Gay marriage guaranteed under originalism/strict constructionism

[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 "fuck". If you mean "FUCK 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 "fuck"? 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 "fuck 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 shithole. 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. Like 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_Faith_and_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. Like 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.



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.

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?