Marriage Amendments....

[Phatscotty]

Sure, but the 14th amendment was not written this way. This is probably because once the people start getting to choose which protections are to be treated equally, then the point of the clause is moot.

Anyway I thought the constitutional argument would appeal to you, given your history.

*shrug*

and that equality lies, to me, in making sure there are no special privileges for certain reasons. We don't need to expand government power into the family unit, we need to get the government out of it period. That way, anyone who wants to get married only needs to find a Church or a civil official that will marry them, and I wouldn't give a crap about any of it.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen, the smaller the family

[Baron Von PWN]

Sure, but the 14th amendment was not written this way. This is probably because once the people start getting to choose which protections are to be treated equally, then the point of the clause is moot.

Anyway I thought the constitutional argument would appeal to you, given your history.

*shrug*

and that equality lies, to me, in making sure there are no special privileges for certain reasons. We don't need to expand government power into the family unit, we need to get the government out of it period. That way, anyone who wants to get married only needs to find a Church or a civil official that will marry them, and I wouldn't give a crap about any of it.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

at that point marriage would be purely symbolic and have no legal weight. civil offciants would be pointless.

[Metsfanmax]

Sure, but the 14th amendment was not written this way. This is probably because once the people start getting to choose which protections are to be treated equally, then the point of the clause is moot.

Anyway I thought the constitutional argument would appeal to you, given your history.

*shrug*

and that equality lies, to me, in making sure there are no special privileges for certain reasons. We don't need to expand government power into the family unit, we need to get the government out of it period. That way, anyone who wants to get married only needs to find a Church or a civil official that will marry them, and I wouldn't give a crap about any of it.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen, the smaller the family

There would be equality either in government-sanctioned marriages for all or government-sactioned marriages for none. The problem with this constitutional amendment is that it entrenches the current system. The only way you're ever going to get the government out of religious marriage is for the religious majority to ask the government to get out. But putting a constitutional amendment in place that implicitly legitimizes the current system further entrenches the status quo and makes it more difficult to eradicate government involvement in church business.

Maximal government intervention occurs when the government not only dictates how to get married, but also WHO can get married.

[Phatscotty]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

[Phatscotty]

Sure, but the 14th amendment was not written this way. This is probably because once the people start getting to choose which protections are to be treated equally, then the point of the clause is moot.

Anyway I thought the constitutional argument would appeal to you, given your history.

*shrug*

and that equality lies, to me, in making sure there are no special privileges for certain reasons. We don't need to expand government power into the family unit, we need to get the government out of it period. That way, anyone who wants to get married only needs to find a Church or a civil official that will marry them, and I wouldn't give a crap about any of it.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

at that point marriage would be purely symbolic and have no legal weight. civil offciants would be pointless.

How did it work for the 4,000 years before the US government decided to raise a lil cash by forcing licenses on anyone who marries? Were all marriages meaningless and carry no weight?
you

[Metsfanmax]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

[Phatscotty]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

you mean "the good n plenty" clause.....The Supreme court had the option to hear challenges to the state amendments recently, they chose not to. As far was what is constitional, how familiar are you with the Minnesota Constitution????

is not whether we have the money for this in the first place relevant?

[Phatscotty]

question. if gay marriages were made federal law and people were forced to recognize it, how much would it cost the government, and how much would it cost the private sector? all the extended benefits, hospital bills, social security benefits, increased sick days, the whole package. how much?

[Metsfanmax]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

you mean "the good n plenty" clause.....The Supreme court had the option to hear challenges to the state amendments recently, they chose not to. As far was what is constitional, how familiar are you with the Minnesota Constitution????

is not whether we have the money for this in the first place relevant?

I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause also applies in overriding state constitutions as well as state laws. Even if you add this to the Minnesota Constitution, the U.S. Constitution still would make it illegal.

Also I would argue that a marriage amendment violates Article I, Section II of the Minnesota Constitution but that's not as obvious as the Equal Protection clause argument.

Also, you're absolutely right that it hasn't been as simple as "get the supreme court to rule on equal protection" when it comes to gay marriage. The intricacies of federal law are substantial. But that doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. I'm just arguing from a common sense perspective, and a plain reading of the Constitution, that there's no justification for discriminatory marriage laws. This reasoning was applied to strike down interracial marriage discrimination laws and it should still apply today.

[Metsfanmax]

question. if gay marriages were made federal law and people were forced to recognize it, how much would it cost the government, and how much would it cost the private sector? all the extended benefits, hospital bills, social security benefits, increased sick days, the whole package. how much?

Given that gay people make up at most about 10% of the population, I'd say that the government would have to pay no more than 10% of what it currently does.

