Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gauging The Constitutional Integrity of Marriage In America

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
NavyDoc, I have enjoyed our discussion. We usually don't get this far and I'm really happy to see that we can have a good discussion. Thank you.


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


Let me ask you. Do YOU think the federal government should intervene in a state's firearms laws that hand out permits unequally?

And secondly, do YOU think the federal government should intervene in a state's marriage laws that hand out licenses unequally?




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
NavyDoc, I have enjoyed our discussion. We usually don't get this far and I'm really happy to see that we can have a good discussion. Thank you.


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


Let me ask you. Do YOU think the federal government should intervene in a state's firearms laws that hand out permits unequally?

And secondly, do YOU think the federal government should intervene in a state's marriage laws that hand out licenses unequally?


I thank you too. IT has been pleasant.

There is no BATF in the Constitution. There is no FFL in the Constitutions. There is no "background checks" in the Constitution. Therefore the federal government has no business regulating firearms at all.

There is not a single place in the Constitution that discusses marriage, therefore, according to the Constitution, the government has no business getting involved with marriage.

I think that all states should recognize gay marriage, however, I do not think that this is a federal issue.

I think that thought process is consistent. I do wonder, with all due respect, if your thought process is consistent. If you are for legalizing gay marriage under the 14th, and I see that as a reasonable and logical take of the discussion and am not trying to denigrate that, do you extend that same process to second amendment issues or any number of laws that are promulgated unequally, such as the equal opportunities act? If you do, then you are consistent with your premise and I cannot debate or disagree with that stance.

My stance is that it is not a federal issue because the federal government was not given the power to intervene into what the state recognizes as a marriage or not--hetero or homo. Because of this, I also disagree with DOMA because I do not think this is the business of the feds if gays get married or not, and that is where I'm coming from.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I do wonder, with all due respect, if your thought process is consistent. If you are for legalizing gay marriage under the 14th,


Oh! OK. I see what you're saying. Let me be clear... I do not technically support legalizing gay marriage on a federal level. I support each state making their marriage (and firearm) laws and I support federal intervention if those laws don't protect everyone in that state equally, according the the 14th amendment.

Now, it's perfectly fine if a state wants to NOT offer marriage to its citizens at all. That's their choice. But if they're going to have a contract called "marriage", it should be offered equally to each and every citizen, with equality. They can make age laws and cousin laws, etc, but they shouldn't be permitted to exclude a certain group within their restrictions.

Oklahoma briefly considered scrapping marriage altogether in their state to avoid having gay marriage and that would be FINE with me. As long as all the citizens are treated equally.

Oklahoma Lawmakers Consider Preventing All Marriage

Same for second amendment issues. Each state makes it's laws, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. In other words, a state cannot infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. A state cannot tell it's citizens, "You may not own firearms". A state could restrict which arms, how many, how they're regulated, age limits, etc. (just like marriage), but it must allow its citizens to own arms that would be useful for guaranteeing a free state.



the equal opportunities act?


Do you mean The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission? I'm not sure which law you're talking about. But I do support federal anti-discrimination laws. They are just an extension of the 14th amendment, ensuring that all people are treated equally, under the law. A business person, hiring or serving the public is operating under the laws of the state AND of the country.

A business owner, for example, must operate according to the laws of the state in which they operate. Each state has its own employment Anti-Discrimination Laws and Public Accommodation Laws (sorry I don't have a link for that). For example, in Texas, LGBT is NOT included in their public accommodation laws, so a business owner can legally deny a gay couple from buying donuts at his shop. In Colorado, the law protects LGBT, so to deny a couple because they're gay is against Colorado law.


I do not think this is the business of the feds if gays get married or not, and that is where I'm coming from.


Generally, I agree. But marriage is both a state and federal institution because most marriage benefits are federal. For example. if a gay couple gets married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and moves to Ohio (where it's not) the federal government should still respect their marriage in New Mexico and provide federal marriage benefits to them, regardless what the state does.

Considering the 9th and 10 amendments, whether a right (or restrictions on that right) is specifically mentioned in the Constitution is TOTALLY irrelevant and doesn't give the mentioned right any more weight than those not enumerated.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I think marriage equality should be a federal law/act, in whatever way it can be legally included under anti-discrimination.

