Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[USFREEDOM911]

I didn't "equate" anything you fucking retarded MORON!

Everyone knows you attempted it; but failed.
That's because you're so stupid; you couldn't find your way out of a paperbag, if you had a map and the exit was marked.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not correct. You need to go look up the word "discrimination" and try to understand, we routinely "discriminate" all the fucking time! We are not allowed to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, creed, religion, or national origin. The right to due process is not being denied to gay people in this argument, if anything, the right to due process is being denied to those who wish to prohibit gay marriage!!!




I never claimed it was, again you are deliberately attempting to misconstrue something I said for the sake of being right in an argument. It's silly and childish, and you need to stop it. The "age of consent" (regardless of what that age might be in any state) is an arbitrary age we determined and set into law! It is not a scientific or natural point at which anything transpires physically or mentally with an individual, it is a point WE ESTABLISHED based on our morals and ethics.



Well, at first you said it was a 'guideline' and you were going to go through them one by one, when you got to this one, you claimed it was silly for me to be pointing out it was a rule and not a guideline. I don't know what the fuck you are smoking in your crack pipe, but it is obviously deteriorating your brain rapidly!



I never said it was equivalent to any and all distinctions, just that it was part of the parameters of marriage, along with being a single male and female of the opposite sex.



*sigh* The link you gave confirms exactly what I stated to be the case.



Again, the word "consent" can be 'redefined', if we can 'redefine' marriage! What you claim is or isn't 'consent' at this time, becomes irrelevant... Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman... at this time.



You're damn straight the meaning of marriage is not being changed. Gay people can call their thing something else. State interest is self evident, the people of the state reject Gay Marriage! End of discussion! The State holds NO power to supersede the will of the people!



The People oppose it, that is reason enough!



The People oppose it! That is the "reason" to prohibit it.



I'll tell ya what "state action" you'll get from Alabama, an almost unanimous vote to ratify a Constitutional amendment protecting Traditional Marriage. You keep shoving this shit down people's throat, and that is what will happen. If you don't believe me, just keep pushing for it, and we'll see! There are CONSIDERABLY more people opposed to changing traditional marriage to include homosexuals, than those who wish to see Gay Marriage become law of the land. That is why you are having to completely ABANDON libertarian principles to avoid admitting we should all get to vote on it.

Would that be the 80%, that you eventually admitted was a BS number that you just made up??

 

[Timshel]

Not correct. You need to go look up the word "discrimination" and try to understand, we routinely "discriminate" all the fucking time! We are not allowed to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, creed, religion, or national origin. The right to due process is not being denied to gay people in this argument, if anything, the right to due process is being denied to those who wish to prohibit gay marriage!!!

Not correct. Go read the 14th, nothing in it about race, creed, color or national origin (which we can discriminate against until they become citizens). Debates on the 14th show that the listing you gave is superfluous and predicted your dishonest interpretation of the listing, would lead to trouble. So they did not include it.

We cannot discriminate against a class of people unless it serves a valid state interest. For instance, you could argue that rapists are a class of people. However, laws against rape serve a valid state interest, in protecting the rights of the individual, and it is not allowed simply because it is deviant behavior. Some of the things you list could be deviant behavior.

The right to due process is being denied as you are restraining a fundamental liberty without just cause.

I never claimed it was, again you are deliberately attempting to misconstrue something I said for the sake of being right in an argument. It's silly and childish, and you need to stop it. The "age of consent" (regardless of what that age might be in any state) is an arbitrary age we determined and set into law! It is not a scientific or natural point at which anything transpires physically or mentally with an individual, it is a point WE ESTABLISHED based on our morals and ethics.

You said...

No, it's not. Homosexuals should be free to marry anyone of legal age, who consents and is alive, not related to them closer than 2nd cousin, and of the opposite sex... the same criteria we require for ALL marriage, because that is what MARRIAGE is!

Your argument is that we cannot change THE definition of marriage and then you gave your definition. But the definition you gave is the result of several changes and is not universal.

Well, at first you said it was a 'guideline' and you were going to go through them one by one, when you got to this one, you claimed it was silly for me to be pointing out it was a rule and not a guideline. I don't know what the fuck you are smoking in your crack pipe, but it is obviously deteriorating your brain rapidly!

I never said it was equivalent to any and all distinctions, just that it was part of the parameters of marriage, along with being a single male and female of the opposite sex.

