Political Crossfire Forums

[LeftyLucy]

If you're against same-sex marriage, it's very simple...

1. Don't marry someone of your sex.

2. Don't attend a church that marries same-sex couples.

In America we, ALL OF US, deserve equal rights under the law. We are not a Christian country. Just as we are not a country of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religious affliation.

If your beliefs tell you same-sex marriage is wrong you absolutely have that right. And you can keep same-sex couples from being married in your church. Your church/religious organization has that right. But it is wrong to pass laws in order to stuff your personal beliefs down others' throats. If you think this is right then I hope, in turn, beliefs outside your own are forced down your throat. If you are a proud American who respects the freedom we have you should not make an exception when it comes to this subject, touchy as it may be.

It's pretty simple, really.

[Demonic Spoon]

Okay. Heres my opinion

You should be able to do whatever you want so long as you do not infringe on anyone else's rights. I don't even want the government to be involved in marriage, but hell, as long as it is..

Them getting married does not infringe on your rights

[PrinceJunius]

I agree, and it really is that simple. But of course, those on the other side would have us believe that people will be lining up to marry their toasters, their children, and their breakfast sausages once we let the gays get married.

Uh oh, spaghetti-O!!!

[Demonic Spoon]

Yes. We all know how toasters are consenting adults.

Who the hell cares?

It's immoral, so we should ban it: Yes, while we're at it, lets ban sex outside of marriage, masturbation, sexually suggestive clothing, all forms of pornography, gambling, etc....

It's redefining marriage/marriage is between a man and a woman: There was a time when "marriage" ment a 20+ year old guy marrying a 13 year old girl. I don't hear you all whining about how we redefined marriage from that point

[Melchior]

LeftyLucy wrote: 1. Don't marry someone of your sex.

2. Don't attend a church that marries same-sex couples.

I have a more simple, and more powerful one:

1. We have unlimited right to contract.

2. Marriage = contract between consenting adults.

[SavannahMan]

Gay marriage is a dead issue in this country. The American people have spoken and it isn't going to happen. Get over it.

[Demonic Spoon]

Care to debate it, or are you just going to avoid our arguements?

[SavannahMan]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Care to debate it, or are you just going to avoid our arguements?

It's been debated. The debate is over.

Besides - I would just be called a troll - that's what they call people who don't tow the liberal homosexual line in this forum.

Want to debate something? Let's debate whether this issue is effectively DEAD in this country. Not even the Demorats will touch it anymore.

[Melchior]

SavannahMan wrote: Gay marriage is a dead issue in this country. The American people have spoken and it isn't going to happen. Get over it.

You have lost the debate, ikari and eXploiTeD have assured.

We have the Bill of Rights on our side and you lost, get over it.

[John Galt]

Well the fact of thematter is it is a creationof the state and not an individual right and therefore it is not givensome sort of protection by the bill of rights. No one has a right to marry anyone one they please (I'd be shacking up withKristanna Loken if I had such a right). Furthermore, as said before, it is a creation of the state. While the Federal government has no say in marriage, states cansay alot of things about it. Constittuions in Western States have marriage issues written into them. "Now and Forever in the State of Utah, Polygamy is banned." Well, not if the advocates of gaymarriage have their way.

What should happen is the state step out of the marriage sphere and leave it to religious organizations to marry people (in other words, donot offer secular marriages ormarriage liscenses anymore, nor dospecial tax lawsfor married people). Of course,this won't happen. What will probabbly happen is a bunch of judges will declare not having gay marriage "unconstitutional" which it isn't (things an be wrong and constitutional or right and unconstitutional.... people need torealize this...) but while that would be horrible rulings and precedent,I believe it would percipitate a faster backlash against the judiciary than is already forming (Raich, Kelo).

Anywayas said before the state canregulatemarriage. When Connecticut's legislature supported gay marriage, I applauded. Now that is the way to go. When Massachucett's despotic Court forced gaymarriage bylegislating from the bench, I became irrate. One way is constitional, the other wayis not. While the Massachucetts court maysaythey are basing things off of their Constitution and the US Constitution, they are lying. It is not a living document that changes meaning with the times (would youlike all laws tochange randomly onwhims? get a ticket for parking on the wrongside of the street eventhough it always was the side you parked on -- too bad! living breathing document! But it's a law you'llcounter. And I'll say sois the Constitution. It is not a mission statement) but the law of the land to be the rockwe built this nation upon. Nothing in those documents mandate gay marriage. Yet judges seem to think they do. Their judgements shouldbe ignored.

