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.

 

Gay Marrige band overturn Constitutional?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
California Prop 8 over turn constitutional?
Dictator is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make Laws without effective restraint by a Legislative assembly. Now I know the Judge did not make any laws but he over turned a law that was put in place by the people. When does the right of one judge have the power to overturn the voice of the people of California? Or when does the power of one judge have the power to overturn the new illegal immigration law in Arizona that was ran through the states senate and house legally.

I want to make this debate about the legal right for a judge to overturn laws that the people put in place. I don’t care about what law we are talking about just the fact ONE person can overturn the voice of the people. I understand the constitution but I see no place in it were it states it’s illegal to make gay marriage illegal. Or illegal to enforce your boarders?

Arguments will be made that the judge overturned the laws to protect the minorities. But last I check this is a country that is ran by the majority vote. These judges are “protecting the minorities” in turn over turning the majority so is this country now being run by the minorities?

Arguments will be made about the pursuit of happiness and that gays or illegal’s have the right to happiness. My argument is I have the pursuit of happiness and I want to own automatic guns. I want to do drugs (hypothetically speaking) and drive around without my seat belt. That is what will make me happy. Do I have the right to do that then? NO!

Another argument is well if they voted to take your guns then that will be law then. No, the right to bare arm is in the constitution.

A judges job is to interpret the constitution. I find no place in the constitution making these laws that got over turned unconstitutional.

Please lets restrain ourselves with the bible verses. And keep it a constitutional debate please.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by camaro68ss]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by camaro68ss]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by camaro68ss]




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
When does the right of one judge have the power to overturn the voice of the people of California? Or when does the power of one judge have the power to overturn the new illegal immigration law in Arizona that was ran through the states senate and house legally?


He has the power when the law is unconstitutional. Just because it's the "voice of the people" does not make it infallible.


Originally posted by camaro68ss
I understand the constitution but I see no place in it were it states it’s illegal to make gay marriage illegal.


14th Amendment: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States:..."

By denying gay marriage, the state abridged (shortened or eliminated) the privilege of marriage for a group of citizens.



Originally posted by camaro68ss
Arguments will be made that the judge overturned the laws to protect the minorities. But last I check this is a country that is ran by the majority vote. These judges are “protecting the minorities” in turn over turning the majority so is this country now being run by the minorities?


The Founding Fathers tried to protect against a tyrannical majority. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, though at the time we still had slaves. Eventually these rights were extended to African Americans by the 14th amendment. In proper democracy, the majority must not be able to oppress the minority.


Originally posted by camaro68ss
Arguments will be made about the pursuit of happiness and that gays or illegal’s have the right to happiness. My argument is I have the pursuit of happiness and I want to own automatic guns.


That's definitely legal, I believe you need a class 3 license.


Originally posted by camaro68ss
I want to do drugs (hypothetically speaking) and drive around without my seat belt. That is what will make me happy. Do I have the right to do that then? NO!


You don't have a right to either of those (prescription medication and antique automobiles aside), and no one else in our country does. The gay marriage ban is a case of denying one group the privileges that another group has.


Originally posted by camaro68ss
A judges job is to interpret the constitution. I find no place in the constitution making these laws that got over turned unconstitutional.


I believe the parts of the Arizona law that were overturned violated the Supremacy Clause, and as I've already pointed out, the gay marriage ban violates parts of the 14th Amendment. At least that's what the arguments are.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by camaro68ss


Originally posted by camaro68ss
Arguments will be made about the pursuit of happiness and that gays or illegal’s have the right to happiness. My argument is I have the pursuit of happiness and I want to own automatic guns.


That's definitely legal, I believe you need a class 3 license.



I believe the parts of the Arizona law that were overturned violated the Supremacy Clause, and as I've already pointed out, the gay marriage ban violates parts of the 14th Amendment. At least that's what the arguments are.


