Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Minister of Truth]

Also, the bulk of "WE the PEOPLE" are complete idiots, so really only some of us came up with these laws. The rest simply nodded or shook their heads, weren't paying attention, were too stoned to care, or didn't play a significant role for other reasons.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, SF talks about that solution all the time. Personally, I think it's pretty silly but I get the reasoning.

I don't think it is "silly" because I think it covers all bases, no later arguments about "allowing" some other kind of "marriage" would be necessary.

 

[Bai Lan]

Also, the bulk of "WE the PEOPLE" are complete idiots, so really only some of us came up with these laws. The rest simply nodded or shook their heads, weren't paying attention, were too stoned to care, or didn't play a significant role for other reasons.

Textbook ivory tower elitism of the internationalist fascist theocratic murderer

 

[Timshel]

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.

Hairsplitting bs. The conditions for marriage have changed and rather dramatically. It's not just age but interracial marriages, marriages from different classes and at one time you had to have the parents permission, regardless of age. The customs and laws surrounding marriage have evolved and there is no reason it can't be refined to include gay marriage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am arguing against government intervention in any marriage except to protect the rights of children. You are deliberately misreading my "argument".

No I understand completely. You believe we should live in a Godless Libertarian society, where you and Stringy get to interpret the Constitution in your own way and determine the laws that the rest of society has to live by, because you two are so profoundly knowledgeable about liberty and freedom, and what is best for everybody. The People have very little say in the matter really, and particularly if what they have to say is related in any way to their religious convictions, that certainly has to be curtailed in a Godless Libertarian society!

The Solution which you and I agreed on, is never going to be realized, as long as you continue to promote the argument FOR Gay Marriage or AGAINST Traditional Marriage! As long as your little "War on Religion" is more important to you than RESOLVING the issue with the solution you claimed to want, this will never get resolved in that manner. What will likely happen is, a Constitutional Amendment to solidify Traditional Marriage into the Constitution forever, and if you don't think it can happen, you don't understand the demographics of this issue in America. You already have DOMA, and it was signed into law by BILL CLINTON! The most LIBERAL ticket to win the Presidency in the history of America, couldn't even bring itself to support "Gay Marriage!" This is an overwhelming MANDATE from the American people, they do not want Gay Marriage, they have made that very clear in referendums across America, in the most LIBERAL places!

The Solution starts with defusing the Argument! You aren't going to ever GET "Gay Marriage" ....it's just NOT going to happen in America. Stop propping up the "arguments" for it, and advancing the debate. Religious people have just as much RIGHT to determine this as SECULAR people, there is not a damn thing in the Constitution prohibiting this, and you haven't made a case for it. This problem can not be resolved until the push for Gay Marriage stops, and people come together to push for the solution which works for all....

God how I hate what I am about to do.... Noam Chomsky states, “The most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow."

Yeah... I quoted Chomsky, excuse me a moment...

 

[Socrtease]

Saw a very interesting view of states rights last night. Was watching Ken Burns' The Civil War. None other than Jeffereson Davis was complaining that the reason he could not adequately prosecute the war was because there was too much power in the states and not enough with the federal government in the CSA. In letters he practically begged for the Confederate Congress to give him the same powers that the US congress had granted to Lincoln. Also didn't know that by 1863 every state in the south, except South Carolina had sent Regiments to fight under the Union flag. In North Carolina alone there were over 10,000 unionist that openly supported the defeat of the CSA.

 

[Damocles]

No I understand completely. You believe we should live in a Godless Libertarian society, where you and Stringy get to interpret the Constitution in your own way and determine the laws that the rest of society has to live by, because you two are so profoundly knowledgeable about liberty and freedom, and what is best for everybody. The People have very little say in the matter really, and particularly if what they have to say is related in any way to their religious convictions, that certainly has to be curtailed in a Godless Libertarian society!

The Solution which you and I agreed on, is never going to be realized, as long as you continue to promote the argument FOR Gay Marriage or AGAINST Traditional Marriage! As long as your little "War on Religion" is more important to you than RESOLVING the issue with the solution you claimed to want, this will never get resolved in that manner. What will likely happen is, a Constitutional Amendment to solidify Traditional Marriage into the Constitution forever, and if you don't think it can happen, you don't understand the demographics of this issue in America. You already have DOMA, and it was signed into law by BILL CLINTON! The most LIBERAL ticket to win the Presidency in the history of America, couldn't even bring itself to support "Gay Marriage!" This is an overwhelming MANDATE from the American people, they do not want Gay Marriage, they have made that very clear in referendums across America, in the most LIBERAL places!

The Solution starts with defusing the Argument! You aren't going to ever GET "Gay Marriage" ....it's just NOT going to happen in America. Stop propping up the "arguments" for it, and advancing the debate. Religious people have just as much RIGHT to determine this as SECULAR people, there is not a damn thing in the Constitution prohibiting this, and you haven't made a case for it. This problem can not be resolved until the push for Gay Marriage stops, and people come together to push for the solution which works for all....

God how I hate what I am about to do.... Noam Chomsky states, “The most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow."

Yeah... I quoted Chomsky, excuse me a moment...

The "War On Religion" is continued by any government which attempts to define "marriage" without regard to Free Exercise rights of the individual.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Textbook ivory tower elitism of the internationalist fascist theocratic supremacy

Why, thank you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No I understand completely. You believe we should live in a Godless Libertarian society,

Dixie, this is pure unadulterated horseshit. Libertarians are not 'godless'. They simply prefer to keep their religion behind their own door and out of the public and government view.

