You should be telling that to the SCOTUS instead of posting it here.
I'm responding to the argument you posted, where you seemed to have not quite gotten the pro marriage equality argument. I haven't taken any tub time with a copy of the minority's opinion so I don't know if they did the same thing.
Y'know, I was just looking at this thread and saying to my buddy, here, I was all, "Yeah it's fun and all, but gay rights aren't quite controversial 'nuff, what about if we like tie in gun control or something?"
Imagine my surprise when I refreshed the page and saw that someone else had the same idea!
Happy to be of service.
Sydney.... I'm your typical lefty inner west Chardonnay socialist.Where are you from 8th Dwarf?
We in Australia have an aggressive conservative Christian as PM. But he feels the need to disguise what he is to make himself more acceptable to the public and his own party.
The PM is opposed to marriage equality, but we may get it as the government has other problems, and they may not fight on that. One can hope.
Ah, I am from Perth, and more or less answer the same description. Except I don't drink and am left leaning as opposed to socialist. And I love Sydney where I used to live some 32 years ago. [Lapses into senile reverie.]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm responding to the argument you posted, where you seemed to have not quite gotten the pro marriage equality argument.Whats the legal argument for the feds to override what was previously a State right?
Let me know in one post (or less).
Maine has to allow gay marriage because Maine allows strait marriage.
Maine does not have to allow gay marriage because New york allows gay marriage.
When the state does not treat one member of their own state like they treat other members of their own state equally they're in violation of the 14th ammendment. So it doesn't matter how many waterballoons New york allows vs how many montana allows, as long as each state lets all citizens of that state have the same number of water balloons they're not in breach of the equal protection clause.
The 14th ammendment means that discrimination is no longer a states right.
|
Maine has to allow gay marriage because Maine allows strait marriage.
Maine does not have to allow gay marriage because New york allows gay marriage.
When the state does not treat one member of their own state like they treat other members of their own state equally they're in violation of the 14th ammendment. So it doesn't matter how many waterballoons New york allows vs how many montana allows, as long as each state lets all citizens of that state have the same number of water balloons they're not in breach of the equal protection clause.
CCW permits honored in one state - not honored in another. I see your point though. Still doesn't explain how the feds got to supersede what was previously a State law.
...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..
Maybe I'm misreading "no state make or enforce law which shall abridge" or it could be the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part that is confusing me.
If someone doesn't like gay marriage nobody is forcing them into one.
I've always felt the same way about fully automatic rifles - no one is forcing people to buy them, so whats the problem?
Maybe I'm misreading "no state make or enforce law which shall abridge" or it could be the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part that is confusing me
That would be a different argument for a different topic thats contentious enough on its own. As far as I know, this was not the argument being advanced on the gay marriage issue. It was a matter of equality about how states treated their own people differently.
I've always felt the same way about fully automatic rifles - no one is forcing people to buy them, so whats the problem?
Two gay people getting married does not affect you or anyone other than them in any way.
You owning a gun, at least potentially, does. Guns are a weapon. Assault rifles in particular are weapons of war.
What use does a civilian have for owning an assault rifle?
You can argue a pistol is for self defense, and a rifle and a shotgun are for hunting, but why an assault rifle?
Especially to tote around in public like a handbag.
There is no moral or practical upside to allowing civilian ownership of assault rifles, and several potential downsides.
Is that enough for a ban? That's up to personal taste. Guns, if nothing else, are hella fun to shoot, and any kind of gun is a weapon of death in the wrong hands (though it's more a matter of scale).
Personally speaking, I don't think guns themselves should be restricted, within reason (you CERTAINLY don't need access to explosives, for instance, or something ridiculous like a chain gun), just WHO can own them. Mandatory psychological evaluations and waiting periods are not unreasonable restrictions.
But it's not nearly the same kind of issue as marriage equality. They are not related in any way.
...Why do you need automatic weaponry to function as a militia?
Nowhere in the definition of militia does it require actual military grade hardware.
Like I said, the gay marriage issue and the firearms issue aren't conflatable. At all.
"Why do you need to have equal rights" is not a comparable question to "Why do you need this luxury item?"
|
|
militia
- a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
- a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
- all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
Lol - the first one primarily. Though the second one has it's own special appeal.
militia
- a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
- a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
- all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
Thank you for proving my point.
This as well, as I know at least one state is considering trying to circumvent the ruling by no longer issuing any marriage certificates at all.
Not that worried about it.
Oddly enough when the government is a twit to everybody rather than just a minority people don't like, people tend to change their government rather quickly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're point wasn't proven..you are being cute though and I can appreciate that at another time.
Back on point. We need better guns and more of them.
...that's back on point for this thread? :p
It is if you read the first line and stop :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CCW permits honored in one state - not honored in another. I see your point though. Still doesn't explain how the feds got to supersede what was previously a State law....No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..Maybe I'm misreading "no state make or enforce law which shall abridge" or it could be the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part that is confusing me.
Yes, you're misreading.
Georgia has granted certain persons the right to carry weapons in Georgia. New York cannot pass or enforce a law to prevent those people from carrying weapons in Georgia.
Georgia cannot grant the right to carry in New York.
With regard to marriage,.... Georgia does not have to recognize New York marriages and vice versa, but it has long-standing laws to that effect, probably dating back to the colonial era. Georgia could opt not to recognize New York marriages at all by changing those laws. But it could not opt to recognize New York marriages of gay people while recognizing straight marriages, since that would violate the equal protection clause.
You're point wasn't proven..you are being cute though and I can appreciate that at another time.
My point was completely proven. Nothing in the definition of militia requires military grade hardware.
A militia supplements the existing military. They are not a part of the actual military. They do not need to be armed or equipped identically to the actual military.
In the past, militia would often be armed with converted farming implements. They were not given plate mail and a longsword for every man.
If we have need of a militia in the future, I can be assured that barring some unrivaled catastrophe, no random civilian will be getting the keys to a tank without prying them from the cold, dead hands of the original operator, and not everyone is going to be handed a pair of grenades and their choice of rifle.
Back on point. We need better guns and more of them.
"Back on point" is a misnomer for a derail, but I'll bite.
Why? Give me a good reason besides "I want one".
|
|
Georgia has...
So if NY chose not to honor my CCW permit from Georgia isn't that a violation of the equal protection clause?
Don't bother (because..well, its you an all).
-----
Nothing in the definition of militia requires military grade hardware.
Nothing in the definition of marriage indicated that it could be between the same sexes either.
Why? Give me a good reason besides "I want one".
Cause it's my right.
------I got cited and PMd.
Out of respect for some(?) others I will bow out of this gun derail from this ..debate/discussion to prevent a lock.
If anyone needs me I will be in the non-existent paizo gun club subform.
GG all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate when someone "bows out" of a thread when they leave on something that completely fails to answer the question.
You're point wasn't proven..you are being cute though and I can appreciate that at another time.
Back on point. We need better guns and more of them.
Yeah, guys, stop trying to claimjump the gun control thread.
Wow, this being Paizo, of course the topic has changed drastically.
Interstingly enough, the REASON for the right to bear arms was specifically as a COUNTER to the Federal Government. It was to rebel against the Federal government if they needed.
It's with memory to the American Revolution (a little thing that made it even possible for the colonies to become the United States and eventually after several tries, write a US Constitution that stuck).
During the Revolutionary War, or prior to it, actually, they already had the right to militias, and the citizens were NOT allowed military grade weapons. If I remember correctly (I may be wrong, but I think this is what it was over), with Paul Revere, the main cause that the British were coming was that the British Governor had heard that several citizens (that were NOT part of the regular militia mind you, but this upstart group that sometimes called itself minute men, and sometimes not, and sometimes was just a rag tag group of men) had some (brass?) cannons which were military grade weaponry. He was sending the troops to get these weapons and gather them up. Paul Revere rode (and was met up with another who actually delivered the message the final bit after Revere was stopped) small battles ensued, and the rest is history.
