This_person
Well-Known Member
But yet you still have not shown anything I said was inaccurate, just that you felt different.
Ted and Kid and Sarah...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
But yet you still have not shown anything I said was inaccurate, just that you felt different.
Toxick
Splat
I never said that it was inaccurate.
I'm perfectly aware that Homosexuals may marry other people so long as that other person is the opposite sex. It is my opinion (IOW: it is my useless emotional feewings) that that's not good enough. That is a worthless argument,.....
I've been over it a hundred times. Done spinning wheels.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Do you agree that the federal government should never have been involved in the discussion?
Toxick
Splat
I'm not precisely sure what you're asking me. If you're asking me if I agree that federal government never should have been involved with marriage in the first place, then yes - I agree with that. I don't really think it's any of the states' business either. But as I mentioned I'm less hostile about state interference because it's somewhat easier to avoid, and such interference doesn't extend beyond the boundaries of said state.
You may notice a theme emerge when I discuss federal government - well all government, but federal in particular - and that theme is: the less involved the government is with individual's lives, the better.
better to deal with a LOCAL 'crat over local matters, then debate some ass hat 2000 miles away
PsyOps
Pixelated
A person who is detained, suspected of a crime, they are going through the due process of law. While in confinement by the government, they can - during that time - lose their right to have a firearm. If you want to define that as a limit, outside of due process then I'd say you're distorting the intent of the constitution.
But perhaps if the words were right in front of you...
"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."
And some other adjoining quotes:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
awpitt
Main Streeter
Toxick wasn't disputing facts. He was making an argument. A pretty good one. Based on reality.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Then would you agree that the SCOTUS decision should have been "we have no dog in this fight due to the tenth amendment, so each state may conduct marriage licenses as they see fit."?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Psy, you get I am against the vast majority of gun restrictions, right?
But, as Sam Adams stated, a "peaceable citizen" should be able to have arms. What is a "peaceable citizen"? Doesn't that imply they understood reasonable restrictions on rights are acceptable?
Now, you agreed that the person on bail should be able to have his weapons because he is not yet convicted. But, if he doesn't have the money (or property) for bail, then now he should not? Does this not say only rich people can retain their rights?
And, what about visiting the jailed person. Or, going to court? Or, the person who says, "I'm going to kill people as soon as I leave your office, doc" to his psychiatrist? Or, the five year-old at recess?
Do you see absolutely no reasonable restriction?
This_person
Well-Known Member
I agree he was not disputing facts. I agree he was making an argument. It was an emotional one, without facts to back it up.
It was a good emotional argument, but laws should not be based on emotion. Laws should be based on principles and facts. His "reality" was, he doesn't like that two same-sex people can't register their relationship with the government (not "reality" anymore, but it was, and that's where the discussion was happening - about the past). He said he didn't like it because then people who want to marry can't, thus discriminating against them. But, he couldn't explain how that was different from the person/people who want to marry multiple people, or the people who want to marry when they are too closely related, or any of the other restrictions on who can register their relationship. By not being able to differentiate, he allowed me to demonstrate (and I believe you, he, or someone else agreed) that 100% of the population was therefore discriminated against. Now, if we are ALL discriminated against, the fact is none of us are "discriminated" against, because we're all treated equally.
Further, it is indisputable that registering one's relationship is purely voluntary. As such, it is VERY hard to suggest that there is an issue with being denied anything, since the registration is not required for anything.
So, I disagree it was a good argument. It was a good try at an argument, or a good emotional argument, but not a good argument.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
It's not really a 10th Amendment issue anymore.
When the federal govt. grants special tax status and special benefits (that's debatable, but I won't go into the details) to married people, it becomes a federal issue in which SCOTUS had to step in. If the govt. would stop growing and metastasizing like bad cancer, it probably would be left to the states. Alas, we, the people, continually vote for bigger government. We, the people, say we don't like big govt., we don't like being lied to, we don't like politicians, we don't like the R and D parties, but when it comes time to put up or shut up, we come full circle and get bent over a barrel with no lube by the very same govt. WE supposedly control. Why? Because we don't. We don't control anything anymore.
While you're arguing in one thread about using the full force and power of the government to make sweeping raids and arrests of otherwise law abiding people taking part in the use of state-legalized marijuana THEY voted for, you're here advocating for states to have the right to choose who can be married in their state. As I said earlier, since the federal govt. puts so much emphasis on marriage, having states choose who can be married probably isn't a good idea.
