Essentially, yes. If you don't support equal rights for homosexuals you are a bigot. Period. Tell me how it could be any other way, oh-so-educated one. You should be ashamed of yourself for not supporting this, given your alliances in California. The one thing I thought you had a progressive position on, you belly up and blow the federal Republican platform at the expense of your own predilections.
Or it was just a photo op and you're a whore for the Govenator. You tell me.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
Yeah, that's helpful. If someone does not support gay marriage they MUST just hate gays.
[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 11-09-2008).]
It's worth mentioning that we don't live in a theocracy and, so far as I know, no state government has any preemptive rights above those enumerated in its constitution. The only way for a state to diminish the rights of a group of a people is to pass laws like this.
It is the natural course of American law that liberties are NOT GRANTED by the government but PROTECTED BY IT. For you people freaking out over the hypothetical 'slippery slope' of liberties, letting the government decide who can marry and who can't certainly strikes me as rather disconcerting. If you don't want to see queers get married, don't be their witness! Wow. Simple. And the fabric of American society remains intact. Hooray.
[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 11-09-2008).]
Originally posted by Jeremiah: It's worth mentioning that we don't live in a theocracy and, so far as I know, no state government has any preemptive rights above those enumerated in its constitution. The only way for a state to diminish the rights of a group of a people is to pass laws like this.
The whole post was very well written. Statutes (commonly referred to as "law") are how the state exerts its authority over our rights. The "law" was never meant to be used in this fashion instead it was meant to be a "remedy" for an injury suffered to ones personal liberty by another individual or entity such as a business.
During Lincolns tenure as president he (a very skilled lawyer) started what was known as the Amendment revolution. This is when the constitutional subversion began, when amendments were written that almost defy common sense, that's because they are not what they appear to be. It was done to allow laws to be written to take rights instead of protecting them.
The 13th Amendment did not free the slaves, it merely gave congress the power to make everyone a slave with a binding contract.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-09-2008).]
IP: Logged
05:46 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
I don't think George Washington signed on that two guys or Gals could marry eachother.
More importantly, Washington didn't sign on that two guys or gals couldn't marry each other. The idea being that you have the right to do whatever - unless forbidden by law, etc. Our Constitution defines what government cannot limit - not what it can allow.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-09-2008).]
I don't think George Washington signed on that two guys or Gals could marry eachother.
If you think there weren't any gay men back in Washington's time.... you are wrong. Do we live in an open society where all are created equally or is it just an imaginary place that you like to pretend exists?
Essentially, yes. If you don't support equal rights for homosexuals you are a bigot.
So I should support your rights and not the rights and beliefs of others? Rewrite the law and I will vote for it. Give it no power over any religion that doesn't want to conduct same sex marriages and I will be happy to get in my car and spend my money to vote for it. Rewriting the law is OK with me but you cant rewrite someones Religion and beliefs.
I don't have to like your chosen way of life to respect you, but dont ask me to respect you more than anyone else.
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: So I should support
No, you dont have to do anything and it is your right to do so. But I wonder if you will first be able to translate this then understand its meaning... the later being the most important.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
I needed to add. You have the right to NOT support them or their lifestyle, you DO NOT have the right to deny them in any way their rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness and that includes marriage. To do so is "unconstitutional" and very soon the constitution is soiled with an amendment that TAKES rights instead of granting them. It sickens more than to see two men kissing.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-09-2008).]
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: Change the laws, no one is getting stoned here unless the stone should fall back on them.
Huh? I'm not a lawmaker orpolitician, I can no more change a tire in my front yard because of laws that I can change the law itself. Cmon Jake... let be realistic here. I'll ask you the same question I asked 2.5
Do we live in an open society where all are created equally or is it just an imaginary place that you like to pretend exists?
Believe me when I say the facade is showing cracks, when it does come down, reality will rear it's "ugly" head. For many it WILL NOT be pretty.