So, in that light, and how many of the founders referenced these events as their reason for the second amendment, I would probably say they meant it as something for the common citizenry as opposed to the State National Guards that you see, and they ALSO meant it to be enabling to include military grade weapons.
Of course, the dilemma comes in that our weapons today are FAR more dangerous and deadly than anything they had back then. It is possible that they never foresaw weapons that could blow up a city in a single blast than lay waste with radiation to the area around it for years to come.
Which is why many say the Constitution was designed as a living document, one that could be adapted to the needs of the time.
The question then comes, would the founding fathers have meant for us to have a nuclear arsenal as citizens as well as other things...or would they have felt that this was probably just a wee bit over doing it?
At what point would they have felt that the citizenry had enough to rebel...but not so much as to annihilate the entire nation along with themselves?
IN addition, what is actually needed in our time? Do we really need assault weapons if the revolution that the forefathers left as the final option came to be?
Finally, even if they meant it, the purpose and power of the Constitution and Federal government changed drastically in regards to what Lincoln did and the Congress under Johnson (Not really Johnson himself though) in which we saw such an attempted revolution, and the ensuing laws that followed which changed the form of power and legal form thenceforth. The biggest and most solid change that defined this changing aspect and outlook upon the Constitution and this specific right came to a head in the United States vs Cruikshank in 1876 where the former views of the founding fathers were no longer considered the exact definition of what the US would utilize from then on out and it became more the domain of the Federal Government.
IN that light, the second amendment COULD be seen ONLY as official state run militias authorized by the Federal government instead of rag tag groups of men or other items that decided to simply start a Civil War (which in truth was not all that Civil).
As a former resident of New York, I can tell you that they don't accept any out of state issue weapon permits. Since everyone is treated equally, it isn't an equal protection clause violation. If they accepted stuff from one state and not another, or only from certain people there would be an issue.Georgia has...So if NY chose not to honor my CCW permit from Georgia isn't that a violation of the equal protection clause?
Don't bother (because..well, its you an all).
Actually, with the interpretations of the second amendment these days in regards to Federal control and State rendition, it is NOT equally applied in almost any state. Felons and other classes of citizens are NOT allowed to own firearms...
It may make sense from a safety point of view, but if one gets technical...there is discriminatory actions in regards to gun control already...
Not that these are bad ideas...but it does make the ideas that these laws are applied equally to all actually not really correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt the same way about fully automatic rifles - no one is forcing people to buy them, so whats the problem?Two gay people getting married does not affect you or anyone other than them in any way...
.
♪ ♬ "When I was just a babyMy Mama told me, 'Hon
Always be a good girl
Don't ever play with guns,'
But I married a girl in Reno
Just to watch a bigot die.
When I hear that dogwhistle blowin',
I hang my head and cry." ♩ ♫
|
Huh. Can't say I entirely agree with some of the posts that got removed ... I can't tell what exactly about that conversation was so offensive it had to be removed.I never requested that any post be removed, or even reviewed, so I don't know what to tell you.
To clarify, I never though you did. I assumed it was a decision made by the mods, but I couldn't understand it. My impression was that we were having a civil debate, and at no point did I feel either of us were being offensive to one another or to anyone else.
*shrug*.
|
Big Norse Wolf, Lets separate the legal arguments form the issues.
I don't have any problems with two men or two women civily marrying to one another or marrying in a church that welcomes them but a church that
does not accept gay marriage should not be forced or coerced by the state into dong so.
The liberals on the court + Justice Kennedy only read and Interpret the amendments that they want to to push the agenda that they wish to push.
Marriage is not mentioned in the US Construction, therefore it is covered by the 10th amendment which states anything not enumerated in the Construction is reserved for the states. Therefore States laws on marriage should be left for the states so the case in point should not have had standing to be heard in the federal courts.
