Funkyterrance wrote:At this point I'm more interested in how much the amendment would hurt/help each state's budget, etc.. I think it's obvious what the "right" outcome is. I realize that Scotty doesn't really have much ground to stand on but I'm not going to make assumptions other than what he has stated here. Seems like he believes that those that are going to vote in favor of gay marriage are the source of tyranny, they don't necessarily have to be gay themselves. Again, what we have heard so far may be illogical but it's not exactly targeting gays.
Who exactly do you believe he is targeting if NOT homosexuals?
I think he is targeting a group that could potentially cause further harm to the economy of each state. I haven't seen evidence showing anything more than this. I think the fact that this involves gays is more or less circumstantial.
You're going to have to be a little more specific than this. Who is this shadowy group that could potentially cause further harm to the economy of a state (particularly a state that already has this law on the books), and how exactly does a marriage amendment tie into this potential?
Good heavens, he's comparing homosexuals to child rapists, incest and beastiality in this thread.
He's comparing groups to prove a point but I don't know if he's putting them in the same boat. I suppose PS is the only one who can answer this question for certain but I'm not going to assume it. PS, you're up.
Funkyterrance wrote:At this point I'm more interested in how much the amendment would hurt/help each state's budget, etc.. I think it's obvious what the "right" outcome is. I realize that Scotty doesn't really have much ground to stand on but I'm not going to make assumptions other than what he has stated here. Seems like he believes that those that are going to vote in favor of gay marriage are the source of tyranny, they don't necessarily have to be gay themselves. Again, what we have heard so far may be illogical but it's not exactly targeting gays.
Who exactly do you believe he is targeting if NOT homosexuals?
I think he is targeting a group that could potentially cause further harm to the economy of each state. I haven't seen evidence showing anything more than this. I think the fact that this involves gays is more or less circumstantial.
You're going to have to be a little more specific than this. Who is this shadowy group that could potentially cause further harm to the economy of a state (particularly a state that already has this law on the books), and how exactly does a marriage amendment tie into this potential?
Good heavens, he's comparing homosexuals to child rapists, incest and beastiality in this thread.
He's comparing groups to prove a point but I don't know if he's putting them in the same boat. I suppose PS is the only one who can answer this question for certain but I'm not going to assume it. PS, you're up.
Woodruff turned down my offer to post with honor and respect and mind his manners and refrain from trolling. I made the offer though, so it's not like it's me. The moment I respond to him, he trolls the shit out of me. So he had to keep trolling while everyone knows I don't read his posts, that is, I make his trolling obvious to the point he admits he's a troll.
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.
comic boy wrote: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.
maybe it's because people pump lies, like you, telling everyone what I claim to be, dishonestly. I claim to be an Independent who is fiscally concerned, and a member of the Tea Party. Just because I respect many Libertarian ideals does not mean I claim to be a Libertarian.
My track record for voting goes 90% 3rd party and I am registered an ndependent
MegaProphet wrote:A majority of the electoral college is different from a majority of the people
You didn't quote him as saying "the majority of people" though, you quoted him saying "majority of votes".
Right, I apologize. I assumed he had meant a majority of the people
I almost included "electoral" with that, realizing people would whine and jump all over the etremely rare scenario of getting more public votes while losing the electoral vote, but like another pointed out, it doesn't matter either way.
Let me put it simply, America is a Republic with Democratic Representation... This is our system. The people act as a check and balance, I argue hopefully as much as possible, in as local a level as possible.
Phatscotty wrote:Let me put it simply, America is a Republic with Democratic Representation... This is our system. The people act as a check and balance, I argue hopefully as much as possible, in as local a level as possible.
But it's ok for people to have a statewide referendum to "check" the ability of the minority to marry?
Still waiting for you to explain which part of the Equal Protection Clause you don't understand.
MegaProphet wrote:A majority of the electoral college is different from a majority of the people
You didn't quote him as saying "the majority of people" though, you quoted him saying "majority of votes".