The automatic weapons law is not as easy as having a Class III license. You first have to apply for one from a LEO and jump through some Hoops in the ATF. Then and only if you have a LEO that is pro 2nd AM, will you be able to purchase a stamp for a automatic weapon that has been manufactured BEFORE a certain antiquated date. I think 80 something. I cannot own a M240G or a MK19 or anyother automatic weapon built after a certain date.

The Arizona Law.
This law mimics Federal Law. I think you will see the ruling overturned by a higher court. Then overturned again by an activist group of judges who care nothing about interpreting the law, but care more about ruling the Law. The only thing wrong with the Arizona Law, was that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, by Law. The Fed Gov does not like it when someone else does their job for them, even if they refuse to do it themselves.

Over Five Thousand Years of precedent history speaks otherwise on Gay marriage. It does not exist. Therefore it is not a right nor a privilege nor is it protected by the Constitution.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by arcnaver]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 




....But last I check this is a country that is ran by the majority vote....



the cornerstone of the american republic is the protection of social minorities.

when the constitution was being drafted, the tiny state of Rhode Island initially refused to join the union. they were afraid that they would be powerless to the overwhelming population and size of Virginia.

so a compromise was made and we ended up with the Senate, the purpose of which is to ensure that even small minorities can have their interests recognized.

not only was what that judge did constitutional, it was also honorable and totally necessary.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I would argue the judge made the wrong ruling because he did it under the 14th ammendment.

In which i see no rights being denied at all. A gay guy has just as much the right as a straight man to marry a women. A man can marry a women. just as a women can marry a man. Its not a sexual preferance thing or a race thing. Its a gender thing.

Let me reiterate. No one has ever been denied the right to marry. No matter what sexual preferance or what gays tell you. The truth is we can all marry the opposite sex because thats what the states and the will of the people have decided the requirment to be.

The LGBT has been entirely dishonest about this whole thing. They have always had the right to marry. its not discrimination. We are all equal here. The problem is that gays want to change the definition set forth by the states and the will of the people.

Essentially the minority overpowering the majority.

Just so we are clear here. ANY MAN can marry any woman. ANY WOMAN can marry any man. No man can marry another man. No woman cane marry another woman.

its not my problem if they choose not to. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO.

No the gays could have argued to extend the definition under a different context.

This is why this judges ruling is unconstitutional. Because nothing discriminatory is happening here. But what he just did is overturn the will of the people under the tenth ammendment where it falls under states rights.

I also find the fact that the judge is gay himself very suspect.



[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by arcnaver
The automatic weapons law is not as easy as having a Class III license. You first have to apply for one from a LEO and jump through some Hoops in the ATF. Then and only if you have a LEO that is pro 2nd AM, will you be able to purchase a stamp for a automatic weapon that has been manufactured BEFORE a certain antiquated date. I think 80 something. I cannot own a M240G or a MK19 or anyother automatic weapon built after a certain date.


I never said it was that simple, but I remain correct in the statement that I made. The specifics aren't really necessary, just the point that you CAN own automatic weapons, which is the point I was making.



Originally posted by arcnaver
The Arizona Law.
This law mimics Federal Law. I think you will see the ruling overturned by a higher court. Then overturned again by an activist group of judges who care nothing about interpreting the law, but care more about ruling the Law. The only thing wrong with the Arizona Law, was that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, by Law. The Fed Gov does not like it when someone else does their job for them, even if they refuse to do it themselves.


Well, if the law does mimic Federal Law, then I believe the statement I made is yet again correct. Though I did not state it as fact, I simply said that it was the argument being made.

Remember, the OP is claiming that "the judges are protecting the minorities" (which the Founding Fathers sought to do). I've only pointed out where the arguments are being made in the realm of constitutionality, there's no evidence that the judges are deliberately protecting special interests. If that was true, the ruling on the Arizona law would have probably been absolute, rather than only parts of it.


