Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
You are evidently making some assumptions that are inaccurate, and bear correction.
1) I have never insulted you to any degree. I disagree with you.
Did I say, that was YOU that insulted me?
2) I am not responsible for any insults you may have perceived from any other poster.
What gave you the idea I thought such a thing as that?
I am not gay.
I didn't ask and it's really none of my business what you are .
This is incorrect, and is the basis of the equal protection argument. A gay couple that would be married given the opportunity can build an
estate over their lives together... a business, say, or just a home. And that creates an estate. And when one of them dies, under current
(unconstitutional) law, a court can indeed arbitrarily confiscate that estate from the surviving partner and grant it to a blood relative of
the deceased, with no legal consideration of the surviving partner.
This is one of the most significant arguments the gay community brings to the table on this issue. This situation denies the gay partnership equal
protection under due process of the law.
Of the necessary agents and assigns limited liability co's have, sub-chapter S, corporations and general partnerships utilize or things like
property, key man insurance, fiduciary agents such as accountants and / or corp. lawyers create documents called "Power Of Attorney" if one of the
board members dies, he may have a living will, created assigning anyone of his choosing to be it's custodial executor. Because Marriage had so
many "blood relatives" due to again its unique ability to create same, it was decided that such insurance riders and powers of attorney be included
as a standard attachment.
Gays attempting to back door blood relative status in something like an oxymoron like same sex marriage is again, attempting to steal "Blood
Relative" status while such coupling for all intents and purposes, yields no such thing. So they have no business in it moreover, gays may want to
take a cue from the same ideas for making this kind of relationship what it is borrowing the same concepts and ideas it took from the "Corporation
and General partnership Businesses did.
Another point. You keep bringing reproduction into the argument. There is no stipulation in any state's marriage laws that I have ever seen -
and I acknowledge I have not seen them all - that requires reproduction in a marriage. My wife and I have chosen to not reproduce, yet our marriage is
as valid as anybody's. Reproduction is not an issue.
Thought someone would say this at sometime. No it isn’t mandatory to MAKE people that get married have children. That would be illegal, and no the
best the Government can do is make marriage in such a way where it doesn't benefit those who don't have children. One click posted the perfect
example of that using tax withholding. So no, it isn't a requirement but it assumes people have common sense. You saying it isn't about family
because it doesn't make it ones legal obligation to make babies makes for a good straw man but eeeh No cigar. It has no bearing on this issue
As far as siblings being married, laws against incest are based on the very real and valid biological danger of two closely related people reproducing
(should they choose to do so). It is just not a good idea, biologically, with no need to bring morality into it. In fact, I suspect the moral angle on
this has evolved from the biological.
Additionally, and less relevantly, siblings do not normally require the legal protection of marriage, as inheritance frequently goes to blood siblings
by default in any case.
Finally, you keep bringing up all the immoral things gay people do, according to your moral compass. You certainly have the right to your opinion on
this, but it has no relevance to the question at hand. Or as you put it " Reproduction is not an issue." you got that right, it is usually much
more often than not, a "given"
Plenty of heterosexual people also want the age of consent lowered, so they can diddle the child of their choice. That is another issue, and is not
relevant to the question of two consenting adults being married.
First, I think anyone straight or gay is whacked for doing that. Having said that, I will submit that most of the time, I see anyone wanting to
disparage Christians, they reach for the most extreme personality given as the example of Christians in general and most of us know that is the
exception to the rule. Most Christians and I know thousands, but of those I know all my life, they actually TRY not to cuss, I have had many
Christian room mates and they didn't do drugs, they gave to charities they put themselves among peers where a standard of behavior contrary to that
they are trying to live up to, gets corrected quite harsh by those other members. They are ALL Hypocrites and I have never met a man that wasn't
about something. I used to say My Church was full of hypocrites, and there is always room for more so you're welcome to come join us too.
What I am saying is, when it comes to gays, no matter what state, no matter what parade they wish to display their pride, what you see IS the rule and
conservative modest self respecting gays who don't behave as if sex is the center of their freaking world, is the exception to that rule. The Gay
lifestyle has stated, its reasons for wanting in on marriage so bad is because of the political inroads it will give them in their agenda to claim
"suspect status" or a special class distinction needing protection. Now THAT is covered under the 14th amendment.
You actually believe them to be so worthy of tolerance? Wouldn't it be better if they quit talking about tolerating them and becoming the sort of
people no one HAS to "tolerate?
You see me say things like this and the first thing you do is tell me I'm a bigot and a hater. When Gays sued the Christian online dating service
"E-Harmony" inundating them with law suites, forcing those Christians to incorporate homosexuals on a Christian dating service. You got to know how
that looks. You got to ask yourself who is treading ON WHO?