Eithergovernment disintrests itself from gay marriage or the people chose to do it. Youhave no individual "right to marry" and the hogwashabout how marriage is about love doesn't matter and people need to read what the Constitution is. TheFederal government cannot get involvedhere unless an amendment was passed and ratified. That would take alotof support. ALOT. It won't happen. Thestate can regulate its own institution if it pleases, but it must use the people and their legislatures to do so, NOT THE COURTS.

[ikari]

John, you and your Republican brethren will never understand the true meaning of freedom. First off, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. Secondly, all of our rights are not enumerated in the Bill of rights. Marriage is a contract and government, state or federal, has no say in it. The States can not infringe upon the rights of its citizens any more than the federal government can. As owner and proprietor of this body of mine, I have the unlimited right to contract, and can enter into whatever contract I wish (so long as that contract does not infringe upon the rights of others, that is the one and only limitation on our rights). I may not like Kevin marrying Bill, but I can't do a damned thing about it, and neither can the state.

On a side note, I think your space bar is broken.

[John Galt]

ikari wrote: John, you and your Republican brethren will never understand the true meaning of freedom. First off, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. Secondly, all of our rights are not enumerated in the Bill of rights. Marriage is a contract and government, state or federal, has no say in it. The States can not infringe upon the rights of its citizens any more than the federal government can. As owner and proprietor of this body of mine, I have the unlimited right to contract, and can enter into whatever contract I wish (so long as that contract does not infringe upon the rights of others, that is the one and only limitation on our rights). I may not like Kevin marrying Bill, but I can't do a damned thing about it, and neither can the state.

On a side note, I think your space bar is broken.

The theory of Liberty of Contract has been gone for 80 years. What COnstitutional protection is there thatsays that Liberty of Contract cannot be denied or abridged? I suggest you take to reading some court cases from right before the Court-Packing-Plan...

And I know the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, and neither does the state. I'm saying marriage isn't a right since it is a creation of the state, whereas true rights are created by man's capacity to reason and respect other individual's rights (all rights are individual).

I said what I think SHOULD happen and it varies grately from what CAN happen. The state can saywhatever it wants about marriage, in my opinion, since without the state (or any institution... ancient times state was the religion...) marriage wouldn't have existed inthe first place. It is not an individual right,how could it be? And yes, my space bar s*cks. I have to really push on it to make it make a space and sometimes I don't do so.

And finally,I would just like to say that when I saythings can or will happen that doesn't mean I agree with them and am sick of tiredof people not being able to seperate a person's argument from their opinion.

[ikari]

Marriage existed long before the government got involved. The government only got involved after the Civil War and that was done in an effort to deny interracial marriage. However, the government has no power to be involved in marriage, it is a contract and I have the unlimited right to contract. That is my right, and thus the government can not infringe upon it.

It doesn't matter if rights to contract are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights does not enumerate all of our rights. Contracts are a right, and thus government, state or federal, can not get involved to dictate the terms of a contract.

[John Galt]

ikari wrote: Marriage existed long before the government got involved. The government only got involved after the Civil War and that was done in an effort to deny interracial marriage. However, the government has no power to be involved in marriage, it is a contract and I have the unlimited right to contract. That is my right, and thus the government can not infringe upon it.

I amnot talking about this government I amtalking about the idea of the state. I know when this government created marriage licenses. Itwas founded as a religious institution a long time ago -- when the religious institutions were the state. It was created by the state. Yes,it wasn't created by this government in particular but that does not matter, unlessyou want to start giving the government individual rights so wecan have their state created institutions become "rights" for ourselves.

Quote: It doesn't matter if rights to contract are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights does not enumerate all of our rights. Contracts are a right, and thus government, state or federal, can not get involved to dictate the terms of a contract.