[Phatscotty]

our supreme court upheld it 8-1 or 7-2. the US supreme court can challenge it anytime.

I don't think you have a case that it's unconstitutional.

[Phatscotty]

question. if gay marriages were made federal law and people were forced to recognize it, how much would it cost the government, and how much would it cost the private sector? all the extended benefits, hospital bills, social security benefits, increased sick days, the whole package. how much?

Given that gay people make up at most about 10% of the population, I'd say that the government would have to pay no more than 10% of what it currently does.

and the private sector, 10% as well?

[Metsfanmax]

our supreme court upheld it 8-1 or 7-2. the US supreme court can challenge it anytime.

I don't think you have a case that it's unconstitutional.

Do you think that they made the right choice? I'm asking you to disregard what has actually happened and consider yourself to be the deciding judicial vote on the constitutionality of this law. With your reading of the Equal Protection Clause, would you make the same choice? If so, how could you justify it?

[Phatscotty]

our supreme court upheld it 8-1 or 7-2. the US supreme court can challenge it anytime.

I don't think you have a case that it's unconstitutional.

Do you think that they made the right choice? I'm asking you to disregard what has actually happened and consider yourself to be the deciding judicial vote on the constitutionality of this law. With your reading of the Equal Protection Clause, would you make the same choice? If so, how could you justify it?

dude, I'm just saying, it's been upheld, over and over again, twice on Sundays. I am only the deciding judge over my own vote. But I pride myself in being able to change peoples mind or at least get them to think more about it in different ways in under 3 minutes.

[Metsfanmax]

our supreme court upheld it 8-1 or 7-2. the US supreme court can challenge it anytime.

I don't think you have a case that it's unconstitutional.

Do you think that they made the right choice? I'm asking you to disregard what has actually happened and consider yourself to be the deciding judicial vote on the constitutionality of this law. With your reading of the Equal Protection Clause, would you make the same choice? If so, how could you justify it?

dude, I'm just saying, it's been upheld, over and over again, twice on Sundays. I am only the deciding judge over my own vote. But I pride myself in being able to change peoples mind or at least get them to think more about it in different ways in under 3 minutes.

Ok, but as I pointed out early on, laws just like it have also been overturned, multiple times, in state and federal courts. Clearly this question has not been judicially resolved yet.

But you're setting a complete double standard here. You are saying that judges should not have the right to overturn the will of the people when it comes to a decision like that of gay marriage, but when the judges come to a decision that you agree with, you are saying "well, it's been upheld, nothing I can do about it."

[Phatscotty]

our supreme court upheld it 8-1 or 7-2. the US supreme court can challenge it anytime.

I don't think you have a case that it's unconstitutional.

Do you think that they made the right choice? I'm asking you to disregard what has actually happened and consider yourself to be the deciding judicial vote on the constitutionality of this law. With your reading of the Equal Protection Clause, would you make the same choice? If so, how could you justify it?

dude, I'm just saying, it's been upheld, over and over again, twice on Sundays. I am only the deciding judge over my own vote. But I pride myself in being able to change peoples mind or at least get them to think more about it in different ways in under 3 minutes.

Ok, but as I pointed out early on, laws just like it have also been overturned, multiple times, in state and federal courts. Clearly this question has not been judicially resolved yet.

But you're setting a complete double standard here. You are saying that judges should not have the right to overturn the will of the people when it comes to a decision like that of gay marriage, but when the judges come to a decision that you agree with, you are saying "well, it's been upheld, nothing I can do about it."

then...overturn it, or it will be overturned, according to you.

the supreme court panel, which is elected, is very different from the radical judge in California, who is not elected.....

[Metsfanmax]

then...overturn it, or it will be overturned, according to you.

the supreme court panel, which is elected, is very different from the radical judge in California, who is not elected.....

I tend to see a judge being immune to politics as a good thing. How can we know whether a judge made a decision purely in the interests of the law in this case? It wouldn't be a very wise decision to uphold gay marriage in a state where the majority of voters do not want you to do this.

(And don't forget, Baker v. Nelson happened in 1971, when gay marriage had very few public supporters)

[Phatscotty]

then...overturn it, or it will be overturned, according to you.

the supreme court panel, which is elected, is very different from the radical judge in California, who is not elected.....

I tend to see a judge being immune to politics as a good thing. How can we know whether a judge made a decision purely in the interests of the law in this case? It wouldn't be a very wise decision to uphold gay marriage in a state where the majority of voters do not want you to do this.

which is exactly what happened in California, and is exactly why the people are taking matters into our own hands. Amendments are for the people to impose upon the legislature and the executive. It's a check

[Baron Von PWN]

yea phats before the US government no one ever did anything to regulate or enforce mariage.

