Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad

[Forgiven_and_Redeemed]

The very fact that the majority of Americans refuse gay marriage should be proof enough.

Proof enough for what, may I ask?

 

[Brennin]

Argumentum ad popularum[sic]. Just because the majority believe it, doesn't make it right.

No, but it does make it law; it just so happens to be right in this case. Incidentally, it is argumentum ad populum.

 

[BigBadWlf]

No, but it does make it law; it just so happens to be right in this case. Incidentally, it is argumentum ad populum.

Actually it doesn’t. the constitution guarantees equal rights and equal protection under the law for all people…even minorities. And those darn activist judges on the Supreme court have rules that the majority cannot vote away the rights and legal protections of a minority.

 

[Brennin]

Actually it doesn’t. the constitution guarantees equal rights and equal protection under the law for all people…even minorities. And those darn activist judges on the Supreme court have rules that the majority cannot vote away the rights and legal protections of a minority.

You do not understand jurisprudence any better than logic, natural law, or the Scriptures. The 14th amendment only addresses racial equality. It does not address gender/sex (in)equality; if it did, then the 19th amendment would have been superfluous. And since it does not address gender/sex (in)equality, it cannot be used to argue that men who want to "marry" men and women who want to "marry" women have the same right to do so as men who want to marry women and women who want to marry men. Thus we see another one of your anemic arguments destroyed by reality. So sorry.

 

[Chaplain David]

I posted this elsewhere, but it is worth repeating here. Here, read this.

From the American Psychological Association:

Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?...

The problem with APA support is that it's been pro-gay agenda for some time. And it tends to be antiChristian both in agenda and in terms of the small number of Christian psychologists who are members. Said in another way it is to the gay cause what Fox news is to McCain.

 

[Jase]

You do not understand jurisprudence any better than logic, natural law, or the Scriptures. The 14th amendment only addresses racial equality. It does not address gender/sex (in)equality; if it did, then the 19th amendment would have been superfluous. And since it does not address gender/sex (in)equality, it cannot be used to argue that men who want to "marry" men and women who want to "marry" women have the same right to do so as men who want to marry women and women who want to marry men. Thus we see another one of your anemic arguments destroyed by reality. So sorry.

Except that the SCOTUS found an amendment to the Colorado State Constitution which banned anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation to be a violation of the equal protection clause.

14 countries have national laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The U.S. just happens to be behind in the human rights movement (thanks to fundamentalist Christianity no doubt).

 

[Brennin]

Except that the SCOTUS found an amendment to the Colorado State Constitution which banned anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation to be a violation of the equal protection clause.

14 countries have national laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The U.S. just happens to be behind in the human rights movement (thanks to fundamentalist Christianity no doubt).

I don't care what the majority "found" (more like fabricated) in Romer v. Evans. The amendment says what it says and that's all that it says. Anything else is illegitimate.

 

[Jase]

I don't care what the majority "found" (more like fabricated) in Romer v. Evans. The amendment says what it says and that's all that it says. Anything else is illegitimate.

And you are claiming we don't know anything about law?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

That's all the commerce clause says. And yet, this clause is probably the most powerful of any granted to congress based on what it allows them to do, though not specified in the wording.

 

[BigBadWlf]

You do not understand jurisprudence any better than logic, natural law, or the Scriptures. The 14th amendment only addresses racial equality. It does not address gender/sex (in)equality; if it did, then the 19th amendment would have been superfluous. And since it does not address gender/sex (in)equality, it cannot be used to argue that men who want to "marry" men and women who want to "marry" women have the same right to do so as men who want to marry women and women who want to marry men. Thus we see another one of your anemic arguments destroyed by reality. So sorry.

Romer vs. Evans

“The Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause” - Justice J. Kennedy



Lawrence and Garner v. Texas
The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” - Justice A. Kenedy



Loving Vs the Commonwealth of Virginia
“These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” – Chief Justice Warren




But what to they know?….they are only on the Supreme Court and I’m sure none of them are as smart as you or know anything abotu the law

 

[BigBadWlf]

The problem with APA support is that it's been pro-gay agenda for some time. And it tends to be antiChristian both in agenda and in terms of the small number of Christian psychologists who are members. Said in another way it is to the gay cause what Fox news is to McCain.

Truth is part of this mysterious “gay agenda” everyone keeps talking about? Why those wicked nasty homosexuals!

 

[Brennin]

And you are claiming we don't know anything about law?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

That's all the commerce clause says. And yet, this clause is probably the most powerful of any granted to congress based on what it allows them to do, though not specified in the wording.

You've just highlighted abuse of the commerce clause, which is another area of concern.