When GAYS didn't like the result of the prop 8 debacles and started sending envelope with white powder in them to all the Mormons who quietly said
NO, You got to know, things like tolerance come after self preservation. When gays who have always dressed like they were either a member of the
Rocky Horror picture show or on their way to a leather bar, we grit our teeth and just kept the kids form going into town that day. But now, NOW it
is typical to see them urinating on each other, and forget the costumes, as they don't wear clothes at all at most of these functions. Compare
websites, of your average Christian and your average gay site. Just try that. Tell me, is that what you want to think about whenever you hear the
word "gay"? You see rather than do the right thing and rise to a level of personal excellence, gays don't want to give up a thing. They are the
extreme of the extremist and you name it, sexual partners? Gays by the hundreds and sometimes thousands and that IS a general statistic and have
posted it earlier. Sexually transmitted disease? Gays in this country by a LONG SHOT. Gays want to do the same thing to marriage; they did to that
online dati8ng service. Ill tell you something else too.
I am retired now, but I was a national guest speaker for many years, speaking to gay audiences all over the United states and Canada where they
invited me at a very handsome sum of money to hear what I had to say about the industry they were in and how they could rise above the very
appropriate stereotype they have created and are making worse. I have never left one of those engagements where I didn't get a standing ovation.
Ask yourself, what other members of society do you know that will deliberately test a business's tolerance by deliberately using over the top public
displays of affection in front of that business cash register and if they are asked to take it to a room, they invariably call the person a bigot
never once considering they may be deserving of it.
I hope I never am so repugnant I have to insist others tolerate me and be so damned unreasonable to not act like most self respecting Americans, they
have to use the legal system in backwards Machiavellian machinations to use laws against those people that same set of laws were designed to protect.
To force people to like them, rather than be likeable, to call us bigots and haters when they go out of their way and in your face to garner just such
sentiment. Why? Because it proves their point they need special victim’s class protections? I have never seen a straight guy trying to hook up with
anyone in a public restroom, but I have seen lots of gays do that. The response to yell bigot is such a conditioned one, you know it HAD to be
scripted. I know thousands of gays that would tell you, I am the last person on earth that would hate them.
That was before they all started wanting to force us to embrace their sexuality and infuse it into our marriages are public schools etc. I wish their
actually was more to say about them that was, well, something more noble to be proud of in a gay parade, then just kinky sex and profanity. I don't
like to use the things they do to portray them that way, I offer an out usually giving them a way to save face because I know if it were me and I
knew what I was about, most of them being involved in such activity. Even if it were the fringe of gays? How is it they, are the image of gays and
not someone else?
I don't just show their is something to fear with gays having access to children, I PROVED IT. What we all feared they would do, they did in fact,
do, worse, and the responsibility to teach kids about diversity and tolerance, turned into a discussion on the finer points of fisting and whether to
swallow or not and it was being taught in this manner all across the country and you got to ask yourself?? What In GODS NAME are they THINKING!
Do you know what they did after they had been recorded and lost in court, they got fired. They cost the taxpayers millions using the ACLU to sue to
(get this) get their job back!
No remorse, not one clue that maybe, just maybe, they should bear responsibility for their ACTIONS. Gays have an image problem and a public relations
nightmare for anyone to try and fix, because gays would rather we all keep adjusting to them, tolerating them, accepting them and if we don’t!
Watch out! They go ballistic.
No I am sure many of you think I am all wrong about this stuff, and I could prove it but even that is a delicate ordeal with gays because everything
they do is so filled with objectionable language and imagery, I got a TC tag trying and even blocked out the bad stuff. Morality is as important as
the respect it gets, the trust it gets, the credit it is offered, the responsibility it is given and the credibility it has for those who appreciate
and respect moral issues.
Plenty of heterosexual people abuse marriage - to gain citizenship, for example.
Yeah and some people use fake ID's to get into bars but that doesn't mean we should get rid of IDs
All of your arguments, as near as I understand them, boil down to morality, based on religion. That is fine, and I will argue just as hard for
your right to hold those opinions and live by that morality. But these religion-based moral arguments have no place in secular US law, if for no other
reason than other religions have no objection to gay people being married, and preference of one religion over another in law is definitely a no-go in
Important note, since it seems to be a touchy subject. I am making no attack on your religion. I am saying extreme caution must be used when
using any religious arguments to influence secular laws in this country.
No, I haven't been shoveling scripture and religion here, I had to respond to the attacks on my religion and that’s where it got started. I rarely
use the bible in any posts and you can ask many of the Christians here, I don't just side with them because they are Christian either. I have
brought the 14th amendment in this before you did and I see you have misunderstood the property protections and well pretty much all of it.
So again, I give you the exhaustive interpretation to the 14th amendment quotes from the author included
It's interesting to point that Congress did indeed define the privileges and immunities of citizens under “A bill to declare and protect all the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States,” aka, Civil Rights Bill of 1866, and it said nothing about any of
the first Eight Amendments:
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue,
be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by
white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
That provision, gentlemen will remember, was a limitation imposed upon the State of Missouri in the very words of the Constitution itself, to wit:
that its constitution never should be so construed, and never should be so enforced as to deprive any citizen of the United States of the rights and
privileges of a citizen of the United States within the limits of that State. The fourteenth article of the amendments of the Constitution secures
this power to the Congress of the United States.
The gentleman will pardon me. The amendment is exactly in the language of the Constitution; that is to say, it secures to the citizens of each of the
States all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. It is not to transfer the laws of one State to another State at all. It is
to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States. If the State laws do
not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution.
