state those rules.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Actually, you said that anybody who opposes expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage is a homophobe, and that the libertarian justification that government should not be involved in marriage is just an excuse.
> 
> I consider government-licensed marriage to be an aggressive crime against those so-licensed.  I oppose government sponsored marriage, and while I am working to end the government licensure of marriage, I adamantly refuse to expand that crime over more classes of people.
> 
> Those are the characteristics you listed to call people homophobes.
> 
> There is a pretty solid chance that had I not opposed the NC Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, that I would still be in the General Assembly.  Government sponsored marriage is a crime against God.  
> 
> So the government is committing crimes against people by requiring that marriages be recognized by the government.  My refusal to add more classes of victims to this government crime, in your opinion makes me a homophobe.
> ...


*No where in this post do you mention the constitution in any way at all.* I'm not talking about the policy, *I'm talking about the constitution's position.* I agree with getting govt out of marriage, but it is in marriage right now. The constitution bans discrimination. The constitution isn't some libertarian guy. *Can the govt ban interracial marriage under the constitution?* II'm not talking about saving those poor black ppl from the evil institution of government marriage, I'm talking about constitutional rights. The government may have ruined marriage by monopolizing it, but that means they need to make that status available to anyone who wants it.

----------


## euphemia

Marriage is not an invention of the Constitution.  It happened well before the founding of the United States.  The states have always codified marriage in their own ways, and they change their laws.  Tennessee has never recognized common-law marriage.  As late as 1979, South Carolina did recognize common-law marriage, but now does not.  

I think you are trying to twist the Comstitution to mean what you want it to mean and those who do not agree with you are broad brushed as homophobes or idiots or fake libertarians.  You would deny a person the right to faith/philosophy and the freedom of association.  

That's just sad and rather small minded.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *No where in this post do you mention the constitution in any way at all.* I'm not talking about the policy, *I'm talking about the constitution's position.* I agree with getting govt out of marriage, but it is in marriage right now. The constitution bans discrimination. The constitution isn't some libertarian guy. *Can the govt ban interracial marriage under the constitution?* II'm not talking about saving those poor black ppl from the evil institution of government marriage, I'm talking about constitutional rights. The government may have ruined marriage by monopolizing it, but that means they need to make that status available to anyone who wants it.


The. government. has. no. authority. to. recognize. marriage. at. all.

Expanding an unconstitutional policy, does not make it constitutional 

It is unconstitutional for the government to murder everyone with an "M" in their name.  Getting the government to also murder people with a "W" in their name does not make the action 'more constitutional.'

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Marriage is not an invention of the Constitution.  It happened well before the founding of the United States.  The states have always codified marriage in there own ways, and they change their laws.  Tennessee has never recognized common-law marriage.  As late as 1979, South Carolina did recognize common-law marriage, but now does not.  
> 
> I think you are trying to twist the Comstitution to mean what you want it to mean and those who do not agree with you are broad brushed as homophobes or idiots or fake libertarians.  You would deny a person the right to faith/philosophy and the freedom of association.  
> 
> That's just sad and rather small minded.





> The. government. has. no. authority. to. recognize. marriage. at. all.
> 
> Expanding an unconstitutional policy, does not make it constitutional 
> 
> It is unconstitutional for the government to murder everyone with an "M" in their name. Getting the government to also murder people with a "W" in their name does not make the action 'more constitutional.'


So both of you thought it was wrong for the Supreme Court to force states to allow interracial marriage? And both of you think its constitutional to pass a law specifically called the "No Social Security Checks for Black People Act of 2014"?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So both of you thought it was wrong for the Supreme Court to force states to allow interracial marriage? And both of you think its constitutional to pass a law specifically called the "No Social Security Checks for Black People Act of 2014"?


It would have been correct if SCOTUS had ruled that the States have no authority to license or recognize marriage at all.  Anything else just compounded the problem by adding more victims unter government slavery.

I have no idea what you are talking about re social security checks.  The government needs to get out of the socialism business, but reality dictates a slow drawdown to prevent people from being harmed and deprived of their contractual rights.  As to passing a law to prevent black people from receiving social security checks, all persons in the US have paid into a program with the expectation or receiving funds.  To deny someone that contractual obligation would be a violation of common law.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

If you want to be gay married, go get gay married.  What's stopping you?  The lack of a government license?  Do you need a government license to validate your relationship?  If so, then the problem is with your relationship.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> It would have been correct if SCOTUS had ruled that the States have no authority to license or recognize marriage at all.  Anything else just compounded the problem by adding more victims unter government slavery.
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about re social security checks.  The government needs to get out of the socialism business, but reality dictates a slow drawdown to prevent people from being harmed and deprived of their contractual rights.  As to passing a law to prevent black people from receiving social security checks, all persons in the US have paid into a program with the expectation or receiving funds.  To deny someone that contractual obligation would be a violation of common law.


Are you married?

And gays and lesbians pay for marriage also. They pay for marriage/divorce/family courts, they pay to educate children (so they have the right to raise them like anyone else), they fight to defend the US constitution and the states that decide marriage law. As human beings and US citizens, they have an expectation of legal equality, and the lack of equality violates their constitutional rights. $#@! common law, I don't care about Norman kings.

Are you saying Alabama can pass a law saying black ppl can't get married?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Are you married?
> 
> And gays and lesbians pay for marriage also. They pay for marriage/divorce/family courts, they pay to educate children (so they have the right to raise them like anyone else), they fight to defend the US constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law. As human beings and US, they have an expectation of legal equality, and the lack of equality violates their constitutional rights. $#@! common law, I don't care about Norman kings.


No, I am not married.  When i do get married, it will not be with a government license.  I adamantly believe that the government licensure of marriage is a violation of God's Law.  So when I do get married, I will find a Pastor to do the service without a government license.  Just like I am recommending that you do.  

I don't care how badly you beg to be enslaved to government licensure.  I will never support it.  

When you talk about wanting government marriage do you know what I hear?  "I want to be a slave of this government like everyone else."  

Sorry, I'm never going to support that.  I don't care how desperately you want to enslave yourself to the government.  I refuse to participate myself, and i refuse to support anybody else becoming a slave.  You want to become a slave of this government?  You can do it without my help.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> No, I am not married.  When i do get married, it will not be with a government license.  I adamantly believe that the government licensure of marriage is a violation of God's Law.  So when I do get married, I will find a Pastor to do the service without a government license.  Just like I am recommending that you do.  
> 
> I don't care how badly you beg to be enslaved to government licensure.  I will never support it.  
> 
> When you talk about wanting government marriage do you know what I hear?  "I want to be a slave of this government like everyone else."  
> 
> Sorry, I'm never going to support that.  I don't care how desperately you want to enslave yourself to the government.  I refuse to participate myself, and i refuse to support anybody else becoming a slave.  You want to become a slave of this government?  You can do it without my help.


Okay, but how about the part of my post you didn't quote? "Can Alabama pass a law banning black ppl from getting married?"

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okay, but how about the part of my post you didn't quote? "Can Alabama pass a law banning black ppl from getting married?"


No.  What part of "the government has no authority to regulate or even recognize marriage, period." is so hard to understand?

Passing a law banning black people from getting married, requires a government to recognize and regulate marriage.  Which thing they have no authority to do.

I do not know how to put this in any simpler words than that.  You are just going to have to try to figure some of this out on your own.

And you must have added that part after posting and before the 'edited' timer, because I did not delete anything from the quote.

----------


## jmdrake

> And where does it say "race" in the fourteenth amendment? Where does it name any category or "specific class" of any kind? Its purposely open, not purposely limited in the way you're describing.
> 
> Banning polygamy does not give ppl different rights based on gender. Banning homosexual marriage *does* give ppl different rights based on gender.


Ah.  So your anti polygamy bias finally shines through.  It is based on the fact that Islam allows plural marriages and you hate Muslims?  Do you hate Mormons as well?  Judaism used to allow plural marriages.  In the U.S. Abraham, King David, King Solomon, the prophet Samuel's dad and Jacob (Israel) would all be put into prison.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are you saying Alabama can pass a law saying black ppl can't get married?


You really aren't aware of the history of such laws are you?  When Loving vs Virginia was decided *you could be arrested* for being in a mixed marriage in some states.  Can you name a state where you can be *arrested* for being in a gay marriage?  There are states where you can be *arrested* for being in a plural marriage.  But you don't care because you are a religious bigot.

----------


## jmdrake

> I do not think you should try to justify or explain your position to a poster who is stretching the Constitution to make it do something it was not written to do.  Don't let the name calling push your buttons.  In the OP, he suggests that a prohibition of same-sex marriage is gender discrimination.  I'm not sure how that works since same-sex relationships happen between men and between women.  And there are people who are on record as having sexual relationships with both men and women.  If they decide to marry someone, it can't really be said they have a discriminatory orientation. 
> 
> Marriage is actually one of the most discriminatory relationships there is.  I have routinely discriminated against all other men for several decades, and my husband discriminates against all other women.


Really.  Which "gender" is being discriminated against?  This is the same claptrap nonsense that has come to the odd conclusion that having separate bathrooms for men and women is somehow "gender discrimination".

----------


## otherone

To the op:
Do any states ask about the sexes of those pursuing a license?  Should government use TSA agents to verify alleged genitalia?  In what way should sex be any business of government?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So both of you thought it was wrong for the Supreme Court to force states to allow interracial marriage? And both of you think its constitutional to pass a law specifically called the "No Social Security Checks for Black People Act of 2014"?


I don't see why that would be inherently a bad thing, considering government has no right to make and honor such contracts with other people's money.  Now, prudence would dictate that that isn't the best method of phasing out social security, but I don't see how it would be inherently "wrong", and that same would apply if "white" were to replace "black."

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## maybemaybenot

> No.  What part of "the government has no authority to regulate or even recognize marriage, period." is so hard to understand?
> 
> Passing a law banning black people from getting married, requires a government to recognize and regulate marriage.  Which thing they have no authority to do.
> 
> I do not know how to put this in any simpler words than that.  You are just going to have to try to figure some of this out on your own.
> 
> And you must have added that part after posting and before the 'edited' timer, because I did not delete anything from the quote.


No no no. You don't understand how the Equal Protection Clause works. When a marriage statute says "Men and woman can marry eachother," it instantly violated the Equal Protection Clause. Agree or disagree? It literally says men have these rights, but women ahve those rights. Men can marry Karen, but Linda cannot marry Karen. Such a law violated the Equal Protection Clause. This means that the Supreme Court is mandated to correct it by instructing states to apply the law in an equal manner.

And it doesn't matter what the statute literally says, it matters how its enforced. The government cannot enforce any law in an unequal manner. This is what the fourteenth amendment plainly says, and you just don't care. You're saying the states cannot ban blacks from getting married because whites are getting married,* but that they can ban men from marrying men even though they allow women to marry men.* This is contradictory, it ignores the rights of gay/lesbian US citizens, and your only justification is your personal policy views.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Ah.  So your anti polygamy bias finally shines through.  It is based on the fact that Islam allows plural marriages and you hate Muslims?  Do you hate Mormons as well?  Judaism used to allow plural marriages.  In the U.S. Abraham, King David, King Solomon, the prophet Samuel's dad and Jacob (Israel) would all be put into prison.


Lol nope, didn't say Islam. Almost every example of polygamy is sexist and repressive, just like you described. I never said Islam, you did. *You ppl continually refuse to ignore my constitutional argument, and replace it with a libertarian policy argument.* Banning ppl from marrying more than one spouse does not violate the equal protection clause, it does not say that different categories of ppl have different rights. Saying that men can marry women, but woman cannot marry women, is saying different categories of ppl have different rights, violating the fourteenth amendment.




> You really aren't aware of the history of such laws are you? When Loving vs Virginia was decided *you could be arrested* for being in a mixed marriage in some states. Can you name a state where you can be *arrested* for being in a gay marriage? There are states where you can be *arrested* for being in a plural marriage. But you don't care because you are a religious bigot.


Oh boy. The equal protection clause doesn't say anything about arrests. *It says you can't be denied equal protection under the law.* It says that the government cannot create arbitrary categories based on race or gender or religion. No "arrests" in the fourteenth amendment. It says you cannot be denied *liberty*, which isn't just the right to not be in a locked cage, it includes the right to have a government that treats you as an equal, and spends tax dollars in a way that represents anyone. *This means gays and lesbians get to use family courts, because they pay for family courts. You don't run the country, the constitution does, it belongs to all of us.*




> Really. Which "gender" is being discriminated against? This is the same claptrap nonsense that has come to the odd conclusion that having separate bathrooms for men and women is somehow "gender discrimination".


Men and women are discriminated. Men cannot marry the ppl who women can marry, and vice versa. This is discrimination. The fact that one side is not the greater victim doesn't change the fact that its discrimination. *Read the fourteenth amendment.* Categories are inherently unequal. Would you also argue that banning interracial marriage is allowed? Since blacks can marry blacks, and whites can marry whites, therefore its equal? You'd be ignoring the fourteenth amendment.

Lol the equal protection clause is not "claptrap," I love how anyone will ignore the constitution when its convenient to them. *Having separate bathrooms is discrimination, but its discrimination with an actual justification that policymakers can articulate, so courts allow it.* It involves weird issues of privacy and children being with opposite gender adults. No one can articulate a justification for banning gay marriage. The fact that gender-specific bathrooms make sense doesn't mean the government can pass any law discriminating based on gender, it doesn't abrogate the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution.




> To the op:
> Do any states ask about the sexes of those pursuing a license? Should government use TSA agents to verify alleged genitalia? In what way should sex be any business of government?


Marriage licensing ppl make sure that its one man and one woman. That's illegal. Saying "there must be two ppl" is not sexist, saying "there must be a man and a woman" is sexist, and its just as illegal as any affirmative action policy, it says that men cannot marry men, even though women can marry men. This violates the equal protection clause.

I love how you ppl ignore the constitution and the fourteenth amendment, and replace it with arguments about how discrimintion sometimes make sense, like with how you do security screenings for different genders. This makes sense. Banning men from marrying men does not make sense, no lawyer has ever been able to articulate a justifying for banning gay marriage in a courtroom, its never happened. *Saying that there are other situations where discrimination makes sense does not abrogate the US constitution.

*


> I don't see why that would be inherently a bad thing, considering government has no right to make and honor such contracts with other people's money. Now, prudence would dictate that that isn't the best method of phasing out social security, but I don't see how it would be inherently "wrong", and that same would apply if "white" were to replace "black."


Lol you're ignoring the constitution. The equal protection clause. The "No Social Security for Black Ppl Law of 2014" would violate the equal protection clause, just like the "No Social Security for White Ppl Law of 2014" would violate the equal protection clause, whether you like those ideas or not.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> No no no. You don't understand how the Equal Protection Clause works. When a marriage statute says "Men and woman can marry eachother," it instantly violated the Equal Protection Clause. Agree or disagree? It literally says men have these rights, but women ahve those rights. Men can marry Karen, but Linda cannot marry Karen. Such a law violated the Equal Protection Clause. This means that the Supreme Court is mandated to correct it by instructing states to apply the law in an equal manner.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what the statute literally says, it matters how its enforced. The government cannot enforce any law in an unequal manner. This is what the fourteenth amendment plainly says, and you just don't care. You're saying the states cannot ban blacks from getting married because whites are getting married,* but that they can ban men from marrying men even though they allow women to marry men.* This is contradictory, it ignores the rights of gay/lesbian US citizens, and your only justification is your personal policy views.


There is no contradiction, as the class presumed here is disputed. There are no "gays and lesbians" who comprise a civil rights category---there are simply men and women who choose to conduct homosexual activity. The "gays rights" canard is a loaded term designed to market the normalization of the behavior by painting its practitioners as an oppressed minority. This colorization of the issue is not agreed to (as those conducting homosexuality do not have rights based on their behavior, any more than a group of adulterers do). In addition, rights attach to individuals, not to groups, so a provision designed to permit a group to do or not do something is a _government privilege_, not a right, thus not subject to the equal protection clause.


P.S.: _Sexual preference is not a gender_, or an expression of gender. Maybemaybenot tries to skirt this point while denying he is talking about gays and lesbians being protected as a civil rights category by the 14th amendment. A lot of social issue discussion proceeds like this, with the social left or right trying to pack multiple disputable positions into an argument, or into a law, to bypass debating the positions.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> There is no contradiction, as the class presumed here is disputed. There are no "gays and lesbians" who comprise a civil rights category---there are simply men and women who choose to conduct homosexual activity. The "gays rights" canard is a loaded term designed to market the normalization of the behavior by painting its practitioners as an oppressed minority. This colorization of the issue is not agreed to (as those conducting homosexuality do not have rights based on their behavior, any more than a group of adulterers do). In addition, rights attach to individuals, not to groups, so a provision designed to permit a group to do or not do something is a _government privilege_, not a right, thus not subject to the equal protection clause.


Not once in this entire post did I state that gays and lesbians are a civil rights category, not once. I have been saying men and women are civil rights categories. Men get to marry women, therefore women get to marry women, because the equal protection clause bans discrimination based on gender. Gender is a civil rights category.

And the Equal Protection Clause says nothing about government "privileges," it says ppl get equal protection under the law, you're making up a rule about "privileges."

----------


## Danke

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

----------


## jmdrake

> Lol nope, didn't say Islam. Almost every example of polygamy is sexist and repressive, just like you described. I never said Islam, you did. *You ppl continually refuse to ignore my constitutional argument, and replace it with a libertarian policy argument.* Banning ppl from marrying more than one spouse does not violate the equal protection clause, it does not say that different categories of ppl have different rights. Saying that men can marry women, but woman cannot marry women, is saying different categories of ppl have different rights, violating the fourteenth amendment.


More religious bigotry shining through along with a good heaping helping of feminist based sexism.  "Almost every example of polygamy is sexist and repressive".  *Your* viewpoint is what is sexist and repressive.  A woman who voluntarily decides to go into a plural marriage is repressed?  If she can leave if she wants to she is repressed?  If she has veto power over whether another woman is allowed to join she is repressed?  And say if it's a woman with multiple husbands?  (That does happen in some countries).  Are the men repressed?  Or is the woman repressed for having to service multiple men?  




> Oh boy. The equal protection clause doesn't say anything about arrests. *It says you can't be denied equal protection under the law.*


I didn't say it did.  *You* were the one that brought up miscegenation laws and asked about a law where a black person and white person can't marry.  In such cases the couple were subject to arrest.  But further *THERE ARE NOT STATES WHERE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX TO MARRY!*  You are being *DISHONEST* by repeatedly making that claim.  The only question is do people get the same goodies.  And it's based on their choice, not their gender.




> It says that the government cannot create arbitrary categories based on race or gender or religion.


Barring polygamy, which you seem to be in favor of, is an arbitrary category based on religion.  Back in the day it was the religion of most Christians that made polygamy abhorrent.  Now it's the religion of radical feminism that makes polygamy abhorrent.  We can't let adults make the own choices because some stupid feminist things that polygamy is inherently sexist.  *BULLOCKS*!  Why is it perfectly legal for a man to have three babies mamas living in the same house, *maybe* be married to one of them, but if they decide "Hey!  We'll have a ceremony that shows we're all committed to each other" somehow *YOU* think the state should have the right to interfere because, supposedly, it's "sexist"?  And since you *claim* to be for LBGT rights, what about bisexual people?  Why should a bisexual person have to choose to be married to a man or a woman if that person really would rather be with both at the same time?  Isn't that denying the bisexual person his/her "sexual preference?"




> No "arrests" in the fourteenth amendment. It says you cannot be denied *liberty*, which isn't just the right to not be in a locked cage, it includes the right to have a government that treats you as an equal, and spends tax dollars in a way that represents anyone. *This means gays and lesbians get to use family courts, because they pay for family courts. You don't run the country, the constitution does, it belongs to all of us.*


Yep.  Gays and lesbians get to beat each up over the head for alimony and child support (they can already go for child support) and all sorts of other crap that is the family court system.  *YIPPEEE!*  I suppose as a lawyer I should be pushing this instead of getting the government out of marriage.  More work of the vultures of society.  Here's what you probably don't understand though. *Family court is paid for primarily  by the court cases and NOT by taxes.*  Every time you go to court there is this thing called "court costs".  One side or the other pays for each court case and sometimes the costs are split.  Only if everybody is indigent (poor) is family court "free".  But in cases like that, the people getting the "free" service didn't pay their share of the taxes anyway.  Think about it.  If they have a steady income to pay taxes, then they have a steady income to pay court costs.




> Men and women are discriminated. Men cannot marry the ppl who women can marry, and vice versa. This is discrimination. The fact that one side is not the greater victim doesn't change the fact that its discrimination. *Read the fourteenth amendment.* Categories are inherently unequal. Would you also argue that banning interracial marriage is allowed? Since blacks can marry blacks, and whites can marry whites, therefore its equal? You'd be ignoring the fourteenth amendment.


There you go again.  *Banning interracial marriage*.  *GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT BANNED IN ANY STATE!*  But more importantly *I'M FOR GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE INSTEAD OF EXPANDING THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN MARRIAGE!*  And don't give me any more of that discrimination crap.  You support religious discrimination against Muslims and Mormons and sexual orientation discrimination against people who are bisexual.  They don't get their "choice" of "all of the above."




> Lol the equal protection clause is not "claptrap," I love how anyone will ignore the constitution when its convenient to them. *Having separate bathrooms is discrimination, but its discrimination with an actual justification that policymakers can articulate, so courts allow it.* It involves weird issues of privacy and children being with opposite gender adults. No one can articulate a justification for banning gay marriage. The fact that gender-specific bathrooms make sense doesn't mean the government can pass any law discriminating based on gender, it doesn't abrogate the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution.


Well a lot of your liberal friends don't see the justification for separate bathrooms.  Johnny wants to be Jill but Johnny still has all boy parts.  Some people feel that Johnny should be able to go to the ladies room because....well just because.




> Marriage licensing ppl make sure that its one man and one woman. That's illegal. Saying "there must be two ppl" is not sexist, saying "there must be a man and a woman" is sexist, and its just as illegal as any affirmative action policy, it says that men cannot marry men, even though women can marry men. This violates the equal protection clause.


If saying that a gay man can't choose to marry man is sexist then saying a bisexual man can't choose to marry a man and a woman is also sexist and a violation of your (warped) definition of the equal protection clause.