Right, I apologize. I assumed he had meant a majority of the people
Don't worry about it mega, I've made way bigger slips on here. Just don't become obnoxious/abrasive like me because if you do, when you slip you can be sure the Jackals are gonna have a picnic.
Ask what can you do for your country, not what monetary benefits can you demand the government give to you and other people, based solely on the premise "well, they are getting monetary benefits!", and calling it discrimination, while never even considering the redistributionary principles at the very heart of the matter. It's the principle at play here. "Who do you love?" is a question for the sheeple to twist themselves over, never even hearing a true opposing opinion, mostly because they have already attacked in their blind hatred to the point nobody would take the time anyways
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.
Phatscotty wrote: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.
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.
MegaProphet wrote:A majority of the electoral college is different from a majority of the people
You didn't quote him as saying "the majority of people" though, you quoted him saying "majority of votes".
Right, I apologize. I assumed he had meant a majority of the people
Don't worry about it mega, I've made way bigger slips on here. Just don't become obnoxious/abrasive like me because if you do, when you slip you can be sure the Jackals are gonna have a picnic.
I'll do my best to not be obnoxious, thanks for the advice. I figure the best thing to do when I slip up is to take responsibility for it
Phatscotty wrote: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.
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.
Phatscotty wrote:Let me put it simply, America is a Republic with Democratic Representation... This is our system. The people act as a check and balance, I argue hopefully as much as possible, in as local a level as possible.
But it's ok for people to have a statewide referendum to "check" the ability of the minority to marry?
Still waiting for you to explain which part of the Equal Protection Clause you don't understand.
An interesting point which PS continues to fail to address.
Given the lack of sufficient replies from PS to the above, we can reasonably assume that all of the above criticism is more-or-less correct and that PS' position currently resembles the Hindenburg disaster.
Phatscotty wrote:the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.
The people cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. It is not judicial activism to overthrow an unconstitutional law. That principle has been on the books since 1803.
which is why it has been upheld as Constitutional. If these marriage amendments are unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court should weigh in. So that's a bullshit response
Actually, eight federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court may very well rule on that soon.
But besides that, use your common sense. In what way could the Equal Protection Clause possibly be construed as permitting a law that allows marriage for some citizens and not for others?
The reasoning here is quite simple.
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest. (2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others. (3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.
No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.
End of discussion.
I agree. I think the "treated equally" part meets the road at "no special privileges from the government" not special privileges from the gov't based on this and this and that
Phatscotty wrote:Let me put it simply, America is a Republic with Democratic Representation... This is our system. The people act as a check and balance, I argue hopefully as much as possible, in as local a level as possible.
But it's ok for people to have a statewide referendum to "check" the ability of the minority to marry?
Still waiting for you to explain which part of the Equal Protection Clause you don't understand.
An interesting point which PS continues to fail to address.
Given the lack of sufficient replies from PS to the above, we can reasonably assume that all of the above criticism is more-or-less correct and that PS' position currently resembles the Hindenburg disaster.
Why so froggish? These posts are within the last hour. Tryin to make me a dodger!?
BigBallinStalin wrote: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
Phatscotty wrote:the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.
The people cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. It is not judicial activism to overthrow an unconstitutional law. That principle has been on the books since 1803.
which is why it has been upheld as Constitutional. If these marriage amendments are unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court should weigh in. So that's a bullshit response
Actually, eight federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court may very well rule on that soon.
But besides that, use your common sense. In what way could the Equal Protection Clause possibly be construed as permitting a law that allows marriage for some citizens and not for others?
The reasoning here is quite simple.
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest. (2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others. (3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.
No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.
End of discussion.
I agree. I think the "treated equally" part meets the road at "no special privileges from the government" not special privileges from the gov't based on this and this and that
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.
BigBallinStalin wrote: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.
Metsfanmax wrote: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.
