By the Positions of Two or Three Branches of Government

[frankenstein]

You're being a drone if you actually believe that the typical Constitutional-law professor is a higher authority on what the Constitution says than a person with decent reading comprehension and respect for the law.

Its a good thing neither of us compared a Professor of Constitutional Law to any given person with "decent reading comprehension".

Does any one really know what the US Constitution was intended to mean? Not really. Jefferson is not the end all on the Constitution, neither is Adams, all persons present at the debates concerning the Constitution had to make concessions. Rightly so, when it comes to what was meant by those who originally accepted the US Constitution, one can say "I do not think it means what you think it means."

As for your take on Lawyers, it is lawyers who have argued in favor of prop 8.. Lawyers, have defended DOMA Section 3. Lawyers, paid for by members of Congress, OR, by tax exempt Orgs under the ruling of Citizens United, will defend DOMA in the future.

Each side of the issue will take the case law, etc, and say "The US Constitution suits my agenda and not theirs". There will be plenty of money available for the defense of DOMA, when the Supreme Court says "yea" or "nea" most likely the States will feel free to craft laws as they wish. Though, it will take some crafty opinions for the Feds to be ruled unconstitutional while the States remain Constitutional.

[Mordecai]

This assertion seems to be the premise of your anti-Obama rant.

Many here are far right social conservatives but they pretend to be libertarians. Here is what an actual libertarian, the 2008 Libertarian Presidential nominee Bob Barr had to say about DOMA:

I know libertarianism well and am a fan of it. There are liberal libertarians and conservative libertarians. You can't just cherry pick one libertarian and say, "See? This is libertarianism! That proves you're an extremist!"

DOMA is not about having a bigger federal gov't or reducing the power of states, which means it's perfectly within libertarian boundaries. It's about preventing one state's morality from being forced upon another state. Furthermore, DOMA has as much to do with the Feds not having to give marriage benefits to gay unions as anything else. Congress is perfectly within its Constitutional powers to avoid giving Federal benefits to gay unions. Why should gay people get such special treatment from the federal gov't, just because a state has adopted an obviously false notion that a gay union is the same as a marriage. We all know there are relevant differences, those of us with more than 3 or 4 brain cells. Why are we supposed to have the law reflect such an obviously false dogma?

"Far right social conservatives" suggests they are extremists. But the only one here advocating for insanity in the gov't is you, even while you admit that the dogma you want the gov't to adopt is a false one. We are advocating for reason, while you advocate for a gov't dogma. Gov't dogmas are, by their very nature, unjust and irrational, making you, by definition, an extremist. Young people in this country have been gradually indoctrinated by their lefty teachers, against the will of their parents, which is another sign of extremism and totalitarianism. Soft tyranny is one way to describe what is going on with "gay marriage."

[Mordecai]

...Does any one really know what the US Constitution was intended to mean? Not really...

Typical lefty: "The Constitution can say anything, so we can do whatever we want!" How about we actually read the Constitution and see for ourselves. It never, at any point, gives anyone the right to a "gay marriage" nor does it grant the courts the power to ban states from preventing the killing of would-be babies, nor anything of the sort. It never mentions "suspect classes" or anything like that, either. For those of us with decent reading comprehension and a willingness to study the federalist papers, it's not really ambiguous. It's not in a foreign language, and isn't convoluted.

By the way, Jefferson is not a good authority on the Constitution, seeing as he was absent when the Constitution was written; ironically, he is where we get "separation of Church and state," which is also not in the Constitution.

[Jaybear]

DOMA is not about having a bigger federal gov't or reducing the power of states, which means it's perfectly within libertarian boundaries. It's about preventing one state's morality from being forced upon another state.

Its seems that you have expressed your opinions in this thread, without a clear grasp of the facts.

If you read the letter from the AG, you will realize that the only portion DOMA that is at issue is the provision by which the Federal Govt refuses to recognize state sanctioned marriages.

By contrast, above you are defending the section of DOMA which states that Utah does not have to recognize a gay marriage sanctioned in Iowa, which is not under attack.

Furthermore, DOMA has as much to do with the Feds not having to give marriage benefits to gay unions as anything else. Congress is perfectly within its Constitutional powers to avoid giving Federal benefits to gay unions. Why should gay people get such special treatment from the federal gov't, just because a state has adopted an obviously false notion that a gay union is the same as a marriage.

Marriage is an institution that is regulated and sanctioned by the State. A true libertarian, would be offended at the notion that the federal govt would step into that process, and reject the legitimacy of marriages sanctioned by the state.

There is no nuance here. DOMA is a slap in the face to those who genuinely believe in a limited role for the federal government.

Faux libertarians want the state to decide who can marry, unless they make the "wrong" choice. I believe you refer to that as forcing morality on another state.

[frankenstein]

Typical lefty: "The Constitution can say anything, so we can do whatever we want!" How about we actually read the Constitution and see for ourselves. It never, at any point, gives anyone the right to a "gay marriage" nor does it grant the courts the power to ban states from preventing the killing of would-be babies, nor anything of the sort. It never mentions "suspect classes" or anything like that, either. For those of us with decent reading comprehension and a willingness to study the federalist papers, it's not really ambiguous.

insults aside.

marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, neither is 40 hour work week, neither people can not own slaves, and neither is a whole list of things we enjoy via the Constitution.

As for the Federalist papers.

Two people wrote the majority of the papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Are you saying those two people speak for the ENTIRE Congress, and for EVERY CITIZEN of the United States at the time? I would hope you wouldn't make such claim.

Because The US Constitution was debated by numerous people, from the several States, and because we know, the people of each state via their representative conceded in some areas, means that we can not truely know what was meant.

For example, Person A might agree with a 1 point out of 15 points made by a Group Z, but person A knows that later down the road he may need the help of Group Z so Person A will accept all 15 points even though he only agrees with one point.

[frankenstein]

I know libertarianism well and am a fan of it. There are liberal libertarians and conservative libertarians. You can't just cherry pick one libertarian and say, "See? This is libertarianism! That proves you're an extremist!"

DOMA is ... about preventing one state's morality from being forced upon another state.

DOMA violates the Article IV section 1 of the US Constitution. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Oh wait, honoring Contracts across state lines is not the original intent of Article IV section 1

Why should gay people get such special treatment from the federal gov't, just because a state has adopted an obviously false notion that a gay union is the same as a marriage.

what special treatment? If two couples, one heterosexual and one samesex, BOTH can claim "married filing jointly" on Federal Taxes, how is one couple getting special treatment? Your "special treatment" is crying wolf, a law that treats ALL the same gives no one special treatment.

[Jason]

what special treatment? If two couples, one heterosexual and one samesex, BOTH can claim "married filing jointly" on Federal Taxes, how is one couple getting special treatment? Your "special treatment" is crying wolf, a law that treats ALL the same gives no one special treatment.

So, in your view do they have to be having sex with each other, or can it be any two people? Or any three or more people, for that matter?

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: political bickering and name calling

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff