Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

On "Defense of Marriage": A reply to Quinn


Lamanite

Recommended Posts

Key phrase there is retained BY THE PEOPLE, meaning that things considered a right by the MAJORITY of the people are also considered rights.
Actually, no. The Constitution does not define rights, nor does the majority opinion of the the people define rights. The Constitution is a limitation upon the infringement of rights by the Government. What the Bill of Rights states in this Amendment is that any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States, belongs to the States or to the people. Therefore, any powers not specifically enumerated in the state's Constitution do not belong to the state.
So in this case people would have to vote, and the Federal Government is forced to respect that decision of the PEOPLE. A minority seeking to subject the majority to something they absolutely do not want is not something retained by the people, so you have a epic fail on trying to use the IX Amendment to make same sex marriage a fundamental right.
The problem with this notion is two-fold. First, the argument that recognizing homosexual unions as having the same protection as heterosexual unions is not something which should be subject to the vote of the people. The concept of equal protection and treatment under the law requires all consensual relationships to be regarded with impartiality. Secondly, such legal recognition does not impose any undue hardships upon any other individuals. Such an argument would be akin to saying that recognition of hetero-racial marriage imposes an undue hardship upon individuals in homo-racial relationships. The very notion is demonstrably unsound.
Same Sex Marriage is not retained by the People as a right, nor is marriage retained by the people as a right as I previously stated all 50 States have requirements that must be reached before one can marry. Twisting the Constitution to fit what you want it to say doesn't make something retained by the people, the people are against Same Sex Marriage not for it.
Again you are mistaken. Simply because there are regulations in place governing what constitutes a legally recognized consensual relationship does not mean that the people do not have rights to be in such relationships any more than the regulations governing who may operate a motor vehicle in the exercise of their rights to be unimpeded in their movement and travel. Government regulations are supposed to protect the individual's rights, not to serve the majority's will over the minority. That is the whole point of the Constitutional form of government we live under.
Link to comment

Actually, no. The law is supposed to apply in a way that protects individual rights, whether or not it suits the general population. Thus, we have laws that are popular that are found to be unconstitutional because they violate individual rights.

Actually, no. Laws are found unconstitutional because they violate the US Constitution, there are rights we have or we believe that we have that are not fundamental rights or constitutional rights. Many people have perceived rights that are not actual rights but either common courtesy or social privileges, the problem is so many people have absolutely no understanding of the US Constitution that they ignorantly assume that such things are constitutional rights.

Great Examples of these so called "rights" (or individual rights as you call them) are"

1) The right to not be offended

2) The right to drive

3) The right to express yourself as you wish

4) The right to do whatever you want

5) The right to equal status or equal situation of another person (the "if they have it I should to" right)

6) The right to peace and quite

7) The right to good health and access to healthcare

8 )The right to marry

These things are social privileges and/or common courtesies, they are not rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution. The problem is that most people think such things are guaranteed rights because we as a nation have fallen away from the rule of law, we have become a nation that wants to only apply the law if it is to our benefit and ignore the law if it is not convenient or beneficial for us at this time.

The push for Same Sex Marriage is just the latest and greatest example of this push to disregard the law. It does so by ignoring the constitutionally protected status of the ordinance of marriage from intrusion by the state, and to put the will of the majority over the US Constitution. Marriage is a religious ceremony and it is unconstitutional for the state to interfere in religion.

Link to comment

Actually, no. The Constitution does not define rights, nor does the majority opinion of the the people define rights. The Constitution is a limitation upon the infringement of rights by the Government. What the Bill of Rights states in this Amendment is that any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States, belongs to the States or to the people. Therefore, any powers not specifically enumerated in the state's Constitution do not belong to the state.

You are right the rights not delegated to the Federal Government no reserved by the States are still protected if they are retained by the PEOPLE, for a right to be retained by the People one must have a majority in favor.

Link to comment

A USSC ruling is an opinion of the Court and their "interpretation" of the US Constitution, not the wording of the US Constitution, all that "interpreting" the Constitution crap that the liberal USSC used in the 60's and 70's is not the Constitution. Nor is the Supreme Court given the power to "interpret" the Constitution in the first place, so the ruling is null in void, IMO anyway.

Ah, the ostrich approach to understanding Constitutional law. Good luck with that.

Link to comment

Well actually, they very much are, look at the 2nd Amendment, it is currently unconstitutionally restricted in several states by popular vote and legislative vote. The USSC has issued 2 rulings one against D.C. and another against Chicago and still both jurisdictions refuse to obey the law, and respect the fundamental right to bear arms in self defense.

So you are once again wrong and misinformed.

Non Sequitur. While I will oppose same-sex marriage as long as the Prophet asks me to, I don't believe our cause is benefited by bad arguments. Philosophically, I also agree with BOML on this issue.

Link to comment

Ah, the ostrich approach to understanding Constitutional law. Good luck with that.

Or a Constitutional Approach to Constitutional Law, the US Constitution does not allow for any judicial body to interpret the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution states or implies that the Constitution is suppose to be a living document that changes with the addition of each new Justice to the Court. The only power the USSC has is to make decisions based upon what the US Constitution says not there interpretation of what it means biased by there political ideology.

Even the practice of "judicial review" is a somewhat unconstitutional practice, but one that is logical under the balance of powers concept of our Federal Republic.

