About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

While I haven't read Roe v Wade, it would only make sense to me that the right to privacy would come straight out of the 9th amendment.One of the arguments for not having a bill of rights is that it could be contrued as constrictive. People would only have the rights written in the amendments. They knew they wouldn't be able to think of every single right imaginable.So what happened was essentially a compromise. They wrote down what they thought most important, and then left the door open with the 9th.The 14th amendment simply applies the bill of rights to states. Before then, the federal government could not restrict your rights, but state governments could. With the 14th, they could not.This may be due to slavery, in that slavery was deemed an issue for states to decide on (well, certain states thought that). So how do you prevent states from enslaving people? By applying federal limitaions on government power to take away rights to the state level.

Very few, if any, courts have relied on the Ninth Amendment as a source for rights. Instead, it is simply interpreted as a statement that the people have rights other than those explicitly provided for in the Bill of Rights. Roe v. Wade declined to rely on the Ninth Amendment, instead stating that theJustice Douglas, in his concurrence, went further, stating

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

the 9th...er...uh...the...14th...uh...like what subbie said
keep moving those goal posts you already proved to me you haven't a clue what you are talking about. kinda like how i wish i had a nickle every time someone brings up Loving v. Vriginia as if it even applies to this at all.
the lovings were convicted of violating a law that stated only whites can marry whites, and challenged it. I dont even see how a case will be brought up against prop 8. the scenarios aren't even remotely close. The lovings left the state to get married and came back, then they were arrested and charged with a felony. So two homosexuals leave CA and go to Taxachussets and get married, will they get arrested when they return to CA? no, thier marriage will just not be accepted. its over folks. Just so you know...the 14th amendment is BS. It was passed in states that where under military occupation and under duress. After The War of Northern Aggression, the conquered CSA was required to "rejoin" the Union, but in order to do so they had to agree to pass the 14th amendment. it was a BS catch 22. there was nothing fair or free about it, the 14th was brought in on lies and punishment. you will never hear me use it as a support for anything, because its wrong, and contrary to the original idea of what this country is. 1. Its not up to SCOTUS.
2. cases are brought up to SCOTUS, not amendments to State constitutions
3. California is not the only state that has an amendment like this.
4. The wording of Prop 8 is not discriminatory, it simply states what is. SCOTUS is going to have trouble pointing out discrimination where none exists
5. SCOTUS needs to tread carefully when dealing with state constitutions, for contract of statehood reasons, SCOTUS realizes this, and will probably work to keep the union together.I think its hilarious Barack Obama got all these blacks to go out and vote, and then those same people were key in passing prop 8, the liberals totally F'ed themselves on that one.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, The civil war ended a little over 150 years ago. Get over it. The south was not within its rights to secede from the union.And it is hardly a war of northern agression, but then, I can easily see how a virginian who lives where most of the fighting in the civil war took place would think of it as such. The south was actually the first agressor. It seceded from the union, not the other way around, and it attacked the union, not the other way around.The 14th amendment is a valid amendment. It, as of 2003, has been ratified by every state in the union. When it was first amended to the constitution in 1868, 28 states had ratified it, and of those, only Tennesse, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisianna, and South Carolina of the former CSA had ratified it. So just slighty over half of the former CSA were required to ratify the amendment.
{abe: actually, only two states from the CSA would be required to pass the amendment. 37-11=26. Still, this is all rather academic as every state has now ratified the amendment, including california) /abe}Alabama and Georgia ratified it about two weeks after the amendment was part of the constitution.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

I find this hard to believe.
Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State
The government's website says that the proposition eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry. The only valid and recognized marriage within California is that between one man and one woman.Here's the text: Hm, yes, that's absolutely not discriminatory, right? Bull shit. The state government admits that the amendment eliminates a right for a group of people. How is eliminating a right not discriminatory?

And if you dig into the issue, you will find that this claim is quite misleading.
2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia
Nate Silver, as the wiki mentions, has a great piece debunking this. You can read it here:
Page not found – FiveThirtyEightIt's not race. It's age. And older voters turnout in greater force than younger voters.So please, as you told FO, I tell you:

Fosdick responds to me:

quote:

---

Ah, what was the SCOTUS vote on that, again?

---

That's not an answer. Let's try again, shall we?When the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, they were wrong to do so? How many times do I need to ask this very simple question before you answer it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

But, onfire, you presume that "gay marriage" (an oxymoron in the face tradition) is an issue of human equality. You want to see the government legislate for homosexuality. Not everyone sees "gay marriage" as a human-rights issue. You know, there are other issues on the table involving human equality, as perceived by their respective plaintiffs.

---

"But, onfire [sic], you presume that 'interracial marriage' (an oxymoron in the face tradition [sic]) is an issue of human equality. You want to see the government legislate for race. Not every sees 'interracial marriage' as a human-rights issue. You know, there are other issues on the table involving human equality, as perceived by their respective plaintiffs."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? How many times do I have to ask this question before you answer it?

quote:

---

For example, there are those who believe that polygamy is a human-rights issue, too. So why not go out and march for their cause? (Hey, you might dig the Mormon chicks.)

---

Until you can explain how same-sex marriage leads to polygamy while mixed-sex marriage doesn't...especially since we have never had same-sex marriage and yet have had polygamy for thousands of years...then it is clear you don't understand your own argument and are simply trying to throw in red herrings to justify your homophobia.

quote:

---

Correct answer: Because it is only a matter of human opinion and not a matter of human equality.

---

"Interracial marriage is only a matter of human opinion and not a matter of human equality."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

So, what is wrong with my opinion that marriage means a civil union between one man and one woman?

---

So long as it remains just your opinion, go for it. But when you try to turn that opinion into public policy, you have to reconcile it with the Constitution and it clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment.Or does unconstitutionality mean nothing to you?

quote:

---

But if two of them want to get civilly united under the law I have no objection to that.

---

So the whole unconstitutional part doesn't bother you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick responds to onifre:

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is what I don't understand about your entire arguement. Why on Earth would you care what gay people are doing...?

---

​

Because I have a contrary opinion? Are you saying the First Amendment should suspended in my case?

---

That's not an answer. You were asked why you care. Go ahead and have your opinion. The problem is your statements regarding public policy.

quote:

---

If homosexuals don't want to be like heterosexuals, which seems obvious enough to me, then why do they want to do a heterosexual thing like get married? If they were truly committed to their caused they'd adopt a different term, like "homounionization" or "homobonding."

---

"If interracial couples don't want to be like same-race couples, which seems obvious enough to me, then why do they want to do a same-race thing like get married? If they were truly committed to their caused [sic] they'd adopt a different term, [sic] like 'interracialization' or 'interbonding.'"If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia case?

quote:

---

Since they insist on being different from heterosexuals, I want to treat them as such.

---

"Since blacks insist on being different from whites, I want to treat them as such."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia case?

quote:

---

Please tell me, onfire, that homos don't want to be like heteros, because I'm getting crossed signals from them. Why couldn't they just say: "Gee, I really love you. Let's go down to the chapel and get homounionized"?

---

Please tell me, onfire [sic], that blacks don't want to be like whites, [sic] because I'm getting crossed signals from them. Why couldn't they just say: "Gee, I really love you. Let's go down to the chapel and get 'interracialized'?"If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia case?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

You mean it's ridiculous to suggest that a majority should rule in a democracy?

---

So if we get 50%+1 to vote that you should be my slave, you won't complain?Show of hands: Who would vote to make Fosdick my slave?

quote:

---

What would you prefer instead?

---

What part of the function of the Constitution are you having trouble with?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick responds to b00tleg:

quote:

---

But what is un-free about granting gays their rights to civil unions

---

The unconstitutional part of it. Are you saying the Constitution means nothing?

quote:

---

Furthermore, gays are not specifically prohibited in any state from getting married

---

Incorrect. In every state but two, they are specifically prohibited from getting married.

quote:

---

"Gay marriage" is a bogus measure of freedom if "gay civil unions" are available to them.

---

"Civil unions" are not the equivalent to marriage. What part of the Constitutional prohibition on "separate but equal" are you having trouble with?Hint: The University of New Hampshire just told their staff that anybody who has a domestic partnership must get a civil union if they still wish to receive benefits. Civil unions have been available in the state for over a year, so they want to use the legal system that exists.Then came the pushback: Domestic partnership benefits aren't taxed just as marriage benefits aren't taxed. Civil union benefits, however, are. UNH has decided to pay the tax increase for those who enter into a civil union to make up for the unequal treatment between civil union and marriage.How many times do we need to learn the lesson that there is no such thing as "separate but equal" before we remember it? What part of the Constitution are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

After that, it's just about a term, isn't it.

---

Indeed. The legal term is "marriage." That's what's on the books. When we had this exact same discussion with regard to interracial marriage, we didn't try to come up with "civil union" to equate to "marriage." The SCOTUS directly pointed out that marriage was a fundamental human right. Are you saying they were wrong?If you want to keep your special friendship unique, then you are the one that needs to come up with a new term. Everybody already knows what "marriage" means and nobody will be confused about using it to refer to same-sex couples. You're the one trying to say that your relationship with your "special friend" is somehow different, therefore you are the one who needs to come up with a new term for it.

quote:

---

Why would I want to impose that on my gay friends?

---

Since gay relationships last longer than straight ones, have you considered the possibility that the problem isn't marriage but rather you?

quote:

---

Or maybe I'm just trying to reason with a bunch of hysterical people.

---

Or maybe you're just a homophobic bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

How about a republic like the one we both live in?Are you not familiar with exactly why the USA is not a direct democracy, such as all the arguments in the Federalist Papers, in Enlightenment philosophy, or why there is actually a judicial system as opposed to "American Idol" justice?Owl or Fosdick, you are better than an argument for mob rule, please post as though you understand why.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

why do you suppose SCOTUS has not yet overturned DOMA?

---

Because the SCOTUS cannot rule on cases that have not been brought before them. The only way for them to rule upon it is for a married same-sex couple to be brought into a lawsuit regarding their marital status and for it to make it all the way up to the Supreme Court.Gay people have been prohibited from getting married until very recently. There hasn't been a case for them to rule upon. Someone needs to get arrested first.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

I am neither religious nor a bigot.

---

You seek to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That is the definition of bigotry.If you don't like it, then perhaps you should change your stance.

quote:

---

To believe that it does is both aristocentric and bigoted.

---

(*chuckle*)Ah yes, the old "refusing to accept intolerance is intolerance!" canard. Last refuge of the bigot when they know they don't have any justification for their claim.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.