|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Huckabee | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: You do realize that the second sentence contradicts the first, yes? If they don't have the right to get married, then they don't have the "exact same protections under the law as anyone else."
quote: Only because Lawrence v. Texas said so. And remember, you're quoting Scalia's dissent of that. Ergo, you must feel that it was wrong to decriminalize it.
quote: Ha! This coming from one who conflates sexual orientation with pedophilia, murder, bestiality, coprophagia, incest, etc. Take a look at later in your post:
quote: What on earth does sexual orientation have to do with incest? You do understand that the sex of the participants is independent of their familial relationship, yes? Why is it you never seem to wonder about incest when discussing heterosexuality? Why is it only when the subject is gay people does your mind wander into having sex with your children, NJ? Are you trying to tell us something? And you wonder why people think you're a bigot?
quote: Only because Loving v. Virginia said so. So since Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health did the exact same thing, then your logic dictates you claim that there is "no legal basis to disallow two people of the same sex to marry."
quote: Indeed. And the term used for the contract is "marriage." If you want to have your special religious ceremony to be distinct from the civil contract of marriage, you are free to come up with another word for it. How about "sanctified"? You an your partner can "undergo sanctification." The rest of the world will get "married."
quote: And yet, the mere existence of secularists proves this statement to be false. Or are you saying that no secularists exist? We've been through this before, NJ. Just because morality isn't absolute (for there are no absolutists) doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. But what does any of this have to do with Huckabee? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
What does this homophobic screed have to do with Huckabee?
I mean, Huckabee's a homophobic bigot, too, but what does this particular invocation of bigotry have to do with Huckabee? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Incorrect. Loving v. Virginia directly states:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival You're treading into the waters where you treat the Constitution as a laundry list: If it isn't stated in the Constitution, then it isn't a right. This completely ignores the direct and plain text of the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. That's the Ninth Amendment, NJ. It directly states that just because a right hasn't been mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn't mean you don't have it. And then there's this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That's the Tenth. In other words, there are some things the government is not allowed to do: Such as prevent gay people from being full members of society. And then there's this:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That's the Fourteenth. Since marriage is a State-governed contract, it is clear from the Fourteenth that it cannot be denied to people of the same sex if it is going to be offered to people of the opposite sex. That would deny due process and equal protection. So since everything about the Constitution indicates that you cannot deny marriage to people on the basis of the sex of the participants, one has to wonder why you think it isn't a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:quote: Incorrect. It is the majority opinion and thus is the law of the land. That's why the Supreme Court is there.
quote: And such law is clearly unconstitutional. This happens all the time: Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President signs the unconstitutional law, and the Supreme Court overturns it as is their function. Do you deny the decision of Loving v. Virginia? The SCOTUS got it wrong? Marriage is not a fundamental right?
quote: And that's exactly the "laundry list" attitude I was talking about. There are rights that are not "cased in law" that are constitutionally protected. The Constitution directly says so. That's the entire point behind the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
quote: Incorrect. It is your burden to show that there is compelling state interest to deny the fundamental right of marriage. Or are you saying the SCOTUS got Loving v. Virginia wrong?
quote: Incorrect. I quoted the majority opinion of Loving v. Virginia. You were the one quoting the dissenting opinion of Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas. Current law directly states that laws cannot be written against gay people and that marriage is a fundamental right. How does that jibe with the Defense of Marriage Act which targets gays by denying the fundamental right of marriage? Or are you saying that the SCOTUS got both Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas wrong?
quote: Indeed, unconstitutionally. I handily agree that the law exists. But the question is: Does it agree with the Constitution? So given the Ninth Amendment's declaration of rights not enumerated, the Tenth Amendment's declaration of rights of the people, the Fourteenth Amendment's declaration of due process and equal treatment under the law, Loving v. Virginia's declaration of marriage as a fundamental right, and Lawrence v. Texas' declaration that laws cannot be targeted against gays, how does one reconcile DOMA?
quote: The courts work just as well. Or are you saying the SCOTUS got Loving v. Virginia wrong?
quote: Huh? Since when are the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments "obscure passages"? Since when are Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas "obscure passages"? Are you saying the SCOTUS got those cases wrong?
quote: Nobody said that. But, the Constitution is not something frozen in the 18th century. The Framers had no concept of nuclear power, telephonic communications, the internet, etc., and yet the Constitution is just as capable of handling those things as anything else. It has to be able to handle new concepts or it is a nearly worthless document. That's part of the genius of the document. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically state that they knew they couldn't get everything and thus there are rights that the people have that won't be listed and cannot be denied. It doesn't matter what the Framers thought of gay marriage. The Constitution clearly defends it and it is your burden to show why the state has any interest in denying it. Or does the Fourteenth Amendment mean nothing?
quote: Precisely. Ergo, denying the fundamental right of marriage to gay people is clearly unconstitutional. Or are you saying the Fourteenth Amendment is meaningless?
quote: Sure we can. Gays can't get married while straights can. Ergo, gays are denied due process and equal protection. That's the entire point. The fact that a woman is allowed to enter into a legal contract with someone that her brother is not is prima facia denial of due process.
quote: If she can enter contract and he can't, how is that "equal"? What you are demanding is special treatment for straights. But, this is typical conservative-think: Up is down, black is white, heroes are traitors.
quote: Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead one to consider interspecies marriage in a way that opposite-sex marriage doesn't? What is it about the sex of the participants that leads one to question the species involved? Your question makes no sense. Are you trying to tell us you want to marry a tree?
quote: Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead one to consider incest in a way that opposite-sex marriage doesn't? Your question makes no sense. Are you trying to tell us you want to marry your child?
quote: That's what the Supreme Court is for. What does NJ's homophobic screed have to do with Huckabee? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024