Iknow allthe rights are not enumerated but that does not help you convinceme that liberty of contract exists. Moreoever I have been talking about states exerting their authority not the federalgovernment, and soyour argument is mute on this point.States have lots and lots of authoirty, including the authority to make laws regarding marriage, or drugs, or a host of other things that I vehmently argue against the very idea of the Federal government making, and argue against the supposed wisdom of a state making them. However I at the same time argue that they CAN and do have the power to do so, if the people wish it.

[ikari]

So if this government had nothing to do with marriage before. The our state and federal governments didn't regulate marriage at all until a few wanted to condemn interracial marriage as icky and immoral. So if we got along just fine without federal or state involvement into regulation of marriage, why is it now the responsibility of government to regulate these contracts? I don't care what other countries do, I don't care about governments of the past. I care about this government, this country. Marriage still falls to the churches, nothing has changed there. It's just that now, the churches are no longer part of the government and the government does not have the power to tell the churches what to do anymore.

As far as it goes for the usurpation of rights by government; neither state nor federal government has the power to infringe upon our rights. While it is true that the states are to have more power than the federal government, the states still can not infringe upon our rights. So my argument isn't mute, unless you want to argue that states do have the power to infringe upon our rights. In which case you are most definitely wrong.

[John Galt]

ikari wrote: So if this government had nothing to do with marriage before. The our state and federal governments didn't regulate marriage at all until a few wanted to condemn interracial marriage as icky and immoral. So if we got along just fine without federal or state involvement into regulation of marriage, why is it now the responsibility of government to regulate these contracts? I don't care what other countries do, I don't care about governments of the past. I care about this government, this country. Marriage still falls to the churches, nothing has changed there. It's just that now, the churches are no longer part of the government and the government does not have the power to tell the churches what to do anymore.

As far as it goes for the usurpation of rights by government; neither state nor federal government has the power to infringe upon our rights. While it is true that the states are to have more power than the federal government, the states still can not infringe upon our rights. So my argument isn't mute, unless you want to argue that states do have the power to infringe upon our rights. In which case you are most definitely wrong.

Well if you start making uprights and don't defend them, then I don't know what else to say. Moreoever states can infringe onpeople's rights only the limitations of the 13th, 14th, and 17th Amendments aswell as the limitations listed in the Constitution itself are allthat the states are restricted to do. Anything is else made up bythe despotic court. Any further limitations have to be derived from the Constitutions of the states themselves.

They can infringe on your rights. It's part of living in society. You sit there calling me a Republican whenI am feriecly libertarian. I'mtelling you how it is; what the law is. And the fact of the matter is it is a settled matter that states can infringe on your rights. I'm not saying that they should; I have never argued that, but I argue that they can. There is a distinct difference.

We are not Britian. We do have a written Constitution. While not all rights were enumerated, many were. The Federalgovernment cannot infringe onthe enumerated rights. But the thing is we cannot just whilly nilly make up new rights whenever weplease and demand that the government respect them. Rights are always individaul. You speak of a liberty of contract -- where? Prove it tome that it exists. The Court a long time ago tried to make it so. Theysaid that you cannot violate people's liberty of contract by mandating minimum wage laws and maximum hours. While true the Federal government can do no such thing, the states are well within their power todo so.While it may be extremely unwise (and, in fact, is) and actually is violative of this liberty of contract, it is not protected by the Constitution from infringement by the states.The Supreme Court wisely later overrulled Lochner, but they continue to make upnew rights and place new burdens upon the states that previously had not existed and is deviod of written law supporting their claims.

Why have a written Constitution if we're not going to use it? It is law, not a mission statement.

[ikari]

If you support the usurpation of rights by the government, state or federal, I don't see how you can call yourself a Libertarian. And the unlimited right to contract is a basis of our philosophy. Like all rights it is based on property. I own me, this body, these thoughts, they are inalienable to me. Being owner and proprietor of this body, I have the right to enter it into any contract I deem fit. So long as I am not infringing upon the rights of others, I can exercise my rights to their fullest. And the government, state or federal, does not have the rightful power to infringe upon my use of my rights. Only a few of our rights were enumerated, but the non-numbered ones are not any less important, nor are they any less inalienable. While the states are to have more power than the government, that power does not extend to the usurpation of rights, any rights. They simply are to regulate necessary government acts on a smaller level. The entire Libertarian philosophy is the minimization of government to its barest operational state. There are things the states can do that the federal government can not. But neither the state nor the federal government have the rightful power to usurp the rights of the citizens of the free and sovereign states.

