Tendo City

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10875094

Awesome. I find it hard to believe I was ever on the other side of this debate.

Discuss.

I think that the Prop 8 folks should appeal this to the supreme court of all the land, and then when THEY strike it down, it'll render all similar laws in the country equally invalid.

Fantastic news, but we'll see about how well this ruling holds up on appeal... I wouldn't be at all surprised if it ends up getting overturned. I mean, the US Supreme Court does have a conservative majority... I don't know though, it could be left as a states issue and hold up because of that? We'll see.

If it is not determined to be a state's rights issue, would that potentially leave an opening to lift all bans?

Well sure, but do you think that this conservative Supreme Court actually do such a thing?

I see your point, but the thing to keep in mind is, well, lifetime appointment. They probably are all pretty divorced from whatever nonsense today's Republicans are spouting. They've got nothing at all to lose. They're either going to die in their positions, or retire. Either way, they're not necessarily interested in the day-to-day political nonsense as they've got no votes to lose.

Finally Rtan..... I do.

DJ, if you've been following supreme court decisions at all over the, oh, past decade you would know that while it has been getting more and more politicized (and split) over time... and the split is in the right wing's favor, and has been since the early '90s. That won't change until one of the five right-wing justices retires or dies with a Democrat in office.

The supreme court could support this judge's agreement that the 14th amendment doesn't allow this, or maybe leave it as a state issue, or just not pick it up, or something like that... but I am skeptical, and definitely aren't expecting this decision to hold up; yes, it might, but it also well might not. We will see.

Gay marriage opponents and other bigoted assholes,



I was listening to the radio today, hearing about how Prop 8's supporters were waging a fear-mongering campaign, claiming that legalizing gay marriage will encourage children to be gay. God, I hate the fucking children strawman. Look, breast implants are legal for consenting adults. No one's suggesting that 8-year-old girls get boob jobs.

Well, maybe Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

haha I know a dad in Vermont who's daughter (11) is trying to get breast implants. I told him "my god that is horrible, be sure to take a lot of pictures ;(" But think of it this way, its like tattoos or bizarre piercings, they will grow up and grow out of it and either live with their mistake or pay to reverse it.

As far as the bill, I dont understand these things. If I were gay and in love I cant imagine being told I cant get married. At the same time it should be different than a traditional marriage, like have a piñata or something. The whole reason people want to go to a wedding is the food and seeing the bride in her expensive wrapping paper. Two guys in suits just seems too FBI for a ceremony of love.

Compromise, they can dress like Eddy Izzard.

lazyfatbum Wrote:Finally Rtan..... I do.

Who gets to wear the dress?

I say me, because you're 8 feet tall.

The rate at which people are ditching the modern republican party is rather amazing. The only note they have left to play is to pander to the most dedicated insane part of their party, and well, that just pushes even more people out bit by bit.

That's "good" in the sense that the modern republican party is a national shame. However, leaving JUST the democrats as the last "super party" isn't the best idea either. While I agree with them a lot more these days, let's face facts, they're basically cowardly when it comes to actually implementing what they want to do. Too much pandering to people who will hate them no matter what doesn't get much done.

I am completely against this ruling. It's completely unconstitutional. The judge in question seems to forget that the States never delegated the issue of marriage to the Federal Government. Marriage is reserved to the states via the tenth amendment. If this does go to the Supreme Court, I hope they overturn the ruling and allow the people of California to remain sovereign in their decision.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

These are the two important articles.

Let me put the important sentence in bold.

<b>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</b>

Outlawing gay marriage is, self evidently, abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States, without any sort of due process of law (they've broken no laws). Further, yes the power to enforce this IS given to the congress by provision 5.

Now explain to me, what is your basis for depriving them of their rights? Elections and popular vote are an important part of this country, but that's not the entirety of it. There is a massive buffer between elections and acts taking place, and this buffer is meant to prevent "tyranny of the majority". That's no proper basis. If you are going to have a system legally allowing two people to marry, to be legally recognized, this should be extended to everyone. Either that, or make marriage completely unrecognized by the government and only a private matter completely.