Does the 14th amendment trump the 1st or 10th amendment. The liberals on the court simply do not respect the free exercise clause of the first amendment, they recoil from it like a vampire recoils from a cross.
Like the chief justice said in his dissent the case did not have a Construction leg to stand on it was decided on the agenda of the 4 liberal justices felt and their social agenda. While waiting for my internet connection to come back on. I was watching the oral arguments for the lethal injection case and you could tell how the four liberal justices were going to vote before the case was heard. None of the 4 have ever voted to uphold a method of the death penalty.
Marriage for all is the law of the land now and the gay militants should be happy and celebrate a good victory and should leave the religious people alone. Be happy with their married partners and stop triing to force the religious to accept their life style because that is not going to happen.
Now everyone can be happily married to a partner of their choosing.
Enjoy it and celebrate it with your friends and family.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't even spell "Constitution" I don't want to hear your opinions on what it actually says.
...Especially on a forum for a game where that's one of the main statistics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, with the interpretations of the second amendment these days in regards to Federal control and State rendition, it is NOT equally applied in almost any state. Felons and other classes of citizens are NOT allowed to own firearms...It may make sense from a safety point of view, but if one gets technical...there is discriminatory actions in regards to gun control already...
Not that these are bad ideas...but it does make the ideas that these laws are applied equally to all actually not really correct.
Equal application of the law does not mean equal outcome. Since it's hard to have a sensible debate about gun laws, let's look at something more straightforward: licensure. Every state (that I'm familiar with) has a vision test for getting a driver's license. This, of course, discriminates against the blind, and is, in fact, a facial violation of the (Federal) ADA.
That's not really a problem, though. There's a bona fide reason for the discrimination (public safety), the discrimination is fairly narrowly tailored to the reason, and the rules are applied equally to everyone.
Teaching certification is another example. Not everyone who wants to can teach public schools (in most states, if not all); you typically need to take some college-level courses, demonstrate mastery of teaching techniques through student teaching, and sit some tests to show subject mastery. This doesn't create an equal protection issue, though, since anyone who jumps through the hoops gets a license.
Where things get interesting is in crossing state lines. I'll use Pennsylvania as an example. PA has a fairly rigorous and well-regarded program and some relatively strict licensure requirements. If you haven't been certified by Pennsylvania, you may still be able to teach in PA, but you have to be able to show that you've been certified by someone to the standards of PA teaching. A Connecticut certificate, for example, has been deemed by the relevant bureaucrats to be equivalently rigorous, and so if you move from New Haven to Bryn Mawr, you can still teach in the local school district. On the other hand, Indiana does not meet the cut, so if you move from Gary to Scranton, your license will not transfer.
This misleadingly named "reciprocity" is not necessarily two-way; if CT had substantially stricter standards, it could still refuse to accept PA certification. In fact, PA transfers to IN but not the other way around.
Equal protection isn't generally an issue as long as the rules are equally applied and the rules themselves make sense. Requiring all secondary school teachers to have a degree in their subject of study (science teachers need to have a science degree) would be a strict but justifiable requirement; requiring all secondary school teachers to be 190cm tall or taller would not, and that would raise equal protection issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the 14th amendment trump the 1st or 10th amendment.
Goodness, yes. That's a basic property of changing the law -- the changes trump the original text. Newer amendments trump older ones, so the 14th trumps the 1st and 10th, the 19th trumps the 14th, and the 28th Amendment will trump Amendments 1 through 27.
The alternative would be ludicrous -- the 18th Amendment established Prohibition; the 21st Amendment repealed it. If newer amendments didn't take priority, Prohibition would still be the law of the land, and there would be no way to repeal it.
In the specific case of the 14th Amendment, it was specifically passed to limit the powers of the states that were granted under the rest of the Constitution. Prior to that Amendment, for example, the US could not establish an official religion, but individual states could have, so Maryland could have established itself as an officially Catholic state. Now (post 14th Amendment) it can't, because the 14th rather explicitly overrode the 10th in that regard.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big Norse Wolf, Lets separate the legal arguments form the issues.
