Marriage Amendments....

[Metsfanmax]

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?

[Phatscotty]

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 could basically be asking "why does the person who gets the most votes for President win? Isn't that tyranny of the majority?"

[Funkyterrance]

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?

[Metsfanmax]

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.

[Phatscotty]

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?

and overall that the government should not be involved, which defacto permits me to okay gay marriage, as I have said from the start, but not at the barrel of a gun or force by government.

I also believe in separation of Church and State. If government makes people accept gay marriage and everything that comes with that in the future, they are going to interfere in the Church constantly...for example, religious orphanages will be forced to go against their beliefs and give children to couples without making sure they have a mother and a father

[BigBallinStalin]

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."

[BigBallinStalin]

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 could basically be asking "why does the person who gets the most votes for President win? Isn't that tyranny of the majority?"

We're talking about referendums/amendments, but yeah, I don't view majority rule over such a wide political arena to be ideal.

[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

In Minnesota, IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL, so why is an amendment to your state constitution necessary? Why are Minnesotans so afraid of homosexuals gaining equality that they have to put something in their amendment that will DO NOTHING out of the fear that someday, the homosexuals might get equality?

[BigBallinStalin]

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?

Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.

[Woodruff]

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?

and overall that the government should not be involved, which defacto permits me to okay gay marriage, as I have said from the start, but not at the barrel of a gun or force by government.

I also believe in separation of Church and State. If government makes people accept gay marriage and everything that comes with that in the future, they are going to interfere in the Church constantly...for example, religious orphanages will be forced to go against their beliefs and give children to couples without making sure they have a mother and a father

If a religious orphanage makes decisions based on that, then they should be driven out of that work with immediacy, for they clearly don't give a shit about children.

[Phatscotty]

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?

Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.

It's majority rule that will prevent the government from expanding their involvement with the institution of marriage

[Woodruff]

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?

Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.

It's majority rule that will prevent the government from expanding their involvement with the institution of marriage in a way that turns all of history on it's head

Except that it doesn't. You keep saying that it does, but it does not.

(Nice try at ninja-editing.)

[BigBallinStalin]

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?

Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.

It's majority rule that will prevent the government from expanding their involvement with the institution of marriage

In other words,

PS believes that the gays are the source of tyranny (of the minority). Those dastardly gays!


If the majority rule supports an amendment which oppresses the gays, then that's "not tyranny, it's Liberty"--according to PS. Because Liberty is oppression, didn't you guys get the memo?

[thegreekdog]

No, we just understand the issue, the process, and probably the history, differently......

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.

I know how you understand the issue. Ignoring the equal protection clause (which you do at your own peril... ask Alabama), people like you think that passing an amendment makes this an issue other than a statist issue. I understand that. I don't agree with it. It's still a statist solution to a non-issue.

[Phatscotty]

I wish you guys would take my points seriously, if they need anything it's a serious debate. I'm open to changing my mind when something new is revealed or old information is mythbusted.

Go for it:
fair game topics....Government growth and benefit growth, gender identification, religious peoples simple belief in the Torrah/Bible,Koran/Vedas/every major religion in the world (that's choosing the easy on tho!), the slippery slope that then more than 2 people can be married or a person and an animal can be married or a family member can marry a family member (hey, they are people too ya know!), the topic of nature and natural law, how this will impact a country which is having it's credit rating reduced repeatedly and often, impact of benefits on private business and government spending/future debt, marriage as an ecclesiastical issue and NOT a government controlled one....

[Metsfanmax]

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.

Still waiting to hear whether it's (2) or (3) that confuses you.

[thegreekdog]

I wish you guys would take my points seriously, if they need anything it's a serious debate. I'm open to changing my mind when something new is revealed or old information is mythbusted.

Go for it:
fair game topics....Government growth and benefit growth, gender identification, religious peoples simple belief in the Torrah/Bible,Koran/Vedas/every major religion in the world (that's choosing the easy on tho!), the slippery slope that then more than 2 people can be married or a person and an animal can be married or a family member can marry a family member (hey, they are people too ya know!), the topic of nature and natural law, how this will impact a country which is having it's credit rating reduced repeatedly and often, impact of benefits on private business and government spending/future debt, marriage as an ecclesiastical issue and NOT a government controlled one....

I'm taking your points seriously (obviously). I'm trying to convince you that this is a non-issue. For the fiftieth time:

- Marriage as an institution is not one that should be (or was) supported by the government.
- At some point in the past, marriage became an institution regulated and supported by the government.
- Gays (and anyone else) would like to have equal protection under the laws (see the second bullet) and have their marriages recognized, regulated, and supported by the government.

If your argument is that marriage, as regulated and supported by the government, needs to be defined as man and woman, then your violating the equal protection clause and making a statist argument.

If your argument is that marriage, as a non-government institution (how I view marriage), needs to be defined as man and woman, it probably already is in your particular religion (as it is in mine) and you don't need, want, or care how the government defines marriage.

Simply put, if gay marriages are recognized, regulated, and supported by the government, it does not lessen my marriage, except that now the government recognizes marriages between people who are of the same sex.

You have yet to demonstrate why you care about this issue or how this issue affects you without referring to the government regulation and support of marriage, which is counterintuitive to a non-statist.

[Woodruff]

I wish you guys would take my points seriously, if they need anything it's a serious debate. I'm open to changing my mind when something new is revealed or old information is mythbusted.

The law is already on the books. Why does Minnesota need to add it to their state constitution?

[Funkyterrance]

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.

[Woodruff]

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?

[Evil Semp]

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.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

No, ur wrong cuz Liberty.

Liberty, Evil Semp. Liberty.

[Funkyterrance]

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.

[Evil Semp]

lmao! the question is not "can we get married", the question is "can we do something that has never been done before (until the extremely recent past in the most flammy areas) and therefore change the definition of marriage?"

The answer to your question is YES. It is the right thing to do.

It's for the people and by the people because the people are the only ones, in my state, that can do amendments. If it weren't by the people, then the legislation would have just passed it, and there would be no vote....

gay people are people, but child rapists are people too, not sure what that means

Why is your answer "yes"?[/quote]

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it is wrong to change it. In my opinion it was wrong in the first place and should be changed.

[Woodruff]

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.