Gay marriage guaranteed under originalism/strict constructionism

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.
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.















.
 
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
 
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".
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Back
Top