And one more time *GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT BANNED.*  Saying the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.  In some states gay marriage is not recognized.  Here is another analogy since you seem incapable of understand the facts regarding mixed race marriages.  Let's say a state decides to decriminalize medical marijuana, but does not license it.  Let's say the effect of it not being licensed is that medical insurance won't pay for it the way t pays for prescription drugs.  Does that mean that in such a state medical marijuana is "banned"?  No.  No sane person would claim that it is.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> More religious bigotry shining through along with a good heaping helping of feminist based sexism.  "Almost every example of polygamy is sexist and repressive".  *Your* viewpoint is what is sexist and repressive.  A woman who voluntarily decides to go into a plural marriage is repressed?  If she can leave if she wants to she is repressed?  If she has veto power over whether another woman is allowed to join she is repressed?  And say if it's a woman with multiple husbands?  (That does happen in some countries).  Are the men repressed?  Or is the woman repressed for having to service multiple men?


You're ignoring the constitution entirey, you're ignoring the fourteenth amendment, you act like it doesn't exist. If a law says "marriage is between a man or a woman, or "men can marry women, women can marry men," then it confers different rights/privileges/powers on different gonders, violating the equal protection clause. The only way to correct that is to say that everyone gets to participate in the practice of marrying women, whether male or female. That is my argument. Stop ignoring it. You're arguing polygamy is fine on libertarian grounds, you're not presenting an argument for why it violates constitutional rights, and you're ignoring my argument on how male-female-ONLY marriage laws violates the equal protection clause.





> I didn't say it did.  *You* were the one that brought up miscegenation laws and asked about a law where a black person and white person can't marry.  In such cases the couple were subject to arrest.  But further *THERE ARE NOT STATES WHERE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX TO MARRY!*  You are being *DISHONEST* by repeatedly making that claim.  The only question is do people get the same goodies.  And it's based on their choice, not their gender.


If the law does not say two men can marry, then it is illegal for two men to marry.

And you refuse to answer the interracial marriage question, because you don't have a principled and consistent view of the constitution, you want it to mean whatever you want it to mean. If you think that its constitutional to allow male-female marriage only, then why is it not constitutional to allow white-white or black-black only? If no statute explicitly says "whites cannot marry blacks," then you'd be down with this apartheid system under the equal protection clause?




> Barring polygamy, which you seem to be in favor of, is an arbitrary category based on religion.  Back in the day it was the religion of most Christians that made polygamy abhorrent.  Now it's the religion of radical feminism that makes polygamy abhorrent.  We can't let adults make the own choices because some stupid feminist things that polygamy is inherently sexist.  *BULLOCKS*!  Why is it perfectly legal for a man to have three babies mamas living in the same house, *maybe* be married to one of them, but if they decide "Hey!  We'll have a ceremony that shows we're all committed to each other" somehow *YOU* think the state should have the right to interfere because, supposedly, it's "sexist"?  And since you *claim* to be for LBGT rights, what about bisexual people?  Why should a bisexual person have to choose to be married to a man or a woman if that person really would rather be with both at the same time?  Isn't that denying the bisexual person his/her "sexual preference?"


I am not arguing against polygamy, I am explaining *on legal grounds* that the right to marry a man or a woman is part of the equal protection clause, but that the right to marry multiple spouses is not part of the equal protection clause. And no one is arguing against polygamy on religious grounds, they say Muslims/Mormons/Jews can't have polygamy all across the board. The fact that it involves religion doesn't automatically mean any law discriminates based on religion. You're just calling it discrimination based on religion when its not. No one stops Mormons from getting married, they stop polygamists from getting married.

And let's say you're right, that polygamy and gay marriage have the same legal status under the equal protection clause. So what. How is gay marriage not allowed?






> Yep.  Gays and lesbians get to beat each up over the head for alimony and child support (they can already go for child support) and all sorts of other crap that is the family court system.  *YIPPEEE!*  I suppose as a lawyer I should be pushing this instead of getting the government out of marriage.  More work of the vultures of society.  Here's what you probably don't understand though. *Family court is paid for primarily  by the court cases and NOT by taxes.*  Every time you go to court there is this thing called "court costs".  One side or the other pays for each court case and sometimes the costs are split.  Only if everybody is indigent (poor) is family court "free".  But in cases like that, the people getting the "free" service didn't pay their share of the taxes anyway.  Think about it.  If they have a steady income to pay taxes, then they have a steady income to pay court costs.


And this still doesn't attack the Equal Protection argument. You're saying men and women have different spouse options. This violates the Equal Protection Clause.





> There you go again.  *Banning interracial marriage*.  *GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT BANNED IN ANY STATE!*  But more importantly *I'M FOR GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE INSTEAD OF EXPANDING THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN MARRIAGE!*  And don't give me any more of that discrimination crap.  You support religious discrimination against Muslims and Mormons and sexual orientation discrimination against people who are bisexual.  They don't get their "choice" of "all of the above."


When did I say anything bad about bisexuals? If anything I'm for the "bisexual marriage system," where every individual can marry a man or a woman. Not once in this entire thread do you talk about the equal proteciton clause, you ignore it to talk about your personal views.

And your semantics argument is meanngless. Gay marriage is banned in a state that does not legally sanction gay marriage. And if private marriage is marriage, and thus no state denies marriage of any kind, then equal protection still demands that men and women have the exact same rights, men and women can both "government marry" women. 




> Well a lot of your liberal friends don't see the justification for separate bathrooms.  Johnny wants to be Jill but Johnny still has all boy parts.  Some people feel that Johnny should be able to go to the ladies room because....well just because.


You bring up a great pt about complicated areas where gender discrimination may make sense, and thus exceptions can be made. You have not amended the equal protection clause out of existence. Pointing out that gender discrimination works in one area does not change the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all US citizens. Your argument is meaningless, your only logic is that gender-based laws cannot be banned under the constitution in general (because you can't actually pt to gay marriage being bad in anyway, you're just saying this other discriminatory law can make sense, so therefore "bye bye equal protection clause."





> If saying that a gay man can't choose to marry man is sexist then saying a bisexual man can't choose to marry a man and a woman is also sexist and a violation of your (warped) definition of the equal protection clause.


No, because I never talk about the civil rights categories of gays and lesbians and bisexuals. I solely talk about men and women. You're making up an equal protection clause that doesn't exist. It says everyone gets the same rights. If everyone is only allowed to marry one spouse, that means everyone has the same rights, even if certain ppl wish those rights were different. If men can marry women but women cannot marry women, then different ppl have different rights/privileges/powers, and that violates the Equal Protection Clause.




> And one more time *GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT BANNED.*  Saying the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.  In some states gay marriage is not recognized.  Here is another analogy since you seem incapable of understand the facts regarding mixed race marriages.  Let's say a state decides to decriminalize medical marijuana, but does not license it.  Let's say the effect of it not being licensed is that medical insurance won't pay for it the way t pays for prescription drugs.  Does that mean that in such a state medical marijuana is "banned"?  No.  No sane person would claim that it is.


Lol you're saying I don't understand mixed race marriages? All you do is dodge the question, saying "You (me) brought it up, not me," you can't answer the question because it would prove you're inconsistent. You haven't responded to it.

If the effect of not licensing medical marijuana is that insurance won't pay for it... then insurance won't pay for it. Its not "banned," because those insurance companies can still pay for it, they simply chose not to under their policies.

But if the government itself said "insurance companies cannot pay for medical marijuana," then insurance coverage for medical marijuana would be banned. Similarly if the government passed a law saying "these are the list of things medical insurance providers can cover, and nothing else," and don't list medical marijuana, then insurance coverag for medical marijuana is banned. Similarly, passing a law that says "men can marry women, women can marry men," leaves out men marrying men, thus is bans men marrying men. The lack of a statute saying men can marry men means men cannot marry men, literally, its banned. Its not allowed, its illegal, its banned.

----------


## jmdrake

> You're ignoring the constitution entirey, you're ignoring the fourteenth amendment, you act like it doesn't exist.


Wrong.  I'm pointing out that your argument ignores the fact that gay marriage has never been banned.  And your gross misinterpretation of the 14th amendment ignores the fact that sexual preference is not a gender.  You are also ignoring the fact that your singling out gay marriage as deserving protection while having open disdain for, and support for *actual* banning of, polygamy shows that you're all for discrimination based on religion and on bisexuality.  It's only homogeneous sexual preference that you wish to uplift.  Just because someone doesn't go along with your interpretation of the 14th amendment doesn't mean he/she is ignoring it.  For you to claim otherwise is just plain ignorant and borderline insane.

Here is openly gay libertarian Justin Raimondo speaking *against* gay marriage.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-gay-marriage/




> If a law says "marriage is between a man or a woman, or "men can marry women, women can marry men," then it confers different rights/privileges/powers on different gonders, violating the equal protection clause.


I'm not sure what a "gonder" is.  But a law that says "Men can marry men but a man can't marry a man and a women at the same time" confers different rights/privileges/powers to people with a homogenous sexual preference over those with a heterogeneous sexual preference.  You're free to pick one or the other but not both?  Bigot!




> The only way to correct that is to say that everyone gets to participate in the practice of marrying women, whether male or female. That is my argument. Stop ignoring it. You're arguing polygamy is fine on libertarian grounds, you're not presenting an argument for why it violates constitutional rights, and you're ignoring my argument on how male-female-ONLY marriage laws violates the equal protection clause.


I'm not ignoring your argument.  I'm saying it's bigoted and retarded.  You discriminate on the basis of religion and on the bases of homogenous versus heterogeneous sexual preference.  You are violating your own argument with regards to the 14th amendment.




> If the law does not say two men can marry, then it is illegal for two men to marry.


That is simply *NOT* true.  Quote me *ONE* law in *ONE* state that says it is illegal for two men to marry!

This is an example of a law where it is illegal for someone to marry someone else.

_826.01  Bigamy; punishment.--Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries another person shall, except in the cases mentioned in s. 826.02, be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084._

Unless there is a law where there is some kind of penalty for doing something, be that a fine or jail time, then it is simply dishonest to claim that it is "illegal" to do it.  I can get a tax break for installing solar panels on my home.  I will not get a tax break for installing a cold fusion reactor on my home.  That doesn't mean that cold fusion reactors are "illegal".




> And you refuse to answer the interracial marriage question, because you don't have a principled and consistent view of the constitution, you want it to mean whatever you want it to mean. If you think that its constitutional to allow male-female marriage only, then why is it not constitutional to allow white-white or black-black only? If no statute explicitly says "whites cannot marry blacks," then you'd be down with this apartheid system under the equal protection clause?


Why are you okay with there being laws against a bisexual man marrying a man and a woman at the same time?  I'm for getting the state all the way out the marriage business altogether.  You support bigotry against people with heterogeneous sexual preference.  My position is the principled one here.  Yours is not.




> I am not arguing against polygamy, I am explaining *on legal grounds* that the right to marry a man or a woman is part of the equal protection clause, but that the right to marry multiple spouses is not part of the equal protection clause.


What law school did you graduate from again?  Anyway, on *legal grounds* you are supporting discrimination against Muslims, Mormons and bisexual people.




> And no one is arguing against polygamy on religious grounds, they say Muslims/Mormons/Jews can't have polygamy all across the board.


You don't understand the history of polygamy laws do you?  The reason for the anti polygamy laws is because of religious bigotry.  That it is "equally applied across the board" is irrelevant.  If Muslims or Orthodox Jews took over and passed laws that said "Nobody can eat pork" it wouldn't matter that it applied "all across the board."




> The fact that it involves religion doesn't automatically mean any law discriminates based on religion. You're just calling it discrimination based on religion when its not. No one stops Mormons from getting married, they stop polygamists from getting married.


No one stops gays from getting married either.  Even when there were actual bans on gay marriage, which *was* the case before sodomy laws were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas, gays could still get married.  They just had to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Now they can get married.  Their marriage is just not sanctioned in certain states.  And according to you they are missing out on all of the wonders of family court.    Now some Mormons actually believe that polygamy enhances their standing with God.  So they are denied full free exercise of their religion.  And for what?  Because 150 years ago some religious bigots thought their practice was immoral and now some feminist anti-religious bigots think their practice oppresses women?  Also a bisexual person who would really rather have both than have to chose between one of his/her preferences cannot have that choice solidified in marriage under your view. 




> And let's say you're right, that polygamy and gay marriage have the same legal status under the equal protection clause. So what. How is gay marriage not allowed?


Gay marriage *is* allowed.  It just not entangled with the state.  I'd rather get the state all the way out.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?




> And this still doesn't attack the Equal Protection argument. You're saying men and women have different spouse options. This violates the Equal Protection Clause.


LOL.  No I didn't say that.  You are saying that.  Your argument is retarded.





> When did I say anything bad about bisexuals? If anything I'm for the "bisexual marriage system," where every individual can marry a man or a woman. Not once in this entire thread do you talk about the equal proteciton clause, you ignore it to talk about your personal views.


Your position that a bisexual person can marry a man or a woman but not both at once is like someone saying a gay man can marry a woman or a gay woman can marry a man.  In either case you are limiting the choice of the person who is wanting to get married.




> And your semantics argument is meanngless. Gay marriage is banned in a state that does not legally sanction gay marriage.


No it isn't.  You're repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it so.  




> But if the government itself said "insurance companies cannot pay for medical marijuana," then insurance coverage for medical marijuana would be banned.


Yet no states bar private companies from offering "family" health insurance to domestic partners.  Your argument is like saying "If a government decriminalizes medical marijuana but doesn't cover it under medicaid then medical marijuana is banned."

----------


## jmdrake

> Not once in this entire post did I state that gays and lesbians are a civil rights category, not once. I have been saying men and women are civil rights categories. Men get to marry women, therefore women get to marry women, because the equal protection clause bans discrimination based on gender. Gender is a civil rights category.
> 
> And the Equal Protection Clause says nothing about government "privileges," it says ppl get equal protection under the law, you're making up a rule about "privileges."


Yeah....so far every supreme court has rejected the "gender preference = gender" argument.  And that's the argument that you are making whether you are willing to admit it or not.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, but in reality, government marriage is here to stay. That being the case, it violates the equal protection clause and basic human rights to limit it based on gender.


Fixed it for you.

Laws that call some people married and other people unmarried and treat the two groups differently violate the equal protection clause.

They don't violate the equal protection clause any less if you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples than they do when you restrict it to opposite-sex couples. In both cases you still have the two different groups of the married and the unmarried, and the unequal application of the law to each group. It's just shifting around the boundaries of the groups.

One thing the pro-gay marriage side does have going for it is that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples makes a farce of state-defined marriage, and that, at least, is a good thing.

----------


## euphemia

> Are you married?


Yes.  Since the Carter Administration.

----------


## euphemia

> Okay, but in reality, government marriage is here to stay.


That may be true.  However, I think the scope of the government's interests should be very limited.  

1.  It should not be encouraged or discouraged through tax policy.
2.  It should not be discouraged through welfare.
3.  There should be no discrimination except as to the number of people in a marriage and to the age of consent to be married.
4.  Outside a legal marriage, there should be a simple, legal means to dispose of property at death or the dissolution of the relationship.  Government should get nothing.
5.  There should be a strong, legal means to provide for minor children resulting from a sexual relationship that does not involve anyone except the two people who brought the child into the world.

----------


## jmdrake

> That may be true.  However, I think the scope of the government's interests should be very limited.  
> 
> 1.  It should not be encouraged or discouraged through tax policy.
> 2.  It should not be discouraged through welfare.
> 3.  There should be no discrimination except as to the number of people in a marriage and to the age of consent to be married.
> 4.  Outside a legal marriage, there should be a simple, legal means to dispose of property at death or the dissolution of the relationship.  Government should get nothing.
> 5.  There should be a strong, legal means to provide for minor children resulting from a sexual relationship that does not involve anyone except the two people who brought the child into the world.


Why discriminate as to the number of people in a marriage?  Please state one legitimate reason for that.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Wrong.  I'm pointing out that your argument ignores the fact that gay marriage has never been banned.  And your gross misinterpretation of the 14th amendment ignores the fact that sexual preference is not a gender.  You are also ignoring the fact that your singling out gay marriage as deserving protection while having open disdain for, and support for *actual* banning of, polygamy shows that you're all for discrimination based on religion and on bisexuality.  It's only homogeneous sexual preference that you wish to uplift.  Just because someone doesn't go along with your interpretation of the 14th amendment doesn't mean he/she is ignoring it.  For you to claim otherwise is just plain ignorant and borderline insane.
> 
> Here is openly gay libertarian Justin Raimondo speaking *against* gay marriage.
> 
> http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-gay-marriage/
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what a "gonder" is.  But a law that says "Men can marry men but a man can't marry a man and a women at the same time" confers different rights/privileges/powers to people with a homogenous sexual preference over those with a heterogeneous sexual preference.  You're free to pick one or the other but not both?  Bigot!
> ...


Okay, let's ignore whether same-sex marriage is "banned." In Florida, where I live, the state will sanction a marriage between John and any female of his choice, but will not sanction a marriage between Karen and any female of her choice. The Fourteenth Amendment says you cannot deny anyone the equal protection of the law. *And yet the law is different between males and females. That's illegal.*

You make great points in favor of polygamy being allowed under the equal protection clause.  Fine, I agree. Its also protected under the equal protection clause. *So do you think the state of Alabama can have a law which says "white ppl can get married," but no law saying black ppl can get married?* You consistently refuse to answer this question, because you're putting your libertarian biases above the US constitution's legal protections.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Yeah....so far every supreme court has rejected the "gender preference = gender" argument.  And that's the argument that you are making whether you are willing to admit it or not.


Oh, so you're saying you agree with Scalia and Roberts and Kennedy and Sotomayor? F the Supreme Court. Lol I know I'm making the "gender preference = gender" argument. I've been saying it the whole time. You're saying women can choose from this group of ppl, but men cannot. That's illegal. Just like its illegal to say whites can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks. Its illegal.

The Supreme Court is putting its policy preferences above the equal protection clause, just like how they neutered the equal protection clause entirely from the 1870's to the 1960's. They're still ignoring it right now.

----------


## euphemia

> What's the rationale for limiting it to the children resulting from a sexual relationship? Are you concerned with the welfare of the children, or with punishing the non-marital sex?


No, I'm concerned with the welfare of the child.  And the responsibilty of the adults. 




> Who exactly are the "two" people responsible for bringing a child into the world?


The mom and the dad.  




> I'm thinking specifically of Octo-Mom, but how about the other children resulting from donated sperm ... should we be cracking the whip to the sperm donors? Are they not as responsible as a male sexual partner that had no intention of raising a child?


1.  She should not have been allowed to have IVF.
2.  She is responsible for any children to whom she gives birth.  If she can't afford them, she should not get pregnant.  This was entirely her choice.




> How about IVF where the bio-mom donates an egg, the bio-dad donates sperm, and a third person in the relationship (the birth mother) performs the incubation and birth functions ... who do we crack the whip on there?


The people who contract for the child.  The people who hire the surrogate.  If the surrogate keeps the child, she is financially responsible.




> Contractually, how do those examples differ from the "non-marital sexual relationships" that everyone seems to get so uptight about?


They don't.  I think it is pretty clear.  But they are not the majority of children born.  In some areas out-of-wedlock children are 70%.  

We are libertarians here, supposedly.  People have to be responsible for their own behavior.  If they make choices, they should not be enabled by the law not to assume responsibility for those choices.  That's exactly what happens now.

I truly do not care what people do in their private lives.  It is their business.  I would love it if people would keep on letting it not be my business by demanding I pay for their offspring from birth to death.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lol you're ignoring the constitution. The equal protection clause. The "No Social Security for Black Ppl Law of 2014" would violate the equal protection clause, just like the "No Social Security for White Ppl Law of 2014" would violate the equal protection clause, whether you like those ideas or not.


I'm not a constitutionalist.  I am an anarchist.  As an anarchist, I believe politically sanctioned aggression, constitutionally sanctioned or not, is morally disgusting and should be opposed at any time, with any non-violent means possible, including being "discriminatory" if needed.  Would a law like you describe, in practice, be a good way of advancing liberty?  No.  Would there be anything morally wrong with using such means?  Of course not.  And I'd say the same thing if the bill were aimed at not letting Christians have social security.

Mind you, it can get to a point where State control is so pervasive that one literally cannot survive without its "benefits", and I wouldn't blame someone for "playing the game" in that situation.  But that's still pragmatic rather than a moral principle.  The moral principle is that State-sanctioned theft is wrong, period, and that is far more important to me than "equality" and other progressive pseudo-libertarian causes that are hijacking the movement.





> Oh, so you're saying you agree with Scalia and Roberts and Kennedy and Sotomayor? F the Supreme Court. Lol I know I'm making the "gender preference = gender" argument. I've been saying it the whole time. You're saying women can choose from this group of ppl, but men cannot. That's illegal. Just like its illegal to say whites can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks. Its illegal.
> 
> The Supreme Court is putting its policy preferences above the equal protection clause, just like how they neutered the equal protection clause entirely from the 1870's to the 1960's. They're still ignoring it right now.


As Rifleman pointed out, the 14th amendment isn't even legal.  Then again, I could very easily make an argument that the Constitution itself isn't legally binding either, but the Articles of Confederation.  But at least the constitutional ratification outright replaced one illegitimate government with another one, rather than coercively pretending to be a voluntarily agreed upon amendment to the existing structure.

But going beyond that, dealing with morals, why should it be limited to people?  Is it "discrimination" that a man cannot marry his dog?  Is it "discrimination" that pedophiles cannot marry children?  Or, if we're going to presuppose that children can't consent (I'm willing to grant this) why can't people "marry" their close adult relatives?  Rights violation?