I needed to add. You have the right to NOT support them or their lifestyle, you DO NOT have the right to deny them in any way their rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness and that includes marriage. To do so is "unconstitutional" and very soon the constitution is soiled with an amendment that TAKES rights instead of granting them. It sickens more than to see two men kissing.
Funny, I read the Constitution and don't see that in there anywhere.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-09-2008).]
IP: Logged
08:31 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
More importantly, Washington didn't sign on that two guys or gals couldn't marry each other. The idea being that you have the right to do whatever - unless forbidden by law, etc. Our Constitution defines what government cannot limit - not what it can allow.
I'll grant you that, but this is not our Constitution we are talking about. It is California's State Constitution. I beleive our Constitution was designed so that states govern state matters themselves. That's why even if Roe Vs. Wade was overturned Federally, Abortion would still be legal in California. The California State Constitution allows it.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-09-2008).]
Thats because you were taught in a public school and there is nothing funny about it.
Actually the line in question was in The Decleration of Independence. Even if I did go to public school, I know that document does not give us our rights.
quote
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Preamble to the Constitution speaks of securing liberty. I guess if you want to construe that as meaning a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... But as far as those words actually appearing together in such context, sorry not in the Constitution.
quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I will say that they are mentioned as unalienable rights in the DoI. So one could argue even though those words don't appear in the Constitution, they are the most basic of rights that can not be denied. You know what, I would suggest you read a little Locke or Hobbs for some refference, The Two Treatises of Government is escpecially stimulating.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-09-2008).]
IP: Logged
09:04 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
None of our founding documents "give" us our rights. They acknowledge that we HAVE rights from birth. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Our Constitution spells out what limits government has and what rights it cannot interfere with.
IP: Logged
09:34 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
None of our founding documents "give" us our rights. They acknowledge that we HAVE rights from birth. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Our Constitution spells out what limits government has and what rights it cannot interfere with.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! So where in the Constitution does it say they cannot interfere with marriage?
Please understand. I am not arguing for or against gay marriage. So please don't be offended by my posts, or questions.
Personally the first Prop in Cali, I voted for, when I lived there ( that prop was to legalize it ). But then I don't think I should force my religious veiws on others.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-09-2008).]
IP: Logged
09:43 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! So where in the Constitution does it say they cannot interfere with marriage?
Where in the Constitution does it say I cannot interfere with your life? One person's rights (or group's rights) end at the point where they would impinge on another's.
Regardless, we are only 'endowed' with the right to the pursuit of happiness. No where does it say anything about the successful or unsuccessful outcome of said pursuit. No free rides-no guarantees.
Besides, I was always more interested in the happiness of pursuit.
IP: Logged
10:13 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Where in the Constitution does it say I cannot interfere with your life? One person's rights (or group's rights) end at the point where they would impinge on another's.
We are not talking about what you can do. We are talking about what the Governement can do. The Government impinges on my rights all the time. I can't legally piss in public, even if it makes me happy and I'm not pissing on someone who doesn't want to be pissed on.
Or as you put it.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: Our Constitution spells out what limits government has and what rights it cannot interfere with.
So again, where does it say in the Constitution that the Government cannot interfere with marriage?
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-09-2008).]
IP: Logged
10:24 PM
PFF
System Bot
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Originally posted by Khw: Actually the line in question was in The Decleration of Independence. Even if I did go to public school, I know that document does not give us our rights.
It is the "foundation" on which the Constitution was built. You are not actually going to sit there and try to convince me that the blood and guts that went into not just that scrap of paper but this nation has no meaning.... are you? That document screams freedom to choose and if you dont hear it you may want to start listening very carefully.
IP: Logged
11:13 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
It is the "foundation" on which the Constitution was built. You are not actually going to sit there and try to convince me that the blood and guts that went into not just that scrap of paper but this nation has no meaning.... are you? That document screams freedom to choose and if you dont hear it you may want to start listening very carefully.
No that's not what I'm trying to do at all. However, try to go to court and say that something is a violation of the DoI. You can't. Well you can.. but it won't get you anywhere.