Ok, lets. The vast majority of your post doesn't do that. The vast majority of it are quips snipes, insults, that try to ignore the legal argument.
[]quotea] church that does not accept gay marriage should not be forced or coerced by the state into dong so.
.. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
Marriage is not mentioned in the US Construction, therefore it is covered by the 10th amendment which states anything not enumerated in the Construction is reserved for the states.
And because the southern states thought that that meant they could just pass laws to stop black people from voting, moving, or living we got the 14h ammendment which means that anything that the states do for one class of citizen they HAVE to do for all classes.
Therefore States laws on marriage should be left for the states so the case in point should not have had standing to be heard in the federal courts.
-States are constitutionally bound not to discriminate.
-States do not have first amendment rights. People do.Does the 14th amendment trump the 1st or 10th amendment. The liberals on the court simply do not respect the free exercise clause of the first amendment, they recoil from it like a vampire recoils from a cross.
Calling people evil vampires is not focusing on the law or the facts.
Like the chief justice said in his dissent the case did not have a Construction leg to stand on it was decided on the agenda of the 4 liberal justices felt and their social agenda.
Then please tell me whats wrong with my argument in the law for this case
State allows strait marriage.
State is not allowed to discriminate
State has to allow gay marriage.
Marriage for all is the law of the land now and the gay militants should be happy and celebrate a good victory and should leave the religious people alone.
... their M-16 has the anodized rainbow finish? I didn't see any of those on CNN....
Be happy with their married partners and stop triing to force the religious to accept their life style because that is not going to happen.
Look at your grandfather, who probably had a problem with interracial marriage.
Replace all of your arguments with interracial instead of homosexual. They're the same.
Now look into the future and look to your grandkid. When he looks back at you, he's going to see the same thing that you see looking at your grandpa.
Now everyone can be happily married to a partner of their choosing.
Enjoy it and celebrate it with your friends and family.
Meh. I'm happy because my friends are happy and fox news is having an apoplexy. On a good day its in that order...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
As a liberal in general and a supporter of polygamy in particular I agree, but I don't see this happening any time soon, if only because of the legislative nightmares of trying to figure out how to get everything right with the new laws and rulings such a legalization would entail. For example, how to handle a "divorce" where a married group splits into two or more subgroups (who the hack gets to keep what? and what about the kids? etc.). Currently there just doesn't seem to be any group that is able and willing to exert enough pressure to make this happen.
Honestly, it seems like there are needs of other marginalized groups (not the least of which are the transgenders) who need better protection and recognition more urgently. I would take care of them first.
On the topic of what is said 2 and 3 posts above, has anyone else noted that some other sexual minorities [apart from LGBT] have discrimination problems?
I am speaking of people like the BDSM community and the poly-amorous. I am mostly aware of there portrayal in the media, particularly in crime TV where they are always killing and/or being killed, and often treated as a joke.
It seems to me they sometimes play the role blacks or gays would 40 or 50 years ago, someone its easy to treat as a joke.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any problems with two men or two women civily marrying to one another or marrying in a church that welcomes them
To be clear, you're saying that, if you'd been asked to vote on legalizing gay marriage two weeks ago, you would have voted to legalize, yes?
but a church that
does not accept gay marriage should not be forced or coerced by the state into dong so.
And that's not going to happen, so what are you worried about?
The liberals on the court + Justice Kennedy only read and Interpret the amendments that they want to to push the agenda that they wish to push.
Ah, yes, "The people who disagree with me are also coincidentally the ones who practice bogus law, and I am fully qualified to decide what that is based on my lengthy experience as an armchair lawyer!"
Marriage is not mentioned in the US Construction,
Har.
therefore it is covered by the 10th amendment which states anything not enumerated in the Construction is reserved for the states.
It is covered under the 14th amendment. You don't like it, but that's the way it is. Deal with it.
This brings us to a larger, more critical point: You don't actually care about the Consitution.