My answer of course (with the exception of the pedophile case, where a child is victimized) is that none of these things should be "illegal."  But that doesn't mean anyone should sanction them, pretend like such relationships are moral, or heaven forbid, use the most violent institution in society to sanction them.  I could perhaps go with erowe1's assertion that government granting homosexual marriage rights makes a total farce of state licensed marriages.  I could perhaps be persuaded to accept it on those grounds.  But I couldn't care less about "equality", especially when it comes to equality of enslavement.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> I'm not a constitutionalist.  I am an anarchist.  As an anarchist, I believe politically sanctioned aggression, constitutionally sanctioned or not, is morally disgusting and should be opposed at any time, with any non-violent means possible, including being "discriminatory" if needed.  Would a law like you describe, in practice, be a good way of advancing liberty?  No.  Would there be anything morally wrong with using such means?  Of course not.  And I'd say the same thing if the bill were aimed at not letting Christians have social security.
> 
> Mind you, it can get to a point where State control is so pervasive that one literally cannot survive without its "benefits", and I wouldn't blame someone for "playing the game" in that situation.  But that's still pragmatic rather than a moral principle.  The moral principle is that State-sanctioned theft is wrong, period, and that is far more important to me than "equality" and other progressive pseudo-libertarian causes that are hijacking the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Rifleman pointed out, the 14th amendment isn't even legal.  Then again, I could very easily make an argument that the Constitution itself isn't legally binding either, but the Articles of Confederation.  But at least the constitutional ratification outright replaced one illegitimate government with another one, rather than coercively pretending to be a voluntarily agreed upon amendment to the existing structure.
> 
> ...


Okay, first of all, the US Constitution was totally illegal, immoral, null and void before the 13th Amendment was passed. North Korea is a $#@!hole and a concentration camp, so was this country when we had slaves. The 13th and 14th Amendments make this country a free country. This country was not a free country before that date, period. Black ppl existed, and they were slaves. Not freedom.

So just like wars established the Articles of Confederation, and thus indirectly the US Constitution (we fought a war to have the ability to pass the constitution 15 yrs later), the Civil War established the 13th and 14th Amendments. They're all the results of *wars*, not voluntarily, legitimate legal systems of any kind. But at least the 13th and 14th amendment established a free society, because we were an ugly, disgusting $#@!hole before the Civil War. In fact, we were a terrible, apartheid country until the 1960's, because the Supreme  Court neutered the 14th amendment until that point.

I'm talking about discrimination banned in the constitution. That's it. Not libertarianism. Obviously our biases affect us, maybe I would agree with you guys if I thought gays were crazy hedonists who just want multiple partners (they are, so is everyone else with a penis). Dogs don't have constitutional rights, humans do. *As for age, everything else, what's your pt? Are you saying we just shouldn't enforce the equal protection clause, and allow states to exclude blacks from marriage entirely, just to make a pt about beastiality and pedophilia?*

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## otherone

> The 13th and 14th Amendments make this country a free country.

----------


## euphemia

That's not what I am saying at all.  Consentual sexual activity carries responsibility.  If a child results from that activity, the people who engaged in the first place are responsible for that child.  That's what I am saying.

People who contract to become pregnant should not depend on the taxpayers in any way for the support of that child.  That's the Octomom scenario you brought up.  First, she should not have had IVF performed.  Second, she should not be receiving any form of government support because it was entirely her choice to become pregnant.  

This thread was originally about the 14th amendment and how banning gay marriage is gender discrimination.  That does not make a lick of sense.  

My point is that government should not be endorsing or not endorsing anything through direct certification or through tax policy.  People can do what they want.  It is their business.  I want it to stay their business.  Keep it to yourself and be fully responsible for what happens as a result.  If you don't want kids, do not have them.

That's what I'm saying.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, first of all, the US Constitution was totally illegal, immoral, null and void before the 13th Amendment was passed.


And even more so after.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Okay, first of all, the US Constitution was totally illegal, immoral, null and void before the 13th Amendment was passed. North Korea is a $#@!hole and a concentration camp, so was this country when we had slaves. The 13th and 14th Amendments make this country a free country. This country was not a free country before that date, period. Black ppl existed, and they were slaves. Not freedom.
> 
> So just like wars established the Articles of Confederation, and thus indirectly the US Constitution (we fought a war to have the ability to pass the constitution 15 yrs later), the Civil War established the 13th and 14th Amendments. They're all the results of *wars*, not voluntarily, legitimate legal systems of any kind. But at least the 13th and 14th amendment established a free society, because we were an ugly, disgusting $#@!hole before the Civil War. In fact, we were a terrible, apartheid country until the 1960's, because the Supreme  Court neutered the 14th amendment until that point.
> 
> I'm talking about discrimination banned in the constitution. That's it. Not libertarianism. Obviously our biases affect us, maybe I would agree with you guys if I thought gays were crazy hedonists who just want multiple partners (they are, so is everyone else with a penis). Dogs don't have constitutional rights, humans do. *As for age, everything else, what's your pt? Are you saying we just shouldn't enforce the equal protection clause, and allow states to exclude blacks from marriage entirely, just to make a pt about beastiality and pedophilia?*


I don't think you can just jumble the 13th and the 14th together, although you could argue a similarity in their legal basis.  I think the 14th amendment is problematic and the 13th isn't.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> I don't think you can just jumble the 13th and the 14th together, although you could argue a similarity in their legal basis.  I think the 14th amendment is problematic and the 13th isn't.


What's your problem with the 14th? How it was enacted, federal power?

----------


## maybemaybenot

> 


You think we were more free when we had slavery?

----------


## William Tell

> What's your problem with the 14th? How it was enacted, federal power?


Everything.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Everything.


Go on. Continue.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## otherone

> You think we were more free when we had slavery?


For one thing, your use of "we" to describe people who lived over 150 years ago, is a byproduct of the 14th.

----------


## osan

> Discrimination based on sexual orientation is just gender discrimination, no?


No.  "Gender" is an attribute of nouns, not human beings.  Please check your ignorance at the door, thankyouverymuch.

As for the rest of it, no marriage as currently constituted in statutory practice is constitutional because the Constitution makes no provision for state control of that private arrangement between individuals.

As for _valid_ marriages, i.e. the agreement between two or more private parties to be wed, that is protected under the 9A.  Any choice that does not involve criminality is protected under the 9A.  That is the ONLY possible valid interpretation of the Amendment.  If you are not bringing direct harm to others, you are within your right to act, regardless of what the action might be.  If you want to be wed to your reach-around buddy, you are well within your rights to proceed and nobody holds the least authority to prevent you, no matter how bitterly they may hate your choice.

----------


## osan

> 



That ain't naiveté, pal.  That's flaming, bending, painful ignorance.

----------


## otherone

> That ain't naiveté, pal.  That's flaming, bending, painful ignorance.


Aw c'mon, Osan...no one chooses the red pill in utero...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Gay marriage is not guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  All people are supposed to have equal protection under the law, not all lifestyles are.

----------


## osan

> Aw c'mon, Osan...no one chooses the red pill in utero...


In utero _is_ the red pill.

----------


## osan

> You think we were _more free_ when we had slavery?


More free?  One is either free or is something else.  There are no degrees of freedom, politically speaking.

You need some learning, so read this and get your head together: Degrees of Freedom

----------


## euphemia

> Why discriminate as to the number of people in a marriage?  Please state one legitimate reason for that.


Marriage is, by definition, a discriminatory relationship.  I don't think government should have anything to do with it.  There are just some things that cannot be redefined out of existence, and the discriminatory nature of marriage is one of those things.

----------


## jllundqu

I have no problem with gay marriage.  To me, homosexuality is nature's way of telling someone, "Sorry, but your genetic line is no longer needed."  I'm happy to be straight and procreating!  Means my line is still being passed on and will survive.

----------


## euphemia

> Gay marriage is not guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  All people are supposed to have equal protection under the law, not all lifestyles are.


It's not a 14th amendment issue because it is not an enumerated power for the Federal Government.  It's a 10th amendment issue with limited scope.  My state does not have a state income tax, so it matters not a whit to them whether I am married or single for tax purposes.  If I lived in New York, or Massachusetts, it might make a difference.  The only vested interests the state has are the legitimization of children for support, inheritance, and custody purposes, and the disposal of jointly held property in the case of divorce.

Medical and end-of-life decisions don't necessarily or automatically belong to a spouse.  That is something a person should decide before the need is there.

----------


## Carlybee

I don't give a flying fig if gay people marry. Not letting them marry isn't going to make them stop being gay. Being married could make them more likely to be monogamous which is a good thing. Not letting them marry isn't going to spur them to procreate either. Seriously there are more important things than telling people how to live. The only thing I object to is tax dollars having to pay public employees dependent insurance coverage whether they are gay or not.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Gay marriage is not guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  All people are supposed to have equal protection under the law, not all lifestyles are.


So you're saying men and women have different rights/privileges?

----------


## pcosmar

> Not really.  There were marriages long before the institution became involved with religion.


NO. There were not.

Please provide any proof of that ridiculous statement. (you have none)



> The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.





> "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

----------


## maybemaybenot

> For one thing, your use of "we" to describe people who lived over 150 years ago, is a byproduct of the 14th.


Okay, and, this is so horrible? Local government tends to be better than central govt. But when the central govt wants to abolish slavery, and the local government supports slavery, then its time to light City Hall on fire. I'm sry "libertarians" like you can't see this.




> No. "Gender" is an attribute of nouns, not human beings. Please check your ignorance at the door, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> As for the rest of it, no marriage as currently constituted in statutory practice is constitutional because the Constitution makes no provision for state control of that private arrangement between individuals.
> 
> As for _valid_ marriages, i.e. the agreement between two or more private parties to be wed, that is protected under the 9A. Any choice that does not involve criminality is protected under the 9A. That is the ONLY possible valid interpretation of the Amendment. If you are not bringing direct harm to others, you are within your right to act, regardless of what the action might be. If you want to be wed to your reach-around buddy, you are well within your rights to proceed and nobody holds the least authority to prevent you, no matter how bitterly they may hate your choice.


Well, thx for the semantics lesson. BUt f your semantics. I'm going to use terms for their common meaning as they're commonly understood. I'm not going to conform to your meaningless rules and terms that other ppl don't use, and I'm not going to pretend that your semantics lesson was worth the time you spent on it.

Now, onto your actual argument: You misunderstand the role of the US Constitution. The US Constitution lists federal powers, not state powers. So the US Constitution's lack of mention of a power regarding marriage is meaningless. What does matter is the fourteenth amendment, which you totally ignore, which says the states cannot discriminate. Therefore whatever program they have, they cannot discriminate.

No, the 9th amendment does not trump the fourteenth. The 9th says that powers NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT were not so delegated. The power to stop the states from discriminating *was delegated* in the fourteenth amendment. According to your logic, the 9th amendment would abolish the entire constitution.




> Gay marriage is not guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. All people are supposed to have equal protection under the law, not all lifestyles are.


The fact that something is a lifestyle doesn't mean that its NOT protected by the 14th. Equal protection means having the same marriage rights as everyone else. If women can marry men, then men can marry men. Equality. Get used to it.

Do you think that Alabama can ban blacks from marrying, or interracial marriage? Marriage is just a lifestyle...




> That ain't naiveté, pal. That's flaming, bending, painful ignorance.


Still haven't said what the 14th amendment did that was so horrible.




> More free? One is either free or is something else. There are no degrees of freedom, politically speaking.
> 
> You need some learning, so read this and get your head together: Degrees of Freedom


Okay fine, but my pt still stands. The US pre-Civil War was a disgusting, smelly, totalitarian $#@!hole. And its awesome that we improved on it with the 13th and 14th amendments, and it sucked that we had to kill a whole lot of idiots to do it.




> It's not a 14th amendment issue because it is not an enumerated power for the Federal Government. It's a 10th amendment issue with limited scope. My state does not have a state income tax, so it matters not a whit to them whether I am married or single for tax purposes. If I lived in New York, or Massachusetts, it might make a difference. The only vested interests the state has are the legitimization of children for support, inheritance, and custody purposes, and the disposal of jointly held property in the case of divorce.
> 
> Medical and end-of-life decisions don't necessarily or automatically belong to a spouse. That is something a person should decide before the need is there.


The 14th amendment is not an enumerated power? What the hell are you talking about? It explicitly lays down rules that the states have to follow, to be enforced by the federal judiciary (cuz that's what Article III says), and the 14th amendment *explicitly empowers Congress to pass laws to enforce it.* How is that not an enumerated federal power?

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, and, this is so horrible? Local government tends to be better than central govt. But when the central govt wants to abolish slavery, and the local government supports slavery, then its time to light City Hall on fire. I'm sry "libertarians" like you can't see this.


Doesn't the same reasoning require you to support one-world government to outlaw slavery and every other injustice everywhere in the world?

----------


## erowe1

> Okay fine, but my pt still stands. The US pre-Civil War was a disgusting, smelly, totalitarian $#@!hole. And its awesome that we improved on it with the 13th and 14th amendments, and it sucked that we had to kill a whole lot of idiots to do it.


We didn't have to kill anyone to do it. After all those Confederate states seceded the Union could have just let them go and then passed those amendments with the support of the states that remained in the Union. Then the Union could have become a place of refuge for runaway slaves, which it couldn't according to the Constitution as it existed prior to the 13th Amendment, which was in place for the duration of the Civil War and Lincoln's whole tenure as President. Slavery would have been doomed to a quick death due to its growing economic infeasibility.

But the purpose for all those deaths wasn't to end slavery. It was to save the Union, which was a euphemism for the establishment of a policy that lethal force will be used to mandate participation in it and that any pretense of the federal government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed would end. While slavery could have been ended without all those deaths, this could not be accomplished.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Gay marriage is not guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  All people are supposed to have equal protection under the law, not all lifestyles are.


This.  Or at least, IF gay marriage were to be protected under the 14th amendment, polygamous, incestuous, and man-animal marriages would be protected to.  




> I have no problem with gay marriage.  To me, homosexuality is nature's way of telling someone, "Sorry, but your genetic line is no longer needed."  I'm happy to be straight and procreating!  Means my line is still being passed on and will survive.





> I don't give a flying fig if gay people marry. Not letting them marry isn't going to make them stop being gay. Being married could make them more likely to be monogamous which is a good thing. Not letting them marry isn't going to spur them to procreate either. Seriously there are more important things than telling people how to live. The only thing I object to is tax dollars having to pay public employees dependent insurance coverage whether they are gay or not.


I don't think the real issue is anyone wanting to "stop" gay marriages, but rather, the proper interpretation of "rights."  Nobody has a "right" to a government mandated marriage license.



> So you're saying men and women have different rights/privileges?


How is saying "you can only marry someone of the opposite gender" giving people different rights/priveleges?  Both men and women are being deprived of being able to engage in marriage with half the human race.  And anti-incestuous marriage laws prohibit everyone from marrying a small portion of the human race, but its a different portion for each person.   

I don't want to ban gay marriage, but there wouldn't be anything unconstitutional about it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So you're saying men and women have different rights/privileges?


Men have a legal process whereby they can beg the State for permission to marry the opposite sex.  Likewise, women have a legal process whereby they can beg the State for permission to marry the opposite sex.  Neither of which are Constitutional, of course, however your fundamental premise that they are being treated differently, is clearly false.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Doesn't the same reasoning require you to support one-world government to outlaw slavery and every other injustice everywhere in the world?


This dingbat thinks that we need to subject the country to pure totalitarian tyranny in the name of "freedom."  He probably likes Rudolph Giuliani, who likewise believes that "freedom is about submitting to authority."

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> It's not a 14th amendment issue because it is not an enumerated power for the Federal Government.  It's a 10th amendment issue with limited scope.  My state does not have a state income tax, so it matters not a whit to them whether I am married or single for tax purposes.  If I lived in New York, or Massachusetts, it might make a difference.  The only vested interests the state has are the legitimization of children for support, inheritance, and custody purposes, and the disposal of jointly held property in the case of divorce.
> 
> Medical and end-of-life decisions don't necessarily or automatically belong to a spouse.  That is something a person should decide before the need is there.


I agree with the Tenth Amendment issue, it's for the states to decide.




> So you're saying men and women have different rights/privileges?


Everyone in South Carolina has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.  It applies equally to everyone.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> How is saying "you can only marry someone of the opposite gender" giving people different rights/priveleges?  Both men and women are being deprived of being able to engage in marriage with half the human race.  And anti-incestuous marriage laws prohibit everyone from marrying a small portion of the human race, but its a different portion for each person.





> Men have a legal process whereby they can beg the State for permission to marry the opposite sex. Likewise, women have a legal process whereby they can beg the State for permission to marry the opposite sex. Neither of which are Constitutional, of course, however your fundamental premise that they are being treated differently, is clearly false.


Okay, so both of you would also agree that the states can ban interracial marriage? Or are you not following an actual principle here?

And no, dividing men and women into different categories is not compliant with the fourteenth amendment. The fact that they can both marry their opposites is not equal, because their opposites are not the same. If men can marry women, women can marry women. According to your logic, it would be legal to say "people can only marry their own skin color." Obviously that's different rights for different ppl.

SOme of you ppl keep repeating that "marriage is not a right." Equal protection is a right.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Everyone in South Carolina has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.  It applies equally to everyone.


Oh. So saying "everyone has the right to marry someone of the same skin color" applies equally to everyone, too?

If you answer this question, you'll break a record. *​No one else has.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Okay, so both of you would also agree that the states can ban interracial marriage? Or are you not following an actual principle here?


Yes, I don't think there's anything constitutional that would prevent a state from "banning" interracial marriage.  You could possibly argue from the 9th (as I mentioned I don't consider the 14th valid at all) if there was actually some type of penalty for being in an interracial marriage, but just not giving licenses?  I don't see how that would be unconstitutional.

----------


## otherone

> NO. There were not.
> 
> Please provide any proof of that ridiculous statement. (you have none)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage  ?

"marriage" is not exclusively a judeo-christian institution.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Yes, I don't think there's anything constitutional that would prevent a state from "banning" interracial marriage.  You could possibly argue from the 9th (as I mentioned I don't consider the 14th valid at all) if there was actually some type of penalty for being in an interracial marriage, but just not giving licenses?  I don't see how that would be unconstitutional.


If the 14th isn't valid then the constitution isn't valid. The constitution never legally abrogated the articles of confederation. And the articles of confederation never legally abrogated the British crown. And the British crown wasn't legal. Nothing is legal. We invented all of this. Even if we had some democratic referendum to create a govt, its still coercive and we all know it. Nothing is valid. When you say the constitution is valid but not the 14th, you're hypocritically picking your "valid" and "invalid" laws. THese aren't private contracts, they're all invalid.

Oh, and if the constitution is valid, but not the 14th, then $#@! it all. $#@! America, $#@! the constitution. $#@! Washington, $#@! Jefferson, $#@! everyone else who owned a slave. I don't see why you're so excited about the pre-Civil War constitution, its not worth the paper its written on.

----------


## otherone

> Okay, and, this is so horrible? Local government tends to be better than central govt. But when the central govt wants to abolish slavery, and the local government supports slavery, then its time to light City Hall on fire. I'm sry "libertarians" like you can't see this.


None of what you wrote has anything to do with the 14th amendment.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Oh. So saying "everyone has the right to marry someone of the same skin color" applies equally to everyone, too?
> 
> If you answer this question, you'll break a record. *​No one else has.*


I think the Minnesota Supreme Court did in 1971

"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

Not to mention that the same justices that were involved in Loving v Virginia (a 9-0 decision) rejected the appeal to the Supreme Court in 1972.  Men and women are fundamentally different, while people of different races really just look different.  Marriage by its definition is a union of one man and one woman, and every man has the right to marry a woman and every woman has the right to marry a man, homosexuals have this right too.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> I think the Minnesota Supreme Court did in 1971
> 
> "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
> 
> Not to mention that the same justices that were involved in Loving v Virginia (a 9-0 decision) rejected the appeal to the Supreme Court in 1972.  Men and women are fundamentally different, while people of different races really just look different.  Marriage by its definition is a union of one man and one woman, and every man has the right to marry a woman and every woman has the right to marry a man, homosexuals have this right too.


Well, I don't. I think the Minnesota Supreme COurt is filled with homophobes. How about that.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Well, I don't. I think the Minnesota Supreme COurt is filled with homophobes. How about that.


Don't worry, that was 40 years ago, you'd probably love the Minnesota Supreme Court now.

Also, I'm not afraid of homosexuals by the way.  I think the people who are overly concerned about not offending them and bowing to their pressure at every turn are the ones who are afraid of them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okay, so both of you would also agree that the states can ban interracial marriage? Or are you not following an actual principle here?
> 
> And no, dividing men and women into different categories is not compliant with the fourteenth amendment. The fact that they can both marry their opposites is not equal, because their opposites are not the same. If men can marry women, women can marry women. According to your logic, it would be legal to say "people can only marry their own skin color." Obviously that's different rights for different ppl.
> 
> SOme of you ppl keep repeating that "marriage is not a right." Equal protection is a right.


You have to be some kind of troll.  I've answered you like a dozen times this exact same question.  The State has neither the Constitutional power to ban nor recognize marriages of any kind whatever.  I've even explained it pedantic an in slow motion, using tiny words, and you are here asking me again.  Clearly you have no interest in discussion, and your purpose is merely to troll.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If the 14th isn't valid then the constitution isn't valid. The constitution never legally abrogated the articles of confederation. And the articles of confederation never legally abrogated the British crown. And the British crown wasn't legal. Nothing is legal. We invented all of this. Even if we had some democratic referendum to create a govt, its still coercive and we all know it. Nothing is valid. When you say the constitution is valid but not the 14th, you're hypocritically picking your "valid" and "invalid" laws. THese aren't private contracts, they're all invalid.
> 
> Oh, and if the constitution is valid, but not the 14th, then $#@! it all. $#@! America, $#@! the constitution. $#@! Washington, $#@! Jefferson, $#@! everyone else who owned a slave. I don't see why you're so excited about the pre-Civil War constitution, its not worth the paper its written on.


Again, morally I don't believe in the State.  But even by the government's own rules, the 14th was invalidly passed.  I don't believe in the Constitution because it allows for a State.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> You have to be some kind of troll.  I've answered you like a dozen times this exact same question.  The State has neither the Constitutional power to ban nor recognize marriages of any kind whatever.  I've even explained it pedantic an in slow motion, using tiny words, and you are here asking me again.  Clearly you have no interest in discussion, and your purpose is merely to troll.


Saying it slowly doesn't make it right. You're not making a constitutional argument, you're only giving a moral one. I'm talking about the constitution. When you say The State, I assume you mean the US. The US does have the obligation to prevent states from discriminating, and Congress has the power to enforce it, that's the 14th amendment. Its right there in the constitution. It says in plain English that no one can be denied equal protection, and believe it or not, that includes men and women.

Are you also saying the states themselves have no "constitutional" power to regulate marriages? Are you saying that no constitutional powers exist at all? Because the states' powers are inherently unlimited (legally speaking, not morally), and only limited by their state constitutions (the inverse of the federal system). So states do have the "constitutional" power to regulate marriages. You may not think that's legal or moral, but that is constitutional.

----------


## euphemia

SCOTUS had several cases having to do with same-sex marriage this year and they have refused to hear any of them.  Apparently they are using their enumerated power to say it is not a Constitutional issue.

edited to clarify which cases SCOTUS declined to hear.

----------


## otherone

> Saying it slowly doesn't make it right. You're not making a constitutional argument, you're only giving a moral one. I'm talking about the constitution. When you say The State, I assume you mean the US. The US does have the obligation to prevent states from discriminating, and Congress has the power to enforce it, that's the 14th amendment. Its right there in the constitution. It says in plain English that no one can be denied equal protection, and believe it or not, that includes men and women.


LOL.
If the purpose of the 14th is what you claim, then there would be no 19th amendment.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> LOL.
> If the purpose of the 14th is what you claim, then there would be no 19th amendment.


No, the 14th was entirely neutered for a century. That's why we passed the 19th. The 14th was totally unenforced and ignored.

You're welcome.

----------


## otherone

> No, the 14th was entirely neutered for a century. That's why we passed the 19th. The 14th was totally unenforced and ignored.


You passed the 19th amendment?

----------


## mosquitobite

> That's excellent advice that unfortunately isn't always followed.  The point isn't what should one do to avoid intestacy; the point is, what happens to an intestate's property?  If you want it to go to a surviving spouse, how is the relationship of "spouse" to be determined?


Why do we have to have the state involved with the PERMISSION of marriage?

The only role the state should play, if any, is recording a copy of the contract.  Marriage in the church remains a sacrament.  Marriage outside the church is a contract between two consenting adults.  If either want the marriage _recognized_ by the state, they can record the proof of their union AFTER.  The state should not be in the business of being allowed to deny consenting adults the right to say who gets someone's property.

----------


## thoughtomator

If we're being strict about the meaning of things, "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> You passed the 19th amendment?


The 14th was neutered. Therefore women were treated unequally, blacks, etc. So there was still a need for the 19th. The Supreme Court used "separate but equal" to allow segregation for a hundred yrs, ignoring the equal protection clause.

*The 14th amendment is the libertarian amendment.

The 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states* (and the Right to Bear Arms *finally* in MacDonald vs. Chicago). Before the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, so we had official state religions even. The Privileges and Immunities Clause was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights specifically, saying that states could not deny anyone of the privileges and immunities of US citizens. But, the Slaughterhouse Case declared the privileges and immunities clause to include practically nothing, in the name of states' rights. And in that case the court might have been right, but the SUpreme Court's written opinion went way too far, saying the privileges and immunities clause was just... using the post office, or obtaining a passport (not joking), as if we fought the Civil War for that. *So, the Supreme Court rectified this while pretending to not disagree with the Slaughterhouse Case, by saiying the Due Process Clause incorporated the Bill of Right*. The court ruled in MacDonald v. CHicago just a few yrs ago that the 14th amendment due process clause extended the right to bear arms to the states.

The Equal Protection Clause was to abolish categories entirely because of race regulations (*t**hey didn't say "race," so they didn't mean race only*), and the Due Process Clause was for the judicial branch, so everyone gets due process if life/liberty/property is being taken away. Then, to rectify the Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott (that slaves weren't citizens, and therefore couldn't sue in federal court, and therefore the justices screamed "lalalalalalalalala" when he explained that his master took him to a free state), the 14th amendment says all ppl born here are citizens, and thus get the whole shebang, bill of rights and all.

In MacDonald, declaring that the states couldn't ban guns (2011ish), the court continued the b-s of saying the due process clause incorporated the bill of rights, when its really the privileges and immunities clause. They don't want to admit that the SUpreme Court was wrong in 1880ish in the Slaughterhouse case (which is about a govenrment meatpacking monopoly/contract), so they continue saying the bill of rights (and now right to bear arms) incorporates through the due process clause.

*A powerful privileges and immunities clause would open up the door to libertarians, like the Institute for Justice using it to get rid of monopolistic/corrupt regulatations (like restaurants paying off politicians to ban mobile food vendors/trucks that are licensed and inspected regularly, lol.* The IJ also used the privileges and immunities clause to stop the Texas veterinary board from saying horse hoof shavers had to be licensed veterinarians, *even though they were certified specialists, and veterinarians aren't taught $#@! about horse hoof shaving.* But, it also opens the door to liberals asking for socialized healthcare, because liberal judges are retarded. Nothing in the text supports government handouts, just like nothing supports the right-wingers/libertarians who go too far and say it means pure free markets. Thus, both sides of the Supreme Court are afraid of the vague/open privileges and immunities clause, so they continue to keep it dead, while using the due process clause for the bill of rights. *Thomas is honest, he says its privileges and immunities*.

Clarence Thomas is libertarian-ish and HONEST. His only major non-libertarian position is that believes in a powerful executive relative to the legislature, but that's actually kindof supported in the text (like how you don't need to declare war if we're invaded, and he considers 9/11 an invasion, which is nonsensical because it was like 6 hours long), so he is honest and principled. In MacDonald v. Chicago (incorporating the right to bear arms to the states), he wrote a concurring opinion calling out the court, saying the bill of rights incorporates to the states *via the privileges and immunities clause*, not the due process clause like 4 justices were saying.* Lol and it was 5-4, so there's officially "no rule" about how gun rights is incorporated to the states. 4 think the DP clause, Thomas is a stubborn bastard who says privileges and immunities.*

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

The Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government.   That means family law (marriage, divorce, custody, adoption) is to be written by state legislatures.  Not federal judges and not state judges.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why do we have to have the state involved with the PERMISSION of marriage?
> 
> The only role the state should play, if any, is recording a copy of the contract.  Marriage in the church remains a sacrament.  Marriage outside the church is a contract between two consenting adults.  If either want the marriage _recognized_ by the state, they can record the proof of their union AFTER.  The state should not be in the business of being allowed to deny consenting adults the right to say who gets someone's property.


This^^  The overwhelming majority of arguments in favor of "gay marriage" are just about getting the same legal rights as married people.  Thus, you can just call it a "civil union" and have the ceremony done by a local justice.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> The Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government.   That means family law (marriage, divorce, custody, adoption) is to be written by state legislatures.  Not federal judges and not state judges.


And the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees "no state law" denying equal protection. And it has a clause giving Congress the power to pass laws to enforce it, the first amendment to have it. The Supremacy Clause says that the constitution is above state law, and that it is to be interpreted by the US Supreme Court. *The Fourteenth Amendment is emphatically above state law, more so than any law in history.*

And state legislatures don't mean $#@! when unwanteds are kept from voting.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> This^^  The overwhelming majority of arguments in favor of "gay marriage" are just about getting the same legal rights as married people.  Thus, you can just call it a "civil union" and have the ceremony done by a local justice.


But a different name inherently means the state is calling it different. I don't mean to insult you guys, but its bigotry. Marriage is more about the word than anything else. You can do anything else with a contract or contracts (well, almost everything). But the status itself is obviously what ppl care about.

The equal protection clause calls for equality. And the supremacy clause says the constitution is above state law.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> And the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees *equal protection*


Laws against murder, theft, and assault confer protection.  Marriage laws confer benefits, not protection.




> , and incorporates the bill of rights,


Not really.  That's a sloppy and oft-inaccurate generalization.




> and guarantees the right to trial by jury


, 

Wrong. That's the sixth amendment.




> and guarantees citizenship to anyone born here


That's just a lie.




> empowers Congress to pass laws to enforce it


There's no Congressional law mandating same-sex marriage, much less one based on your faulty anti-American, totalitarian, Obama-style "interpretation" of the Fourteenth Amendment; so your blathering here is irrelevant.  

The Constitution does, however,  gives Congress the power to pass legislation defining how states may or may not accept the privileges and immunities (such as marriage) granted by other states.  Congress exercised this power when the passed the Defense of Marriage Act.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But a different name inherently means the state is calling it different. I don't mean to insult you guys, but its bigotry. Marriage is more about the word than anything else. You can do anything else with a contract or contracts (well, almost everything). But the status itself is obviously what ppl care about.
> 
> The equal protection clause calls for equality. And the supremacy clause says the constitution is above state law.


Why is bigotry wrong?  What if God himself is a bigot?

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Why is bigotry wrong?  What if God himself is a bigot?


First amendment says religion can't be a justification for any law.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Laws against murder, theft, and assault confer protection.  Marriage laws confer benefits, not protection.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  That's a sloppy and oft-inaccurate generalization.
> 
> , 
> 
> Wrong. That's the sixth amendment.
> ...


So when you say equal protection only means protection from violence/coercion, you're saying the states can keep black ppl from voting, from owning property in certain areas, from owning guns, from doing anything meaningful. Also, *everything the state does is coercion. Not allowing blacks to vote or go to public school = arresting ppl for trying to vote or go to public school, or for contempt of court (if you do something a judge tells you not to do).* The state owns you. Everything the state does involves protection. It means the state takes your money, and doesn't even spend it on your behalf.

You call it a "sloppy and oft-inaccurate generalization" to say the 14th amendmentment incorporated the bill of rights to the states? *That's what you call the current Supreme Court's view of the fourteenth amendment?* Are you saying the bill of rights don't apply to the states? Are you saying Chicago can still take ppl's guns away? (Actually they still are, Chicago is playing games with the MacDonald v. Chicago ruling, permits and shooting range bans and $#@!.)

The fourteenth amendment DOES incorporate the right to trial by jury to the states. The sixth amendment only applies to the federal government.

Its a lie to say the fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship by birth??? *"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States of the state wherein they reside."* That's the first sentence. It undoes Dred Scott, which said slaves couldn't sue in federal court.

I never said Congress passed a law banning same-sex marriage, I pointed out Congress's power to create laws under the 14th to prove how emphatically the 14th amendment is above state law. The first section doesn't say "Congress can pass laws to prevent states from denying equal protection," it says "*No state shall* deny ppl equal protection under the law." So states shall not do that. According to the US Constitution. Whether or not Congress exercises its explicit 14th amendment power to enforce the 14th amendment.

----------


## jmdrake

> The 14th amendment is the libertarian amendment.


Is this libertarian?

_Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._

The Icelandic people revolted against being saddled with the bankster debt.  If we try to do that, we will be violating the 14th amendment.  It made us all debt slaves.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Is this libertarian?
> 
> _Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._
> 
> The Icelandic people revolted against being saddled with the bankster debt.  If we try to do that, we will be violating the 14th amendment.  It made us all debt slaves.


How is it bankster debt? This is an honest question, maybe I'm unaware about banks' roles in the govt at the time, I don't know. But it seems to me that this section only calls on the government *to pay it debts, period*, not absolve themselves of it at creditors' expense, and also to make a pt that the federal government not pay for the seceding states debt, and their slaves.

But seriously, what does this section have to do with banks, I'd like to know. I don't believe in fairy tales, I'm perfectly open to believing that some corrupt rule was shoved into the fourteenth amendment.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> First amendment says religion can't be a justification for any law.


No it doesn't.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But a different name inherently means the state is calling it different. I don't mean to insult you guys, but its bigotry. Marriage is more about the word than anything else. You can do anything else with a contract or contracts (well, almost everything). But the status itself is obviously what ppl care about.
> 
> The equal protection clause calls for equality. And the supremacy clause says the constitution is above state law.


Nonsense.  Marriage is a religious ceremony with a very specific meaning.  It just happens to have been hijacked by the regime over the years.  

Tell me, if Jones loves a swan, can he marry it?  And if Smith loves a horse, can he marry it?  Why or why not?

And since you like citing the constitution, government marriage is in violation of the first amendment's Establishment Clause.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Marriage is a religious ceremony with a very specific meaning.


It is also a civil ceremony with certain legal consequences.




> And since you like citing the constitution, government marriage is in violation of the first amendment's Establishment Clause.


Calling a civil ceremony a marriage establishes no religion for the simple reason that religion doesn't have a copyright on the word "marriage".

----------


## euphemia

This issue just proves the hypocrisy of people.  It just cracks me up that folks who say they believe in a so-called right to privacy and the government can't legislate their particular brand of morality then turn around and insist the government act to include everything their particular brand of morality demands.  

I wear a wedding ring.  That implies something.  It is up to me to keep my private life private.  People only know what I choose to disclose.  I just don't think it's anyone's business what happens in private.  It's not a big secret, but it is private.  If people don't want government involved in their lives, they need to just be quiet and go on about living their lives privately.  It's not a secret, but it is private.

----------


## euphemia

One more thing:  If you don't think the government can tell you what to do in your private life, stop asking permission.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> No it doesn't.


Yes it does say religion can't be a justification for any law. Everything the government does is a criminal monopoly (even when its necessary, I'm a bit moderate). So they cannot get involved in religion in anyway, with any official reference, unless its pluralistic/neutral and inclusive/respectful of secularists and atheists. So long as government is sanctioning marriage, it has to do so in a pluralistic way. Period. Its that simple. It can't placed restrictions based on what only some ppl want. It has to be accessible to everyone. If its religious, then its a religious program that has to be offered to everyone. Atheists and gays aren't trying to mock religious ppl when we govt-marry, we're doing what's natural to us, we're finding a partner.




> Nonsense. Marriage is a religious ceremony with a very specific meaning. It just happens to have been hijacked by the regime over the years. 
> 
> Tell me, if Jones loves a swan, can he marry it? And if Smith loves a horse, can he marry it? Why or why not?
> 
> And since you like citing the constitution, government marriage is in violation of the first amendment's Establishment Clause.


What about gay/lesbian theists? Who agree that marriage is religious? *They can't use government-marriage because your religion says they cant?*

You can't use religion to claim a monopoly on government-marriage. Not only is that immoral, its explicitly outlawed in the US Constitution. The 1st amendment outlaws government religious endorsement at the federal level, the 14th amendment does it at the state level. Also, like I said above, that's saying the government's criminal monopoly can be hijacked/monopolized by some ppl. You're saying atheists and homosexuals aren't using "your" institution properly. We want to get married too.

*If* marriage is a religious institution (and this ignores the millions of married atheists, and others who just disagree with that definition of marriage), *then it has to be made available to everyone according to the freedom of religion equal protection clauses.* You can't say that because something is constitutional, then nothing matters and we just ignore what it is and the details of it. The equal protection clause matters, the first amendment matters.

----------


## osan

> This issue just proves the hypocrisy of people.  It just cracks me up that folks who say they believe in a so-called right to privacy and the government can't legislate their particular brand of morality then turn around and insist the government act to include everything their particular brand of morality demands.


This is sadly accurate, and it perplexes me to witness otherwise intelligent and seemingly rational adults displaying this brand of disconnect with reality.  To cry "freedom!" from one side of one's mouth while from the other citing their religious dogma as the absolute law of God to be forcibly rammed down every throat makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.




> I wear a wedding ring.  That implies something.  It is up to me to keep my private life private.  People only know what I choose to disclose.  I just don't think it's anyone's business what happens in private.  It's not a big secret, but it is private.


This is rather excellent.  Rep worthy.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> First amendment says religion can't be a justification for any law.





> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I'm not seeing it.

----------


## jmdrake

> How is it bankster debt? This is an honest question, maybe I'm unaware about banks' roles in the govt at the time, I don't know. But it seems to me that this section only calls on the government *to pay it debts, period*, not absolve themselves of it at creditors' expense, and also to make a pt that the federal government not pay for the seceding states debt, and their slaves.
> 
> But seriously, what does this section have to do with banks, I'd like to know. I don't believe in fairy tales, I'm perfectly open to believing that some corrupt rule was shoved into the fourteenth amendment.


Let's look at how this can be applied today.  Through TARP the U.S. Congress passed a law to take on the debt of corrupt banks.  So far we haven't had a total meltdown over this, but we are not out of the woods yet.  Does the fact that a "law" was passed make the debt legit?  I'm not just talking about civil war debt.  The 14th amendment could have been written to say "Debts incurred in putting down insurrections shall not be disputed".  But instead it was left open ended.  So regardless of the intent of the 14th amendment, the effect is putting us all on the hook anytime Congress passes some "law" putting us deeper into debt.

----------


## jmdrake

> Nonsense.  Marriage is a religious ceremony with a very specific meaning.  It just happens to have been hijacked by the regime over the years.  
> 
> Tell me, if Jones loves a swan, can he marry it?  And if Smith loves a horse, can he marry it?  Why or why not?
> 
> And since you like citing the constitution, government marriage is in violation of the first amendment's Establishment Clause.





> Yes it does say religion can't be a justification for any law. Everything the government does is a criminal monopoly (even when its necessary, I'm a bit moderate). So they cannot get involved in religion in anyway, with any official reference, unless its pluralistic/neutral and inclusive/respectful of secularists and atheists. So long as government is sanctioning marriage, it has to do so in a pluralistic way. Period. Its that simple. It can't placed restrictions based on what only some ppl want. It has to be accessible to everyone. If its religious, then its a religious program that has to be offered to everyone. Atheists and gays aren't trying to mock religious ppl when we govt-marry, we're doing what's natural to us, we're finding a partner.
> 
> 
> 
> What about gay/lesbian theists? Who agree that marriage is religious? *They can't use government-marriage because your religion says they cant?*
> 
> You can't use religion to claim a monopoly on government-marriage. Not only is that immoral, its explicitly outlawed in the US Constitution. The 1st amendment outlaws government religious endorsement at the federal level, the 14th amendment does it at the state level. Also, like I said above, that's saying the government's criminal monopoly can be hijacked/monopolized by some ppl. You're saying atheists and homosexuals aren't using "your" institution properly. We want to get married too.
> 
> *If* marriage is a religious institution (and this ignores the millions of married atheists, and others who just disagree with that definition of marriage), *then it has to be made available to everyone according to the freedom of religion equal protection clauses.* You can't say that because something is constitutional, then nothing matters and we just ignore what it is and the details of it. The equal protection clause matters, the first amendment matters.




HB's point was that really a "government marriage" shouldn't exist any more than a "government baptism" exists.  How about a government bar mitzvah?  Yeah.  That would be interesting.  If there were bar mitzvah licenses then there would be a supreme court challenge right about now regarding whether bar mitzvah's should be limited to boys who were actually born male.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> HB's point was that really a "government marriage" shouldn't exist any more than a "government baptism" exists.


Apples and oranges.  A baptism is a purely religious matter having no civil significance.  Marriage, while a religious matter to some, is also a civil matter that serves to identify who someone's spouse is for many purposes having nothing to do with religion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes it does say religion can't be a justification for any law.




But, as Tywysog Cymru just proved, it really doesn't.  All it does is prevent the Feds from establishing a religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion.  Of course, that could leave open a debate as to what constitutes this, but the amendment doesn't even prevent the states from setting up religions, let alone enforcing "religious" morality.




> Everything the government does is a criminal monopoly (even when its necessary, I'm a bit moderate). So they cannot get involved in religion in anyway, with any official reference, unless its pluralistic/neutral and inclusive/respectful of secularists and atheists.


Its not that I disagree with this so much as its simply irrelevant to the 1st amendment.  The 1st amendment doesn't say that government cannot make laws based on religion.  That doesn't mean that they should.  I don't think the government should exist.  I also don't think that two wrongs make a right, like you seem to.



> So long as government is sanctioning marriage, it has to do so in a pluralistic way. Period. Its that simple. It can't placed restrictions based on what only some ppl want. It has to be accessible to everyone. If its religious, then its a religious program that has to be offered to everyone.


Again, so a man and his seven wives?  Three men with three women?  A man and his dog?  A man  and his (adult) son or daughter?  Are you actually consistently in favor of "pluralism" here, or are you just fighting to have homosexual marriage recognized because you personall are morally OK with it?

I would never support arresting anyone for doing ANY of the above.  I am consistent and my views have nothing to do with the modern cultural acceptability of homosexuality.  Do yours?




> Atheists and gays aren't trying to mock religious ppl when we govt-marry, we're doing what's natural to us, we're finding a partner.


I'm not saying that you are.  My biggest problems with the "gay rights" movement actually have little to do with government granted gay marriages, and much more to do with the attempts by some elements of the gay rights movement to erode religious freedom in the name of "equality" (as well as the intended expansions of already illegitimate anti-discrimination laws), not so much the intent to get the stupid piece of paper.  I still don't think two wrongs make a right, even when in this case the wrong may be comparatively small.

----------


## jmdrake

> Apples and oranges.  A baptism is a purely religious matter having no civil significance.  Marriage, while a religious matter to some, is also a civil matter that serves to identify who someone's spouse is for many purposes having nothing to do with religion.


No.  It's apples and apples.  The state has shoehorned a lot of baggage on marriage that originally had nothing to do with marriage.  It would be like after having a bar mitzvah a boy then had the right to vote.  HB is making the point about getting government all the way out of marriage.  The silly response by maybemaybenot  is "But what about theists who want a government marriage".  Ummm...*SO*?  If the question is "What about people who want to do X that currently gets automatically done by marriage" find another way to do X.  Family health plans?  Health insurance is screwed up because FDR tied it to employment.  In a true free market you could define whatever plan you wanted and put whoever you wanted on it, kind of like the Sprint "Framily" plan.  Disposition of property at death?  I already explained how the "elective share" defined by marriage is a raw deal for everyone involved and that no sane person should want to do that.  Medical decisions?  Durable power of attorney for healthcare + living will.  Hospitals that don't abide by that should be penalized.  Tax incentives?  Well the "marriage benefit" is sometimes a "marriage penalty" if both people make the same amount of money, which is often the case in same sex couples.  Besides, the income tax should be abolished or at least flattened to the point where there is no "benefit" or "penalty" for being married.  Divorce marriage from the state.

----------


## osan

> No.  It's apples and apples.  The state has shoehorned a lot of baggage on marriage that originally had nothing to do with marriage.  It would be like after having a bar mitzvah a boy then had the right to vote.  HB is making the point about getting government all the way out of marriage.  The silly response by maybemaybenot  is "But what about theists who want a government marriage".  Ummm...*SO*?  If the question is "What about people who want to do X that currently gets automatically done by marriage" find another way to do X.  Family health plans?  Health insurance is screwed up because FDR tied it to employment.  In a true free market you could define whatever plan you wanted and put whoever you wanted on it, kind of like the Sprint "Framily" plan.  Disposition of property at death?  I already explained how the "elective share" defined by marriage is a raw deal for everyone involved and that no sane person should want to do that.  Medical decisions?  Durable power of attorney for healthcare + living will.  Hospitals that don't abide by that should be penalized.  Tax incentives?  Well the "marriage benefit" is sometimes a "marriage penalty" if both people make the same amount of money, which is often the case in same sex couples.  Besides, the income tax should be abolished or at least flattened to the point where there is no "benefit" or "penalty" for being married.  Divorce marriage from the state.


This is precisely right - the real point is that "government" has its nose in the marriage tent and it does not belong there.  Get it the hell out.  Marriage licenses are a relatively new phenomenon that, in the USA at least, was cooked up to prevent... dare I say it?... Knee-Grows from befouling the precious virtue of our white women with their beastly ways and enormous penises.  Somebody had to DO something!

----------


## otherone

> No.  It's apples and apples.  The state has shoehorned a lot of baggage on marriage that originally had nothing to do with marriage.  It would be like after having a bar mitzvah a boy then had the right to vote.  HB is making the point about getting government all the way out of marriage.  The silly response by maybemaybenot  is "But what about theists who want a government marriage".  Ummm...*SO*?  If the question is "What about people who want to do X that currently gets automatically done by marriage" find another way to do X.  Family health plans?  Health insurance is screwed up because FDR tied it to employment.  In a true free market you could define whatever plan you wanted and put whoever you wanted on it, kind of like the Sprint "Framily" plan.  Disposition of property at death?  I already explained how the "elective share" defined by marriage is a raw deal for everyone involved and that no sane person should want to do that.  Medical decisions?  Durable power of attorney for healthcare + living will.  Hospitals that don't abide by that should be penalized.  Tax incentives?  Well the "marriage benefit" is sometimes a "marriage penalty" if both people make the same amount of money, which is often the case in same sex couples.  Besides, the income tax should be abolished or at least flattened to the point where there is no "benefit" or "penalty" for being married.  Divorce marriage from the state.


When heterosexual couples stop asking for the state's approval of their nuptials, then the state might get the message.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> I'm not seeing it.


"make no law respecting an establishment of relgion." How do you interpret that? Since you think I'm wrong for saying it prevents governmental endorsement of religion or a particular religion.




> Let's look at how this can be applied today. Through TARP the U.S. Congress passed a law to take on the debt of corrupt banks. So far we haven't had a total meltdown over this, but we are not out of the woods yet. Does the fact that a "law" was passed make the debt legit? I'm not just talking about civil war debt. The 14th amendment could have been written to say "Debts incurred in putting down insurrections shall not be disputed". But instead it was left open ended. So regardless of the intent of the 14th amendment, the effect is putting us all on the hook anytime Congress passes some "law" putting us deeper into debt.





> HB's point was that really a "government marriage" shouldn't exist any more than a "government baptism" exists. How about a government bar mitzvah? Yeah. That would be interesting. If there were bar mitzvah licenses then there would be a supreme court challenge right about now regarding whether bar mitzvah's should be limited to boys who were actually born male.


I'm fully aware that his pt is that government marriage shouldn't exist. That's virtually the only argument I've been responding to this whole time. This position ignores reality. There is government marriage. Therefore, any federal/state program must comply with the constitution, by: 1. not endorsing religion, 2. not prohibiting freedom of religion, and 3. without denying equal protection (only applies to the states; Supreme Court invented a federal equal protection clause cuz they felt like it).

Bringing up bar mitzvahs proves my point. Atheists don't have bar mitzvahs. *Atheists have birthdays and weddings, but they don't do bar mitzvahs. North Koreans (atheists) do weddings, they don'**t do bar mitzvahs or Christian confirmation or Ramadan or Passover, but they do weddings, because its not tied to religion.

**The fact that your marriage is religious doesn't mean everyone else's is*. There is no fact at all pointing to your contention. None. You just say it.




> But, as Tywysog Cymru just proved, it really doesn't. All it does is prevent the Feds from establishing a religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion. Of course, that could leave open a debate as to what constitutes this, but the amendment doesn't even prevent the states from setting up religions, let alone enforcing "religious" morality.
> 
> 
> 
> Its not that I disagree with this so much as its simply irrelevant to the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment doesn't say that government cannot make laws based on religion. That doesn't mean that they should. I don't think the government should exist. I also don't think that two wrongs make a right, like you seem to.
> 
> 
> Again, so a man and his seven wives? Three men with three women? A man and his dog? A man and his (adult) son or daughter? Are you actually consistently in favor of "pluralism" here, or are you just fighting to have homosexual marriage recognized because you personall are morally OK with it?
> 
> ...


Wait, you don't think a state "setting up a religion" would constitute "a law respecting the establishment of religion." What does the establishment clause mean, then?

No, the fact that everything government does is a monopoly is directly tied to the establishment clause. Because everything they do is a special, unfair endorsement of some kind (if not just plain monopoly in a certain area), any government program involving a particular religion would represent an endorsement of that religion, banned by the establishment clause. I specifically said that government-religion programs can comply with the establishment clause (like private school vouchers) if they're pluralistic and open to theists and atheists, and hence don't represent the establishment of a particular religion, or even religion itself. For instance, tax credits can be used to build churches, businesses, w/e, they just can't be specifically created for churches, let alone for a particular religious group.

No, you're ignoring my argument about men and women, and replacing it with other ppl's argument, Polygamists cannot say "I don't have the right to government-marry the same way that monogamists do." Polygamists can government-marry the same monogamists do, monogamists just got their law passed, so that's the law being applied. However, a woman can say "I don't have the right to government-marry the way men do." That person's equal protection rights are being violated, because the law, however democratically passed, is denying her equal protection of the law, by saying she has a different choice of spouses than men.

Polygamists' only complaint is that they lost the policy argument, the policy itself gives them the same rights as everyone else. A lesbian can argue that the policy itself violates their rights as *women*, by telling them they can't marry the ppl men can marry.

You don't think two wrongs make a right, but the constitution does. The constitution says that every law has to be applied equally. Good laws, bad laws, apply equally to everyone.

And if gay rights then erodes religious freedom, then that's a bad ruling by the justices. Don't deny ppl their legitimate rights because you're afraid judges will do some stupid later on. And you're really inflating the experiences of cake makers being forced to make cakes for gay weddings. As for those cases where churches are sued for not holding a gay wedding, that's outrageous for obvious reasons, but the potential for bad rulings doesn't mean equal protection no longer applies to anyone.




> This is precisely right - the real point is that "government" has its nose in the marriage tent and it does not belong there. Get it the hell out. Marriage licenses are a relatively new phenomenon that, in the USA at least, was cooked up to prevent... dare I say it?... Knee-Grows from befouling the precious virtue of our white women with their beastly ways and enormous penises. Somebody had to DO something!


Where did you read/see that government-marriage was implemented because of blacks?

----------


## euphemia

I feel like Columbo.  "One more thing."  (you kids can look that up)

If a limited government has specific enumerated and *separated* powers, why does the OP think the *judicial* branch should be making new law regarding marriage?  Why does the OP not think the *legislative* branch should be making law?  And why does the OP think any branch of the Federal Government making law to make marriage inclusive would not be discriminatory?  There is no place in the US where state law does not already provide for marriage between one man and one woman (at least). It would be discriminatory to make another law to specifically address any other group of people because it would exclude everyone outside that group.

So the OP is asking for an unconstitutional ruling which allows discriminatory relationships to be expanded so more people can have discriminatory relationships.  I think that's about the size of it.  The next step will be to force people to get married.  This is what happens when people advocate for special rights.  The next step is forcing everyone to conform.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wait, you don't think a state "setting up a religion" would constitute "a law respecting the establishment of religion." What does the establishment clause mean, then?
> 
> No, the fact that everything government does is a monopoly is directly tied to the establishment clause. Because everything they do is a special, unfair endorsement of some kind (if not just plain monopoly in a certain area), any government program involving a particular religion would represent an endorsement of that religion, banned by the establishment clause. I specifically said that government-religion programs can comply with the establishment clause (like private school vouchers) if they're pluralistic and open to theists and atheists, and hence don't represent the establishment of a particular religion, or even religion itself. For instance, tax credits can be used to build churches, businesses, w/e, they just can't be specifically created for churches, let alone for a particular religious group.
> 
> No, you're ignoring my argument about men and women, and replacing it with other ppl's argument, Polygamists cannot say "I don't have the right to government-marry the same way that monogamists do." Polygamists can government-marry the same monogamists do, monogamists just got their law passed, so that's the law being applied. However, a woman can say "I don't have the right to government-marry the way men do." That person's equal protection rights are being violated, because the law, however democratically passed, is denying her equal protection of the law, by saying she has a different choice of spouses than men.
> 
> Polygamists' only complaint is that they lost the policy argument, the policy itself gives them the same rights as everyone else. A lesbian can argue that the policy itself violates their rights as *women, by telling them they can't marry the ppl men can marry.
> 
> You don't think two wrongs make a right, but the constitution does. The constitution says that every law has to be applied equally. Good laws, bad laws, apply equally to everyone.
> ...


You are confusing two different things here.  Those things are:

1. What my political opinions are.

2. The actual text of the first amendment.

The latter only restricts congress, it doesn't actually mean ANYTHING at the state level.  Should it?  I don't know.  You could make that case.  But the bottom line is that it actually doesn't.  And considering the Fed track record, I don't really think they'd use it to protect us anyway.  Sure, maybe they defend "gay marriage."  Leave it to the government to ONLY defend the rights of the immoral. 


Thus, CONSTITUTIONALLY, nothing prohibits a state from establishing a church or requiring attendance in its state, at least not in the first amendment.  Do I support doing this?  Absolutely not.  But it wouldn't technically have anything to do with the 1st amendment.

Regarding the polygamist thing, my argument still applies to incest.  Man A cannot marry woman A if woman A is his daughter, yet Man B can marry woman A.  Isn't this "discrimination" in your world?

----------


## maybemaybenot

> I feel like Columbo.  "One more thing."  (you kids can look that up)
> 
> If a limited government has specific enumerated and *separated* powers, why does the OP think the *judicial* branch should be making new law regarding marriage?  Why does the OP not think the *legislative* branch should be making law?  And why does the OP think any branch of the Federal Government making law to make marriage inclusive would not be discriminatory?  There is no place in the US where state law does not already provide for marriage between one man and one woman (at least). It would be discriminatory to make another law to specifically address any other group of people because it would exclude everyone outside that group.
> 
> So the OP is asking for an unconstitutional ruling which allows discriminatory relationships to be expanded so more people can have discriminatory relationships.  I think that's about the size of it.  The next step will be to force people to get married.  This is what happens when people advocate for special rights.  The next step is forcing everyone to conform.


First of all, you're talking about limited and enumerated powers, but you're ignoring the fourteenth amendment, and acting as if the equal protection clauses and freedom of religion clauses have zero value. The constitution is the law of the land, and its to be enforced as the Supreme Court interprets it, like it says in the Constitution (even though they get it wrong a lot of the time). Also, the fourteenth amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, in the privileges and immunities clause (though only Thomas says this, the other justices say its the fourteenth amendment due process clause that incorporates the Bill of Rights). Are you saying that Chicago can still take away ppl's weapons? You'd be with the four liberal justices on this.

I think polygamy should be allowed too, and I think the bad parts of polygamy today are the results of prohibition (and I've said this before). However, same-sex marriage has a much stronger case. Both gays/lesbians and polygamists can claim their 1st amendment freedom to practice their religion is being illegally interfered with, since everyone associates government-marriage with their religion.

However, only gays/lesbians can make an equal protection argument. Women are being denied the right to marry women, even though men have that right. Polygamists can't say their equal protection rights are being violated. No one is allowed to marry two spouses. It sucks that polygamists' law didn't get passed and win the debate, especially since it violates their freedom of religion,* but they do factually get to do exactly what everyone else does, marry one spouse.* A woman who wants to marry woman, however, is denied her freedom of religion *and* her right to equal protection.

That's a double whammy.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> You are confusing two different things here.  Those things are:
> 
> 1. What my political opinions are.
> 
> 2. The actual text of the first amendment.
> 
> The latter only restricts congress, it doesn't actually mean ANYTHING at the state level.  Should it?  I don't know.  You could make that case.  But the bottom line is that it actually doesn't.  And considering the Fed track record, I don't really think they'd use it to protect us anyway.  Sure, maybe they defend "gay marriage."  Leave it to the government to ONLY defend the rights of the immoral. 
> 
> 
> ...


The fourteenth amendment incorporates the bill of rights to the states, just like Chicago v. MacDonald ruled for the right to bear arms a few yrs ago. This is why the Supreme Court has ruled that states can't have religious endorsement, the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment (they should be doing it with the privileges and immunities clause, like Thomas says, he also prob thinks 90 percent of current federal government is unconstitutional). Its why states/cities can't regulate speech.

Yes, it is discrimination to say family members can't marry (but its legitimate to ban them from having intercourse if they're blood relatives), and this is another reason government should get out of marriage (and pretty much everything). But government is in the government-marriage business. Our libertarian principles do not trump the equal protection clause, or freedom of religion.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm fully aware that his pt is that government marriage shouldn't exist. That's virtually the only argument I've been responding to this whole time. This position ignores reality. There is government marriage. Therefore, any federal/state program must comply with the constitution, by: 1. not endorsing religion, 2. not prohibiting freedom of religion, and 3. without denying equal protection (only applies to the states; Supreme Court invented a federal equal protection clause cuz they felt like it).
> 
> Bringing up bar mitzvahs proves my point. Atheists don't have bar mitzvahs. *Atheists have birthdays and weddings, but they don't do bar mitzvahs. North Koreans (atheists) do weddings, they don'*[B]t do bar mitzvahs or Christian confirmation or Ramadan or Passover, but they do weddings, because its not tied to religion.


Actually some atheist Jews *do* have bar mitzvahs so you've just shown your own ignorance.  More importantly you actually brought up the point of *theist gays* being barred a "government wedding" or some crap.  Really your arguments are so stupid that you are starting to trip over yourself.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## euphemia

Why do you keep diverting the argument to suit your point of view? Gun ownership is Constitutionally guaranteed.  Marriage is not, because it has always been under state jurisdiction.

----------


## jmdrake

> First of all, you're talking about limited and enumerated powers, but you're ignoring the fourteenth amendment, and acting as if the equal protection clauses and freedom of religion clauses have zero value. The constitution is the law of the land, and its to be enforced as the Supreme Court interprets it, like it says in the Constitution (even though they get it wrong a lot of the time). Also, the fourteenth amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, in the privileges and immunities clause (though only Thomas says this, the other justices say its the fourteenth amendment due process clause that incorporates the Bill of Rights). Are you saying that Chicago can still take away ppl's weapons? You'd be with the four liberal justices on this.
> 
> I think polygamy should be allowed too, and I think the bad parts of polygamy today are the results of prohibition (and I've said this before). However, same-sex marriage has a much stronger case. Both gays/lesbians and polygamists can claim their 1st amendment freedom to practice their religion is being illegally interfered with, since everyone associates government-marriage with their religion.
> 
> However, only gays/lesbians can make an equal protection argument. Women are being denied the right to marry women, even though men have that right. Polygamists can't say their equal protection rights are being violated. No one is allowed to marry two spouses. It sucks that polygamists' law didn't get passed and win the debate, especially since it violates their freedom of religion,* but they do factually get to do exactly what everyone else does, marry one spouse.* A woman who wants to marry woman, however, is denied her freedom of religion *and* her right to equal protection.
> 
> That's a double whammy.


Bisexual polygamists do not get their sexual preference.  So your argument fails.  And from a religious point of view, some polygamists feel that marrying multiple spouses is a religious duty.  I know of no religion where same sex marriage is seen as a religious duty.  So again your argument fails.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

LOL y'all are still arguing with this guy?  He doesn't listen to reason _at all_.  He just blatantly ignores everybody's arguments and then claims victory.  

No, this is *NOT* a "don't feed the troll" post, only thing I want to say here is use this guy to 'practice' and to perfect your skills at debating this subject, but do not in any way expect this guy to even bother to listen to your argument.  That way you get all the self-improvement without any of the heartburn.  That is all.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Gun ownership is Constitutionally guaranteed.  Marriage is not, because it has always been under state jurisdiction.


Mariage may be under state jurisdiction, but the 14th Amendment prohibits state action that amounts to invidious discrimination --e.g., states can't have anti-miscegenation laws.

Look, civil marriage isn't going to go away, and to keep insisting that government shouldn't be involved in marriage simply ignores reality.  The issue is, given that government-sancationed marriage exists, can the government refuse to allow same-sex couples to participate in it?  So far, no one has come up with a cogent reason why the state should be able to do so.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Mariage may be under state jurisdiction, but the 14th Amendment prohibits state action that amounts to invidious discrimination --e.g., states can't have anti-miscegenation laws.
> 
> Look, civil marriage isn't going to go away, and to keep insisting that government shouldn't be involved in marriage simply ignores reality.  The issue is, given that government-sancationed marriage exists, can the government refuse to allow same-sex couples to participate in it?  So far, no one has come up with a cogent reason why the state should be able to do so.


Look, the war on drugs isn't going to go away, and to keep insisting that government shouldn't be involved in  the war on drugs simply ignores reality. The issue is, given that  the war on drugs exists, can the government refuse to allow alcohol to be included in it? So far, no one has come up with a cogent reason why the state shouldn't be able to do so.

----------


## jmdrake

> LOL y'all are still arguing with this guy?  He doesn't listen to reason _at all_.  He just blatantly ignores everybody's arguments and then claims victory.  
> 
> No, this is *NOT* a "don't feed the troll" post, only thing I want to say here is use this guy to 'practice' and to perfect your skills at debating this subject, but do not in any way expect this guy to even bother to listen to your argument.  That way you get all the self-improvement without any of the heartburn.  That is all.


^Exactly!




> Mariage may be under state jurisdiction, but the 14th Amendment prohibits state action that amounts to invidious discrimination --e.g., states can't have anti-miscegenation laws.
> 
> Look, civil marriage isn't going to go away, and to keep insisting that government shouldn't be involved in marriage simply ignores reality.  The issue is, given that government-sancationed marriage exists, can the government refuse to allow same-sex couples to participate in it?  So far, no one has come up with a cogent reason why the state should be able to do so.


So if you really believe that it's impossible to reduce the Federal government's impact on our lives, why bother with the "liberty" movement at all?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> So if you really believe that it's impossible to reduce the Federal government's impact on our lives, why bother with the "liberty" movement at all?


Recognizing the existence of civil marriage doesn't mean it's impossible to work to reduce government's involvement on people's lives, especially in connection with more important issues (incidentally, why did you restrict your comment to the federal government?  Do state governments get more leeway?).  It's just that if the only argument you can come up with to disallow same-sex marriages is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, you are tilting at windmills.  One's time would be better spent on issues that have more immediate impact than whether a same-sex couple gets to participate in a civil marriage (e.g., Obamacare).

----------


## jmdrake

> Recognizing the existence of civil marriage doesn't mean it's impossible to work to reduce government's involvement on people's lives, especially in connection with more important issues (incidentally, why did you restrict your comment to the federal government?  Do state governments get more leeway?).  It's just that if the only argument you can come up with to disallow same-sex marriages is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, you are tilting at windmills.  One's time would be better spent on issues that have more immediate impact than whether a same-sex couple gets to participate in a civil marriage (e.g., Obamacare).


LOL.  Really?  Ummm...you've got it backwards dude.  The one "wasting time" is the idiot that started the thread in the first place.  I agree, it's not that important of an issue.  *So why push it on a liberty forum when the only "solution" being pushed by the OP is an expansion of the role of the Federal Government in marriage?*  Seriously?  Sorry, but I will not be bullied on this issue.  And mark my words.  If we continue going down the road we are going, then incidents like the woman who's business was shut down because she didn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple will become federalized.  What those of us with common sense libertarianism support allows "equality" in marriage for all, gays, polygamists whatever, without pushing an agenda who's long term consequences you have yet to begin to fathom.  Besides, getting rid of the federal income tax and getting rid federal entanglement in health insurance through the tax code (much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than just getting rid of Obamacare) all goes to divorcing the federal government from marriage.  In other words, the rest of us are the ones who are on target for doing what this movement is supposed to be about which is reducing the size and scope of the federal government.  Just do that and "marriage equality" will take care of itself.

----------


## euphemia

> and this is another reason government should get out of marriage


But that's not what you are asking for.  You are either asking for the US Congress to pass legislation in defiance of the 10th amendment, or you are asking for SCOTUS to make law outside its enumerated powers.

What do you really want?

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Why do you keep diverting the argument to suit your point of view? Gun ownership is Constitutionally guaranteed.  Marriage is not, because it has always been under state jurisdiction.


So... you just ignore the equal protection clause?




> LOL y'all are still arguing with this guy? He doesn't listen to reason _at all_. He just blatantly ignores everybody's arguments and then claims victory. 
> 
> No, this is *NOT* a "don't feed the troll" post, only thing I want to say here is use this guy to 'practice' and to perfect your skills at debating this subject, but do not in any way expect this guy to even bother to listen to your argument. That way you get all the self-improvement without any of the heartburn. That is all.


Insisting that the equal protection clause applies is not diverting the argument. I'm talking about the constitution, and everyone else is acting as if they can just pick and choose which clauses to follow. Saying that government marriage is bad is a great policy argument, but that's nowhere in the constitution. Its amazing how libertarians can twist the constitution just like liberals.

I'm not saying the right to an abortion is in there, even though I'm pro-choice. I'm not saying the gold standard is there, or other things that would be great. But the right to equal protection is there, and it trumps state law explicitly, and that means that if government allows men to "government-marry" women, then they have to allow women to do it also.




> Look, the war on drugs isn't going to go away, and to keep insisting that government shouldn't be involved in the war on drugs simply ignores reality. The issue is, given that the war on drugs exists, can the government refuse to allow alcohol to be included in it? So far, no one has come up with a cogent reason why the state shouldn't be able to do so.


Saying that alcohol vs. marijuana policy violates equal protection is a joke, it totally butchers the equal protection clause. Those are different policies.* The fact that different ppl get their rules passed is not a violation of the equal protection clause.* Every US citizen is allowed to drink alcohol, and none are allowed to smoke marijuana.* The same rights for all.* Just like a polygamist is allowed to marry one spouse, the same rule for all, even though it sucks that their law didn't get passed (especially since it violates their constitutional right to religious freedom), it doesn't violate the equal protection clause. *But saying women can marry men, but men cannot marry men, is a law that gives different ppl different rights. That is illegal.*

*Different things being legal is not discrimination. Making it legal for one US citizen to do something, but not another, is illegal.* If the government said women could smoke marijuana but not men, *that* would violate the equal protection clause.

All you ppl do is ignore the equal protection clause, or stretch it to create a strawman and say "See? It would be horrible if we outlawed discrimination, because next thing you know pigs will be marrying trees." Human beings have equal rights.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> So if you really believe that it's impossible to reduce the Federal government's impact on our lives, why bother with the "liberty" movement at all?


No, he's saying the liberty movement is not constitutional law. Saying the government should get out of marriage, so who gives a crap if they discriminate (or that its good to keep ppl out of an evil govt program) is not a constitutional argument. You're not explaining why it complies with the equal protection to clause to give men and women different options for spouses.




> But that's not what you are asking for. You are either asking for the US Congress to pass legislation in defiance of the 10th amendment, or you are asking for SCOTUS to make law outside its enumerated powers.
> 
> What do you really want?



The tenth amendment does not invalidate every constitutional power. It says powers *"not delegated"* to the federal govt remain with the states and the ppl. Well the rule calling on the states to not discriminate is right there in the fourteenth amendment, and Article III of the constitution says the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, and that the constitution is above state law. Further, the fourteenth amendment also says Congress can pass laws to enforce it, proving how its above state law. *But according to you, Congress passing a law to end state discrimination was "not delegated" to the federal govt in the constitution, even though the constitution explicitly says Congress can pass laws to enforce the equal protection clause.* You just pretend that a constitutional clause isn't there.

And you call it SCOTUS making law when they interpret a constitutional clause explicitly governing the state governments? Come on, you're just butchering the constitution. Do you think that Congress levying a tax violates the tenth amendment too? *The power to levy taxes and the power to pass laws enforcing the fourteenth amendment are both there, as well as the SCOTUS power to interpret the constitution as the court of last resort, these powers were all delegated to the federal government, meaning they are not reserved to the states or the ppl under the tenth amendment.*

----------


## jmdrake

> No, he's saying the liberty movement is not constitutional law. Saying the government should get out of marriage, so who gives a crap if they discriminate (or that its good to keep ppl out of an evil govt program) is not a constitutional argument. You're not explaining why it complies with the equal protection to clause to give men and women different options for spouses.


And you studied constitutional law where exactly?  The same place you received your reading comprehension diploma?  Get a refund!  Again, you were the one pushing the topic so if anyone is wasting the time of the "liberty movement" it is you.  You are twisting the constitution in a way that is guaranteed to grow the federal government and  ultimately restrict liberty by expanding the CRA further into private lives all in the name of unbanning something that currently isn't banned.  If, instead, (those of us who have common sense) stick with the plan of scaling back the federal government, the "marriage equality" you crave so badly will come along automatically.

----------


## jmdrake

I just realized something.  The entire argument of the OP is based on one big logical fallacy.  A dog has 4 legs.  My cat has 4 legs.  Therefore my dog is a cat.  Laws banning people from marrying the race of their choice are racist.  Laws defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman deny people (supposedly but not really) from marrying the gender of their choice.  Therefore such laws must be sexist.

The "dog has 4 legs anything with 4 legs is a dog" idea is a fallacy because it leaves out other distinguishing characteristics of dogs.  Similarly the OP argument left out distinguishing characteristics of racism, namely motivation.  Miscegenation laws existed because white people thought black people were inferior.  But the same argument does not hold water when talking about marriage and gender.  Not unless the OP is thinking that men who think that men should only marry women are somehow thinking women are inferior.  That doesn't make sense.  Who would want to marry someone inferior when they could have someone equal?  That's like saying "I think cats are inferior to dogs therefor everyone should own cats."  Certainly men can, and do, think women are inferior, but that has nothing to do with choosing a woman as a mate and thinking other men should do the same.  So no.  Gender preference discrimination != gender discrimination even in marriage.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Miscegenation laws existed because white people thought black people were inferior.  But the same argument does not hold water when talking about marriage and gender.


It would be incredibly naive to think that none of the recent bans on same-sex marriage were motivated by the belief that homosexuals are "perverted" or "sinful" or some other perjorative characterization.  But motivation is somewhat beside the point (although in a technical legal sense it may affect the level of justification a state must produce in order to defend its same-sex marriage ban).

I think the OP's equal protection point (which is a purely legal point, not a philosophical one) is that there is no conceivable rational basis for denying opposite-sex couples the opportunity to enter into a civil marriage.

----------


## jmdrake

> It would be incredibly naive to think that none of the recent bans on same-sex marriage were motivated by the belief that homosexuals are "perverted" or "sinful" or some other perjorative characterization.


That's not what I said.  I said they weren't motivated by *gender*.  The OP is claiming bans (misnomer, there are no bans in reality) on gay marriage is gender discrimination.  Clearly it is not.

----------


## osan

> HB's point was that really a "government marriage" shouldn't exist any more than a "government baptism" exists.  How about a government bar mitzvah?  Yeah.  That would be interesting.  If there were bar mitzvah licenses then there would be a supreme court challenge right about now regarding whether bar mitzvah's should be limited to boys who were actually born male.


Now imagine, if you will, the nightmare of the government _bris_.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

As to whether 'getting government out of marriage' is likely to actually happen one day, it's actually more likely than legalizing drugs.  My Amendment may have failed, but it failed by 43 to 71, which is more support than drug decriminalization would receive here by far, and much of that '71' were being influenced by GOP leadership propaganda rather than their own reason.

----------


## euphemia

OP is all over the map.  There is no point in continuing the discussion if he can't stick to his own point, if there is one.  Basically he's saying that government should not be involved in marriage, but since they are, let's demand the government be more involved.

Not exactly a cup of liberty.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Now imagine, if you will, the nightmare of the government _bris_.


  Gonna be a lot more David Reimers out there...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

----------


## William Tell

> As to whether 'getting government out of marriage' is likely to actually happen one day, it's actually more likely than legalizing drugs.  My Amendment may have failed, but it failed by 43 to 71, which is more support than drug decriminalization would receive here by far, and much of that '71' were being influenced by GOP leadership propaganda rather than their own reason.


Did more Democrats or Republicans support it? Exact count would be interesting.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

In light of the actions of SCOTUS this week to force gay marriage on North Carolina, I posted this to my fedbook timeline and got unfriended by a lefty because I was not cheering SCOTUS's decision.  It's amazing how people just LOVE the Constitution up to the point where it comes to their own personal pet issued, whereupon they choose their pet issue almost every time.  I am anomaly.  I chose the Constitution over my own pet issues every single time.  If the Constitution were ever to directly contradict my own pet issue, I would still vote for the Constitution and against my issue.  That's just how i roll.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Did more Democrats or Republicans support it? Exact count would be interesting.


Check out the roll-call vote:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteH...ber=H&RCS=1293




> 1293      SB 514	DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE. 
> Sponsor: BRUNSTETTER
> A1 Bradley\Second Reading	Outcome: FAILED
> Time: Sep 12 2011 3:46PM
> Total Votes: 114   Ayes: 43   Noes: 71   Not: 4   Exc. Absent: 2   Exc. Vote: 0


At the link the vote is broken down by Member and Party, but not in a very helpful copy/paste format.

----------


## otherone

> As to whether 'getting government out of marriage' is likely to actually happen one day, it's actually more likely than legalizing drugs.  My Amendment may have failed, but it failed by 43 to 71, which is more support than drug decriminalization would receive here by far, and much of that '71' were being influenced by GOP leadership propaganda rather than their own reason.


I'm confused by your amendment. I understand that marriage is not the state's business, but it seems that you want the state to say it's only God's domain?  Can Buddhists get married in NC w/ this amendment?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm confused by your amendment. I understand that marriage is not the state's business, but it seems that you want the state to say it's only God's domain?  Can Buddhists get married in NC w/ this amendment?


With the government out of the marriage business altogether, who or what would stop them?  From the government's perspective, "the church" is basically "any organization whatever founded around a religious ideal."  That includes buddhist and even atheist organizations.  The justification provided int he Amendment was designed to give the Christian Right everything they wanted from the Marriage Amendment, while still keeping the government out of the marriage business forever.

----------


## jmdrake

> In light of the actions of SCOTUS this week to force gay marriage on North Carolina, I posted this to my fedbook timeline and got unfriended by a lefty because I was not cheering SCOTUS's decision.  It's amazing how people just LOVE the Constitution up to the point where it comes to their own personal pet issued, whereupon they choose their pet issue almost every time.  I am anomaly.  I chose the Constitution over my own pet issues every single time.  If the Constitution were ever to directly contradict my own pet issue, I would still vote for the Constitution and against my issue.  That's just how i roll.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In light of the actions of SCOTUS this week to force gay marriage on North Carolina, I posted this to my fedbook timeline and got unfriended by a lefty because I was not cheering SCOTUS's decision.  It's amazing how people just LOVE the Constitution up to the point where it comes to their own personal pet issued, whereupon they choose their pet issue almost every time.  I am anomaly.  I chose the Constitution over my own pet issues every single time.  If the Constitution were ever to directly contradict my own pet issue, I would still vote for the Constitution and against my issue.  That's just how i roll.


+rep.  It's tradition for the governing class of all parties and stripes to only care about the Constitution (and statutory law and everything else) when it's convenient.  Cheers to you for not selling out.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I got unfriended, reported for bigotry, and blocked by a left-liberal because she was upset that I was not cheering the SCOTUS action.  I apologized to her for the Republican Majority Leader having deceived her about where I actually stood, and that made her even _more_ angry. lol!

----------


## Pericles

> The 14th amendment was ratified by coercion. Forgive me if I dont think too highly of it.


If the SCOTUS had not gone off the stupid end in Barron v Baltimore and said the Constitution only applied to the fedgov, there would be no 14A.

The issue is full faith and credit to acts of the other states. If one state allows homosexual marriage, the other states have to recognize the marriage.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> +rep.  It's tradition for the governing class of all parties and stripes to only care about the Constitution (and statutory law and everything else) when it's convenient.  Cheers to you for not selling out.


Frankly if not for my stand on the Marriage Amendment, it's a pretty solid bet that I'd still be in the NCGA in one chamber or the other, as that was the #1, #2, and #3 weapons which with they attacked me. Mind you, they had to openly lie about my actual position to do so.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> In light of the actions of SCOTUS this week to force gay marriage on North Carolina, I posted this to my fedbook timeline and got unfriended by a lefty because I was not cheering SCOTUS's decision.  It's amazing how people just LOVE the Constitution up to the point where it comes to their own personal pet issued, whereupon they choose their pet issue almost every time.  I am anomaly.  I chose the Constitution over my own pet issues every single time.  If the Constitution were ever to directly contradict my own pet issue, I would still vote for the Constitution and against my issue.  That's just how i roll.


*wet fart sound* You're a hypocrite that wipes your ass with the constitution. You would neuter the fourteenth amendment to the pt that blacks and whites couldn't marry, so long as all the politicians insisted they don't hate black ppl. You made up a condition to the equal protection clause that isn't there, saying it only applies if one group is the victim of bigotry. That doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution, but you wish it was, so like MAGIC, its there!




> OP is all over the map. There is no point in continuing the discussion if he can't stick to his own point, if there is one. Basically he's saying that government should not be involved in marriage, but since they are, let's demand the government be more involved.
> 
> Not exactly a cup of liberty.


You argued that the tenth amendment invalidated express federal powers. You said that SCOTUS would be illegally "making law" if they applies the fourteenth amendment in a way that actually affects state law (even though the fourteenth amendment expressly says its above state law),

All of you butcher the constitution as much as liberals do. If women can marry men, then men can marry men, the law cannot give different rights to different ppl. All you ppl do is make up a strawman version of equal protection itself, with B-S about polygamy and dogs. Each individual human being is entitled to the same rights. Banning multiple spouses still means equal rights for all; banning dog marriage still means equal rights for all. *Saying women cannot marry women is UNEQUAL, because men can marry woman.*

Lol and then you guys get all worked up about "arrests" and "banning" and one group being a victim, you start making up $#@! that is't there. Equal f'n protection. You guys piss on the constitution. You're all hypocrites.

----------


## otherone

> With the government out of the marriage business altogether, who or what would stop them?  From the government's perspective, "the church" is basically "any organization whatever founded around a religious ideal."  That includes buddhist and even atheist organizations.


I don't see that...not even by reading between the lines.  What I see is "marriage belongs to the *sole* authority of the church, and *no* other authority will be recognized as valid by the state."

----------


## maybemaybenot

> And you studied constitutional law where exactly?  The same place you received your reading comprehension diploma?  Get a refund!  Again, you were the one pushing the topic so if anyone is wasting the time of the "liberty movement" it is you.  You are twisting the constitution in a way that is guaranteed to grow the federal government and  ultimately restrict liberty by expanding the CRA further into private lives all in the name of unbanning something that currently isn't banned.  If, instead, (those of us who have common sense) stick with the plan of scaling back the federal government, the "marriage equality" you crave so badly will come along automatically.


FIU College of Law is where I studied constitutional law, with a libertarian professor actually. Simply saying I'm twisting the constitution is not an argument, you need to follow up your line with an actual argument.

I'm not talking about the CRA, I'm talking about the equal protection clause. The CRA doesn't touch same-sex marriage. And notice how you pretend to be talking about the constitution, but your only arguments are about liberty. Restricting the CRA, scaling back the federal government, but not a word about the right of a woman to marry a woman, despite man's right to do it. (or privilege or w/e) You're just allergic to the topic of constitutional law, so you just replace it with your own opinions.

If you really want to scale back federal power, the best place to start is to properly apply the commerce clause in the limited way it was originally intended (well, its actually a really big power, but 1% of what SCOTUS turned it into). But if you just butcher the constitution and pick and choose your clauses like liberals, we'll never reach that goal.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't see that...not even by reading between the lines.  What I see is "marriage belongs to the *sole* authority of the church, and *no* other authority will be recognized as valid by the state."


Huh.  Well I don't know what to tell you.  The Amendment would have given all parties everything they wanted.  The social conservatives as well as the gay marriage crowd.  I'm sorry that "giving everybody everything they want" is just not enough.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *wet fart sound* You're a hypocrite that wipes your ass with the constitution. You would neuter the fourteenth amendment to the pt that blacks and whites couldn't marry, so long as all the politicians insisted they don't hate black ppl. You made up a condition to the equal protection clause that isn't there, saying it only applies if one group is the victim of bigotry. That doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution, but you wish it was, so like MAGIC, its there!


LMAO put down the crack pipe fella.  Removing all government authority over marriage would not prevent ANYBODY from getting married.  

Bro, do you even English?

----------


## maybemaybenot

> LMAO put down the crack pipe fella.  Removing all government authority over marriage would not prevent ANYBODY from getting married.  
> 
> Bro, do you even English?


Again, this is not about government-marriage versus private marriage. This is about equality. If the government lets men "government-marry" women, then it has to let women "government-marry" women. YOu keep ignoring the equal protection clause, and citing your opinions about government/marriage as if they appear in the constitution. The fact that the government offers something to men but not women, or vice versa, is illegal. It doesn't matter if its private behavior or getting a govt benefit or w/e, its equal rights for all. *You're the one ignoring my arguments, because you prefer to ignore the equal protection clause.*

And all you guys who claimed marriage is inherently religious have yet to present a single fact in favor of your position. Lol maybe that's what makes it religious, the fact that your belief isn't built on facts.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Again, this is not about government-marriage versus private marriage.


For YOU.

YOU are not the only soul on the planet.  I understand that may hurt to hear, but you just aren't.




> This is about equality. If the government lets men "government-marry" women, then it has to let women "government-marry" women. YOu keep ignoring the equal protection clause, and citing your opinions about government/marriage as if they appear in the constitution.
> 
> And all you guys who claimed marriage is inherently religious have yet to present a single fact in favor of your position. Lol maybe that's what makes it religious, the fact that your belief isn't built on facts.


Crying "equality" is a collectivist/communist idea that has no place in liberty or personal sovereignty; but my plan puts EVERY SOUL on equal footing.  My plan makes everybody several orders of magnitude more 'equal' than yours.

But that's not the kind of equality you crave.  ou want to point a gun at people's faces and force them to bless your philosophy against their will.  That's monstrous and evil, fella, and you should repent of it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

This guy was earlier saying that getting government out of marriage may be ideal but it was impractical, therefore we should expand government marriage to cover gay people.  As soon as i demonstrate that getting government out of marriage is indeed practical, look how fast he changes tune.  LMAO and he calls _me_ the hypocrite ROFL!!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *wet fart sound*


They do make adult diapers for your condition nowadays.

----------


## otherone

> Huh.  Well I don't know what to tell you.  The Amendment would have given all parties everything they wanted.  The social conservatives as well as the gay marriage crowd.  I'm sorry that "giving everybody everything they want" is just not enough.


Does the state enforce the church's sovereignty over marriage?  I applaud your efforts at compromise, but, with all due respect, replacing the state with the church continues to infringe on individual liberty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Does the state enforce the church's sovereignty over marriage?  I applaud your efforts at compromise, but, with all due respect, replacing the state with the church continues to infringe on individual liberty.


The Amendment removes all State authority, period.  Even the Democratic Caucus Leader and former House Speaker recognized that and stated it openly during the debate.  The State never had the authority to pick and choose one religion over the other by statute.  It was designed from the ground up to give the majority everything they wanted without infringing one iota against individual liberty.  There is no possible scenario under my amendment where the police could come in with guns and tell you to stop using the word "marriage" because no church gave you permission to do so.  It was simply a statement that the authority does not belong to men.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *wet fart sound* You're a hypocrite that wipes your ass with the constitution. You would neuter the fourteenth amendment to the pt that blacks and whites couldn't marry, so long as all the politicians insisted they don't hate black ppl. You made up a condition to the equal protection clause that isn't there, saying it only applies if one group is the victim of bigotry. That doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution, but you wish it was, so like MAGIC, its there!
> 
> 
> 
> You argued that the tenth amendment invalidated express federal powers. You said that SCOTUS would be illegally "making law" if they applies the fourteenth amendment in a way that actually affects state law (even though the fourteenth amendment expressly says its above state law),
> 
> All of you butcher the constitution as much as liberals do. If women can marry men, then men can marry men, the law cannot give different rights to different ppl. All you ppl do is make up a strawman version of equal protection itself, with B-S about polygamy and dogs. Each individual human being is entitled to the same rights. Banning multiple spouses still means equal rights for all; banning dog marriage still means equal rights for all. *Saying women cannot marry women is UNEQUAL, because men can marry woman.*
> 
> Lol and then you guys get all worked up about "arrests" and "banning" and one group being a victim, you start making up $#@! that is't there. Equal f'n protection. You guys piss on the constitution. You're all hypocrites.



That *whoosh* sound you hear is the point we've been making in here going right over your head. :P

----------


## maybemaybenot

> For YOU.
> 
> YOU are not the only soul on the planet.  I understand that may hurt to hear, but you just aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Crying "equality" is a collectivist/communist idea that has no place in liberty or personal sovereignty; but my plan puts EVERY SOUL on equal footing.  My plan makes everybody several orders of magnitude more 'equal' than yours.
> 
> But that's not the kind of equality you crave.  ou want to point a gun at people's faces and force them to bless your philosophy against their will.  That's monstrous and evil, fella, and you should repent of it.


No, its not that I care about the equal protection clause, its that its the law of the land. i want to get rid of govt marriage too. But marriage is the law. You keep acting like your desire to get govt out of marriage makes an unconstitutional marriage policy unconstitutional. All you do is repeat how you really really think govt should get out of marriage. Okay. But right now, there is a law saying that US citizens all have to given the same rights and privileges from state governments. So if the govt has a law granting a man the right to marry a woman, *the equal protection clause, not my opinion, the equal protection clause*, mandates the state to grant women the right to marry women as well. Whether its a right, a privilege, a shiny piece of paper, it doesn't matter, everyone has to get the same treatment from their government.

Lol you keep talking about this marriage amendment you wanna passed. And if it passed, you'd jump for joy about how its the law, right? Because the law matters. Well the equal protection clause is a law, too. Luckily, your amendment would get rid of an unconstitutionally discriminatory law. But that doesn't change the fact that the government needs to either get out of marriage or treat everyone equally. If getting out of marriage isn't an option (and 90% of ppl want govt marriage, so that's the world we live in right now), then the constitution mandates expanding it to allow women to marry women also.

Again, its not communism, its the constitution. You can't just ignore the constitution. You haven't made one argument based on the constitution itself, you're like a liberal. "The constitution says (my opinion)."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, its not that I care about the equal protection clause, its that its the law of the land. i want to get rid of govt marriage too. But marriage is the law. You keep acting like your desire to get govt out of marriage makes an unconstitutional marriage policy unconstitutional. All you do is repeat how you really really think govt should get out of marriage. Okay. But right now, there is a law saying that US citizens all have to given the same rights and privileges from state governments. So if the govt has a law granting a man the right to marry a woman, *the equal protection clause, not my opinion, the equal protection clause*, mandates the state to grant women the right to marry women as well. Whether its a right, a privilege, a shiny piece of paper, it doesn't matter, everyone has to get the same treatment from their government.
> 
> Lol you keep talking about this marriage amendment you wanna passed. And if it passed, you'd jump for joy about how its the law, right? Because the law matters. Well the equal protection clause is a law, too. Luckily, your amendment would get rid of an unconstitutionally discriminatory law. But that doesn't change the fact that the government needs to either get out of marriage or treat everyone equally. If getting out of marriage isn't an option (and 90% of ppl want govt marriage, so that's the world we live in right now), then the constitution mandates expanding it to allow women to marry women also.
> 
> Again, its not communism, its the constitution. You can't just ignore the constitution. You haven't made one argument based on the constitution itself, you're like a liberal. "The constitution says (my opinion)."


