Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

Dixie said:
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!
Click to expand...

The Constitution was established by some 56 odd men (in secret), and ratified by committees (not elected by the people) of the 13 states. Someone added a reference to "we the people" after the constitution was fully drafted in the Preamble, which has no legal basis whatsoever.
 
The government doesn't exist to protect your precious "traditions"
Click to expand...
is it somehow worse for government to preserve what society has traditionally known to be marriage than it is for government to force everyone to pretend that two men with abnormal sex drives are somehow to be treated the same as a married couple?....

"my" precious traditions versus "your" precious perversions?.......
 
Threedee said:
So, you object to the US not being founded as a democracy and responsive to populist ignorance? Fuck what the people want!
Click to expand...

No, I am all for what the people want! Let's put it on a national ballot and let them all decide if they want Gay Marriage or to keep Traditional Marriage unchanged! Can we get that done by the 2012 elections???

The US was not founded as a Godless Libertarian authority to dictate what rules and laws we all live by. Sorry!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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".....
Click to expand...
No, what it does is prove that your "evidence" that "proved me wrong" fell through.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
here is the core question, "should the government publicly acknowledge a person's private perversions?".............
Click to expand...
The government shouldn't acknowledge or discredit so long as the participants are consenting adults. You want the government to step in to "protect" what it shouldn't have a say in.
 
Damocles said:
The government shouldn't acknowledge or discredit so long as the participants are consenting adults. You want the government to step in to "protect" what it shouldn't have a say in.
Click to expand...

so you agree then that the government should not acknowledge "gay marriage".......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
is it somehow worse for government to preserve what society has traditionally known to be marriage than it is for government to force everyone to pretend that two men with abnormal sex drives are somehow to be treated the same as a married couple?....

"my" precious traditions versus "your" precious perversions?.......
Click to expand...
It is worse to continue to have government press upon anybody the definition of any list of religions or "traditions" than it is to force government to stay within the listed powers and out of the proscribed powers that are relegated to the individual in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
 
Damocles said:
It is worse to continue to have government press upon anybody the definition of any list of religions or "traditions" than it is to force government to stay within the listed powers and out of the proscribed powers that are relegated to the individual in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Click to expand...

fine, but we've already concluded that your claim the definition is based upon a religious tradition is full of shit......the definition of "marriage" has been constant for longer than any religion or government has existed on this planet......it is a societal understanding of millennial proportions.....and you want to throw it away because some man wants us to be okay with his desire to fuck other men........
 
Damocles said:
I also agree that it should not "acknowledge" hetero marriage. My argument is we should get government out of these religious ceremonies that they do not belong in.
Click to expand...

there are of course reasons that government keep track of marriages and have done so for hundreds of years......Napolean wanted the state to control issues of divorce, legitimacy, inheritance rather than leaving it to the church......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
there are of course reasons that government keep track of marriages and have done so for hundreds of years......Napolean wanted the state to control issues of divorce, legitimacy, inheritance rather than leaving it to the church......
Click to expand...
They can keep track of them by using contract law without using the religious dogma and "traditions" that flow from the religious dogma, like they do with contracts and have for far longer than governments have involved themselves in marriage.
 
Damocles said:
I also agree that it should not "acknowledge" hetero marriage. My argument is we should get government out of these religious ceremonies that they do not belong in.
Click to expand...

Then why do you persist with an argument that puts government square in the middle of this? You keep defending "Gay Marriage" Dumo! You keep arguing that Government has the right to establish same-sex marriage against the will of the people, to accommodate the desires of homosexuals! That isn't an argument from someone who wants government out of this, it's an argument from an authoritative asshole who thinks he can force HIS will on the rest of society.

If you truly wanted government out of this, you wouldn't be siding with the pro-gay marriage advocates in this debate! They certainly don't want government out of this, they want government to mandate gay marriage! The total and complete OPPOSITE of what you claim to want!
 
Damocles said:
The marriage laws, they began passing the "one woman/one man tradition laws" during the LDS emergence and subsequent persecution.
Click to expand...


At the state level? That's not my understanding. I think the Feds got involved in the marriage game around that time, but the states (the ones that existed for a while anyway) had a pretty well-developed set of rules regarding marriage by then.
 
Damocles said:
They can keep track of them by using contract law without using the religious dogma and "traditions" that flow from the religious dogma, like they do with contracts and have for far longer than governments have involved themselves in marriage.
Click to expand...

There is NO religious dogma here, you can repeat your LIE all you like, but you have simply NOT established this to be the case. MANY traditions flow from a religious principle, including the tradition of "All men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights!" There is not one single solitary word in the entire Constitution which prohibits or restricts in ANY way, the right of the people to exercise their religious beliefs, including the influence of law and politics in America! In fact, the 1st Amendment GUARANTEES our right to do just that!
 
NigelTufnel said:
At the state level? That's not my understanding. I think the Feds got involved in the marriage game around that time, but the states (the ones that existed for a while anyway) had a pretty well-developed set of rules regarding marriage by then.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the Feds were overstepping on the First, while the states at that time had the ability to define religious stuff as the Amendments didn't apply to the states until the 14th and "incorporation"... Currently the states have to follow those Amendments as they didn't at the time of the LDS emergence.
 
Dixie said:
There is NO religious dogma here, you can repeat your LIE all you like, but you have simply NOT established this to be the case. MANY traditions flow from a religious principle, including the tradition of "All men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights!" There is not one single solitary word in the entire Constitution which prohibits or restricts in ANY way, the right of the people to exercise their religious beliefs, including the influence of law and politics in America! In fact, the 1st Amendment GUARANTEES our right to do just that!
Click to expand...
Except for the portion that restricts the government from stepping on Free Exercise. Others believe differently than this "tradition", and they have every right to the Free Exercise of their beliefs. The government should NOT be defining religious "tradition" into law as it conflicts with the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment which applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
fine, but we've already concluded that your claim the definition is based upon a religious tradition is full of shit......the definition of "marriage" has been constant for longer than any religion or government has existed on this planet......it is a societal understanding of millennial proportions.....and you want to throw it away because some man wants us to be okay with his desire to fuck other men........
Click to expand...

Some of us are still waiting for you or someone else to explain how society is going to be destroyed if we allow gay marriages to take place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top