You're wrong on this one.

^. The 14th amendment to the Constitution was created to ensure that ex slaves had the same rights as everyone else. None of the framers of the 14th amendment ever had the issue of marriage on their mind when they framed it. To try to apply an issue that was never considered in the minds of the amendment's creators is childish and silly.

To add more to my argument, I give you constitutional scholar and Harvard graduate Tom Woods. In Who Killed the Constitution?, Tom Woods states the following:

"There was, as the Supreme Court noted in its first pass at applying the Fourteenth Amendment, no mystery about the meaning of the amendment's provisions: they were to ensure that recently freed slaves had the basic rights of citizens" (Woods, pg. 45).

As stated earlier, marriage was never a question that came up during the fourteenth's debate.

Marriage is, and always has been, an issue left to our States united as so duly noted by the tenth.

The 14th Amendment does not specify that it applies exclusively to former slaves. In fact, the language seems to imply that the precise opposite is true.

Also, human rights should never be an issue left up to popular vote. The very idea is repulsive and completely against the spirit of the Constitution. That's why the Bill of Rights exists; to set these basic rights outside of the potential abuse that may result from the democratic process. Gay marriage is, unfortunately, not an issue the drafters of the Constitution even considered, but I always interpreted the Declaration of Indepedence's opening grants that human rights are inalienable. No governmental entity should restrict anyone's rights unless there is a clear and objectively demonstrable negative effect on other individuals.

Thus, California violated this spirit by allowing its citizens to decide that gay people were second-class citizens not deserving the same rights as straight people.

^The history the 14th's arrival clearly defines its correlation to slavery. The 14th's birth was due in part to the Republican majority of Congress of the 1800s wanting to give blacks the same rights as everyone else. The majority's first attempt at this came in 1866, when they attempted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Woods, pg. 44). When this attempt failed, they passed the 14th to constitutionalize (yes, I know that's not a word. Deal with it) it.

"Also, human rights should never be an issue left up to popular vote. The very idea is repulsive."

I don't know if I really agree with this 100%. In my opinion, marriage isn't a right; it's a choice. No one has a natural right to be married. Such a philosophy seems to be dominant in countries where families force their daughters to marry men that they have no say over.

In this country, you have a choice if you want to remain single or not.

Darn it, Ryan. Could you have waited a few more minutes before editing your post? I was still busy typing mine. :p

" That's why the Bill of Rights exists; to set these basic rights outside of the potential abuse that may result from the democratic process."

That doesn't help your counterpoint. The word "marriage" is never brought up in the Bill of Rights. Well, OK, it actually is: the tenth amendment. Even though it's never actually stated, the ideal of marriage is taken into consideration because of it's delegation to the States and their own, individual Constitutions.

Quote:The history the 14th's arrival clearly defines its correlation to slavery.

It doesn't matter. The history of the Freedom of Press clearly defines its correlation to newspapers. Does that mean that other forms of news media such as radio, TV and internet (none of which existed in 1789) are not entitled to the same protection?

Quote:In this country, you have a choice if you want to remain single or not.

Not if you're gay. That's kind of the point.

Quote:Not if you're gay. That's kind of the point.

In addition, that argument would only be relevant if there were no economic benefits to being married, which is obviously not at all true -- it is very advantageous economically and governmentally for couples to be married. It's not just about the word, though that is of course also a part of it.

More to the point, by saying you think it's ONLY about giving rights to former slaves, you're implying that you DON'T think that rights should apply to ALL citizens equally. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the 14th amendment has no bearing on whether or not Asians should be freely protected from illegal search and seizure? If so, you'd at least be consistent. Further, you are also implying you don't think gays deserve equal rights.