Like you, many before you didn't quite understand Bimghams famous 14th amendment.
The incorporation of the Fifth’s due process clause had little effect on the States because it was merely seen as a safeguard from arbitrary denial
of life, liberty, or property outside the sanction of law and did not act to oust the States from continuing to administer justice as they had always
under their own Constitution and laws. Because due process deals only with the administration of justice, limits its application.
Bingham never made it a secret that the words due process of law were the words of the 39th Chapter of the Magna Charta. In the following speech he
clearly links due process of the law with Chapter 39 of the Magna Charta:
[The] Magna Charta of England, to which he referred, and the Magna Charta of the United States of America, as written in your Constitution in words so
plain "that the wayfaring man cannot err therein." The gentleman read from the Magna Charta of England, that "no freeman shall be taken or
disseized," &c., "but by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land;" forgetful of the fact that the words "no freeman" were words of
limitation, and limited this great charter at the time it was adopted to one half the population of England, and forgetful also that these words of
limitation were swept away by the Constitution of the United States, in which it is declared that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law." By that great law of ours it is not to be inquired whether a man is "free" by the laws of England; it is only
to be inquired is he a man, and therefore free by the law of that creative energy which breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a
living soul, endowed with the rights of life and liberty.31Under the Magna Charta we find “legal judgment of his peers or the law of the land,”
later extended under 28 Edward III in 1354 to read: “No man, of whatever estate or condition, shall be put out from land or tenement, taken or
imprisoned, disinherited, or put to death, without being brought to answer by due process of law.” The words “law of the land” and “due
process of law” have long been recognized to be synonymous. It is easy understand the historical genesis behind the words life, liberty and
Now what is immunity and what is property exactly
The word property is the American term for freehold under the Charta and essentially mean chattels or interests in land. In April of 1872 Bingham
pointed out that seizure of property under due process does not require the process of a jury:
Gentlemen will bear in mind that years ago a question arose quite kindred to that now raised here as to the effect and meaning of the term "due
process of law" as used in the fifth article of amendments to the Constitution, which was passed upon in the Supreme Court of the United States. I
refer to the case of Murray vs. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 18 Howard, 280. In that case land was seized on a Treasury warrant issued to the
United States marshal, and sold. The question raised and decided in the case was whether upon a warrant issued by the Treasury land could be seized
and sold by the marshal without the intervention of a jury. The validity of the act of Congress authorizing such seizure and sale was sustained by the
Supreme Court and stands to-day unchallenged, declaring that the phrase "due process of law" means the law of the land.
In other words, an act of the legislature sanctioning seizure of land without trial is 'due process.' It would had only been unconstitutional if
there had been no law in place for the seizure of land without trial by jury.
Enter the Civil Rights era!
Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) and Sen. Jacob Howard (in the Senate) introduced the final form of the Fourteenth
Amendment out of committee in May of 1866, both spoke of the language in terms of accomplishing the same goals under their Civil Rights Bill.
For example, Stevens said the affect of the amendment when introducing it to the House on May 8, 1866: “Whatever law punishes a white man for a
crime shall punish the black man precisely in the same way and to the same degree. Whatever law protects the white man shall afford “equal”
protection to the black man. ... Now different degrees of punishment are inflicted, not on the magnitude of the crime, but according to the color of
the skin. Now color disqualifies a man from testifying in courts, or being tried in the same way as white men.”
Bingham declared from the start that it was his intention to codify provisions of the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 under the U.S. Constitution. Bingham
specifically singled out this provision of the Civil Rights Bill:
And such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and
enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full
and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. After
reciting the above, Bingham then explains the above will be the basis for his proposed amendment to the Constitution:
I say, with all my heart, that that should be the law of every State, by the voluntary act of every State. The law in every State should be just; it
should be no respecter of persons. It is otherwise now, and it has been otherwise for many years in many of the States of the Union. I should remedy
that not by an arbitrary assumption of power, but by amending the Constitution of the United States, expressly prohibiting the States from any such
abuse of power in the future.35If you ever had wondered what exactly Bingham intended to accomplish with the language he had chosen, well now you
know. Let us now consider for a moment what this language Bingham singled out means.
Now this is the part that REALLY gives this the knock out punch for anyone thinking states have to all abide by justice jaxon roberts ruling
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Senate Judiciary Committee chairperson, described the civil rights bill this way: “This bill neither confers nor abridges the
rights of any one, but simply declares that in civil rights there shall be an equality among all classes of citizens, and that all alike shall be
subject to the same punishments. Each State, so that it does not abridge the great fundamental rights belonging under the Constitution (Art. IV, Sec.
II), to all citizens, may grant or withhold such civil rights as it pleases.
“Whenever Congress attempts to restrict this right of the majority to rule in the State it will attempt usurpation, and whenever the majority of
loyal citizens surrenders that right into the hands of the minority it surrenders the cardinal principle of representative government.” --John A.
Bingham, Authored the 14th ammendment July 20, 1866
[edit on 13-9-2009 by Stylez]