Originally posted by arcnaver
Over Five Thousand Years of precedent history speaks otherwise on Gay marriage. It does not exist.


Really? There's quite a bit of evidence to show that homosexual unions have occurred in many different cultures and civilizations. Gilgamesh and Enkidu are thought by some to have had a homosexual relationship. The notion that "it does not exist" is laughable.


Originally posted by arcnaver
Therefore it is not a right nor a privilege nor is it protected by the Constitution.


The constitution does NOT define marriage. It's up to the states to define what marriage is. However, when it's defined to exclude or discriminate against a certain type of couple (black marriages and inter-racial marriages were once illegal), it violates the 14th amendment because you're granting one type of couple a privilege and excluding another type from that privilege.



Originally posted by Nofoolishness
I would argue the judge made the wrong ruling because he did it under the 14th ammendment.


Because the 14th Amendment is not a part of the Constitution... or...?


Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Let me reiterate. No one has ever been denied the right to marry. No matter what sexual preferance or what gays tell you.


Yes, people actually have been denied the right to marry. Black couples and inter-racial couples went through the same problems, even though they were heterosexual. Also, not just gays are arguing this issue. I'm completely heterosexual, and I support gay marriage.


Originally posted by Nofoolishness The truth is we can all marry the opposite sex because thats what the states and the will of the people have decided the requirment to be.


14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those are the two parts that Prop 8 was ruled to violate.

When the state defines marriage to exclude a type of couple, they're granting the privilege of marriage (not defined in the constitution) to one group of citizens and denying it to another. That's a denial of the equal protection of the law.


Originally posted by Nofoolishness
The problem is that gays want to change the definition set forth by the states and the will of the people.

Essentially the minority overpowering the majority.


The Founding Fathers did their best to safeguard against a tyrannical majority, including the Bill of Rights. We might live in a democratic society, but it's not built on absolute democracy. The majority shouldn't be able to oppress a minority, which is one of the reasons we have the 14th Amendment.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


the LGBT group is trying to force their agenda to basically make it what they do is normal and no laws shouldn't be made against them. But when do also laws protect sexual deviants?

LOL the human race makes me laugh.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
The Issue of Gay Marriage and Constitutionality doesn't make sense unless you know how to define marriage.

MARRIAGE = nuptial union of man and woman recognized and protected by the community for the purposes or expectation of raising children

CIVIL UNION = any other social union recognized and protected by the community with all tax, insurance, property and inheritance benefits.

Right of Children = to be raised in a family with both a mother and a father and have all physical and emotional needs met by the family.

Right of Reproduction = right for a married couple together to decide how many if any, when, and under what conditions they will reproduce and take full responsibility for the results of acts and products of reproduction without any outside or intermediary interference. However, these rights cannot violate the rights of the Children.

If we understand what the purpose and definition of marriage means, and we understand what the constitutional right of children is. Then we can understand the difference between TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and CIVIL UNION. And we can understand what the difference is between marriage and civil union has to be.

I am in support of CIVIL UNIONS having all tax, insurance, inheritance benefits. But because I believe that it is the RIGHT of children to be born and have both a Father and a Mother and research supports that children raised do best, I think that our laws should reflect and support the ideal.

That would lead to another matter, and that is if we define marriage according to these terms, and we believe that children have a right to be born to both a mother and a father then it leads that CIVIL UNIONS should be discouraged from creating children using advanced fertility technology, sperm donors, invitro, surrogate mothers, etc.

Because of the need, the issue of adoption or foster care may be acceptable, but usually people in favor of civil union think the world is overpopulated, so why would they go out of their way to make more biological children instead of adopting or foster care especially when it is the right of children to have a male and female influence for healthy psychosocial development.

As far a young single mothers go, I encourage abstainance and or adoption (adoption by grandparents possibly).

Now if you disagree, then you will have to define your terms of MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNION, RIGHTS OF REPRODUCTION, and RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join