 

[Brennin]

Romer vs. Evans

“The Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause” - Justice J. Kennedy



Lawrence and Garner v. Texas
The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” - Justice A. Kenedy



Loving Vs the Commonwealth of Virginia
“These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” – Chief Justice Warren




But what to they know?….they are only on the Supreme Court and I’m sure none of them are as smart as you or know anything abotu the law

Your fallacious appeal to authority is noted.

 

[Chaplain David]

Truth is part of this mysterious “gay agenda” everyone keeps talking about? Why those wicked nasty homosexuals!

Homosexuals have lobbying groups just like other special interest groups to promote things like same sex marriage and same sex adoption among other things. A quick example of the effect of such lobbying would be the new California law allowing homosexuals to marry. This did not come about from the Governor getting up one morning and thinking, "gee, you know we really need to let those homosexuals get married." It did come about however from various gay rights groups and others who were sympathetic lobbying for such a law. So here you see one part of the agenda - homosexuals wanting to be able to get legally married, and the groups that lobbied for it that made it happen. I'm sure you know the activitists and groups names better than I.

 

[Jase]

Your fallacious appeal to authority is noted.

You are a very contradictory person. First you claim discrimination against sexual orientation is not protected by the constitution, nor is it a violation of law since the majority don't like it (logical fallacy), then you are shown that despite constitutional amendments being originally intended for one purpose, doesn't mean they aren't applicable for future purposes - and yet you claim that's a problem with the law. And then BBW shows you opinions by Supreme Court Justices rejecting the notion that certain minorities aren't protected under the 14th Amendment, and yet you claim he's making an appeal to authority.

Legal precedent isn't an appeal to authority, it is the law. If a state tries to pass an amendment banning anti-discrimination laws for certain minorities, the supreme court will overrule it based on that precedent.

As for the specifics of amendments, the Founding Fathers designed the consitution to be flexible and vague so it could be applied to changes in society through future generations.

 

[Brennin]

You are a very contradictory person. First you claim discrimination against sexual orientation is noy protected by the constitution, nor is it a violation of law since the majority don't like it (logical fallacy), then you are shown that despite constitutional amendments being originally intended for one purpose, doesn't mean they aren't applicable for future purposes - and yet you claim that's a problem with the law. And then BBW, shows you opinions by Supreme Court Justices rejecting the notion that certain minorities aren't protected under the 14th Amendment, and yet you claim he's making an appeal to authority.

Legal precedent isn't an appeal to authority, it is the law. If a state tries to pass an amendment banning anti-discrimination laws for certain minorities, the supreme court will overrule it based on that precedent.

As for the specifics of amendments, the Founding Fathers designed the consitution to be flexible and vague so it could be applied to changes in society through future generations.

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense? Just because a Supreme Court Justice says thus-and-so does not make it correct. The 14th amendment does not address gender/sex (in)equality; that is a historical fact, and no amount of quoting from Anthony Kennedy will change that. So sorry.

 

[Brennin]

Incidentally, here is what one founding father said about the judiciary:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277


"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

You can find more pertinent quotations here.

 

[Jase]

Homosexuals have lobbying groups just like other special interest groups to promote things like same sex marriage and same sex adoption among other things. A quick example of the effect of such lobbying would be the new California law allowing homosexuals to marry. This did not come about from the Governor getting up one morning and thinking, "gee, you know we really need to let those homosexuals get married." It did come about however from various gay rights groups and others who were sympathetic lobbying for such a law. So here you see one part of the agenda - homosexuals wanting to be able to get legally married, and the groups that lobbied for it that made it happen. I'm sure you know the activitists and groups names better than I.

That's not a gay agenda, it's a fight for equal rights under the law. Was Martin Luther King Jr. pushing the "black agenda"?

 

[Jase]

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense? Just because a Supreme Court Justice says thus-and-so does not make it correct. The 14th amendment does not address gender/sex (in)equality; that is a historical fact, and no amount of quoting from Anthony Kennedy will change that. So sorry.

The 14th Amendment doesn't have to say anything about gender/sex equality for it to applied. I just pointed out the example of the Colorado State Constitution attempting to pass an amendment that would ban anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Just like the Commerce Clause says nothing about drugs, kidnapping, or prostitution, and yet numerous laws have been passed on those subjects based on Congress' power to regulate commerce across state borders.

 

[Brennin]

The 14th Amendment doesn't have to say anything about gender/sex equality for it to applied. I just pointed out the example of the Colorado State Constitution attempting to pass an amendment that would ban anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th amendment does not address the (in)equality of homosexuals either.

 

[Jase]

Incidentally, here is what one founding father said about the judiciary:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277


"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

You can find more pertinent quotations here.

Isn't this the same example of an appeal to authority that you accused BBW of? Try not being so hypocritical.

Back to the point, yes Jefferson was concerned about judicial tyranny. Too bad Justice John Marshall declared the courts had the power of judicial review based on Marbury v. Madison. Therefore, Jefferson's opinion really doesn't matter.