I did not. I said it was stupid that you would include it in the definition, as it is clearly implied in the right to contract or marry. You can't just a write up a contract and hold someone else to it, that did not agree to it to begin with. You cannot marry someone, which includes an obligation for the marriage partners debt and a right to communal property, without their consent. Of course, not. Then you pretend that this necessary REQUIREMENT is equal to any limit that can be dreamed up. It is not. This requirement serves a valid state interest, i.e., to protect individuals from fraud and is obviously part of the right to contract or marry. Without it the right to contract would be a right to steal from others.


The only thing deteriorating is your level of debate as you spin to more and more ridculous assertion and include outright falsehoods in your presentation.

*sigh* The link you gave confirms exactly what I stated to be the case.

It does not. First cousins are allowed in some states and in several others there is a means for gaining an exception. In your state cousin marriages are allowed. You are just fucking lying now.

Again, the word "consent" can be 'redefined', if we can 'redefine' marriage! What you claim is or isn't 'consent' at this time, becomes irrelevant... Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman... at this time.

We have "redefined" consent and marriage. How we define consent can be altered NOW and regardless of whether we allow gay marriage or not. So fucking what?

You're damn straight the meaning of marriage is not being changed. Gay people can call their thing something else. State interest is self evident, the people of the state reject Gay Marriage! End of discussion! The State holds NO power to supersede the will of the people

!

NOBODY CARES ABOUT WHAT WORD IS USED. Neither the opponents or the proponents of gay marriage care about the word used. SOME of the opponents want to allow "seperate but equal" civil unions, to shut the proponents up. History shows that it will not be equal. As soon as it passes they'll start looking for ways to grant special rights to the male-female couples.

The People oppose it, that is reason enough!

The People oppose it! That is the "reason" to prohibit it.

The people of Virginia opposed interracial marriage. The people of Texas opposed homosexual sex. Neither was enough.

The might makes right argument has been rejected from the very beginnings of our nation.

I'll tell ya what "state action" you'll get from Alabama, an almost unanimous vote to ratify a Constitutional amendment protecting Traditional Marriage. You keep shoving this shit down people's throat, and that is what will happen. If you don't believe me, just keep pushing for it, and we'll see! There are CONSIDERABLY more people opposed to changing traditional marriage to include homosexuals, than those who wish to see Gay Marriage become law of the land. That is why you are having to completely ABANDON libertarian principles to avoid admitting we should all get to vote on it.

You are so FUCKING stupid you don't even understand that "state" can be used to refer to government, in general. I was not talking about Florida or Alabama, to exclusion of municiplaities or the feds, but government in general.

What libertarian principles am I abandoning? If you think libertarians support the right of the majority to pass whatever law it chooses then you are, again, horribly misinformed. In fact, that's not even what most conservatives believe. You will find that argument more frequently among some of the democratic socialists on the left, but even most of the left support certain individual rights as being beyond the reach of the majority/state (that's the general use, again).

 

[Timshel]

The stupidity of your argument is made clear by the history of marriage and consent.

You claim we cannot change THE "definition" of marriage or it may lead to changes in THE "definition" of consent. But we have changed the requirements/guidelines in both. At one time it was no issue for a man in his forties to marry a thirteen year old girl. The first age of consent standards were set in common law at 10.

Things have changed. They can change again. The question is not, can THE "definition" of marriage be changed. Of course, it can. It has been changed in relation to age and other things (notably race). The question is, should it be changed.


Note: none of these changes actually change THE definition of marriage or consent anymore than allowing interracial marriage changed THE definition of marriage. It just changes the conditions one must meet in order to marry.

A change in THE definition of marriage, would mean a change to the contractual obligations and rights under the marriage contract. And guess what, that has changed too and can again.

"THE definition of marriage" argument is stupid and without merit.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The stupidity of your argument is made clear by the history of marriage and consent.

You claim we cannot change THE "definition" of marriage or it may lead to changes in THE "definition" of consent. But we have changed the requirements/guidelines in both. At one time it was no issue for a man in his forties to marry a thirteen year old girl. The first age of consent standards were set in common law at 10.

Things have changed. They can change again. The question is not, can THE "definition" of marriage be changed. Of course, it can. It has been changed in relation to age and other things (notably race). The question is, should it be changed.


Note: none of these changes actually change THE definition of marriage or consent anymore than allowing interracial marriage changed THE definition of marriage. It just changes the conditions one must meet in order to marry.

A change in THE definition of marriage, would mean a change to the contractual obligations and rights under the marriage contract. And guess what, that has changed too and can again.

"THE definition of marriage" argument is stupid and without merit.

I guess Dixie thinks of 13 year old girls as women, otherwise he would understand the reasons why society has changed over time and why it will continue to change.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I agree, but would have argued the 1st Amendment as well. Forcing everybody to follow the Judeo-Christian limited definition is a violation of the rights of Free Exercise...

I didn't realize that dictionaries were religious documents.....do dictionaries in countries dominated by the Hind or by Buddhists define marriage as a relationship between two men?

 

[Damocles]

I didn't realize that dictionaries were religious documents.....do dictionaries in countries dominated by the Hind or by Buddhists define marriage as a relationship between two men?

If you look in the dictionary, it now includes Gay Marriage... so, your point is just wrong.



mar·riage
   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Now what about religions that define marriages with more than one partner? And others like Wicca, or the Unitarians, that don't care if you are gay? Free exercise has been tromped on by the Feds since the LDS church came into existence.

 

[DamnYankee]

The stupidity of your argument is made clear by the history of marriage and consent.

...

"THE definition of marriage" argument is stupid and without merit.

Not at all. The definition of marriage has been refined over time, not changed. It has always included opposite sex couples of the appropriate age, and has never included queers. A refinement of the definition to preclude children is not the same as a complete change to include queers.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are so FUCKING stupid you don't even understand that "state" can be used to refer to government, in general. I was not talking about Florida or Alabama, to exclusion of municiplaities or the feds, but government in general.

I am not the "stupid" person in this debate, sorry! The State, regardless of the context you are using, does NOT have purview over The People! I'm sorry you think we live in a goddamn COMMUNIST nation, but this is the United States of America! The "government in general" follows the commands and will of the American people, WE ARE "The Government" here! WE establish the laws and the government is obligated to uphold those laws, that is their ONLY fucking interest, doing whatever WE THE PEOPLE tell them to do, not the other fucking way around! Sorry you were misinformed about this, your professor, Mr. Marx, obviously dropped the ball on your education.

What libertarian principles am I abandoning?

How about all of them which pertain to "Liberty?" You are suggesting we allow a panel of judges determine our laws, as opposed to The PEOPLE getting a voice and a vote! That's really more similar to Hitler's Nazis than Libertarianism, or anything we've ever condoned in America.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

If you look in the dictionary, it now includes Gay Marriage... so, your point is just wrong.
.

hardly....amending the definition of "marriage" to accommodate the choices of folks with abnormal sex drives is what would be wrong......face it Damo, your claim that this is a religious issue is completely bogus......you need a new horn to blow....

 

[Damocles]

hardly....amending the definition of "marriage" to accommodate the choices of folks with abnormal sex drives is what would be wrong......face it Damo, your claim that this is a religious issue is completely bogus......you need a new horn to blow....

Please. Your "evidence" was that the dictionary supported your view and therefore I was somehow "wrong", when I point out that your evidence was factually incorrect and even give a link to the actual dictionary definition you attempt to move the goal posts.

It sucks, but it is real. The reason these laws exist at all was because the LDS church came around and the majority religion wanted to have their "traditions" saved from those "evil Mormons"...

The government doesn't exist to protect your precious "traditions".

 

[Bai Lan]

The government doesn't exist to protect your precious "traditions".

Why does the government exist?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not correct. Go read the 14th, nothing in it about race, creed, color or national origin (which we can discriminate against until they become citizens). Debates on the 14th show that the listing you gave is superfluous and predicted your dishonest interpretation of the listing, would lead to trouble. So they did not include it.

I didn't say the 14th said anything about race, creed, religion, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act does, and that is the basis for cases charging "racial discrimination" like Loving. The CRA, combined with the 14th, are the basis for most "discrimination" cases in America.

The 14th calls for "equal protection" under the law. In other words, if you create a law intended to accommodate... oh, let's say, homosexuals... you MUST apply the law equally to other sexualities, because that was the parameters you established for homosexuals. You simply can't single out any group and apply a standard to that group that you do not intend to apply equally to similar groups.

You have argued that... Oh, we have laws against this and that... we'd never see this or that challenged... courts would laugh... but I'm sure no one ever thought we'd see homosexuals demand to have marriage redefined to include same-sex relationships. If you are going to change the standards for what "marriage" is, and make this change on the basis of someone's sexual behavior, then you have established the criteria from which equal application MUST apply, according to the 14th amendment.

 

[Bonestorm]

Please. Your "evidence" was that the dictionary supported your view and therefore I was somehow "wrong", when I point out that your evidence was factually incorrect and even give a link to the actual dictionary definition you attempt to move the goal posts.