I'm not ignoring the Constitution.  I'm just refusing to treat it like a Rorschach Blot the way you are so fond of doing.   You can't just make the Constitution into whatever you want and then press your personal desires against everybody else on the planet, but you sure are trying!

----------


## jmdrake

> FIU College of Law is where I studied constitutional law, with a libertarian professor actually. Simply saying I'm twisting the constitution is not an argument, you need to follow up your line with an actual argument.
> 
> I'm not talking about the CRA, I'm talking about the equal protection clause. The CRA doesn't touch same-sex marriage. And notice how you pretend to be talking about the constitution, but your only arguments are about liberty. Restricting the CRA, scaling back the federal government, but not a word about the right of a woman to marry a woman, despite man's right to do it. (or privilege or w/e) You're just allergic to the topic of constitutional law, so you just replace it with your own opinions.
> 
> If you really want to scale back federal power, the best place to start is to properly apply the commerce clause in the limited way it was originally intended (well, its actually a really big power, but 1% of what SCOTUS turned it into). But if you just butcher the constitution and pick and choose your clauses like liberals, we'll never reach that goal.


Well maybe you need a refund.  You might not be talking about the CRA, but if your bassackwards analysis were ever accepted then it would apply to the CRA.  The CRA covers gender discrimination.  If anytime someone is discriminated against due to their sexual preference it is somehow "gender discrimination" then the CRA applies to sexual preference and we can expect federal lawsuits everytime some baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple or some private preschool decides that little Johnny really should have to go to the little boys room even though he thinks he's a girl.

----------


## jmdrake

> If the SCOTUS had not gone off the stupid end in Barron v Baltimore and said the Constitution only applied to the fedgov, there would be no 14A.
> 
> The issue is full faith and credit to acts of the other states. If one state allows homosexual marriage, the other states have to recognize the marriage.


Hmmmmm....doctor's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Attorney's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Contractors licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  The reason marriage licenses have to be recognized is....?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fa..._Credit_Clause

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not ignoring the Constitution.  I'm just refusing to treat it like a Rorschach Blot the way you are so fond of doing.   You can't just make the Constitution into whatever you want and then press your personal desires against everybody else on the planet, but you sure are trying!


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

----------


## osan

> Marriage is, by definition, a discriminatory relationship.  I don't think government should have anything to do with it.  There are just some things that cannot be redefined out of existence, and the discriminatory nature of marriage is one of those things.


Perhaps even more to the point, there is nothing inherently wrong with "discrimination".  The current common political usage of the word is just another example of progressive appropriation of meaning, bent in such a way as to serve the political agenda.  Now, "discrimination" has become another dirty world in the progressive dictionary, to be used as a club with which to beat those who are not 100% on board with their filth.

Nothing wrong with being a discriminating person.  The discriminating man prefers a fine single-barrel whiskey over rot-gut.  He chooses a fine woman as his company, rather than a fish-wife.  He comports himself with discipline and grace in discriminatory preference to acting like a jackanapes and vulgar fool.  The discriminating man, through his discrimination via his developed skills in threat assessment preserves his life from various dangers, where the undiscriminating man falls prey to them.

But the progressive yelps and yips "discrimination!", as he points his finger at the target of his vitriol and bile.  The average man, the Meaner, being the gullible, lazy, self-willed idiot having drunk the Kool-Aid of the socialist pig, gets himself in a blind fury over it regardless of meaning or truth and joins in, as does his equals.  Before you know it, the target of their bitter envy is fast-footing it to escape the fate that would await him at the hands of the roiling mob driven by their inarticulate but deadly hatred.  Make no mistake about the more common root motivations: it is almost always envy precisely because the progressive learned long ago that envy drives one of the most bitter brands of murderous hatred, and that it is one of the easiest brands to foment.  It is one of his perfect tools for manipulating the willfully weak-minded commoner.

This all may be very obvious to many, but it bears frequent repetition because the progressive is endlessly misusing words with the same goals in mind, that being to divide with the objective of eventually conquering.  They are doing a marvelous job of it, too.

----------


## otherone

> Hmmmmm....doctor's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Attorney's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Contractors licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  The reason marriage licenses have to be recognized is....?


Purchasing marriage liability insurance for the states you are practicing your marriage is silly?
Did I get that one right?

----------


## otherone

> Perhaps even more to the point, there is nothing inherently wrong with "discrimination".  The current common political usage of the word is just another example of progressive appropriation of meaning, bent in such a way as to serve the political agenda.  Now, "discrimination" has become another dirty world in the progressive dictionary, to be used as a club with which to beat those who are not 100% on board with their filth.
> 
> Nothing wrong with being a discriminating person.  The discriminating man prefers a fine single-barrel whiskey over rot-gut.  He chooses a fine woman as his company, rather than a fish-wife.  He comports himself with discipline and grace in discriminatory preference to acting like a jackanapes and vulgar fool.  The discriminating man, through his discrimination via his developed skills in threat assessment preserves his life from various dangers, where the undiscriminating man falls prey to them.
> 
> But the progressive yelps and yips "discrimination!", as he points his finger at the target of his vitriol and bile.  The average man, the Meaner, being the gullible, lazy, self-willed idiot, having drunk the Kool-Aid of the socialist pig, gets himself in a blind fury over it regardless of meaning or truth joins in, as does his neighbor.  Before you know it, the target of their bitter envy is fast-footing it to escape the fate that would await him at the hands of the roiling mob driven by their inarticulate but deadly hatred.  Make no mistake about root motivations: it is almost always envy precisely because the progressive learned long ago that envy drives one of the most bitter brands of murderous hatred and that it is one of the easiest brands to foment.  It is one of his perfect tools for manipulating the willfully weak-minded commoner.
> 
> This all may be very obvious to many, but it bears endless repetition because the progressive is endlessly misusing words with the same goals in mind, the goal being to divide with the objective of eventually conquering.  They are doing a marvelous job of it, too.


I know what _someone_ had for breakfast today!

----------


## jmdrake

> Purchasing marriage liability insurance for the states you are practicing your marriage is silly?
> Did I get that one right?


Hmmmmm....marriage liability insurance......hmmmmmm.....

----------


## otherone

> Hmmmmm....marriage liability insurance......hmmmmmm.....


malpractice? Am I right, ladies?

----------


## otherone

> malpractice? Am I right, ladies?



...or for the men?

----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by *osan* 
> No. "Gender" is an attribute of nouns, not human beings. Please check your ignorance at the door, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> As for the rest of it, no marriage as currently constituted in statutory practice is constitutional because the Constitution makes no provision for state control of that private arrangement between individuals.
> 
> As for _valid_ marriages, i.e. the agreement between two or more private parties to be wed, that is protected under the 9A. Any choice that does not involve criminality is protected under the 9A. That is the ONLY possible valid interpretation of the Amendment. If you are not bringing direct harm to others, you are within your right to act, regardless of what the action might be. If you want to be wed to your reach-around buddy, you are well within your rights to proceed and nobody holds the least authority to prevent you, no matter how bitterly they may hate your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thx for the semantics lesson.


Pointless sarcasm that essentially concedes the issue, noted.




> But f your semantics.


The word is "$#@!".  If you mean "$#@! your semantics", then at least be adult enough to use it.  How do you expect anyone to take you seriously as an adult when you express yourself in sixth-grader style as if your mom was going to give it to you if she found out you said "$#@!"?  It is the same brand of nonsense as the use of "n-word".  If you mean to say something, then say it.  Otherwise, perhaps the deeper message there is that might do well to revise your internal position on the matter at hand.  But as always, the choice is solely yours.




> I'm going to use terms for their common meaning as they're commonly understood.


And so you choose the lesser path - the proverbial low road.  That, too, is your prerogative.  But be aware that smart people see it, understand the error, and assess your credibility accordingly, which is _their_ prerogative.  This attitude you seem to manifest tells me that you hold an insufficient understanding of the deeper nature of language and its role in daily life.  This is not surprising in the least, as the vast and overwhelming majority of people walking this rock appear to suffer from the same state of taking for granted the single most important thing any human being ever learns.  You have NO idea what your life would be if you had not the facility of language.  Even I have no idea, and I am confident when I assert that it is very likely I have spent a whole lot more time down this rabbit hole than have you.  Even I cannot because I am incapable of escaping language as the rudiment and framework of my thought processes.  I can only imagine what it would be like to have no language, but cannot actually know because I am capable of abstract thought, which is possible only because of language.  Once in place, one cannot escape these things... but who would want to, he result being an inarticulate lump of flesh, driven solely by responses to the hard-wired midbrain reflexes.  Eat when hungry.  Crap when too full. Copulate when dick speaks.  Run from danger.  And so on.

But you don't see any of that and by your own words you don't care.  You're in charge here and you will speak as you please.  By all means go ahead, but do not expect anyone with a better clue to pay you any heed.  Gravity could care less whether you believe in it and will treat you according to the way you choose to act regardless of your professed opinion on it.




> I'm not going to conform to your meaningless rules and terms that other ppl don't use, and I'm not going to pretend that your semantics lesson was worth the time you spent on it.


That is OK with me.  I didn't write it for you.  I wrote it partly for me, to keep my mind sharp on the issue, and for anybody else whose mind is not so stubbornly shut in vise-like fashion as seems to be the case with you.  I may be misreading your tone, but you seem to be in a state of rebellion for its own sake.  Your choice, but once again you cut your nose off to spite your face.  Instead of endeavoring to learn a better truth, you piss, moan, and say "$#@! you".  I have lead the horse to water.




> Now, onto your actual argument: You misunderstand the role of the US Constitution. The US Constitution lists federal powers, not state powers. So the US Constitution's lack of mention of a power regarding marriage is meaningless. What does matter is the fourteenth amendment, which you totally ignore, which says the states cannot discriminate. Therefore whatever program they have, they cannot discriminate.


Your analysis is deeply flawed, I am afraid.  Firstly, your contention that I have ignored anything is incorrect.  The relevance of the 14A takes a distant back seat to that of the 9A, which you might want to try reading one day... though given your severe and sad lack of linguistic skill I am not sure the effort will pay off in any profitable manner.




> No, the 9th amendment does not trump the fourteenth. The 9th says that powers NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT were not so delegated. The power to stop the states from discriminating was delegated in the fourteenth amendment. According to your logic, the 9th amendment would abolish the entire constitution.


More analytic FAIL.  Pointing this out is apparently a waste of time, so you believe what you want and I will continue doing likewise.*




 Originally Posted by osan 
That ain't naiveté, pal. That's flaming, bending, painful ignorance.



*


> Still haven't said what the 14th amendment did that was so horrible.


I never said nor implied any such thing.  Please show where this was done.

*






 Originally Posted by osan 
More free? One is either free or is something else. There are no degrees of freedom, politically speaking.

You need some learning, so read this and get your head together: Degrees of Freedom




*


> Okay fine, but my pt still stands. The US pre-Civil War was a disgusting, smelly, totalitarian $#@!hole. And its awesome that we improved on it with the 13th and 14th amendments, and it sucked that we had to kill a whole lot of idiots to do it.


Concession noted.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Well maybe you need a refund.  You might not be talking about the CRA, but if your bassackwards analysis were ever accepted then it would apply to the CRA.  The CRA covers gender discrimination.  If anytime someone is discriminated against due to their sexual preference it is somehow "gender discrimination" then the CRA applies to sexual preference and we can expect federal lawsuits everytime some baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple or some private preschool decides that little Johnny really should have to go to the little boys room even though he thinks he's a girl.


The cake makers and the preachers have competing constitutional rights to liberty (vague but real), association, religion, and fourth amendment privacy (right to not be arrested/detained, which effectively happens when the state forces you to do anything, SCOTUS says this), *and* a blatant religious exemption is the CRA. The government sanctioning marriages between men and women, but not women and women, has no legal backing in any of those constitutional clauses, or any other. (And stfu with the tenth amendment, the tenth amendment is expressly for non-delegated powers, the equal protection power was delegated, there's zero ambiguity there to be exploited.)

You act like a court ruling requiring marriage equality would fundamtally alter the way the constitution deals with gender. There are, right now, gender discriminatory practices/laws which governments restrict or amend to comply with the law, because courts have said "gotta treat them equal." And, there are, right now, discriminatory practices that the Supreme Court DOES allow, like separate bathrooms, or separating genders for sex education or other things, and its usually based on the right to religion/assembly/privacy/liberty/dueprocess. *L**ike the cake makers' double whammy: the right to association and freedom of religion, and generic 'liberty' in the fourteenth amendment.*

And again, with the silly bathroom issue. There actually *IS* an argument for separate bathrooms. You can't just say gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of bathrooms, you can't just say ignore the equal protection clause because of bathrooms. There are fifty times as many ppl pushing marriage/gender equality than there are for bathroom/gender equality. A* correct ruling that equal protection covers same-sex marriage would not be some watershed moment where all of a sudden we got rid of every rational policy that discriminates based on gender, like bathrooms and sex education with separate genders, w/e.* We have always had a history of limiting the equal protection clause to the extent that it actually harms ppl, or interferes with freedom (which includes privacy and dignity), but in no way does gay marriage 'hurt' anyone in the way that gender-neutral bathrooms does. Merging the bathrooms would comply with the language of the equal protection clause, but *contradicts the language of other clauses: religion, association, fourth amendment privacy, liberty, etc.* Saying that only men can marry women does not have a basis in any of those clauses (opening up marriage to other couples does not violate the religious rights of anyone, someone else receiving a magical piece of paper with "marriage" on it does not go against freedom of religion in any way whatsoever).

----------


## euphemia

Kind of thinking there is a bit of a vacuum here.  How are we defining marriage?  Exactly what rights/responsibilities does it confer?  What interest does the federal government have?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> The state owns you. Everything the state does involves protection.


This is Communist philosophy.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a Communist forum.




> *That's what you call the current Supreme Court's view of the fourteenth amendment?*


Yes, and Ron Paul has even harsher words for it. This is a Ron Paul forum, after all.   Perhaps you would be more comfortable on Communist forum.




> Are you saying Chicago can still take ppl's guns away?


What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?  The Second Amendment "incorporates" itself.  The 14th is irrelevant.




> Its a lie to say the fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship by birth???


Yes, it is a lie.  Perhaps you should stop lying and read what Ron Paul has said on this.   This is a Ron Paul forum, after all.   Perhaps you would be more comfortable on Communist forum.

----------


## euphemia

Actually, a pre-Civil War America was not as bad as a lot of people like to say.  There were places where the way of life was quite good.  At the same time there were places where the way of life was not so great, just like it was horrible in the north during the Industrial Revolution.  Ask the people who lived in northern tenements or the kids who worked in factories.

----------


## Pericles

> Hmmmmm....doctor's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Attorney's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Contractors licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  The reason marriage licenses have to be recognized is....?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fa..._Credit_Clause


That does bring up the interesting proposition that a marriage in one state may nor be valid in another .....

----------


## jmdrake

Blah blah blah.  You're a blithering troll without a consistent argument and this type of fake "constitutional" dribble is what's wrong with this country.  Gunny is right.  You really aren't worthy of anything but sharpening arguments against.

Edit: And you are the one that's making the stupid argument that somehow sexual preference = gender.  If the courts bought into such bullscat the results would be exactly as I've stated.  Anyone with half a brain knows that.  The way to marriage "equality" is to get the government out of it.




> The cake makers and the preachers have competing constitutional rights to liberty (vague but real), association, religion, and fourth amendment privacy (right to not be arrested/detained, which effectively happens when the state forces you to do anything, SCOTUS says this), *and* a blatant religious exemption is the CRA. The government sanctioning marriages between men and women, but not women and women, has no legal backing in any of those constitutional clauses, or any other. (And stfu with the tenth amendment, the tenth amendment is expressly for non-delegated powers, the equal protection power was delegated, there's zero ambiguity there to be exploited.)
> 
> You act like a court ruling requiring marriage equality would fundamtally alter the way the constitution deals with gender. There are, right now, gender discriminatory practices/laws which governments restrict or amend to comply with the law, because courts have said "gotta treat them equal." And, there are, right now, discriminatory practices that the Supreme Court DOES allow, like separate bathrooms, or separating genders for sex education or other things, and its usually based on the right to religion/assembly/privacy/liberty/dueprocess. *L**ike the cake makers' double whammy: the right to association and freedom of religion, and generic 'liberty' in the fourteenth amendment.*
> 
> And again, with the silly bathroom issue. There actually *IS* an argument for separate bathrooms. You can't just say gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of bathrooms, you can't just say ignore the equal protection clause because of bathrooms. There are fifty times as many ppl pushing marriage/gender equality than there are for bathroom/gender equality. A* correct ruling that equal protection covers same-sex marriage would not be some watershed moment where all of a sudden we got rid of every rational policy that discriminates based on gender, like bathrooms and sex education with separate genders, w/e.* We have always had a history of limiting the equal protection clause to the extent that it actually harms ppl, or interferes with freedom (which includes privacy and dignity), but in no way does gay marriage 'hurt' anyone in the way that gender-neutral bathrooms does. Merging the bathrooms would comply with the language of the equal protection clause, but *contradicts the language of other clauses: religion, association, fourth amendment privacy, liberty, etc.* Saying that only men can marry women does not have a basis in any of those clauses (opening up marriage to other couples does not violate the religious rights of anyone, someone else receiving a magical piece of paper with "marriage" on it does not go against freedom of religion in any way whatsoever).

----------


## jmdrake

> I got unfriended, reported for bigotry, and blocked by a left-liberal because she was upset that I was not cheering the SCOTUS action.  I apologized to her for the Republican Majority Leader having deceived her about where I actually stood, and that made her even _more_ angry. lol!


Most people have no clue about liberty and think it's created by the government.  Kind of like the troll that started this thread.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That does bring up the interesting proposition that a marriage in one state may nor be valid in another .....


Not necessarily a bad thing, though.  The paranoid fear of a "patchwork of laws" is one reason Federalists and neo-Federalists hate individual rights and States' rights so much.  It is a check on leviathan.

----------


## Pericles

> Not necessarily a bad thing, though.  The paranoid fear of a "patchwork of laws" is one reason Federalists and neo-Federalists hate individual rights and States' rights so much.  It is a check on leviathan.


But that patchwork has a few quirks - such as the states that prohibited interracial marriage - a couple could be married in one state and not recognized in another.

The difference in theory with licensed to practiced law example is that the bar exam should be state specific - testing knowledge of the laws of that state ....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But that patchwork has a few quirks - such as the states that prohibited interracial marriage - a couple could be married in one state and not recognized in another.
> 
> The difference in theory with licensed to practiced law example is that the bar exam should be state specific - testing knowledge of the laws of that state ....


Meh.  If religion had been a strictly religious ceremony then, the technicalities would've been handled by churches.  There was a time when churches were responsible for lots of documentation. (some still do a lot)

----------


## euphemia

Churches were handling it.  In fact, a church record is considered a very reliable record in the genealogical world.  

This time is when the Federal Government was beginning its power grab.  There were many churches that officially never discriminated on the basis of race.  The church was on the cutting edge of the abolition movement.  It was the federal government that criminalized abolition.  Not only could slaves who escaped be arrested and returned to their owners, but those who aided and abetted faced penalty as well.

There might have been some churches that practiced discrimination, but there has never been a time when all churches practiced it.  The Federal Government has to own institutionalized and codified racism.

----------


## Origanalist

> Blah blah blah.  You're a blithering troll without a consistent argument and this type of fake "constitutional" dribble is what's wrong with this country.  Gunny is right.  You really aren't worthy of anything but sharpening arguments against.
> 
> Edit: And you are the one that's making the stupid argument that somehow sexual preference = gender.  If the courts bought into such bullscat the results would be exactly as I've stated.  Anyone with half a brain knows that.  The way to marriage "equality" is to get the government out of it.


Exactly why I stayed out of it.....

----------


## maybemaybenot

> This is Communist philosophy.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a Communist forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Ron Paul has even harsher words for it. This is a Ron Paul forum, after all.   Perhaps you would be more comfortable on Communist forum.
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?  The Second Amendment "incorporates" itself.  The 14th is irrelevant.
> ...


Lol I'm not a communist for saying the state owns you. That's the most libertarian thing I could say. You'll never hear a non-libertarian say "the state owns you." I didn't say I liked it. And my pt was that the government's monopolistic nature makes any religious endorsement a discriminatory/special endorsement that violates the establishment clause (absent neutrality/pluralism/inclusiveness). You would have responded to my actual argument, but to do that you would need to formulate a rational thought, and you can't.

Its one thing to say I'm wrong to say the fourteenth amendment incorporates the bill of rights (even though there's actual evidence for this, and its the only way to give the text any meaning), like SCOTUS says. Its another thing to call me ignorant and misled or something, and then not follow it up with any facts. I stated the popular AND evidence-based view, and ppl just insult and condescend w/o backing it up. I have yet to hear the argument. And I'm sick of hearing "Ron Paul says" without any facts/evidence/quote; if what he said made any sense you would be able to say it for yourself. But you can't, because you can't remember what he says, because you have no idea what the f we're talking about. *And btw, the First Amendment explicitly references Congress, leaving out the states, so you're just wrong.
*
Yes, the second amendment does not say "no state shall," because in the context of the late 1800's, it would be outrageous to think states would take away ppl's guns, because private gun ownership WAS law and order. The fear was that the national govt would start a permanent standing army, something that they really were suspicious of at the time, and hence it became foreseeable that the federal govt might take way ppl's guns. Further, the entire bill of rights was in response to a fear of unlimited, stretched federal power, it was meant for the federal govt. The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states, even though a iiteral reading of the second amendment doesn't include "state" in it specifically. If anything the right to bear arms relative to state government was in the tenth amendment specifically, since it was an existing state right. *Finally, even if the second amendment was intended to protect us from the states, IT FAILED TO DO SO, states DID take away blacks' weapons, and hence the fourteenth amendment's incorporation of the bill of rights was still necessary.* Two laws saying the same thing is not a weird contradiction when they're a hundred yrs apart and the first law was ignored by the courts, it makes re-passage of the law necessary (since the legal route failed).

And can someone actually explain how the fourteenth did not create birthright citizenship? It says it in plain terms. You're going to argue a pure, literal interpretation of the second amendment, but not the fourteenth? The fourteenth has empty, meaningless clauses?




> Most people have no clue about liberty and think it's created by the government. Kind of like the troll that started this thread.


Source?