I'm old enough to remember how things were before the Federal Fair Housing Act. I remember neighborhood committees, including realtors, politicians, and business owners banding together to keep out "undesirables".

That is kind of the premise of why states have marriage rights, giving them the right to discrimination on who they want and don't want living in their communities.

I am not an "its always been that way" person. When something becomes archaic and no longer makes sense - - it should be changed/updated or eliminated all together.

State law: I do support local city/state law. Although we as a whole are becoming more homogenized ---- there are still cultural, geographical, etc differences. I'm in a small town in SW Arizona on the Mexican border. We get "owned" by Phoenix (which is kind of like picante sauce from New York City), if we make too much "noise". So even state governing is hit and miss.

If the Constitution was so cut and dry we wouldn't have/need Constitutional lawyers.

A link. I did do some research. www.nolo.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I'm finally back at a regular computer.

I prefer to simplify. Did you know there is a site: Kid Congress and Kid Law




The authors of the Bill of Rights could not list every individual right. So, they added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to cover all those not listed. For example, one right not specifically listed is "privacy." Many people consider privacy to be covered under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. www.congressforkids.net...




9. This amendment means that nothing written in the Constitution can be used to cancel amendments to it.

10. This amendment means that anything the Constitution does not mention can be considered by states as part of their powers if they wish to do so. www.congressforkids.net...




14. Although you may think the 1st amendment already protects these rights, the 14th amendment specially enforces the Bill of Rights on the states, to make sure that they can never limit the rights of Americans without fairness. kids.laws.com...


1st amendment, what does it mean?

People get the "no establishment of religion" and religious freedom mixed up.

People do have every right to fight for religious belief. They have the right to fight gay marriage because of religious belief. In the end, they will not be successful -- but they do have the right.



1. There are many key phrases in the first Amendment. Here are some explanations on what exactly they mean. Freedom of religion: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents the government from setting up or establishing an official religion of the country. American Citizens have the freedom to attend a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other house of worship of their choice. They can also choose to not be involved in any religion as well. Because of the First Amendment, we can practice our religion however we want to. - See more at: kids.laws.com...


The religious believers have found that they are not going to win against marriage equality by belief.

They have switched tactics. Some are using "harmful to children" using a research paper by Mark Regnerus. This research has been completely discredited and will not stand up in court, however the religious continue to use it and schedule Regnerus for lectures.

A Non-Religious Case Against Same Sex Marriage -- using Mark Regnerus's research. www.theimaginativeconservative.org...

Mark Regenerus discredited (just one example): www.truthwinsout.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Here's an article on connection between gun control and marriage equality. And Please! No dumb liberal comments because its MSN's Chris Matthews.

Please, do read the comments that follow the article.



"The difference here is doing harm to others," Matthews said in his "Let Me Finish" comment at the end of Friday's show.

"Two people getting married doesn’t hurt someone else’s marriage — nor does it reduce its reverence or love," he continued. "Having a gun in the wrong hands — freedom for that person — can mean death for lots of others. That is where the desire for freedom jumps the tracks." www.advocate.com...


edit on 15-8-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

"Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I disagree with congressforkids, but that's a website and I'm a person, so I lose. Right?

If it was intended to say that no Amendment can be created to cessate edits to the constitution, then you'd think it would clearly state that in whatever language.

I see it saying that no amendment can be created to contradict another amendment.

It's saying that no amendment can be created to deny or disparage the rights mentioned in the constitution that are retained by the people.

This makes sense.

Having amendments with contradictory views on rights would make no sense. It's just stupid.

Basically it's saying equal rights and unification.

Okay. I'm enjoying reading more than participating. Have fun, y'all.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis

I disagree with congressforkids, but that's a website and I'm a person, so I lose. Right?

If it was intended to say that no Amendment can be created to cessate edits to the constitution, then you'd think it would clearly state that in whatever language.


Like I said, if the Constitution was "cut and dry" - - there'd be no need for Constitutional lawyers.

I'm in no way qualified to debate the rights and wrongs of interpretation of the Constitution. I can only use other people's interpretation.

