It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gauging The Constitutional Integrity of Marriage In America

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes... Some do argue that, ridiculously enough. But ALL citizens means ALL citizens. I will paraphrase Chief Justice Earl Warren - Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race (or gender) resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If I can choose the race of my marriage partner, it follows that I can choose the gender. There is no legal or social benefit to denying gay marriage.


I agree that to some it may logically follow, he didn't say that nor did the case rule on that aspect, so you cannot extrapolate the Warren court decision to this situation.

No legal or social benefit? I agree that you are correct, IMHO.

My worry is that some people are quite eager to use the coercive power of the federal government to force things they want onto others when they agree with it but I think that we will see that this precedent enables others to use the power of he federal government onto us. Earlier in this thread I said DOMA was unconstitutional because ruling on marriage was not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. I would be hypocritical to agree with federal intervention FOR gay marriage if I was against federal intervention AGAINST gay marriage earlier.
edit on 14-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
My worry is that some people are quite eager to use the coercive power of the federal government to force things they want onto others...


Worst case, the government isn't going to force anyone to marry someone of the same sex. They cannot FORCE gay marriage. They can, however, and have a duty to, enforce equal treatment under the law of all citizens.

The fourteenth states that NO STATE shall make laws that deny equal treatment to ANY citizen. So, states violating the Constitution is very much a federal issue.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8/14/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
My worry is that some people are quite eager to use the coercive power of the federal government to force things they want onto others...


Worst case, the government isn't going to force anyone to marry someone of the same sex. They cannot FORCE gay marriage. They can, however, and have a duty to, enforce equal treatment under the law of all citizens.

The fourteenth states that NO STATE shall make laws that denies equal treatment to ANY citizen. So, states violating the Constitution is very much a federal issue.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Ah, but are they? Therein lies the rub.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Ah, but are they? Therein lies the rub.


Yes, they are. I see no rub. If a state has a law that people can marry, it must be offered equally to all citizens, not just some..



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Ah, but are they? Therein lies the rub.


Yes, they are. I see no rub. If a state has a law that people can marry, it must be offered equally to all citizens, not just some..


Every state in the Union one has the legal ability to convey all of the rights and responsibilities to a same gender partner of your choice. They just don't use the word "marriage."

Again--I see you don't want the feds to force some things that you don't like but want the feds to force the things you do like. What if the federal government decided to overturn "assault weapons" bans in MD, Mass, NY, NJ, CT due to the equal protection clause. Would you be for that or against that?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Being against a practice the federal government does that isn't enumerated in the Constitution is fine, but if you want to continue to believe in equality, then you have to make sure that when the federal government DOES do things not enumerated in the Constitution, that all parties get the same treatment. No exceptions. I'm a Libertarian myself, but I doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and let the government discriminate against people all because I disagree with them being able to do something.

I'd like to get government out of marriage as well, but that doesn't look like it will ever happen. It's too ingrained with how our society is setup. That means that I will settle for what I can and make sure that everyone gets equal treatment with this unconstitutional act.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Every state in the Union one has the legal ability to convey all of the rights and responsibilities to a same gender partner of your choice. They just don't use the word "marriage."


No, they don't. MANY of the benefits of marriage are federal. And many of the benefits cannot be granted by private contract. It's in an earlier post of mine here. lesbianlife.about.com...



Again--I see you don't want the feds to force some things that you don't like but want the feds to force the things you do like.


Not true.



What if the federal government decided to overturn "assault weapons" bans in MD, Mass, NY, NJ, CT due to the equal protection clause. Would you be for that or against that?


Does this "assault weapons" ban only apply to black people, but not white people? Does it apply only to straight people and not gay people? Does it apply to Christians but not Muslims? If so, then it's the federal government's DUTY to interfere. If the assault weapons bans in these states apply to all citizens of the state, then there's no problem.
edit on 8/14/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Every state in the Union one has the legal ability to convey all of the rights and responsibilities to a same gender partner of your choice. They just don't use the word "marriage."


No, they don't. MANY of the benefits of marriage are federal. And many of the benefits cannot be granted by private contract. It's in an earlier post of mine here. lesbianlife.about.com...



Again--I see you don't want the feds to force some things that you don't like but want the feds to force the things you do like.


Not true.



What if the federal government decided to overturn "assault weapons" bans in MD, Mass, NY, NJ, CT due to the equal protection clause. Would you be for that or against that?