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't think it is "silly" because I think it covers all bases, no later arguments about "allowing" some other kind of "marriage" would be necessary.

The main reason that I think it is silly is that the religious right can't distinguish between a secular and civil institution now and there is no reason to believe they will accept without a fight you telling them they aren't married in the eyes of the state.

Also, it's much easier for politicians to allow same sex marriage than it is to tell every married person they are no longer married as far as the state is concerned. Suddenly, gay marriage actual affects married people whereas allowing same sex marriage doesn't affect them at all.

 

[Damocles]

The main reason that I think it is silly is that the religious right can't distinguish between a secular and civil institution now and there is no reason to believe they will accept without a fight you telling them they aren't married in the eyes of the state.

Also, it's much easier for politicians to allow same sex marriage than it is to tell every married person they are no longer married as far as the state is concerned. Suddenly, gay marriage actual affects married people whereas allowing same sex marriage doesn't affect them at all.

Sure they'd be "married" in the eyes of the state. They can call that union whatever they want to call it. They'd be "married" according to their church, and I'm sure they'd continue to call their "spouse" their wife/husband. They'd even be able to continue that the only "valid" marriages are those that are performed in their church.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, people could change contract law at any time, but the basis of all contract law is consent.

Right, and this "consent" thingy... it is defined how again? Oh, I know... someone magically obtains a blessing from the Godless Libertarian Fairy on their 18th Birthday, which ordains them with the capacity and ability to "consent!"

Gotcha!

 

[Damocles]

Right, and this "consent" thingy... it is defined how again? Oh, I know... someone magically obtains a blessing from the Godless Libertarian Fairy on their 18th Birthday, which ordains them with the capacity and ability to "consent!"

Gotcha!

Or at 21, or whenever they allow it. As I said, they'd be able to change it, and some would even allow younger "unions" with consent of parents, etc. But it is exactly the solution you seek. You argue against your own "solution". And badly. You used to be better at arguing than this, what happened to you?

 

[Bai Lan]

Right, and this "consent" thingy... it is defined how again? Oh, I know... someone magically obtains a blessing from the Godless Libertarian Fairy on their 18th Birthday, which ordains them with the capacity and ability to "consent!"

Gotcha!

Libertarians like to forget all about the historical context of things, and the greater realities in which they spew their half-formed idiot dogma.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The "War On Religion" is continued by any government which attempts to define "marriage" without regard to Free Exercise rights of the individual.

Nope... Godless Liberals have successfully made the point that 'Marriage' is not purely or exclusively a "religious" institution.

No one has the ability to freely exercise any liberty they so desire, that would be ANARCHY. We are all constrained in our "liberties" by standards set by the collective, in a thing we call "LAWS!" The State does NOT determine the laws, this is done by our elected representatives and sometimes, by our direct votes. It's the system we have now, and the way we've done things for over 200 years. I am still interested in what kind of system you and Stringy propose we use instead?

 

[Damocles]

Nope... Godless Liberals have successfully made the point that 'Marriage' is not purely or exclusively a "religious" institution.

No one has the ability to freely exercise any liberty they so desire, that would be ANARCHY. We are all constrained in our "liberties" by standards set by the collective, in a thing we call "LAWS!" The State does NOT determine the laws, this is done by our elected representatives and sometimes, by our direct votes. It's the system we have now, and the way we've done things for over 200 years. I am still interested in what kind of system you and Stringy propose we use instead?

I propose one that keeps the government out of defining religious ceremonies. Your argument right now is that the government has a right to define your religious institutions. I disagree. I propose we remove government from "marriage" and define it by contract law, issuing "Union" licenses. Something you have supposedly supported, instead you now argue against.

Strings believes that we should have government change the definition that they will allow. I disagree with that as well. I think the only permanent solution is to allow consenting adults (as we define in contract laws) to enter into the "Unions" when they are qualified to enter into contracts. It is time to start arguing to allow individuals their freedom to do what they want so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.

 

[Bai Lan]

Nope... Godless Liberals have successfully made the point that 'Marriage' is not purely or exclusively a "religious" institution.

No one has the ability to freely exercise any liberty they so desire, that would be ANARCHY. We are all constrained in our "liberties" by standards set by the collective, in a thing we call "LAWS!" The State does NOT determine the laws, this is done by our elected representatives and sometimes, by our direct votes. It's the system we have now, and the way we've done things for over 200 years. I am still interested in what kind of system you and Stringy propose we use instead?

They're fascists. totalitarian animals driven by greed.

 

[Timshel]

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.

You are supporting the collectivist/communist position. The power of the state comes from the majority in this nation, but it is limited in its scope by individual rights. You do not understand limited government concepts and you are demanding unlimited power for the state.

Your understanding is not that of the courts and never has been. Your position is that of the socialist nations.

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.

Liberty does not end at the ballot box, you idiot. It does not begin there either. You are clueless about the principles upon which this nation was founded, what liberty means and libertarianism.

Your side...

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man. - Adolf Hitler

Society's needs come before the individual's needs. - Adolf Hitler

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." - Nikita Khrushchev

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." - Vladimir Lenin

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton


My side...

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents." -- James Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1788

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature. - James Madison, Federalist No. 52, February 8, 1788

 

[Timshel]

Why does the government exist?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Damocles]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Exactly. Government exists to protect the rights of individuals.