[crispybits]

OK PS, would you agree that the following should all no longer apply to any man-woman married couple? (note I'm not saying same-sex couples should get these, but that this is what you are giving up if the government gets out of marriage entirely as you propose). Do you think the majority would be willing to give up all of this in order to defend their religious customs?

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

It's very easy to say that "marriage is religious and sacred and the government should GTFO" but if you do that there are real consequences that are far more far-reaching than a few tax breaks and access to joint benefits.

[Woodruff]

The reason that Phat gets a lot of stick is that he is fundamentally dishonest in the way he portrays his views . He claims to be a libertarian but is in fact extremely socially conservative , claims to be a constitutionist but ignores the parts he doesn't like , claims to defend liberty but would restrict the liberties of others.
I find the views of Night Strike to be abhorent but I can at least respect his honesty and to a degree his integrity , none of those qualities exist with Phat , you simply have a bigoted liar.

Bingo. I disagree with Night Strike all the time. Frankly, I probably disagree with Night Strike on issues more than I do Phatscotty. I just don't see the same hypocricy and dishonesty from Night Strike, so he doesn't get as much response from me.

[Woodruff]

When in doubt, check your premise

Ask what can you do for your country, not what monetary benefits can you demand the government give to you and other people

The idea of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples did not become a political issue in the United States until the 1990s. During that decade, several Western European countries legalized civil unions, and in 1993 the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993), that refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was sex-discrimination under that state's constitution.[7] In response, voters passed Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2.[8] This amendment differed from future marriage amendments in other states as it did not ban same-sex marriage itself, but merely empowered the state legislature to enact such a ban.[9] In November 1998, 69% of Hawaii voters approved the amendment, and the state legislature exercised its power to ban same-sex marriage.[9][10] Only three constitutional bans on same-sex unions (in Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada) were proposed between 1998 and 2003.[11] All three amendments passed.[12][13][14] In Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's November 2003 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the court legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Social and religious conservatives feared that their own state supreme courts would issue such rulings at some point in the future; in order to prevent this, they proposed additional constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.[15] The following year, eleven constitutional referenda banning same-sex unions were placed on state ballots.[16]

Constitutional bans on same-sex unions were advocated in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage in other jurisdictions, notably Canada and Massachusetts.

Some amendments and some proposed amendments forbid a state from recognizing even non-marital civil unions and domestic partnerships, while others explicitly allow for same-sex unions that are not called "marriages".

Such amendments have two main purposes:

Preventing a state's courts from interpreting their state's constitution to permit or require legalization of same-sex marriage.
Prevent a state's courts from recognizing same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other jurisdictions.

Some proponents of such amendments fear that states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in other jurisdictions. They point to the full faith and credit clause, which requires each state to recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each other state. On the other hand, opponents argue that state constitutional amendments will do nothing to resolve this perceived problem. Traditionally, courts have held that a state is free to decline to recognize a marriage celebrated elsewhere if the marriage violates the state's strong public policy. (§134 of the First Restatement of Conflicts, on Marriage and Legitimacy (1934)). They argue that if the full faith and credit clause did require recognition of same-sex marriages, state constitutional amendments would be trumped by the federal constitution due to the supremacy clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state ... sex_unions

Scotty, this sounds like a complete power play. I'm not sure how liberty is being exercised in these cases? Sounds like the opposite(I'm referring to the text, not the video). I suppose the reasoning is that it may be necessary to prevent something that is opposed by the majority in the future but dude, should women be not allowed to vote if one year the voting majority deems it so? Something about it doesn't sit right.

It's just a quote from Wiki on the issue and some basic history. I didn't write it.

Yet you posted it, which certainly implies you agree with it. Do you agree with it or not?

[Woodruff]

Why so froggish? These posts are within the last hour. Tryin to make me a dodger!?

Certainly no one needs to "make" you that.

[Woodruff]

Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?

because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty

It isn't liberty to those that you are discriminating against.

monetary benefits are not a right. They are privileges... I don't want to discriminate against anyone, I want all to be treated by the government equally, no more "special privileges and rights" for anyone, straight or gay

And yet, the AMENDMENT TO YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH YOU SUPPORT, is not about treating anyone equally at all.

[Woodruff]

Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?

because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty

You seem to be implying that the gays are the source of tyranny...

and if the majority rule supports an amendment which oppresses the gays, then that's "not tyranny, it's Liberty."

no I'm not implying that.

I imply people making their own laws locally and choosing how to live their lives is Liberty, not a federal mandate from a capital 2,000 miles away in Utah, not by an unelected judge with their own interpretation of the Constitution either...

This one if for the people, by the people. It's how we amend our Constitution. If you don't like that, tough titty I guess.

That's a good argument for institutionalized racism. Well done.