You don't hold any particular reverence for the document. You just pretend to, because a) you get to use it as a ridiculous litmus test for patriotism, and b) blindly gesturing in the direction of certain parts of the Constitution (e.g. the 10th amendment) allows you to mount a flimsy defense for enshrining your personal beliefs in (state) law.
Therefore States laws on marriage should be left for the states so the case in point should not have had standing to be heard in the federal courts.
I guess you'll just have to deal with that.
Does the 14th amendment trump the 1st or 10th amendment.
The 1st amendment isn't in play, here. No private entity is having their speech or expression controlled in any way by the federal government.
So the question before us is, "Does the 14th amendment trump the 10th amendment?"
This is a laughable question. Of course it trumps the 10th amendment. Literally everything in the Constitution trumps the 10th amendment. The whole point of the 10th amendment is that it comes into play only when something isn't covered elsewhere in the Constitution.
Why did you even need to ask this? You've painted yourself as some constitutional scholar who understands the law better than the majority of the Supreme Court. If that's true, how could you have possibly asked a question like, "Does the 14th amendment trump the 10th amendment?"
The liberals on the court simply do not respect the free exercise clause of the first amendment, they recoil from it like a vampire recoils from a cross.
Ah, yes, us free-speech-hating liberals.
Like the chief justice said in his dissent the case did not have a Construction leg to stand on it was decided on the agenda of the 4 liberal justices felt and their social agenda.
Maybe put that sentence back together and let us know when you've figured out what you were trying to say, there.
While waiting for my internet connection to come back on. I was watching the oral arguments for the lethal injection case and you could tell how the four liberal justices were going to vote before the case was heard. None of the 4 have ever voted to uphold a method of the death penalty.
Good.
Marriage for all is the law of the land now and the gay militants should be happy and celebrate a good victory and should leave the religious people alone.
"Here, be happy with this bit of equality but don't you dare try and fight to be more equal."
"Religious people" (read: mostly fundamentalist Christians) spent decades systematically marginalizing gay people. What they were forced to endure was horrible. Gay people will leave religious people alone. But if they chose not to leave religious people alone, religious people would deserve every bit of it.
Be happy with their married partners and stop triing to force the religious to accept their life style because that is not going to happen.
In 1996, support for gay marriage was at 27%. One month ago, support for gay marriage was at 60%. 33% of the country got on board with gay marriage in the last two decades. Most of them (statistically speaking) were religious. So it absolutely is going to happen, because it's happening right now. Every day, thousands of (religious!) people are switching from "Do Not Support" to "Support". It's hard to be a bigot right now. The world in which bigots feel comfortable is shrinking around them. And that's fantastic. I'm in Vegas right now on business. You can't walk 10 feet down the strip without spotting a sign supporting gay marriage or pride month. Caesar's Palace has a "We Support Marriage Equality" banner rotating on their massive marquee. Now, this is Vegas, but that resorts are putting themselves out there on such a divisive issue says a lot about where the country is right now.
Gay people don't need to "force" anything. They've managed to completely flip public opinion without any kind of force whatsoever.
Now everyone can be happily married to a partner of their choosing.
But not if you had anything to say about it.
Enjoy it and celebrate it with your friends and family.
"I hate you and everything you stand for. Enjoy your victory."
Takes on a very different tone when you make the subtext explicit, doesn't it?
"at least" implies longer than, but no less than. He was probably referring to recorded history maybe?
"at least" implies longer than, but no less than. He was probably referring to recorded history maybe?
Actually, I would believe he was simply trying to avoid controversy.
In a similar way, if I were invited to give a public speech in Jerusalem, I'd probably say "thank you for inviting me to your lovely city" instead of "thank you for inviting me to Israel/Palestine/West Virginia" because that simply invites people to stop paying attention to the main focus of the speech.
I don't often discuss baseball with New Yorkers because it's hard to tell whether they root for the Mets or the Yankees, and there are so many other things that everyone can agree on.