Does this "assault weapons" ban only apply to black people, but not white people? Does it apply only to straight people and not gay people? Does it apply to Christians but not Muslims? If so, then it's the federal government's DUTY to interfere. If the assault weapons bans in these states apply to all citizens of the state, then there's no problem.


But it doesn't. It exempts LEOs and security. My CCW in NC is not good in Mass, but if I was a retired cop, even if I had retired 20 years ago, it would. Is that equal and would you support a federal law forcing Mass to accept my CCW just like it would for a retired cop or does "equality" only apply on lines of race and gender preferences?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It exempts LEOs and security.


I honestly don't know the laws regarding officers of the law. I don't support LEO's having rights that citizens don't. But there may be a special circumstance around that. I just don't know.



My CCW in NC is not good in Mass, but if I was a retired cop, even if I had retired 20 years ago, it would. Is that equal and would you support a federal law forcing Mass to accept my CCW just like it would for a retired cop or does "equality" only apply on lines of race and gender preferences?


States have their own laws regarding firearms (as well as marriage). When one crosses a state line, they must obey the firearms laws in that state. Varying laws from state to state is a TOTALLY different issue than one state having a law that only applies to some of its citizens. You're really blurring the two issues when they are not the same at all.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It exempts LEOs and security.


I honestly don't know the laws regarding officers of the law. I don't support LEO's having rights that citizens don't. But there may be a special circumstance around that. I just don't know.



My CCW in NC is not good in Mass, but if I was a retired cop, even if I had retired 20 years ago, it would. Is that equal and would you support a federal law forcing Mass to accept my CCW just like it would for a retired cop or does "equality" only apply on lines of race and gender preferences?


States have their own laws regarding firearms (as well as marriage). When one crosses a state line, they must obey the firearms laws in that state. Varying laws from state to state is a TOTALLY different issue than one state having a law that only applies to some of its citizens. You're really blurring the two issues when they are not the same at all.


No, states have their own laws concerning marriage and that is the Constitutional answer. What I see is that you think that some rights can be regulated by the state and some shouldn't depending on what rights you support and what rights you don't support.

If one crosses the state line, why should one follow the firearms of laws in that state and that is proper, but not the laws of marriage of the state that you deem so improper that the federal government must step in and override those laws?

Are we going to apply the 14th amendment line of reasoning across the board or only to those things you agree with?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What I see is that you think that some rights can be regulated by the state and some shouldn't depending on what rights you support and what rights you don't support.


Well, you're not seeing clearly or not reading properly, because I am not doing that. You're confusing the idea of state laws with federal law. Each state makes their own laws, but those laws cannot violate the US Constitution. A gay marriage ban (which does not treat citizens OF THAT STATE equally under the law) is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying the federal government should override states' marriage laws and make gay marriage legal in all 50. I'm saying they should prohibit states from violating the 14th amendment.



If one crosses the state line, why should one follow the firearms of laws in that state and that is proper, but not the laws of marriage of the state that you deem so improper that the federal government must step in and override those laws?


I didn't say that! States have their own laws on marriage AND firearms. A person MUST respect the laws of the state they are in.

Georgia's minimum age to marry is 16. If a 16-year-old goes to Alabama (where the minimum age is 18) they cannot get married there. Each state makes it's own marriage laws.

The only reason I think the feds should be involved is that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment.

But those laws should apply to everyone in the state!



Are we going to apply the 14th amendment line of reasoning across the board or only to those things you agree with?


Across the board! Where have I said it doesn't apply? It applies to STATES, not the country.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What I see is that you think that some rights can be regulated by the state and some shouldn't depending on what rights you support and what rights you don't support.


Well, you're not seeing clearly or not reading properly, because I am not doing that. You're confusing the idea of state laws with federal law. Each state makes their own laws, but those laws cannot violate the US Constitution. A gay marriage ban (which does not treat citizens OF THAT STATE equally under the law) is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying the federal government should override states' marriage laws and make gay marriage legal in all 50. I'm saying they should prohibit states from violating the 14th amendment.



If one crosses the state line, why should one follow the firearms of laws in that state and that is proper, but not the laws of marriage of the state that you deem so improper that the federal government must step in and override those laws?


I didn't say that! States have their own laws on marriage AND firearms. A person MUST respect the laws of the state they are in.

Georgia's minimum age to marry is 16. If a 16-year-old goes to Alabama (where the minimum age is 18) they cannot get married there. Each state makes it's own marriage laws.

The only reason I think the feds should be involved is that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment.

But those laws should apply to everyone in the state!



Are we going to apply the 14th amendment line of reasoning across the board or only to those things you agree with?


Across the board! Where have I said it doesn't apply? It applies to STATES, not the country.


So you think the federal government should intervene in a states firearms laws that hand out permits unequally? You can't get a pistol permit in San Francisco unless your name is Feinstein.

What I see form most people is--I believe in equality unless it's those evil Christians or I believe in freedom of speech unless it's those Evil Teabaggers and their "hate speech," or I believe in the right to choose unless the choice is to own a gun or eat meat or invest or drive a gas guzzler. What I see is that most people want to use the coercive power of the state to force things they like or override laws they do not, but not force things they dislike or override laws that do like. Quite common and quite short sighted, IMHO.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So you think the federal government should intervene in a states firearms laws that hand out permits unequally?


Yes. (unless there is some special law about LEOs that I am unaware of)



You can't get a pistol permit in San Francisco unless your name is Feinstein.


I don't know anything about that, but I suspect it's hyperbole.



What I see form most people is--I believe in equality unless it's those evil Christians or I believe in freedom of speech unless it's those Evil Teabaggers and their "hate speech," or I believe in the right to choose unless the choice is to own a gun or eat meat or invest or drive a gas guzzler. What I see is that most people want to use the coercive power of the state to force things they like or override laws they do not, but not force things they dislike or override laws that do like. Quite common and quite short sighted, IMHO.


Well, that's not what you're seeing with ME. I am not most people. Your argument is not with me. I support free speech AND freedom of religion for everyone. The Supreme Court and I differ on what freedom of religion is, however.

By the way, I support firearm ownership and do not support these stupid "assault weapons" bans. So, that's not something I'm against.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

How can you compare guns to Civil rights?

Civil, as ALL persons equal in civil equality.

I don't get it.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: NavyDoc

How can you compare guns to Civil rights?

Civil, as ALL persons equal in civil equality.

I don't get it.





The right to keep and bear arms IS a civil right, second only to the right of free speech. Marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution, not once, neither in the body nor in a single amendment.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

MANY of our rights are not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to vote, for example. You can stop talking about how marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution now.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: NavyDoc

Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

MANY of our rights are not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to vote, for example. You can stop talking about how marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution now.


And she should also stop talking about guns not being a civil right by the same token.

Since we are in the neighborhood, let's look at the 10th amendment:



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Thus, since regulation of marriage is not a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it remains the purview of the states and therein lies the most important argument against federal laws both in favor or against gay marriage. Remember, my argument is not against gay marriage, I have stated that I am against DOMA, my argument is to keep the federal government within it's Constitutionally mandated limits.

If the federal government wants to provide federal benefits to gay couples and perform gay marriages on federal land such as military bases it has every right to do so within it's jurisdictional boundaries.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

There is definite debate on exactly what the 2nd amendment actually means.

But, that is a different discussion. I am a gun owner, I'm just not going there in this thread.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Thus, since regulation of marriage is not a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it remains the purview of the states


AGREED!!! I agree with that. States should be able to make their own marriage laws as long as they don't violate the Constitution. And the 14th amendment says that these state laws MUST treat all their citizens equally. In other words, a state cannot make a law that only applies to black people. Or straight people. Or women, etc.



If the federal government wants to provide federal benefits to gay couples and perform gay marriages on federal land such as military bases it has every right to do so within it's jurisdictional boundaries.


That is irrelevant. Marriage is a STATE law. The only federal input is that the state law must apply to all citizens.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

The 9th and the 14 tell the 10th that it must obey them.

In my OP I defined that.

The states appear to be using the 10th to violate the 9th and the 14th. That is a no-no.

What we get from the 9th and the 14th is equal civil rights across the board. The 10th isn't supposed to be used vote out equality and vote in inequality of rights. It's supposed to be used for other matters.

The state authorities are handling these matters all wrong. They should never even see the light of day. Gays should never of had to fight this or protest. Their right to marry is inherently and unarguably evident within our constitution. If we had real Americans in positions of authority at the state level then they wouldn't be allowing for the imposition of unconstitutional laws. When I was a child I went to church. My church taught me that homosexuality was different and sort of wrong, and so did all other forms of authority that were religious in nature, no one else.

I refuse to deny that. I don't see any atheists, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus or even really Muslims in America speaking out about or protesting against gay marriage, but I see a hoard of Christians doing this.

Religious in nature? Yes.

Religious in nature? No. If you want to deny the evidence in front of us and all over the nation's media.

Simply put - what we are seeing is an objection to same gender marriage by Christian authorities in government, and their ideologies.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join