On one hand, something like a driver's license is reciprocated across state lines, even though each state may have different laws, training, or methods for determining who can hold that license; on the other hand, something like a concealed carry license, which also has different state requirements, is not reciprocated across all states. You've also got marijuana, which is illegal at a federal level, thus making it illegal to move across state lines. I don't agree with it, but I get it. Now, you've got marriage. Let's say it was up to the states. Joe and Jim get married in New York, and go on vacation in Texas. In Texas, hypothetically, gay marriage is not recognized. Jim gets sick, needing hospital care and care decicions made by a spouse/family. In New York, they'd be okay, but since they're in Texas, Joe is not allowed to make any decisions on his husband because in Texas, they aren't married.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Would this really be the case? Doesn't the Interstate Commerce clause protect people is the situation you described?
awpitt
Main Streeter
Actually, getting a marriage license, or "Registering" as you call it, is not voluntary. At least it's not voluntary if the couple wants their marriage to be legal. Otherwise, they're just living together playing house.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Psy, you get I am against the vast majority of gun restrictions, right?
But, as Sam Adams stated, a "peaceable citizen" should be able to have arms. What is a "peaceable citizen"? Doesn't that imply they understood reasonable restrictions on rights are acceptable?
Now, you agreed that the person on bail should be able to have his weapons because he is not yet convicted. But, if he doesn't have the money (or property) for bail, then now he should not? Does this not say only rich people can retain their rights?
You're pretty good at spin. According to the constitution, you cannot be deprived of your rights by the government until 'due process' has occurred. I will, again, submit that someone accused of a crime is going through due process of law and could have restrictions placed on them. That's a constitutional matter, not a restriction posed on the people by the government outside of the constitution.
The government has a right to forbid you from carrying a firearm into a government building, just like I have a right to refuse you to come in my house with a firearm. Not allowing someone to carry inside a government building is not a violation of 'keep and bear'. I know you want to call that a 'restriction'. Fine. Split hairs all you want. If a psychiatrist decides not to disclose someone making threats to murder, that psychiatrist will be held accountable. I don't see what that has to do with this discussion anyway. Back to your 5 year old again... I've already answered that, and not going to again.
If you want to get down to every minute possibility, sure we put restrictions on people where they can carry. Generally speaking, THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT INFRINGE on our right to keep and bear.
This_person
Well-Known Member
They may "put so much emphasis" on marriage, but they never define it. They don't, because that is a state issue. One state says 13 is good enough to marry, another says 18, but both marriages have the same rights and responsibilities with the federal government. In fact, since they DON'T define it, it is FAIR to say that same-sex marriages could simply have declared themselves "married" based on their ceremony or any other certificate they came up with whenever they wanted and gotten those benefits and disadvantages that come with being "married" in terms of the federal government.
I'm advocating for each side to assert its authority. There is NO authority for the federal government to involve itself in what is considered "marriage" - that's a state issue. There's no authority for the states to "legalize" pot, because they abdicated that authority to the federal government. Until the states take that back, they're out of that fight (in my opinion).
Why wouldn't Joe be able to - marriage licenses are like driver's licenses in that they cross state lines. Whether State B allows same-sex marriage in their state, the marriage certificate would be valid because another state issued it.
Now, if you move from state A to state B, virtually all (I know of none that do not do this) require you to surrender your state A license and get a state B license if you move there. If you're on vacation, that's fine. But, if you move there, it is different. Perhaps states might start doing that for marriage certificates, but as of now (and at the time of the SCOTUS decision) if you are married in State A, you are married in all 50 states.
This_person
Well-Known Member
In other words, it's only voluntary if the couple wants it? Isn't that the very definition of "voluntary"?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Telling you can't bear arms is not telling you you can't bear arms? I don't get that. YOU doing it at YOUR house is one thing (you're not restricted by the constitution from restricting me), but the government is specifically denied the right to infringe upon your right - at least that's what you guys have been telling me. Now you're telling me the government can if it wants to, just like you can if you want to. I don't see that as anything but infringement upon that right.
FINALLY we agree!!
PsyOps
Pixelated
No, we don't agree. You've gone so down deep into the weeds that you've presented an impossible position. Government buildings belong to the government, just like my home belongs to me. They do get to make the rules for their own structures. And it's not congress that has made some law forbidding you from carrying in these buildings. Again, if you want to call that a restriction, or limitation on your rights, so be it. I happen to think you're taking this debate to the extreme just to win.
"Well, what about a guy missing all of his fingers, while driving a semi, in the snow, on a Sunday?"
That's the absurdity I see you've taken this.
Last edited:
That's just what he does. Always does. Almost as stubbornly obtuse as MR sometimes.
philibusters
Active Member
Marriage is a state issue reserved to the states by the 10th amendment. Congress doesn't have any power to pass a law saying states have to grant marriages to gay couples.
However, it became a federal issue when the Supreme Court interpreted the equal protection clause and the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment to mean that states cannot treat gay couples different than heterosexual couples.
For example, the Equal Protection Clause says "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." The U.S. Supreme Court basically said a state was denying gay couples equal protection of the law afforded to straight couples and hence law denying gay couples the right to marry were unconstitutional.