Oh, and you are also saying you don't think marriage is a "right". In the sense that any one individual can't force ANOTHER to marry them, I agree. However between two consenting people? Why wouldn't it be a right? The big question is, does the expression of any "right" infringe on another's right in a clear and self-evident way? If so, it's not a right, if not, it IS a right. That's how I'd judge it. Basically you'll need to come up with some way in which specific people are directly harmed by two consenting people of the same sex getting married. If you can't, it's covered by the 9th amendment.

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.

Basically, this is meant to show that just because a right isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution as protected doesn't mean the people don't have it. That's kind of "rough" and open to interpretation, but that's clearly their intention. The meaning is clear, the government can't make laws prohibiting activities without due cause, and the only cause that's really due is whether or not it infringes on another's rights.

I thought I'd add more history to this to make the original intentions clear. When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, people were afraid that specifically enumerating a set of rights would imply that if it isn't listed, it isn't a right. The ninth was intended to make clear that the amendments are intended to set in stone what already should be considered unconstitutional by way of the main articles of the constitution.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/...tss11.html

Quote:It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Read the whole thing, it's very enlightening, and makes clear to me the purpose of states once again (not just as "independent nations to be left to their own devices" but as possible challengers to any unjust law government may pass, and visa versa).

Fair treatment of all equally under the law is clear. Yes, originally the 14th was intended for black people as (aside from declaring them all citizens) a needed means to protect blacks from oppressive laws that targeted blacks specifically, in many cases reducing them to near-slave status de-facto if not by law. It's perfectly reasonable to extend this though, as their intention in wording it that way was to resolve any FUTURE conflicts they didn't foresee, future groups being targeted by oppressive specific laws. This is made all the more clear by the 9th, which states that just because gays aren't mentioned as being free to do as they will doesn't mean it isn't protected.

I should add one more important thing about your not considering marriage a "right". Your argument is that it's due to the licenses and existing restrictions making it a whole different thing right? Well, by that logic, what's the harm in anti-miscegenation laws? Clearly no rights are being violated if you don't see marriage as a right, so for consistency's sake, do you consider it perfectly acceptable to ban a white and black couple from marriage? If not, why not? Explain the difference.

The hits just keep coming.

Quote:Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.

This is from the Federalist Papers.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/1404-h/1404-h.htm

These papers are not legal documents, but they are the clearest source of information on the original intent of the writers of the constitution available. Recently there's been some anger over "activist judges" overturning the "will of the people". That quote does not sit alone. Read all of it. If they had wanted a complete democracy, we'd be like Athens. However, they felt that the "will of the masses" was simply too subject to passing whims to be left unchecked. Among the many checks and balances is that the vast bulwark of the various branches of government is a massive barrier to complete and total "will of the people". It's tyranny of the majority, and while that exact phrase isn't in the papers, that's what they are attempting to get across. This is to be avoided. To that end, this is the reason for the electoral college. Sorry ABF, I've changed my mind on this. The reason for the college as a barrier against random voting in of Yogi Bear at the last minute is a worthwhile necessity.

I should add that I don't consider the founding fathers to be perfect gods. If you want to argue that they were wrong, I'm willing to hear it out. If you want to argue that the constitution itself needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, I'm willing to hear your arguments (though they better be really good). However, you are arguing that the founding fathers meant something else, and since that's the argument, I'm here to say that's not true, and here's the evidence.

Anyone care to read this? I've been (perhaps mistakingly) editing my last post here over the past few days with more and more stuff rather than making new posts.

^The problem with your argument, DJ, is that your view of the 14th gives way to the argument that the Constitution evolves with the times. Such an idea isn't true. If you want the 14th to apply to gays, then you have to have the States ratify the Constitution as they did so many years ago.

Also, your view of the 9th is also off. Your problem with the view of the 9th is that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Why is this? Because the Bill of Rights does not apply to states. The original meaning of the first ten amendments was to protect the people of the States from an over powerful government. As Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), amendments like the first have no authority or bearing on the policies of the states.