[John Galt]

ikari wrote: If you support the usurpation of rights by the government, state or federal, I don't see how you can call yourself a Libertarian.

Please read what I wrote again.

Quote: And the unlimited right to contract is a basis of our philosophy. Like all rights it is based on property. I own me, this body, these thoughts, they are inalienable to me. Being owner and proprietor of this body, I have the right to enter it into any contract I deem fit. So long as I am not infringing upon the rights of others, I can exercise my rights to their fullest. And the government, state or federal, does not have the rightful power to infringe upon my use of my rights. Only a few of our rights were enumerated, but the non-numbered ones are not any less important, nor are they any less inalienable. While the states are to have more power than the government, that power does not extend to the usurpation of rights, any rights. They simply are to regulate necessary government acts on a smaller level. The entire Libertarian philosophy is the minimization of government to its barest operational state. There are things the states can do that the federal government can not. But neither the state nor the federal government have the rightful power to usurp the rights of the citizens of the free and sovereign states.

While I do not support the "usurptation of rights" I recognize thatstates can do so. Theyare notlimited to the form of government that the Federal government is. I hope I have made clear,for the millionth time, myposition, which has nothing to do with me supporting the idea that states can "usurp people's rights" but the fact that they can limit the liberty of contract and a host of things (drugs, abortion, prostitution, sodomy, marriage, etc., etc.) and still be all constitutional. It's only if theirown constitutions are infringed are they actually breaking the law. Now, theselawsmay very well be "wrong" in somestance coming rom a libertarian, but they are not breaking the law.

As I must say 5 times a day around here, I do not support these things, but know they CAN BE DONE by the states but not the Federal Gov't.

Why have a written Constitution if we are not going to use and stick to it? It is law not a mission statement.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Why have a written Constitution if we are not going to use and stick to it? It is law not a mission statement.

Why bother having federally protected rights if the states can simply ignore their existance completely? I am neither in favor of the federal government having all the power, nor the states. There has to be a way to establish a better balance between the two that includes a protection of federally recognized rights from bad acts by the state governments.

You say you don't favor the states' ability to ignore our federal rights and are merely stating the facts. I put it to you that if this current administration manages to pack the court with what it calls 'strict constructionists', the government will take a mightly leap forward in letting the states exploit this loophole - I believe they'll encourage it, in fact, to establish control of our liberties at the state level in a way that would never be tolerated in federal law. What's to stop them? The power of the people? Hogwash - while I certainly believe in limiting democracy, I don't believe our current system provides the people with an adequate means of putting on the brakes, either.

So much for having a libertarian approach - none of that will matter a bit if the neocons and Christian dominionists get their way. What possible reason can you have for promoting the preservation of a system that contains a loophole big enough to drive the space shuttle through it when it comes to protecting our rights?

I say scrap the damn thing and re-write it. It's useless for protecting individual liberties if we accept your interpretation exempting the states this way. I say return to the Republic, but this time with a document that has some teeth when it comes to protecting civil rights.

[John Galt]

Return totheRepublic yes. Scrap or rewrite or add anything to that document? No, I can't think of one thing that needs to be changed.

I'm a secularist, anyone who has seen my posts dealing with religion knows that. YetI think that a State can hae a State religion. I don't thinkthey should, but they can.

You say that they will immeditely start doing things like that. Why would you say that? History shows us that they wouldn't. In fact, aside from issues with africanamericans in the southern states, there has has been basically no problems with the state trampling on people's rights, evenwhen everyone aknowledged that my point of view (that they CAN) is correct.

When thiscountry was founded there were state religions. Not until the 1940s did the despotic court declare that states couldn't have state religions. Inbetween did we have state religions? No. We didn't. We did until the early1800s but since we are a tolerant people we scrapped the state religions -- even though we had the power to do so.What does this mean today? This means in state court houses the TenCommandments may sit, or on state owned property a CHRISTMAS tree, not a secular winter holiday tree(or whatever it is called now) may sit, near a creche and a giant menorrah is not necessary to be nearby.

The people will keepeachstate in check, just as it hasfor hundreds of years, without the court needing to issue its edicts.