Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

I know you said that the 14th Amendment was ill-conceived, but I also said there wasn't any merit to a person's opinion. The truths in the Constitution are still self-evident and still trump opinion. So whether or not you believe the 14th Amendment is dubious doesn't somehow detract from its authenticity or its validity.

Then President Johnson vetoed the 14th Amendment, declaring:

"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure."

The ratification of this Amendment has been called into question regularly and The Congressional Record of June 13th 1967; H7161 clearly demonstrates this. This is not just a matter of "opinion", it is a matter of law and legality.

Also, I really don't understand how the 9th Amendment somehow acts contrary to what I was stating about the 14th Amendment. If you meant for it to contradict what I was saying, could you please elaborate on that?

The Ninth Amendment makes clear that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to grant people rights, and cannot use the enumeration of rights within the Bill of Rights as a legal argument for the denial and/or disparagement of rights. It further makes clear that rights, enumerated or not, are retained by the people. Retention is ownership. The federal government has no lawful authority to grant people rights they all ready own.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
It's been stated multiple times, we are talking about the legal marriage that this discussion is about. I can marry my dog if I can find someone to perform the ceremony, but it's not legal. It doesn't confer benefits of legal marriage such as inheritance, insurance, and taxes...

None of those "benefits" are rights and the legal recognition of your marraige isn't a right either.

If legal marriage is not a right, then at the very least it confers rights and benefits as detailed on en.wikipedia.org...

And with DOMA on it's way out, I can guarantee you that those rights and benefits will eventually be given to homosexual marriages.

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
It's been stated multiple times, we are talking about the legal marriage that this discussion is about. I can marry my dog if I can find someone to perform the ceremony, but it's not legal. It doesn't confer benefits of legal marriage such as inheritance, insurance, and taxes...

None of those "benefits" are rights and the legal recognition of your marraige isn't a right either.

If legal marriage is not a right, then at the very least it confers rights and benefits as detailed on en.wikipedia.org...

And with DOMA on it's way out, I can guarantee you that those rights and benefits will eventually be given to homosexual marriages.

Basically if it is legal for hetero couples - it must be legal for homo couples.

That is where the Right comes in. People/posters can nit-pik words/meanings - - - but the equality of Right does not change.

Originally posted by Annee
Basically if it is legal for hetero couples - it must be legal for homo couples.

That is where the Right comes in. People/posters can nit-pik words/meanings - - - but the equality of Right does not change.

Marraige is recognized by the government if... you know the critieria (and sexual orientation isn't one of them).

You should try this thread again when you learn what a right is...

Originally posted by grahag
If legal marriage is not a right, then at the very least it confers rights and benefits as detailed on en.wikipedia.org...

It does not confer rights, it removes rights.

Let gay people marry, anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

End of discussion

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Money first, then People. Were they ruling on Law or big-corp economics?
Decoy

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
If legal marriage is not a right, then at the very least it confers rights and benefits as detailed on en.wikipedia.org...

It does not confer rights, it removes rights.

Care to explain? What rights are removed when you get married?

Originally posted by grahag
Care to explain? What rights are removed when you get married?

Freedom from government intrusion in your personal relationships.

reply to post by grahag

Care to explain? What rights are removed when you get married?

SevenBeans replied to your assertion that legal marriage "confers rights and benefits" by pointing out it does the opposite. Now you disingenuously ask S.B. what rights are removed when you get married. It is this willful sloppiness of language that causes so many problems in terms of intrusive government and the erosion of rights.

No rights are removed when you get married. Your right to be married is removed when you apply for a license to do so.

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
If legal marriage is not a right, then at the very least it confers rights and benefits as detailed on en.wikipedia.org...

It does not confer rights, it removes rights.

Care to explain? What rights are removed when you get married?

Here we go again. Certain posters off on their own tangents.

Back on subject: Gays must have the same right as straight people to LEGALLY marry.

reply to post by Annee

Back on subject: Gays must have the same right as straight people to LEGALLY marry.

'
Your clear and obvious agenda to suppress not just gay people, but all people, by insisting they must obtain a license to do what is clearly a right is foul and odious.

reply to post by Annee


They already do.......but I guess the obvious is too hard to see.
Just another attempt to usurp the will of the people by a group wanting special rights.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

They already do.......but I guess the obvious is too hard to see.
Just another attempt to usurp the will of the people by a group wanting special rights.

Are you trying to throw the old and tired cliché "they can marry the opposite sex" into the discussion?

reply to post by Annee

Are you trying to throw the only homosexuals and straight people should be married argument around?
Seriously, intellectual dishonesty at it's finest, you don't want equal rights for all, just a select few.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by grahag

 

Care to explain? What rights are removed when you get married?