Oh, yeah, the Constitution was based on a list of atrocities inflicted on the American Colonies by the British Paraliment/King?
Just to be clear, I tried to give you a place to look for a better response.
quote
Philosophically, the Declaration stressed two Lockean themes: individual rights and the right of revolution.
Seriously, you should read some Locke. The Two Treatises of Government...
You think the Constitution was founded on the DoI? What was the DoI founded on?
Btw, Locke would be close. While Hobbs would be your monarchy philosopher.
But then what should I expect from someone who went straight to debate_dodge_005.
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:
Thats because you were taught in a public school and there is nothing funny about it.
Automatically discounting someones intelligence?
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-09-2008).]
IP: Logged
11:23 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
I wonder how many people read the thread link. The bottom of page 7, I think it was, gets rather amussing. Specifically when Skyskipper starts posting. Graal is pretty thurough and fun to read aswell, though nowhere near as funny.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-09-2008).]
IP: Logged
11:53 PM
Nov 10th, 2008
Jaygee79 Member
Posts: 4259 From: Dartmouth, MA Registered: Mar 2000
Absolutely. Especially when I read something as stupid as the quote below from a person who claims to be intelligent.
"Funny, I read the Constitution and don't see that in there anywhere."
Not so funny any more is it. Just think for a while on how you made it that way.
It's not in the Constitution. What's stupid about it? It's true. If it is there, show me.
As a matter of fact the Constitution does what Formula88 says. It outlines the Governements powers. The Bill of Rights on the other hand does something entirely different.
Still I implore you to show me where in the Constitution, it gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or continue to bash my intelligence. That sure is a good way to win a debate...
quote
The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a bill of rights to the constitution was originally controversial because the constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-10-2008).]
Originally posted by Khw: Still I implore you to show me where in the Constitution, it gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. SNIP:
When you walk into the place where you live do you consider the floor to be a separate part of your house or like a separate room of your house... or do you just take it for granted and never make the connection as to what you are walking on?
quote
Or continue to bash my intelligence. That sure is a good way to win a debate...
You bashed your own intelligence with this quote, "Funny, I read the Constitution and don't see that in there anywhere." If it is so funny then why are you not smiling?
AGAIN The Declaration of independence IS THE foundation for everything that followed. Much like the floor of your house that you stomp on. AGAIN... The words life liberty and pursuit of happiness are the foundations to the constitution... one does not exist and can not exist without the other.
IP: Logged
01:13 AM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
And the DoI was strongly influenced by Lockean philosophy. So that would be the earth my foundation was built on.
You can not go into court and argue that someone violated rights given to you by the DoI. It is not a legally recognized document for that purpose.
Yes the Constitution most assuredly exists without those words. I read it they are not in there. You have yet to show me them there. Yes I know they are in the DoI, but the DoI is not the Constitution, nor the BoR. The DoI is a letter drafted and read to the different colonies and there populace as well as the King of England. It was written to declare our freedom from England. I do not see anything in the DoI about the three branches of Governemnt here in America. I do not see anything outlining the powers those three branches have. The founding fathers specifically kept a list of our rights out of the Constitution, to leave those to the States and the People. The BoR was added later.
What you are quoting is a Lockean philosophy of inalienable rights. It was around before the DoI.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-10-2008).]
Originally posted by Khw: You have yet to show me them there SNIP:
The DoI (as you put it) is the word.
The Constitution is the definition of that word.
You can not see the words in the constitution because it is like trying to see a forest through the trees, they are inseparable.
My whole point in posting in this thread was to bring attention to the attempts by our government to put forth an amendment that will contradict / undermine the FOUNDATION / DEFINITION on which this nation rests.
Let me ask you this question. Do we live in an open society where all are created equally or is it just an imaginary place that you like to pretend exists?
IP: Logged
01:37 AM
PFF
System Bot
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
The right answer is, these are inalienable rights. They are not given by a Government, you are born with them, so they need not be mentioned anywhere, they just are. This is Locke.
