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.
Originally posted by scorand
That creator you say has no business being a part of the law is said to endow us with certain unalienable rights, among them are, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
god guiding our laws is different from the seperation of church and state. look at what jesus had to say about religion.. and as far as unailienable rights it seems to be the main aganda of the right wing religous that gays should be denied what what most others get.. as in the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.. and lets not forget that marriage ( in its many forms)was around a lot longer than christianity..
Sooooooooooo, I guess that means that since no one was ever convicted for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, they were never really murdered viciously...- Jaxon Roberts,
This is a prime example of your 'debate', and I use the term loosely, style. Ad hominems, straw men and twisting of words... Smoke and mirrors... ATS isn't a pulpit, and no one is here to listen to a sermon...
Originally posted by Stylez
A couple, who is denied a marriage license by law on account of their same-sex cannot claim denial of the equal protection of the laws because they do not stand to be imprisoned, hanged, or at risk to have their estate arbitrarily confiscated before some court of law.
Source.
Colorado 15
Connecticut 15
Hawaii 14
Idaho 14
Mississippi 16 - [2]
South Carolina 14/16
Virginia 15
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.
Source.
SC CONSTITUTION SECTION 33. Age of consent. -- No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years. (1999 Act No. 3, Section 1, eff February 16, 1999)
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.
2) I am not responsible for any insults you may have perceived from any other poster.
I am not gay.
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.
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.
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.
Plenty of heterosexual people abuse marriage - to gain citizenship, for example.
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 the US.
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.
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.
Due Process
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 property
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Nice sidestep, but your words are your words, which I quoted. If it's not what you meant to say, then it is not my fault you cannot articulate yourself better.
As to the 'kink' issue. While it has absolutely no place in this debate, I would say to you that the day you can find 'Amputee Porn' and 'Midget Porn' in the Gay section of the Adult Video Store
, the day that I can go to Mardi Gras or Fantasy Fest and not see women wearing nothing but body paint, the day that I can go into a heterosexual strip club and not see two girls doing each other with a strap-on, you can come complain about how dirty my house is.
Until then, I suggest you focus on cleaning your own first.
Now onto this nonsense about the age of consent. It's been posted earlier, but apparently we need a refresher:
Source.
Colorado 15
Connecticut 15
Hawaii 14
Idaho 14
Mississippi 16 - [2]
South Carolina 14/16
Virginia 15
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.
So once a 12 yr old has been 'deflowered', it's game on! Nice, very nice...
As to South Carolina, it's in it's Constitution:
Source.
SC CONSTITUTION SECTION 33. Age of consent. -- No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years. (1999 Act No. 3, Section 1, eff February 16, 1999)
Yes, that's 1999, not some old addition in the Victorian Age... None of these states are exactly heavily gay populated, to say the least. In fact, all but two are 'red' states. So again, come see me when your house is clean...
Are you out of smoke and mirrors, yet?
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Are you out of smoke and mirrors, yet?
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Are you out of smoke and mirrors, yet?
Apparently not....
Originally posted by Annee
Exactly - what consenting adult group are you talking about?
Not lifestyle - - Birth Right.
[edit on 12-9-2009 by Annee]
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by Annee
Exactly - what consenting adult group are you talking about?
Not lifestyle - - Birth Right.
[edit on 12-9-2009 by Annee]
Birth right?
Let’s say you were born gay, how you practice it is a lifestyle. A pedophile is born that way too.
Originally posted by Annee
Yes - legal age of consent is set by law.
There is no consent in pedophile.
Originally posted by Annee
Yes - legal age of consent is set by law.
There is no consent in pedophile.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by Annee
Yes - legal age of consent is set by law.
There is no consent in pedophile.
But there are people born with a defect that gives them a pedophile urge that is contrary to what nature intended, and it is contrary to the social and moral values of the majority.
Gays are born with a defect that gives them a homosexual urge that is contrary to what nature intended, and it is contrary to the social and moral values of the majority.
Originally posted by Annee
I do agree people are "born wired". I do not agree Pedophile is contrary to nature. It is contrary to some Societies - - it is a part of some Societies.
People with Red Hair are born with a defect. We could list genetic differences til doomsday.
Consenting adults.
If you can't speak within the confines of "consenting adults" - then don't speak.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
I would but you have not defined what constitutes a consenting adult, and if you say the law then I would also need to say the law defines what a legal marriage is too. Why agree with one and not the other?
Pedophile have a sexual urge with an age group that cannot procreate just as homosexuals have a sexual urge that cannot procreate either, and because of that I would say both of these are contrary to what nature intended.
Originally posted by Annee
Procreation and morality are not even in the equation. You can not legislate someone else's morality - - other then "cause no harm". I read someone else's interesting thought that the "apparent" increase of gays is nature itself handling over population.
Back to consenting adults. Laws of: culpability - awareness - maturity - consent - accountability - - - is not even in the same ballpark as - laws against two committed adults wanting to join as one household.
Not going to discuss morality/procreation/age of consent - - - as I find them unnecessary padding to any legitimate argument of consenting adults joining in marriage.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Lol, are you kidding?
The vast majority of our laws are based on social and moral values.