Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

448px-Ivy_on_tree_in_Burn_anne_Woodland.JPG


A Person suffers from severe Pareidolia. The picture is of their fiance, the small oak tree in their back yard. They wish to obtain a 'marriage license' in order to 'consummate' their love for each other.

The tree can't consent, it doesn't have the ability to do so, at least not in a manner in which the average person could understand. The Constitution can't be applied when it is unreasonable to expect the criteria to be applied. It's like turning loose a murderer because his victim didn't identify him. Trees can't give human consent, but this person believes the tree is in love with him as much as he is in love with the tree.

Why can't an "exception" be made for this person, to realize his true love and experience the institution of marriage with the one he loves? What "harm" will come to society, or anyone elses marriage by this? Who are WE to say who (or what) is capable of love?

Once we've established legal precedent of basing "marriage" on the individual's right to free exercise, we have NO basis to deny any other "perversion" of marriage, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
 
Damocles said:
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?
Click to expand...

My solution relies on us not "redefining" the definition of traditional meanings or intent of words used in our lexicon, like "marriage!" If we are to go down that path, my solution is irrelevant, we will be a society which recognizes any deviant sexual right as equal under the law, because that is the established law of the land. When that is the case, the issue of "consent" can be further considered, and we will have to restrain our "moral" ideals because that again, is the standard we have set for ourselves.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are just talking out of your ass. Again, there is not one mention of the CRA of 64 in Loving. It mentions the CRA of 1866, which the state of Virginia hoped to use to argue their case. They argued, as you do, that since the law applied equally to both blacks and whites, it was permissable. The court rejected that.

The basis of the ruling was that the law violated the 14th. Same thing in Lawrence vs Texas.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

Last paragraph from Loving....

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.


It is so ordered.


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.
Click to expand...


Nope, see Loving. The state argued that the laws applied equally to black and white. The court did not find error in unequal application of the law.

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.
Click to expand...

Again, see Loving. Virginia argued just that, that the framers of the 14th did not intend it to nullify laws against miscegneation. The court for the most part agreed as do I, but it does not matter.

Again, your argument could apply to allow the state to outlaw miscegenation as sexual behavior. The state does not have the right to police sexual behavior. That does not mean you can rape someone though or that the state does not have a legitimate interest in protecting children from predation under the common law concept that they are not equipped to consent.

Again, if your theory were correct then all of these things would be occuring now, as a result of Lawrence v Texas. Do you believe that ruling should be overturned? You do nothing but continue to evade this point. I have repeated it a 100 times and you have yet to respond.

You are wrong and have no foundation for your stupid non sequitur.
 
Dixie said:
My solution relies on us not "redefining" the definition of traditional meanings or intent of words used in our lexicon, like "marriage!" If we are to go down that path, my solution is irrelevant, we will be a society which recognizes any deviant sexual right as equal under the law, because that is the established law of the land. When that is the case, the issue of "consent" can be further considered, and we will have to restrain our "moral" ideals because that again, is the standard we have set for ourselves.
Click to expand...

Libertarians rely a lot on changing the meanings of words, or try to destroy words and their meanings altogether.

For instance, we are invaded daily by illegal aliens, but somehow it is now not the federal governments duty to repel invasion, since they don't call it an invasion. etc.
 
An invasion is a coordinated effort with an intention to subdue the territories and structures invaded. Illegal immigrants are not coordinated, do not all share the same purposes and intentions, and they do not come here to subdue our territory or structures.

Try again.
 
Dixie said:
A Person suffers from severe Pareidolia. The picture is of their fiance, the small oak tree in their back yard. They wish to obtain a 'marriage license' in order to 'consummate' their love for each other.

The tree can't consent, it doesn't have the ability to do so, at least not in a manner in which the average person could understand. The Constitution can't be applied when it is unreasonable to expect the criteria to be applied. It's like turning loose a murderer because his victim didn't identify him. Trees can't give human consent, but this person believes the tree is in love with him as much as he is in love with the tree.

Why can't an "exception" be made for this person, to realize his true love and experience the institution of marriage with the one he loves? What "harm" will come to society, or anyone elses marriage by this? Who are WE to say who (or what) is capable of love?

Once we've established legal precedent of basing "marriage" on the individual's right to free exercise, we have NO basis to deny any other "perversion" of marriage, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It has already been answered a hundred times. A TREE CANNOT EXERCISE THEIR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OR BE BOUND TO ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. If a tree cannot do these things then what would be the point in state recognition of the marriage?
 