SevenBeans replied to your assertion that legal marriage "confers rights and benefits" by pointing out it does the opposite. Now you disingenuously ask S.B. what rights are removed when you get married. It is this willful sloppiness of language that causes so many problems in terms of intrusive government and the erosion of rights.

No rights are removed when you get married. Your right to be married is removed when you apply for a license to do so.

I don't see you lobbying heterosexuals to stop getting married, why are homosexuals supposed to bear the burden and fight for your political beliefs?

We will just continue down the road we are on and get what we want, thanks for your input though.

Should all society ever wish to challenge government on the issue of marriage because government is unnecessarily intrusive, then we can all be part of the movement as a whole.

reply to post by Garfee

I don't see you lobbying heterosexuals to stop getting married, why are homosexuals supposed to bear the burden and fight for your political beliefs?

Ever hopeless in your failed ideology, all you can do to defend it is twist the language of others in a lame hope that your disingenuousness will go unnoticed.

I am not lobbying anyone to stop getting married, and am on record in this thread as encouraging homosexuals to got get married if this is what they want.

In terms of lobbying all people to question the veracity of licensing schemes, I have tirelessly done so, and here are just two threads I have started towards that aim:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don't see because you don't bother to look.

Should all society ever wish to challenge government on the issue of marriage because government is unnecessarily intrusive, then we can all be part of the movement as a whole.

I am not speaking to society. I have never even met this clown called "society" and remain fairly certain that in my journeys this clown "society" will never buy me a beer, or share a profound story with me, or tell me a good joke. Individuals, on the other hand, have and will continue to do so. I speak to individuals. Some will listen, some will ignore me, and others, such as you, will stick their fingers in their ears and scream; "La la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la" always pretending to ignore me, yet clearly not.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Garfee

 

I don't see you lobbying heterosexuals to stop getting married, why are homosexuals supposed to bear the burden and fight for your political beliefs?

Ever hopeless in your failed ideology, all you can do to defend it is twist the language of others in a lame hope that your disingenuousness will go unnoticed.

I am not lobbying anyone to stop getting married, and am on record in this thread as encouraging homosexuals to got get married if this is what they want.

In terms of lobbying all people to question the veracity of licensing schemes, I have tirelessly done so, and here are just two threads I have started towards that aim:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don't see because you don't bother to look.

Should all society ever wish to challenge government on the issue of marriage because government is unnecessarily intrusive, then we can all be part of the movement as a whole.

I am not speaking to society. I have never even met this clown called "society" and remain fairly certain that in my journeys this clown "society" will never buy me a beer, or share a profound story with me, or tell me a good joke. Individuals, on the other hand, have and will continue to do so. I speak to individuals. Some will listen, some will ignore me, and others, such as you, will stick their fingers in their ears and scream; "La la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la" always pretending to ignore me, yet clearly not.

I am an Australian and New Zealander, buying you a beer and having a chat is what we do. Unfortunately you and I are not personally aquainted so this can't happen but if you are ever in Melbourne, Australia, I encourage you to contact me and the beer is on me.

It is likely that I have missed certain points you have made. I feel though that one of them might be that you are perfectly happy for me, a homosexual male, to be married as long as it's to a female.

My point is this would be more disingenuous than any argument that you offer me as to why homosexuals should not marry eachother.

reply to post by Garfee

I am an Australian and New Zealander, buying you a beer and having a chat is what we do. Unfortunately you and I are not personally aquainted so this can't happen but if you are ever in Melbourne, Australia, I encourage you to contact me and the beer is on me.

Thank you for the offer. If ever in Melbourne, I will gladly take you up on your offer.

It is likely that I have missed certain points you have made. I feel though that one of them might be that you are perfectly happy for me, a homosexual male, to be married as long as it's to a female.

There you go again with your disingenousness. I said what I said, and did not say what I did not say. If I had said what you are attempting to say for me, don't you think you would have highlighted it in a quote and ran with it? Failing this,, all you can do is keep twisting in the wind.

I care not what the gender of your mate is, only that you are happy. I can see no reason why any person would have to gain permission from the state in order to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. I have made this clear in this thread, but just as the O.P. is, you too are guilty of intellectual dishonesty. If your cause is so just, why the need to lie?

My point is this would be more disingenuous than any argument that you offer me as to why homosexuals should not marry eachother.

It would, wouldn't it? In reality this is not the case. Would you like to come back down to reality, or would you rather keep up the disingenousness? That choice, just as getting married, remains yours.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I've had a look through your posts in this thread and I might have mistaken your comments for someone elses, I am very sorry if that's the case.

I did pick up a few things from re-reading them and I wonder that there might be some merit in the concept of forming a binding contract between two individuals, providing power of attorney and other aspects of a marriage to eachother?

I'm all for that and the idea is intriguing, but can't help but be concerned that this contract would not be honoured in countries outside of where it was signed.

I am not a legal professional and as a lay person my knowlege of such is still lacking, what are your thoughts?