Governments are formed between like minded individuals to protect these rights, again Locke. Kings were entrusted with protecting these rights for his people, though this often lead to abuse of position. This is covered by Hobbs.
Our founding fathers thought a democracy where the people voted for what they wanted would protect the people better. This is a double edged sword. For every protection comes the cost of condemnation. There is always a minority being oppressed by the majority, but that’s why they call it majority rule, again Locke.
What is the difference between a King forcing you to accept something vs. a minority forcing you to accept it?
I’m not saying it is right, I personally don’t agree and think gay couples should be allowed all the benefits of a married couple, if they have chosen to live in a committed monogamous relationship. Sadly the majority has spoken and they do not agree. The price of democracy, you educate and try again. The last time, they forced it down the voting publics throats by having a judge overturn the voting results. I do not doubt that part of this was a backlash from that.
As to your question of an equal open society. We like to think that but sadly:
quote
democracy noun 1. the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives 2. a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them 3. the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [syn: majority rule]
I didn’t make the rules. I don’t think it’s any less fair then you do.
I’m not against you.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-10-2008).]
I didn't come here to be tested so stop testing me. I know what the answer is because I have my own definition of what goes on in my life, how I exercise my liberty and pursue my happiness, it differs greatly from yours. Do not try to alter my definition by adding yours to it. I do not want to marry you, we are not joined in any "union" other than the Constitution which we are supposed to be defending together for ourselves and our posterity... not altering it.
I do not want to marry you, we are not joined in any "union" other than the Constitution which we are supposed to be defending together for ourselves and our posterity... not altering it.
/Whew, I don't think my wife would approve of that anyways. And yes defending our posterity, now that is in the Constitution.
I'm sorry I was not trying to test you. I was trying to get to the point that with or without our governement, we have those rights. That is what gives us the right to revolt. That is what gave us the right to write and execute the DoI.
IP: Logged
02:04 AM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
I pledge allegance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic...
quote
Republic
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Originally posted by Khw: That is what gives us the right to revolt.
Heh... we can go on for weeks on this... Ruby Ridge, Waaco, Tim McVeigh. Our government killed them for having the audacity to revolt.... He who wins gets to wite the story in the papers and the government ALWAYS wins.
quote
And yes defending our posterity, now that is in the Constitution.
Life Liberty and persuit of happiness may not be spelled out in the constitution rather it is up to the "individual" each and in his "own right" to do that for themselves. It was never intended for the government to do that for us with laws and Amendments to the constitution. The Constitution is a set of "protections". What exactly does the constitution "protect" anyway?
IP: Logged
02:17 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
This is not an issue. All you have to do is give your partner a Durable Power of Attorney for Medical Decisions (which you should have already done if you are as committed as you say) and include in that simple document the absolute right of visitation. Nobody can bar them from visitation for any reason if you have that. BTW, even a male/female marriage relationship needs to have a DPOA for Medical Decisions in case something should happen, otherwise it will turn into one of the debacles we've seen in the press numerous times in the past when hard choices have to be made.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by aconesa:
There have been cases in the state of NJ that hospitals have denied visitation at first. Whether this was an error on part of the hospital staff or a simple misunderstanding on the staff's part, it has happen. The feeling is that if full marriage equality was granted, there would not have been that issue.
IP: Logged
08:34 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Originally posted by 84Bill: Let me ask you this question. Do we live in an open society where all are created equally or is it just an imaginary place that you like to pretend exists?
Neither, Bill.
It is an ideal that we strive to secure. You should know that, you were a part of the military that is constantly attempting to secure it for us.
John Stricker
IP: Logged
08:37 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
If you think there weren't any gay men back in Washington's time.... you are wrong. Do we live in an open society where all are created equally or is it just an imaginary place that you like to pretend exists?
There were, and they couldn't marry. We already went over "created equally" if its not in this thread it's in the other one.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-10-2008).]