> Exactly why I stayed out of it.....


Oh look at that, yet another idiot turning to condescension because he can't respond to my argument. Are you also going to argue that the fourteenth amendment is nothing but a floor mat?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I'm not a communist for saying the state owns you.


That is Communist philosophy.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable at a Communist forum.




> And I'm sick of hearing "Ron Paul says"


You wouldn't read that at all if you bothered to educate yourself with what Ron Paul says.  This is a Ron Paul forum, after all.  You should start there and then tell us where he's wrong.  But your starting point isn't Ron Paul, it's totalitarianism.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a Communist forum.




> *And btw, the First Amendment explicitly references Congress, leaving out the states, so you're just wrong.
> *


We were discussing the Second Amendment.  "1" and "2" are different numbers.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a remedial pre-K math forum.





> And can someone actually explain how the fourteenth did not create birthright citizenship? {sic}


Ron Paul can.  You really should read what Ron Paul has said on this. This is a Ron Paul forum, after all. Then again, perhaps you would be more comfortable on Communist forum.




> The fourteenth has empty, meaningless clauses?


It does not.  You should stop arguing that it does.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lol I'm not a communist for saying the state owns you. That's the most libertarian thing I could say. You'll never hear a non-libertarian say "the state owns you."


Oh really?




Anyway, your philosophy on this explains a lot.




> And my pt was that the government's monopolistic nature makes any religious endorsement a discriminatory/special endorsement that violates the establishment clause (absent neutrality/pluralism/inclusiveness).


I get it.  You don't like it...except for when you do.  So we don't have an official U.S. Bible.  But different religious groups have endorsed different Bibles.  I guess that's a violation of the establishment clause?  Oh but you put that "absent neutrality/pluralism/inclusiveness" parenthetical in there.  Nobody has argued that marriages should be the realm of any one religion.  In fact everyone has even said if atheists want to get married under the auspices of whatever it is they choose that's fine.  Again, the "bar mitzvah" example I gave.  (And yes there are atheists that go through a bar mitzvah".  A bar mitzvah is merely a "coming of age" ceremony.  There are all sorts of coming of age ceremonies that have absolutely nothing to do with the government.  (The "government coming of age" ceremony is to force young men to register for the draft.)  The fact that bar mitzahs aren't recognized by the government doesn't "establish" anything.  Now if the law was "Once you've had a bar mitzvah you must have this government benefit or that government liability" the libertarian thing to do would be to push to get the government out of bar mitzvahs.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> That is Communist philosophy.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable at a Communist forum.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't read that at all if you bothered to educate yourself with what Ron Paul says.  This is a Ron Paul forum, after all.  You should start there and then tell us where he's wrong.  But your starting point isn't Ron Paul, it's totalitarianism.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a Communist forum.
> 
> 
> 
> We were discussing the Second Amendment.  "1" and "2" are different numbers.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a remedial pre-K math forum.
> ...


So you want ME to find the Ron Paul quote that YOU are relying on? No, that's not how it works, you go find your own logic for yourself. You're not persuading me by telling me to go find an argument that you're too lazy or ignorant to make for yourself. And I don't just hand my brain over to Ron Paul like a f'n drone.

And again, what does the fourteenth amendment mean, then? If it didn't incorporate the bill of rights? I know YOU are talking about the second amendment, but obviously you're using Paul's argument that the bill of rights in general wasn't incorporated by the fourteenth.

Lol and it doesn't make me communist to say the government owns us. That's me my identifying everything I hate about the world, like when the govt uses my money to endorse homophobia. I don't like it, its just the truth. When the government endorses a religious practice (like heterosexual marriage only, an explicit endorsement of particular persons' religious views, the only argument made on this thread or anywhere else to justify the policy of hetero marriage only), they're doing it with my money, against my will, AND "my money" was a stupid board game token they're forcing me to use. I don't like it, I hate it, but its true, and you refuse to respond to the argument itself. Due to the govt's monopolistic nature, endorsing a religious practice (without being inclusive/neutral/plural) violates the establishment clause.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

OP is a big government troll.  Notice that he came on RPF to post about two issues.

I did not even read any of his crap after it was clear right from the beginning that he's just another big gov advocate uninterested in liberty.  He claims that government should not be involved in marriage, but this line is baloney.  

Neg reps all around for this clown.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> So you want ME to find the Ron Paul quote


It's not "a quote," it is legislation he introduced in several Congresses.  It it is not my job to give you a remedial education.  

How it works is, before you log on to a website called RON PAUL FORUMS and start lecturing everyone about the 14th Amendment, it is your job to familiarize yourself with what Ron Paul thinks about the 14th Amendment.  

That is what a decent, sincere person would do.  Your rank ignorance and failure to do so only identifies you as a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Look, the war on drugs isn't going to go away, and to keep insisting that government shouldn't be involved in  the war on drugs simply ignores reality. The issue is, given that  the war on drugs exists, can the government refuse to allow alcohol to be included in it? So far, no one has come up with a cogent reason why the state shouldn't be able to do so.


The analogy is hopelessly misplaced.  In the alcohol/drug case, no one's rights are being infringed by excluding alcohol from the war on drugs, and users of alcohol aren't asking the government to ban it.  In the gay marriage case, people whose right to equal protection is being infringed are asking to be included in the civil marriage system.

----------


## jmdrake

> The analogy is hopelessly misplaced.  In the alcohol/drug case, no one's rights are being infringed by excluding alcohol from the war on drugs, and users of alcohol aren't asking the government to ban it.  In the gay marriage case, people whose right to equal protection is being infringed are asking to be included in the civil marriage system.


And if the civil marriage system as it now stands is done away with these people's "rights" are infringed upon how exactly?  Seriously?  I am confused as to why this silly thread has gone on so long or what exactly it is that you want?  Nobody in this thread has argued for the current state of things to be codified permanently.  Nobody is asking for a "marriage amendment" or the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas (striking down of sodomy laws) or anything else.  All Gunny and I and others are saying is that this movement should stick its principles of seeking to reduce the size of government and through that the "marriage equality" issue is solved.  Period.  If you want to expand the federal role in marriage by expanding the definition of marriage as the way forward, there are tons of big government democrats and republicans that support your cause.  Why not spend your time rallying them?

Edit: And for the record, Gunny's analogy was *not* misplaced.  That it went over your head apparently is not his fault.  The point he was making is that either we believe we can make a difference on reducing the size and scope of the federal government or we don't.  If we get rid of the income tax that takes a *huge* chunk out of the marriage issue.  In fact the marriage/health insurance issue is largely a bi-product of the tax system.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you want ME to find the Ron Paul quote that YOU are relying on?


If I give you the quote will you shut up already?

----------


## maybemaybenot

> It's not "a quote," it is legislation he introduced in several Congresses. It it is not my job to give you a remedial education. 
> 
> How it works is, before you log on to a website called RON PAUL FORUMS and start lecturing everyone about the 14th Amendment, it is your job to familiarize yourself with what Ron Paul thinks about the 14th Amendment. 
> 
> That is what a decent, sincere person would do. Your rank ignorance and failure to do so only identifies you as a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.


I disagree.




> If I give you the quote will you shut up already?


Lol finally someone actually states the Ron Paul position that they keep insulting me for not knowing. His argument here (since you're unable to articulate it yourself) is that ppl born here to illegal immigrants are not under U.S. "jurisdiction," but that's retarded. *U.S. (state) courts can deport illegal immigrants precisely because they have jurisdiction over them.* Jurisdiction refers to a court's power to hear/enforce a dispute. In Texas, an illegal immigrant is *violating* our laws, because our laws cover that jurisdiction, hence our courts and law enforcement can (but idiotically don't) deport ppl for being here illegally. The fact that they're here *illegally* refers to the fact that they're under U.S. jurisdiction. To say that they're not under our jurisdiction is to say that all illegal immigrants are actually here legally by extending their nation's sovereignty into U.S. sovereignty.

Oh, and this argument about birthright citizenship has nothing to do with the equal protection clause, even if its correct. So... I'm not sure if this is the vague Ron Paul/fourteenth amendment position other ppl keep referring to, but refuse to articulate because they can't remember. But of course they keep insulting me for not knowing their argument... when they don't know their own argument.




> OP is a big government troll. Notice that he came on RPF to post about two issues.
> 
> I did not even read any of his crap after it was clear right from the beginning that he's just another big gov advocate uninterested in liberty. He claims that government should not be involved in marriage, but this line is baloney. 
> 
> Neg reps all around for this clown.





> And if the civil marriage system as it now stands is done away with these people's "rights" are infringed upon how exactly? Seriously? I am confused as to why this silly thread has gone on so long or what exactly it is that you want? Nobody in this thread has argued for the current state of things to be codified permanently. Nobody is asking for a "marriage amendment" or the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas (striking down of sodomy laws) or anything else. All Gunny and I and others are saying is that this movement should stick its principles of seeking to reduce the size of government and through that the "marriage equality" issue is solved. Period. If you want to expand the federal role in marriage by expanding the definition of marriage as the way forward, there are tons of big government democrats and republicans that support your cause. Why not spend your time rallying them?
> 
> Edit: And for the record, Gunny's analogy was *not* misplaced. That it went over your head apparently is not his fault. The point he was making is that either we believe we can make a difference on reducing the size and scope of the federal government or we don't. If we get rid of the income tax that takes a *huge* chunk out of the marriage issue. In fact the marriage/health insurance issue is largely a bi-product of the tax system.


Again, these arguments here are for shrinking government, and ignoring the constitution. You wanna say we should ignore the constitution to push for liberty, that's a valid argument. But to say that state-sanctioned same-sex marriage isn't guaranteed under the constitution (since hetero marriage is in every state/territory) is to ignore the constitution. Which is precisely why your arguments against state-sanctioned same-sex marriage literally ignore the constitution. *As to jmdrake's argument that no right is violated when someone can't government-marry someone, this ignores the constitutional/legal conception of rights, which includes the constitutional right of U.S. citizens to sue in federal court to have the U.S. constitution enforced, which includes the right to equal protection.* You may not care about that right, but the U.S. constitution guarantees that legal right/privilege/power/ability/whatever. That means that if a man can marry a woman (sanctioned by the state), then a woman can marry a woman (sanctioned by the state). That's not the libertarian position, its just what the constitution says.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Which is precisely why your arguments against state-sanctioned same-sex marriage literally ignore the constitution...You may not care about that right, but the U.S. constitution guarantees that legal right/privilege/power/ability/whatever.



Your foundation of definition is sloppy and erroneous.  There is no such thing as "literally" ignoring the constitution.  Terms such as "right," and "privilege" are not interchangeable.  You certainly don't swap them with "whatever."  There is also no such thing as a constitutional "guarantee" of privilege, power, ability, and your other "whatevers."  The word does not even apply.






> ...which includes the right to equal protection. ....the constitutional right of U.S. citizens to sue in federal court....which includes the right to equal protection.


These items are not rights.  There is no such thing as "gay rights."  It's fine you want to cite privileges, protections, exemptions, and your "whatevers," but they are not "rights" or "equal rights."

You have a difference in values stemming from this erroneous idea that the constitution grants rights.  You simply wish to apply the constitution so that you can lick the king's boot like everyone else does.  You are opting into a privilege.  So be it, but your invocations have nothing to do with liberty and rights, the constitution notwithstanding.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Now that I think of it--the OP is starting to sound quite familiar.  One line--one word, actually--got my attention.  

And OP, I noticed that you did not answer my question about why you're here.  I'm guessing he won't answer.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Your foundation of definition is sloppy and erroneous.  There is no such thing as "literally" ignoring the constitution.  Terms such as "right," and "privilege" are not interchangeable.  You certainly don't swap them with "whatever."  There is also no such thing as a constitutional "guarantee" of privilege, power, ability, and your other "whatevers."  The word does not even apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These items are not rights.  There is no such thing as "gay rights."  It's fine you want to cite privileges, protections, exemptions, and your "whatevers," but they are not "rights" or "equal rights."
> 
> You have a difference in values stemming from this erroneous idea that the constitution grants rights.  You simply wish to apply the constitution so that you can lick the king's boot like everyone else does.  You are opting into a privilege.  So be it, but your invocations have nothing to do with liberty and rights, the constitution notwithstanding.


So... you don't think US citizens can sue in federal court to have the constitution enforced?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So... you don't think US citizens can sue in federal court to have the constitution enforced?


Where did I say that?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

What's the matter, troll boy?  Thinking about your next move?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Successful troll is successful.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Yep, PRB logged out, just as it is his style in our early morning conversations.  How's it going, PRB?  Thought you would elude me in the subforums that I don't visit?  Heh heh, fat chance, troll boy.  I'm on you like a fly on $#@! because that is how bad you smell.  So you can cut the crap now because your game is up.  Again.

Still trying to figure out that lone word that gave you away?  Don't know it?  Then you better work harder, bub.  You know that changing up your writing style occasionally is not that hard.  You know what _IS_ difficult?  Maintaining your fake writing.  No matter how hard you try--you eventually revert.  And that is what you did here.  The pitiful thing about you is that it did not take that long.  That's because you are lazy.  And really.  That avatar.  What is that--Hulk Hogan and his New World Order?  Very cute.  Do you know why that avatar is one of the things that gave you away?  I'll give you a reverse hint.  It is not because it actually says NWO.

If anybody wants to compare PRB with Josh_LA, then just do a search on their threads.  That's an easy one.  Didn't bother to change anything.  

And PRB, you have + repped me 10 times while I have neg repped you 10 times.  Nice try.  You simply + rep me so that you can + rep your sock puppet accounts (remember, you have to give three reps to others before you can rep the same person again).

The moderators could run an IP check on PRB, Josh_LA, TheCount, and this MaybeNot clown, but I'd guess he uses proxy.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Where did I say that?


Oh, so when you were bitching and whining about right/privilege/power/ability, you were saying the equal protection clause was meaningless? Because you don't think its a "right" to equal protection, the equal protection is just meaningless ink to you? And if you think US citizens can sue in federal court, what do you call that? A right, a privilege, what? I'm purposely combining them to avoid the semantic argument, because none of those words appear in the equal protection or article III judicial power to enforce the constitution, so when you bitch and whine about which word to use, you're evading the real issue. The equal protection clause exists, and its enforceable, whether you want to call it a right or a privilege or whatever

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I disagree.


Of course you do -- you are a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.




> that's retarded.


Wow, so now you're logging on the Ron Paul Forum to call Ron Paul "retarded."  You really are  a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

If you wish to no longer be an ignorant $#@!, you should probably read the Congressional record of the debate of the 14th's framers such as Sen. Trumbull.  That might help you learn something about jurisdiction.




> Oh, and this argument about birthright citizenship has nothing to do with the equal protection clause,


Well, you shouldn't have brought it up then.  The two issues are related because you started ranting here and insulting people about both of them while being wholly ignorant of Ron Paul's position.   It is that rank ignorance which identifies you as a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I'm purposely combining them to avoid the semantic argument,...



You're combining them because you like to obfuscate.  There is no semantics.  The difference between a human being who is born and human being as a US citizen is the different between right and privilege.  You know it, but you are muddling the issue.

Are you miffed now because I found out your identity? You mentioned Gaza as a $#@!hole in the other thread. Been to Gaza, PRB? Like to really, really fight hard? 

What organization do your represent, PRB. How about your buddy, Zippy Juan, who also lives in Southern California where you live?  Is the Jewish organization that pays you in Southern California too, or do you just work remotely? 

Ever get a look a ZippyJuan's photography? His name would be Jeffry Zelt. Do you know him, PRB? What is the origin of his name?

You think you're slick? You can't even cover your tracks because simple google searching brings it all up. Zippy even just posted that he went to school with some famous IQ guy born in 1960. That would make him about 53 years old, the approximate age of one Jeffry Zelt.

You come on this board like liberty people are some kind of big threat to you? What a joke. You're so paranoid that you have to troll forums to try to set the record straight. Do you actually even get paid or is this some kind of survival instinct for you?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

It becomes pretty clear now.  ZippyJuan.  PRB.  This MaybeNot clown profile.  I knew there was some connection with their longstanding presence on this forum.  It all makes sense now.

----------


## jmdrake

> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol finally someone actually states the Ron Paul position that they keep insulting me for not knowing. His argument here (since you're unable to articulate it yourself) is that ppl born here to illegal immigrants are not under U.S. "jurisdiction," but that's retarded.


Oh shut up liar!  You were asking for the Ron Paul quote, not for his position to be "articulated".  I provided you the quote.  Go go crawl back under whatever bridge you crawled out of.




> Again, these arguments here are for shrinking government, and ignoring the constitution.


No they aren't troll.  They are embracing the constitution.  You are the one ignoring the constitution.  Or rather you are the one twisting it beyond recognition.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lies and/or bs from maybemabynot


Trollin trollin trollin....keep those posts a flowin..act like you be knowin...troll onnnnnn!

You jumped the shark when you asked for a Ron Paul quote and then attacked me for giving you the quote on the false pretense that I could not "articulate" his position when you didn't ask for his position to be articulated.

----------


## Pericles

> Hmmmmm....doctor's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Attorney's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  Contractors licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next.  The reason marriage licenses have to be recognized is....?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fa..._Credit_Clause


No real reason - just convenience. Like with concealed handguns what might be legal in one state can be a crime in another state.

It is generally helpful for the law to be internally consistent and rational - but we have ample evidence that it is not.

Of course, I would tend to be adverse to state licensing of professions ..... or requiring the obtaining a license as a requirement to practice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I actually don't really have a problem with birthright citizenship, at least as far as citizenship itself should be a concept (I don't see why it would be in an anarcho-capitalist society.)  And even if illegal immigration is a real (ie. non-victimless) crime, as I know is disputed in libertarian circles, I don't see why children who are born in the US should be punished for what their parent did.  I didn't listen to Ron's comments yet (I will later when I have time) but my initial thought would be to disagree with him on this point.  There are a ton of other stuff I object to in the 14th, though.

----------


## maybemaybenot

Okay, what do you guys think equal protection means? You like to get bogged down in semantics about rights/privileges/etc., well what does the equal protection clause mean to you ppl, then? I've given my interpretation, I said it means every individual gets equal rights, the only exceptions being when they conflict with other constitutional rights (which do include tenth amendment unwritten rights, the tenth amendment plainly says there are additional unwritten rights). The equal protection clause says that if men can marry women, then women can marry women. How is that not the case? What is the equal protection clause, if its not a clause that says the government have to treat individuals the same?

There are currently gender discriminatory rules which SCOTUS does not allow due to the equal protection clause: gender separate schools, gender-specific voting rights, etc. Meanwhile, SCOTUS has allowed certain gender discriminatory rules because those rules were necessary due to OTHER constitutional rights: gender-specific bathrooms are based on the right to privacy (4th amendment), association, liberty (which includes bodily privacy). Gender-specific sex education involves the same rights. Only allowing men to marry women violates the plain meaning of the equal protection, just like gender-specific bathrooms; unlike gender-specific bathrooms, however, a bigoted marriage policy is not necessitated by other constitutional rights. It just violates the equal protection clause and that's that.

But go ahead and scream at me for being a communist who doesn't belong here, and make sure to ignore the constitution entirely when making your case. You know, cuz acknowledging the equal protection clause makes someone a communist.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Okay, what do you guys think equal protection means? You like to get bogged down in semantics about rights/privileges/etc., well what does the equal protection clause mean to you ppl, then? I've given my interpretation, I said it means every individual gets equal rights, the only exceptions being when they conflict with other constitutional rights (which do include tenth amendment unwritten rights, the tenth amendment plainly says there are additional unwritten rights). The equal protection clause says that if men can marry women, then women can marry women. How is that not the case? What is the equal protection clause, if its not a clause that says the government have to treat individuals the same?
> 
> There are currently gender discriminatory rules which SCOTUS does not allow due to the equal protection clause: gender separate schools, gender-specific voting rights, etc. Meanwhile, SCOTUS has allowed certain gender discriminatory rules because those rules were necessary due to OTHER constitutional rights: gender-specific bathrooms are based on the right to privacy (4th amendment), association, liberty (which includes bodily privacy). Gender-specific sex education involves the same rights. Only allowing men to marry women violates the plain meaning of the equal protection, just like gender-specific bathrooms; unlike gender-specific bathrooms, however, a bigoted marriage policy is not necessitated by other constitutional rights. It just violates the equal protection clause and that's that.
> 
> But go ahead and scream at me for being a communist who doesn't belong here, and make sure to ignore the constitution entirely when making your case. You know, cuz acknowledging the equal protection clause makes someone a communist.



Probably should've just called yourself _Maybe Not_.















.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Not really.  There were marriages long before the institution became involved with religion.  The issue isn't whether the government can force a religious body to marry a same-sex couple (it can't), but whether the government can discriminate against such couples by refusing to allow them to be married in a civil ceremony.


as I see it, the government has no constitutional power to grant special exceptions (specifically taxation) for married persons. The federal government has no authority to sanction nor deny a marriage and is therefore neither a 1st nor 14th amendment issue.  But Im open to discuss

----------


## Swordsmyth

Marriage has a definition that is centuries old, if any government wants to give a Q ueer couple similar benefits it should have to create "civil unions".

----------


## euphemia

> Yes, government based marriage should be banned.


I agree with you in principle, Gunny, but not in practice.  In todays terms marriage has a contractual element to it with regard to property ownership and custody of minor children.  We cannot ask a pastor, priest, or rabbi to marry people who asked to be joined outside the doctrine or confession of the church.  

It has been many years since church records were considered official for anything.

----------


## TommyJeff

> I agree with you in principle, Gunny, but not in practice.  In today’s terms marriage has a contractual element to it with regard to property ownership and custody of minor children.  We cannot ask a pastor, priest, or rabbi to marry people who asked to be joined outside the doctrine or confession of the church.  
> 
> It has been many years since church records were considered official for anything.


this can be solved with a contract between two parties....the government can be involved if enforcement of the contract is necessary, as is their responsibility.  What more Is needed?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I agree with you in principle, Gunny, but not in practice.  In today’s terms marriage has a contractual element to it with regard to property ownership and custody of minor children.  We cannot ask a pastor, priest, or rabbi to marry people who asked to be joined outside the doctrine or confession of the church.  
> 
> It has been many years since church records were considered official for anything.


Why not simply write powers of attorney for each other instead of begging the government for permission to love one another?

----------

