Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 9161718192021 LastLast
Results 163 to 171 of 181

Thread: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

  1. #163

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    And now let me return to the 10th Amendment... "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."

    So you can see here the Constitution itself by not including any mention of sexual preference or marriage demands that this issue be decided just as it is now by the states or the voters therein.
    So, in your opinion, the supreme court ruled improperly in Loving vs Virginia?
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  2. #164

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    I am NOT making up words here to fit an agenda as you and others want to do. There is quite clearly something called the SECOND AMENDMENT."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your refusal to accept the fact that the Constitution already addresses the issue of guns but does NOT address sexual preference or marriage only reflects your contempt for what is in there that you dont like and your impatience for what is not in there that you want.
    I understand that the constitution deals much more clearly with guns than marriage. What I'm trying to get at is when you feel it is OK for a judge or group of judges to overrule the will of the people, clearly you think it's ok sometimes and not ok other times. Does a 'right' have to be clearly guaranteed by the constitution? just guaranteed by the constitution? implied by the constitution? who decides what is guaranteed by the constitution? I would have said the supreme court, but you seem to think that you get to make that distinction.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  3. #165
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,961

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    No one is stopping them from walking into a church that performs these marriages and get married. So their "basic human right" is NOT being denied.

    What is being denied is a legal status to that marriage. Since we choose to have our elected representatives define legal agreements or status such as marriage, adoption, corporations and LLC's etc. then we also give then the authority (unless we bypass that authority and make it a direct referendum) to decide just WHO is and WHO is not legally entitled.

    Our Constitution is VERY specific as to what "rights" IT grants and what "rights" are to be determined by the people. Just because the people disagree with a certain proposal does not mean that it suddenly vests into a Constitutional Right.

    We DONT always get what we want in this country, but when we attempt to change the Constitution to meet our agenda rather than the other way around we defeat the whole purpose of that document itself.

    This is NOT to say that in hind site all of our laws have been just. But I, unlike some of you it seems, have far more confidence in the longterm fairness and judgement of my fellow citizen than I do some politically appointed jurist(s).

    Personally I am not all that opposed to gay marriage laws and fully support gay union laws that give those unions the same legal protections as marriage laws. To be honest, if it came up for a vote here, Im not sure I'd feel strong enough to vote one way or the other.

    What I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to is having some judge or cabal of judges deny me my right to self government by overturning my popular vote or the decision of my elected representatives based on their own self opinions of how THEY think the law should read.
    this is a technical legal argument on how the legal system should work, it does not address my question of why anyone would be opposed to gay marriage

  4. #166

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    As I said earlier, this is a FAR FAR more compelling argument.

    Clearly race is not nor could it be argued to be a matter of choice as there are genetic markers that make it so. There are good and compelling opinions that neither is homosexuality, but as of yet, those are arguments and not not proof.

    Furthermore the issue of race itself is not silent in the Constitution. The 15th Amendment DID address this issue of race (but NOT sexual preference), and there it said that voting rights should NOT be denied, and it is NOT a leap of logic or policy to consider voting on the same legal plane as marriage. Also laws denying interracial marriage with notably regional. Other states either allowed it or ignored laws against it. Both of these important facts are missing in the issue at hand.

    But I will repeat, of all the arguments for gay marriage, this is the only one that carries any constitutional validity to me, but NOT enough to override and ignore the 10th Amendment.

  5. #167

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    I understand that the constitution deals much more clearly with guns than marriage. What I'm trying to get at is when you feel it is OK for a judge or group of judges to overrule the will of the people, clearly you think it's ok sometimes and not ok other times. Does a 'right' have to be clearly guaranteed by the constitution? just guaranteed by the constitution? implied by the constitution? who decides what is guaranteed by the constitution? I would have said the supreme court, but you seem to think that you get to make that distinction.
    No.... its not what I "feel" its WHAT THE WORDS SAY!

    WHAT part of THIS do you not understand? 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.

    YES a right DOES have to be clearly guaranteed. And they ARE. Many people think there is a "right" to free healthcare, others a "right" to free medicine. Do you want the courts deciding THOSE rights too? What about MY "right" to walk about naked? Should that be left to Constitutional interpretation as well. (Trust me... you DONT want me to have this "right".)

    And lets NOT forget there IS a way to make those LEGAL rights. It's called the Constitutional Amendment Process. There are 27 so far, so DONT tell me its impossible.

    WHY have Legislatures Sully? or even referendums? Seriously?

    It appears to me that you want to hand over all decisions (that you dont like how your fellow citizens or elected officials vote on anyway) to men who have NO accountability to ANYONE but a higher judge and in the case of the Supreme Court then THEY would be ultimate dictators deciding for themselves what's good for us NOT ourselves or our elected officials.

    Why not let some judge decide who gets a plumbing license? Or what a teacher should be paid or what the fine should be for speeding. After all if I get caught for speeding in one state, I may have to pay more than in another? Is that FAIR? Shouldnt some court make that fair TOO???????

  6. #168

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    this is a technical legal argument on how the legal system should work, it does not address my question of why anyone would be opposed to gay marriage
    You asked TWO questions.
    Why should someone have to leave their home to get what they see as a basic human right?
    I understand Zapp's point that gays are not a protected class but personally, I don't get why anyone would oppose gay marriage. What is in it for them to not allow two people to marry?


    I was specifically responding to the first.

    As to the second. Most I imagine object on religious and moral grounds and feel that it contributes to breakdown of the nuclear family which in turn contributes to disintegration of society as a whole. THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND THEIR ARGUMENT TO BE. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY MINE WHICH IS MORE OF A LEGALISTIC VIEWPOINT...so dont bytch at me for how they feel.

  7. #169

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    The equal protection clause says it all and any laws abridging one persons freedoms over anothers for no good reason violates that clause of the 14th ammendment, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

    Some people really just need to read and understand the constitution. I gaurantee you the supreme court will rule and overturn any laws abridging a persons ability to obtain equal status as any other simply based up the fact that they happen to be attracted to the member of the same gender.

  8. #170

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by coachsparky View Post
    The equal protection clause says it all and any laws abridging one persons freedoms over anothers for no good reason violates that clause of the 14th ammendment, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

    Some people really just need to read and understand the constitution. I gaurantee you the supreme court will rule and overturn any laws abridging a persons ability to obtain equal status as any other simply based up the fact that they happen to be attracted to the member of the same gender.
    Oh I see! And now I suppose you are an advocate of abolishing all bigamy laws too.... (ohhh there I go again with that consistency thing! When will I EVER stop??)

  9. #171

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Oh I see! And now I suppose you are an advocate of abolishing all bigamy laws too.... (ohhh there I go again with that consistency thing! When will I EVER stop??)
    It has nothing to do with consistency there but of course you are far far too ignorant to understand the difference. In one case we are talking about consistently allowing one person to marry another one person they love, and the other you are talking about allowing one person to be married to more then one person at a time which nobody is allowed to do. Like I said, you are far to ignorant to understand that very simple difference that most kindergartners can understand.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •