morris84 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sorry, you lost me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Citizens in all 50 states sign petitions to secede from United States http://www.examiner.com/article/citizens-all-50-states-sign-petitions-to-secede-from-united-states are they being violently imposed upon? was the Civil War wrong? you can't please everyone....you can make them take it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morris84 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 What is your argument? That using force and violence to push your values on others is acceptable behaviour? All I'm saying is that I do not agree with this sort of behaviour and your replies to me seem to be that this kind of behaviour is something that you support. Is that true? Are you ok with violent behaviour used against people who wish to be married with someone of the same sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 force is integral to a state,and violence is standard to subdue the unruly.....how much simply depends on how much power the state is allowed. in this matter someone is going to have others values imposed on them(a direct result of the state power over marriage) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morris84 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 force is integral to a state,and violence is standard to subdue the unruly.....how much simply depends on how much power the state is allowed.in this matter someone is going to have others values imposed on them(a direct result of the state power over marriage) Your reply here is pretty much what I said in my first couple of replies to this thread, just different words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Your reply here is pretty much what I said in my first couple of replies to this thread, just different words. Yes.....as I said, Loving didn't decide this obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Some would say that is the purpose of the state....to impose the will of others (for your own good or their own ) Some would say that the purpose of the state is to protect freedom and liberty. If you seek to deny freedom and liberty to others, you will find yourself imposed upon by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Some would say that the purpose of the state is to protect freedom and liberty. If you seek to deny freedom and liberty to others, you will find yourself imposed upon by the state. I thought it was the state denying them? I like your concept,but what you describe is not the govt I deal with daily have they lost their purpose ,or just multitasking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I thought it was the state denying them?I like your concept,but what you describe is not the govt I deal with daily have they lost their purpose ,or just multitasking? Maybe it's just trying to find a balance between freedoms and liberties of different entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Some would say that is the purpose of the state....to impose the will of others (for your own good or their own )but it is nice to know all those bigots have simply ignored reality all these yrs,while the true believers know the right of it. Yeah Loving vs Virginia was decided in (1967) and over turned Pace v. Alabama (1883), So it took about 85 years for the supreme court to decide that penalizing a white and black person equally for inter marriage is still discriminating against a minority under the equal protection clause. One correction though... The reason we don't live in a democracy but rather a constitutional republic is because of democracies proclivity to expose minorities to the tyranny of the majority. It's why none of the founding father wished to set up a democracy.. because a democracy murdered Socrates and the founding fathers believed them little better than mob rule... That's why Jefferson wrote certain unalienable rights passed down from God which all citizens regardless of race creed or religion had which could not be taken from them; even by popular vote. One of these rights is codified under the 14th ammendment...the equal protection clause... 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. Not even if it's politically popular to do so.---------- Post added December-12th-2012 at 01:19 PM ---------- Some would say that the purpose of the state is to protect freedom and liberty. If you seek to deny freedom and liberty to others, you will find yourself imposed upon by the state. No, I would say the purpose of the Constitution and the purpose of the Supreme court are to safeguard individual rights and explicitly curb the authority of states and the federal government when they impose themselves upon those rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 you go balancing things and all the burden rests on the middle does that not encourage the fringe to expand ,thus making attempts at equality a burden on the middle? what's the load rating on this critter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 you go balancing things and all the burden rests on the middlehttp://bowtielaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/scales-balance.jpg does that not encourage the fringe to expand ,thus making attempts at equality a burden on the middle? what's the load rating on this critter Yes absolutely all the weight goes on the population, not disproportionately on any one minority. Example... If I'm expanding route 66 and I'm taking peoples land in order to improve this important road.. Well then I can certainly take individuals lands proximal to the road even if those people are Jewish, Hispanic or African America; but what I can't do is say I'm taking all the Jewish, Hispanic , or African American property while not taking land from say protestants or whites. The population bares the weight of laws by Constitutional mandates, any law which disproportionately punishes minorities or worse purposely and deliberately is focused on a minority is unconstitutional... DOMA is by definition ( see section 3) 1 such law. It's entire purpose is to discriminate against those folks who got married in one of the 9 states which currently allow such marriages to occur. Folk who were legally married under state law now facing a discriminatory federal law trying to usurp state authority. Entirely because those folks belong to a minority those passing the law don't like. 5 cases and 9 different lower court rulings all thus found DOMA unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 next you are going to tell me we are all equal under the law ROTFLMAO I thought this was funny http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2012/46_see_federal_gov_t_as_threat_to_rights_45_as_protector 46% See Federal Gov't As Threat to Rights, 45% As Protector 75% of Democrats say protector, and 75% of Republicans say threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 next you are going to tell me we are all equal under the law ROTFLMAOI thought this was funny