Therefore, the feds have no right getting involved in a matter that is not reserved for them.

Unreadphilosophy Wrote:^The problem with your argument, DJ, is that your view of the 14th gives way to the argument that the Constitution evolves with the times. Such an idea isn't true. If you want the 14th to apply to gays, then you have to have the States ratify the Constitution as they did so many years ago.

The Constitution was written intentionally vague, and has been changing over time since the day it was signed.

I would also note that so-called "strict constitutionalists" like Justice Scalia are actually among our more activist justices -- he did, after all, recently re-define the second amendment to mean something it had never meant before, to give just one of several recent examples. "Respect for precedent", "strictly following the Constitution"? Hah, as if. Nobody who actually believed in those things would ever have voted for that Second Amendment decision. Precedent was quite clear.

Quote:Also, your view of the 9th is also off. Your problem with the view of the 9th is that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Why is this? Because the Bill of Rights does not apply to states. The original meaning of the first ten amendments was to protect the people of the States from an over powerful government. As Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), amendments like the first have no authority or bearing on the policies of the states.

Therefore, the feds have no right getting involved in a matter that is not reserved for them.

While initially true, through the 14th amendment the other amendments can be applied to the states, and you know that...

Yeesh... Talk about a complete misunderstanding of things. The 14th amendment makes it clear it applies to the states. Not only that, what is the POINT of a bill of rights if it does not apply to the states? "Yeah, these rights are inalienable, except when they aren't."

Let me put it this way. Do you REALLY expect me to believe you'd stand for a state law requiring daily prayer to Mecca?

And yes, the constitution DOES evolve with the times. That's the whole point of having a system of amendment to begin with.

Read what I posted. There is no room for misinterpretation.

It seems entirely counter-intuitive that the First Amendment would be subject to approval by any individual state. I have always been under the impression that any rules to which the federal government must adhere also apply to the subordinate states.

This does not mean I'm unaware that states have certain powers that the federal government does not, but I am similarly unaware of the states being able to abrogate cautionary laws which apply to the federal government.

Any interpretation which allows state governments to ignore the Constitution at will is an extremely dangerous interpretation. A state can be just as oppressive as a nation, to an individual or small group of people.

Agreed. A state is free to challenge national laws, that is part of the checks and balance, but it must be done through the set up methods for doing so, not just by making laws in direct contradiction of the constitution.

Further more, are you admitting that you do agree that such rights ARE protected by the constitution? Are you admitting that it IS a law that specifically targets a group for no other reason than homosexuality? If that is the case, you're stating that a state should be free to oppress a minority JUST BECAUSE, that you believe it's their right to oppress whoever they want whenever they want so long as a majority votes to do so.

I must ask you, what is the justification for this law to begin with? Is there any? So far all you've been doing is arguing that the state had "the right" to pass the law, at no point arguing WHY they should pass it. That's PART of the reason Walker struck it down.

Walker's a STATE DISTRICT judge by the way. The federal government didn't strike it down, the very state that passed it did.

I should add something else. Back on the topic of amendments applying to all levels of the law, what is the point of requiring ratification methods for getting amendments passed if it only amounts to a government restriction on itself, as opposed to otherwise?

You listed a specific legal precedent. That was actually a pretty terrible decision. Do you honestly mean to tell me that, in that case of a local wharf being damaged by state construction, that you take the side of the state? Are you saying that if your state built a highway through your house, you'd not demand just payment to buy and move into a new house of similar value? You'd take it as their right, and that ONLY government building projects should require payment? That's what the case was ABOUT after all.

Let's seriously think about what you are arguing for. Put the gay marriage thing aside for a moment. If the 9th amendment does not apply to state level government, if it isn't a TRUE protection at all levels, you're arguing that any state can arbitrarily pass whatever restrictions it wishes. What rights ARE protected from state government interference? Let's start with that.