You may be right. Certainly a valid opinion.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Wow. I don't think the 9th amendment has anything to do with other amendments... So, I disagree with you both. To me, it means that just because a right isn't enumerated (or listed) in the Constitution, that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. The right to vote, for example, isn't listed in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean we don't have that right. Same with the right to privacy and marriage.



It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.


9th Amendment



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Constitutional lawyers aren't needed because the constitution isn't cut and dry. Constitutional lawyers are needed to keep unconstitutional lawyers in check.

It's really not a matter of interpretation. "Interpretation" is used by people so that they can eschew, or pull a veil over people's eyes and confuse them.

If you'd like, I can post the definitions for each word within the 9th amendment, going as far as to research what they may have meant within their time period. Then I can go over the syntax, defining the difference between, and the meaning of, dependent and independent clauses and they command the interpretation of a sentence.

I will always disagree. I'm not into debating semantics and empty opinions.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
If it was intended to say that no Amendment can be created to cessate edits to the constitution, then you'd think it would clearly state that in whatever language.

I see it saying that no amendment can be created to contradict another amendment.

It's saying that no amendment can be created to deny or disparage the rights mentioned in the constitution that are retained by the people.


If it was intended to say that no amendment can be created to deny or disparage the rights mentioned in the constitution that are retained by the people, then you'd think it would clearly state that in whatever language. But it doesn't.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis

I will always disagree. I'm not into debating semantics and empty opinions.


You keep saying that, so I probably should not even contribute to your thread.

I am a logical thinker that takes things to their simplest form.

I'll leave interpreting man made legalize to you and others.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
I see it saying that no amendment can be created to contradict another amendment.


The 18th amendment established alcohol prohibition. The 21st amendment repealed or "contradicted" it.

I'd really like to hear why you think the 9th amendment means anything other than: just because a right isn't listed in the Constitution, that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
edit on 8/15/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Like I said. You're both playing semantics. It was not contradicted, it was abolished or repealed. No offense, but a dictionary might come in handy!

Now, having the 18th and the 21st simultaneously in effect would be a contradiction! However, that would require the 21st not repealing the 18th.

This is non-sense.

"The enumeration in the constitution..."

It's right there. What is the enumeration in the Constitution? It certainly doesn't mean the alphabet. Oh, I know! Maybe it means the closest Chinese phonetic interpretation! Now you're causing me to become cynical toward the both of you.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

I don't know if you're having a bad day or what, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. I'm seriously asking because I don't understand WHY you think it has anything to do with other amendments. It doesn't mention other amendments.

And any "cynicism" you're displaying is no one's fault but yours.

Now, how about answering my question?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights," (The LISTING of rights in the Constitution)


enumerate: To count off or name one by one; list


"...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Shall not be interpreted to deny other rights of the people.

Source

I'm really curious why you think it's talking about amendments overriding each other.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



14 is laws. 9 is amendments.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
14 is laws. 9 is amendments.


What? 14 what? 9 what? What does this mean? The ninth doesn't mention amendments.

Are you really the OP? Your first post was so well-written and now you're spitting out emoticons and short quips. I thought you didn't want emotions and opinions in this thread???
edit on 8/15/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The ninth doesn't mention amendments.


The enumeration in the constitution...



Are you really the OP?


Who knows?! Maybe that's a matter of interpretation, too!


Your first post was so well-written


Awe. Why thank you. That is sweet of you.


and now you're spitting out emoticons and short quips. I thought you didn't want emotions and opinions in this thread???


I never stated that. It gets hard to have conversations with people when those people attempt to define my intents and misrepresent me. I said no emotions? You imply there may be something wrong with emoticons and short quips?

Are my responses not pleasing you? I'm sorry. I answer to no one when it comes to that. I define myself and I define my intents.

You seem to have no trouble understanding my sentences. It'd be nice if you didn't magically lose that level of comprehension when it comes to the constitution.

But, perhaps all of this is just a misinterpretation. I'm really using definition 4 of every word in this post. Go figure.

Next up: We are argue about the meaning of red. Perhaps it's just dark pink. But dark pink might just be a different shade of purple...

NO THANKS. I don't spend my days running in circles playing with ridiculous semantical interpretations just to over-complicate an issue or create strife with others. In fact, this is my last reply to you regarding this type of substance.






top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join