http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2012/46_see_federal_gov_t_as_threat_to_rights_45_as_protector 46% See Federal Gov't As Threat to Rights, 45% As Protector 75% of Democrats say protector, and 75% of Republicans say threat. No we are not all equal under the law. But we do have the right to be treated equally under the law independent of race, religion or creed. Isn't it interesting here that it is the Republicans leading the charge to infringe and yet again roll back peoples constitutional rights in order to pander to some populist cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Which constitutional right would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Based on Bush v. Gore which handed the 2000 election to Bush based on 14th Amendment equal protection, the Supremes can rule for same sex marriage based on 14th Amendment equal protection, just like Loving v. Virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Which constitutional right would that be? The lower courts which found DOMA unconstitutional 9 times found it in violation of the following constitutional amendments. 10th Amendment - Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.) . Spending Clause -(Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 ) The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; 14th Amendment - The Equal Protection Clause - 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Based on Bush v. Gore which handed the 2000 election to Bush based on 14th Amendment equal protection, the Supremes can rule for same sex marriage based on 14th Amendment equal protection, just like Loving v. Virginia. They can rule (either way) using a number of justifications JMS, care to say why DOMA is still in effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 JMS, care to say why DOMA is still in effect? I don't think you can make the claim it's "still in effect" at least not all of it.. Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in eight different federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration. Some of these courts have ruled it unconstitutional multiple times now. It is true that some of these judgements have been put on hold and some have set aside any action for a time until the case could be appealed to a higher court. But not all of them. Hell the justice department isn't even defending DOMA in these court cases any longer. Ultimately though the supreme court now that it has agreed to hear this case will have the final say. I think that is kind of like the sword of Damocles hanging over DOMA which truthfully was known to be unconstitutional the day it passed into law. I don't think the ominous suspension of the cleaver over the neck of this law can really be used to validate this law.. I think it's more a property of how our judicial process works. I also think it's worth saying that the one of the two men who have masterminded the attack on DOMA is Ted Olson who was George W. Bush's top lawyer and who argued the 2000 Bush v. Gore case. Other notable republicans against DOMA include. former RNC head Ken Mehlman, Dick Cheney, John Bolton Margaret Hoover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 It is the law of the land and determinative in federal benefits paid yet not in effect?....odd wouldn't it be funny if they decide DOMA is beyond their sphere? at the court’s invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it’s improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples. http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/news/139786/court_asks_lawyer_to_argue_special_doma_question__ not that it is likely LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 It is the law of the land and determinative in federal benefits paid yet not in effect?.. The courts have the final say in what is the law of the land or rather what is not the law of the land; and they are in the process of speaking... in an overwhelming fashion. wouldn't it be funny if they decide DOMA is beyond their sphere? at the court’s invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it’s improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples. http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/news/139786/court_asks_lawyer_to_argue_special_doma_question__ not that it is likely LOL Yeah highly unlikely in my humble opinion. The supreme court saying they have no mandate on constitutional grounds is absurd... coarse it is an argument folks make from time to time.. But it's kind of like Obama asking congress to give him the power to raise the debt ceiling because they are incompetent at it and caused our credit rating to go down. It might make perfect sense from Obama's position, but no branch of government is going to willingly give up it's authority.. I could see the supreme court upholding DOMA or over ruling it but I would be amazed if they agreed to hear the case and then found they had no jurisdiction. The supreme court definitely has the authority to strike down state laws even state constitutional amendments via the Supremacy Clause, (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 As an aside, the Congress has given up its War Powers to the President, so yes, they will cede their power to the executive. Which I consider unConstitutional, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 yet marriage has always been solely under state authority rather than federal, which would leave simply reciprocation and the feds ability to determine benefits paid open it could be interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 yet marriage has always been solely under state authority rather than federal, which would leave simply reciprocation and the feds ability to determine benefits paid openit could be interesting Exactly right and now that 9 states are saying same sex marriage is legal... the federal government can't do an end run around those states and say No.. Not for the soul reason because they want to persecute a minority. The sticky wicket is also that now that some states allow it, folks have gotten married legally in those states... states which after the fact decide they do not want to allow it can't say no anymore. Now when they try to outlaw same sex marriage as California did with a constitutional amendment; it's legally much harder for them to do so. Now they have to prove they aren't in violation of the equal protection clause, because they are taking away a right which these folks had, not legislating the status quo. That's why California's anti same sex marriage referendum was disqualified by the states.. Because people can't vote to take away other peoples rights once they have those rights legally. It's unconstitutional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 and yet the feds can say federal marriage benefits were passed based on one man ,one woman marriages and keep it that way unlikely of course....but then a state granted right is not a federal one (such as the age issue earlier),nor controlling if opposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.