RStringfield said:
It has already been answered a hundred times. A TREE CANNOT EXERCISE THEIR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OR BE BOUND TO ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. If a tree cannot do these things then what would be the point in state recognition of the marriage?
Click to expand...

but maybe if we consult the secret libertarian value source, we will find that trees do have rights. Everything old is new again. Everything is different.
 
AssHatZombie said:
obviously, you blow rod.
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously "but maybe if we consult the secret libertarian value source, we will find that trees do have rights. Everything old is new again. Everything is different." is such a well thought out, clear post. :palm:
 
Dixie said:
It seems to me, all of those things were law of the land, and upheld by the courts for years.... right here in the good old US of A! So it seems kind of stupid and retarded to be claiming we can't establish whatever we want the law to be, as citizens of the USA. Don't look now, but you just confirmed my point!
Click to expand...

The miscegenation laws were overturned by those "fascist" folks in robes, against the will of the majority. Are you demanding that that case be reversed?

If the state may ignore the 14th so long as the majority demands it, then why not the 13th or the 19th? What checks the will of the majority?
 
AssHatZombie said:
but maybe if we consult the secret libertarian value source, we will find that trees do have rights. Everything old is new again. Everything is different.
Click to expand...

There is nothing secret about libertarian principles. They've been explained in thousands of books and in the DofI, though you really only need a couple sentences at most. We don't operate on some ill defined conspiracy theories, like you.

Some libertarians tend to be utlitarian (Friedman), but most come at it from the moral position.

You are just another idiot that does not understand how the common law works or why it has worked so well. If a court were to rule that you should be able to marry a tree, there is nothing to stop another court from reversing the decision.

This happened in regards to miscegenation laws. Earlier SCs and lower courts upheld the laws and those decisions were reversed by Loving. A ruling based on some illogical conception of rights, would quickly be overturned.

We also have an amendment process that could be used to overturn such insanity.

Dixie threatens that an amendment will be passed when the court overturns prohibitions on gay marriage. But they don't have the numbers to do it now and certainly will not, when it happens. It's an idle threat.
 
So gay people are like tree fuckers? Is that the gist of it? And you people actually attempt to engage in debate with that fellow?

I'm telling you he's simply got to be a spoof. Tree fuckers. That's awesome.
 
Dixie said:
448px-Ivy_on_tree_in_Burn_anne_Woodland.JPG


A Person suffers from severe Pareidolia. The picture is of their fiance, the small oak tree in their back yard. They wish to obtain a 'marriage license' in order to 'consummate' their love for each other.

The tree can't consent, it doesn't have the ability to do so, at least not in a manner in which the average person could understand. The Constitution can't be applied when it is unreasonable to expect the criteria to be applied. It's like turning loose a murderer because his victim didn't identify him. Trees can't give human consent, but this person believes the tree is in love with him as much as he is in love with the tree.

Why can't an "exception" be made for this person, to realize his true love and experience the institution of marriage with the one he loves? What "harm" will come to society, or anyone elses marriage by this? Who are WE to say who (or what) is capable of love?

Once we've established legal precedent of basing "marriage" on the individual's right to free exercise, we have NO basis to deny any other "perversion" of marriage, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Anyone of you pinheads care to answer my question?
 
NigelTufnel said:
So gay people are like tree fuckers? Is that the gist of it? And you people actually attempt to engage in debate with that fellow?

I'm telling you he's simply got to be a spoof. Tree fuckers. That's awesome.
Click to expand...


Now I understand why some folks speak disparagingly of "tree huggers". They aren't hugging the tree.....:eek:
 
Hey Ditzy,

Do you believe a tree should have the right to bear arms? Should I be able to sue it? Can I claim it as a dependent? Should it be entitled to vote? How about a driver's license? Can it form a church? Does it have a right to due process before it may be put in jeopardy of life, leaves or limb (roflmao).

What? You don't support those rights? If homosexuals should have such rights/privileges, then why not a tree?

Go ahead and fuck your tree, if you want. You can do many of the things any married couple would, but the tree cannot possibly contract as it cannot exercise rights or be held to any obligations under a marriage contract. I doubt it's even against the law to fuck your tree, but check for bees first.

I don't know why I bother. You've obviously flipped your lid. But you do a good job of showing just how empty the rhetoric against gay marriage is, so it may be worthwhile to keep you on the subject.
 
Last edited:
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...

sorry, your argument is bullshit.....if the government actually had anything to do with religious dogma or traditions you might have had a point worth arguing.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top