Crazy idea I've been having - Page 4
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    Thanos
    Guest

    Default

    "How far we've fallen! Still, the act of the government over-stepping the bounds placed upon it by the constitution in no way validates that act."

    I don't know how I can get this through to you. The GOVERNEMENT had no hand it in, it was put up to the vote of the people. It is not A RIGHT to marry anyone you choose. That is patently false, try to marry your sister.

    And marriage is a state area and is their right to direct as they see fit, per the Tenth Ammendment. Listen, we can debate this all day, but it was a legal way to ammend the California Constitution, no one can deny that and no one has. The group I disagree with is in power and if they voted by the legal agreeded upon way to ammend my state's constitution I would have no recourse other than change it with a new ammendment.

    If the state stepped in and didn't write this into their constitution, that would be unconstitutional. If you agree with it or not, this is the way to ammend it and that is how it was done. Failing to follow the established rule of law would lead to chaos. My disagreement is: The rules to ammend the Constitution of the State of California were followed, It was put to a vote and the rules were followed, a majority was found and the rules were followed, the prop 8 ammendment won by a slim margin but the rules were followed. To disregard the rules would be unjust in every way.

    "However, one thing I am is a strict constitutionalist." then you should read the book I recommended, you would like it.

    "If a majority decide to over ride that, there is not really a heck of a lot of recourse for the minority."
    Then what happens when a vote is 300 million to one? At some point the winner is declared, with the California Constitution it was only required to be greater than 50%, that is the rules. Everyone knew going into the election. I am not even concerned with the gays, I am concerned with disregarding the established rule of law. If someone doesn't like the rules, they have the legal recourse to change them, but you cannot change them after the election. Obama won by the same margin that Prop 8 passed, should we kick him out too? No, we play by the rules.

  2. #32
    Thanos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post
    As I said, you really should read the history of marriage.

    I think that SoP covered the rest pretty well. And it is the information that she provided that makes me say that the government should be removed from marriage. If a gay person wants to marry someone of the same sex, find a viable religion.
    That is not how the Supreme Court of the United States would see it. And since they interpret the US Constitution with historical precedence, I am right. Although, one could make an ammendment to the Contitution removing the right of the government to have any say in the matter, but that would be the only way.

    See Habeas Corpus, Admiralty Law, Tort and Civil law and why the US recognizes those as law. It is historical precedence.

  3. #33
    Drunk Supernova NGF Addict! C-D-P's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,002

    Default

    Brother. At no point does the BoR mention Marriage, and like I said, please read the history of marriage. You will find that the U.S. government was not always involved in marriage. So your earlier statement is false.
    I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements

  5. #34
    Thanos
    Guest

    Default

    I didn't say that the BoR mentioned marriage, but the rules and laws of each state do and this is reserved to them to regulate by the US Constitution. Although the Federal governement could claim under the Commerce Clause that it is now under their jurisdiction. I also did not say that they always were involved in marriage but they recognize it through historical precedence, just like the do some of the Ten Commandments, Blue laws and Usery laws.


    Besides, if you don't like the state recognizing marriage you can propose an ammendment to the Constitution of the US or your state and if you win by the agreed upon margin, then government won't recognize it anymore.

  6. #35
    Drunk Supernova NGF Addict! C-D-P's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,002

    Default

    Ya see, that is the thing, and I have been saying it since I entered into this thread. I do not believe that the government should control a religious ritual. And given what is said in the Constitution, they should not control it. The Constitution specifically says that the government can not control a religious ritual.

    You continue to fail to address this.
    I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

  7. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    402

    Default

    If, as I and CDP contend, marriage is a religious institution, then the establishment clause forbids the federal government, as well as all subordinate governments, from interfering in any way.

    If you choose to disregard that, and insist that it is a civil institution, then 10th amendment clearly puts in under control of the individual states.

    I'd say we are at an impasse then.

    My position is that :

    More Government control and power.....................Less Government control and power
    Bad............................................... .................................................. ........Good

    I will almost always take the stance that gives less power to government: any government, but most especially, the federal government. Does that make me a minarchist? absolutely! And proud of it! There are not more than 1 or two things that I would agree that government can do better and/or more efficiently than private citizens or private enterprise. Government should be subservient to the People, not the other way around.

  8. #37
    Thanos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post
    Ya see, that is the thing, and I have been saying it since I entered into this thread. I do not believe that the government should control a religious ritual. And given what is said in the Constitution, they should not control it. The Constitution specifically says that the government can not control a religious ritual. You continue to fail to address this.
    I did address this, IT IS NOT JUST A RELIGIOUS RITUAL ANYMORE! Governmental bodies interfered and made restrictions on marriage prior to the writing of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States of America recognizes those as precedence. Since there is precedence for past governments to do so, the US government has the legal option to do so because our laws are based on their laws (this goes back to Roman times). The moment the governments interfered with marriage, and it was accepted as legal and binding (Pre Constitution here) it also became a social ritual. Once it became a social ritual (many hundreds of years ago) and the government interfered any government that recognized prior law from other governments (Which the United States of America does) then they had the legal right to interfere as well.

    I stated this quite some time ago and is the reasoning behind many of our laws. You calling it just a religious ritual does not eliminate the social aspect that resides in it because of precedence.

  9. #38
    Thanos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slayer of Paper View Post
    If, as I and CDP contend, marriage is a religious institution, then the establishment clause forbids the federal government, as well as all subordinate governments, from interfering in any way. If you choose to disregard that, and insist that it is a civil institution, then 10th amendment clearly puts in under control of the individual states.
    I agree that it should be specifically a religious institution and if the US Constitution was ammended to state that they would have to butt out of it. I think that governmental power needs to be limited also, but this is a case of the government following the will of the people. Just like the presidential election is, Same percentages.

  10. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    402

    Default

    One more quick one before I head out:

    Government (state governments in the United States even!) in the past have used marriage licensing, at the behest of certain groups of people that chose to use government to persecute those they disagreed with, to stop inter-racial marriage.

    This brings to my mind how gun control in the U.S. was originally used to keep blacks from owning guns.

    Some things never change.

    I don't know about you, but for me, LIBERTY is more important than imposing my values on others. True liberty will never be achieved until it is had by all, in equal measure, with no one suffering any loss of liberty at the hands of anyone else.

  11. #40
    Drunk Supernova NGF Addict! C-D-P's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanos View Post
    I did address this, IT IS NOT JUST A RELIGIOUS RITUAL ANYMORE! Governmental bodies interfered and made restrictions on marriage prior to the writing of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States of America recognizes those as precedence. Since there is precedence for past governments to do so, the US government has the legal option to do so because our laws are based on their laws (this goes back to Roman times). The moment the governments interfered with marriage, and it was accepted as legal and binding (Pre Constitution here) it also became a social ritual. Once it became a social ritual (many hundreds of years ago) and the government interfered any government that recognized prior law from other governments (Which the United States of America does) then they had the legal right to interfere as well.

    I stated this quite some time ago and is the reasoning behind many of our laws. You calling it just a religious ritual does not eliminate the social aspect that resides in it because of precedence.
    Do you just spout off at the mouth without actually reading? You are totally missing the point because you do not want to have to reverse your stance.

    Where is the dammed ignore button?
    I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)