It sucks, but it is real. The reason these laws exist at all was because the LDS church came around and the majority religion wanted to have their "traditions" saved from those "evil Mormons"...

The government doesn't exist to protect your precious "traditions".

What laws are you taking about?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The government doesn't exist to protect your precious "traditions".

The government exists to do whatever the fuck WE THE PEOPLE tell them to do! If we want our "traditions" protected, that is what government is obligated to do! You seem to be thinking like Stringy, that our Government has some sort of ordained POWER to dictate the rules to US... it's just ODD that you seem to think their dictation should come from your particular point of view. Is there some secret book of Godless Libertarian Morals that Government consults when meting out their authoritarian mandates to us lowly proles?

Both of you have shown how FULL OF SHIT you are, and how it is absolutely PHONY, this "libertarian" viewpoint you supposedly have. Both of you are being Fascist Nazis, supporting Fascist Nazism, and attempting to impose your authoritarian WILL on the American people. It will not be tolerated!

 

[Damocles]

The government exists to do whatever the fuck WE THE PEOPLE tell them to do! If we want our "traditions" protected, that is what government is obligated to do! You seem to be thinking like Stringy, that our Government has some sort of ordained POWER to dictate the rules to US... it's just ODD that you seem to think their dictation should come from your particular point of view. Is there some secret book of Godless Libertarian Morals that Government consults when meting out their authoritarian mandates to us lowly proles?

Both of you have shown how FULL OF SHIT you are, and how it is absolutely PHONY, this "libertarian" viewpoint you supposedly have. Both of you are being Fascist Nazis, supporting Fascist Nazism, and attempting to impose your authoritarian WILL on the American people. It will not be tolerated!

Yes, it is a mighty short book and it's called the constitution, it limits the power of the government and protects individuals from the tyranny of the majority. You have the right to protect your tradition, not the government. It's held in the 1st Amendment and the 9th.

The government exists to protect individual rights, not to press people to follow your precious "traditions" and eliminate the free exercise of theirs.

 

[Damocles]

What laws are you taking about?

The marriage laws, they began passing the "one woman/one man tradition laws" during the LDS emergence and subsequent persecution.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The government exists to do whatever the fuck WE THE PEOPLE tell them to do! If we want our "traditions" protected, that is what government is obligated to do! You seem to be thinking like Stringy, that our Government has some sort of ordained POWER to dictate the rules to US... it's just ODD that you seem to think their dictation should come from your particular point of view. Is there some secret book of Godless Libertarian Morals that Government consults when meting out their authoritarian mandates to us lowly proles?

Both of you have shown how FULL OF SHIT you are, and how it is absolutely PHONY, this "libertarian" viewpoint you supposedly have. Both of you are being Fascist Nazis, supporting Fascist Nazism, and attempting to impose your authoritarian WILL on the American people. It will not be tolerated!

So, you object to the US not being founded as a democracy and responsive to populist ignorance? Fuck what the people want!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, it is a mighty short book and it's called the constitution, it limits the power of the government and protects individuals from the tyranny of the majority. You have the right to protect your tradition, not the government. It's held in the 1st Amendment and the 9th.

The government exists to protect individual rights, not to press people to follow your precious "traditions" and eliminate the free exercise of theirs.

And the Constitution is established by whom? The Government? The Supreme Court? Or is it a document established and ratified by THE PEOPLE? Dumo, you and Stringy can assume the Government has some profound Libertarian wisdom it calls on to enforce Libertarian views on the public, but that isn't the case in the real world. We The PEOPLE retain the right to amend or change the Constitution in any way we so desire, and the Government's JOB is to uphold what We The People establish!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Please. Your "evidence" was that the dictionary supported your view and therefore I was somehow "wrong", when I point out that your evidence was factually incorrect and even give a link to the actual dictionary definition you attempt to move the goal posts.

It sucks, but it is real. The reason these laws exist at all was because the LDS church came around and the majority religion wanted to have their "traditions" saved from those "evil Mormons"...

The government doesn't exist to protect your precious "traditions".

first of all, your post does nothing to show your contention that the definition of "marriage" is based upon any religion....second, it is disingenuous to pretend that the definition you quote is not a recent addition to appease some PC addicted liberal....beyond that, your claim is bogus.......everyone knew marriage meant men and women long before Joseph Smith got donked on the head by an angel with a golden tablet....if you want to talk about moving goal posts talk about the liberals trying to redefine "marriage".....