The only way to legally change the US Constitution is to amend it, Justices that use there illegal power of "interpretation" to change the US Constitution for a while are corrupt politicians that are tainting the Supreme Law of the Land.

Please show me the article or amendment to the US Constitution that gives the Federal Judiciary the power to change the Constitution by "interpreting" it differently?

Link to comment

While I will oppose same-sex marriage as long as the Prophet asks me to, I don't believe our cause is benefited by bad arguments.

Please explain how people are currently ignoring the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and making unconstitutional laws is a bad argument, when to make Same Sex Marriage legal in the US we must ignore the 1st Amendment?

Link to comment

Yes, all of our fundamental rights are contained in the US Constitution and it's amendments, with far and few excpetions.

Fifth Amendment, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If it is unconstitutional to deprive someone of there property without due process that obviously means that someone must have the right to own property in the first place, otherwise this amendment is pointless. Also the eminent domain clause expressly mentions the right to have private property and that it cannot be taken for public use without just compensation (and due cause)

Fifth Amendment, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the right to life (which includes creating life) cannot be taken without due process of the law, which means unless the State gets a court to order they cannot force sterilize you or prohibit you from having children (though the Federal Government has done this illegally before)

Source: http://en.wikipedia....n#United_States

Also I believe that elective abortion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since the fetus is not given any due process at all, he or she is simply exterminated without any due process, and the Fifth Amendment makes it unconstitutional to deprive anyone born or unborn of life without due process of law.

Fifth Amendment (as long as you are trying to have children), "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Obviously if a couple is trying to create life through sexual relations the State cannot stop them without due process of the law.

Fourth Amendment (as long as you are in the privacy of your home) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" Whatever you do in the privacy of your home is between you and God, unless the State has probable cause to search your home or put surveillance on your home, and has a warrant from a judge to do so.

Wow, this one even you should know Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This requires no further explanation at all, the amendment speaks for itself.

Yes, I consider all the above Constitutional rights (and a Constitutional Right is fundamental) as I have supported with various Amendments from the US Constitution. A right is only fundamental if it is protected under the US Constitution, and as I have shown from your poor examples fundamental rights are covered by the Constitution, anything outside of fundamental rights requires the right to be retained by the people, which requires a majority and if that majority is large enough they can amend the Constitution to make that right fundamental if they choose too. Until they amend the Constitution though it is not fundamental, and even then you still cannot make something immoral into something moral via the democratic process, all you can do it make it fundamental and legal for the time (look at the 18th and 21st amendment for the perfect example of what would eventually happen to any marriage amendment) .

I agree with you 100% you have a right to live with someone you love, but you do not have a right to be married with that individual unless you meet the guidelines set by your local jurisdiction. If your standard was to become the legal standard adulterers could simply move in with there mistress and become legally married before having an affair and the victim of this terrible event the other legal spouse has no legal option to protect him or her self because under the law they have a RIGHT to get married.

All you have done here is presented four poor examples of rights that are Constitutional, but you lacked the understanding of the US Constitution to know that this was so.

Your argument has no support, it's claims are ridiculous, and have the potential to destroy the foundation of family in the United States by legislating away any possible legal ramification for adultery. Marriage is a privilege and a sacred union that is based in religion, the State has no business interfering in marriage and the fact that they have and continue to do so shows how little respect the States and Federal Government has for the US Constitution.

I'll give two points for creativity, but the amendments you cite do not grant the rights you claim they do. And you have the temerity to accuse me of lacking Constitutional understanding? That's rich.

You should be embarrassed by this pathetic effort.

Link to comment

... for a right to be retained by the People one must have a majority in favor.

I hesitate to ask, because engaging you tends to bring on a tide of incomprehensible word soup, but where did you come up with this gem?

Perhaps you are sitting on its source?

Link to comment

I'll give two points for creativity, but the amendments you cite do not grant the rights you claim they do. And you have the temerity to accuse me of lacking Constitutional understanding? That's rich.

You should be embarrassed by this pathetic effort.

Seeing that you do not present any evidence to defend you claim and refute the presented Constitutional facts and my explanation of them, I ultimately accept this statement as a involuntary admission of defeat. Unless you decide to discuss the why and present evidence or logic to support that claim, you are simply accepting I was right in the first place but are too proud to admit so, IMO.

Link to comment

Marriage should never have fallen under the perview of government.

New Element Discovered

The fire at Los Alamos has had one significant consequence. A secret scientific document was discovered in a bunker whose security systems were mostly destroyed by the fire. This document was leaked to the public last weekend.

Actually it reveals nothing that we didn't already suspect. But it does show that besides arsenic, lead, mercury, radon, strontium and plutonium, one more extremely deadly and pervasive element is known to exist.

This startling new discovery has been tentatively named Governmentium (Gv) but kept top secret for 50 years. The new element has no protons or electrons, thus having an atomic number of 0. It does, however, have 1 neutron, 125 deputy neutrons, 75 supervisory neutrons, and 111 team leader neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by a force called morons, that are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since it has no electrons, Governmentium is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of approximately three years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the deputy neutrons, supervisory neutrons, and team leader neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium mass will actually increase over time, since, with each reorganization, some of the morons inevitably become neutrons, forming new isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as the "Critical Morass."

Link to comment

This gem [is] from your unsuccessful attempt to use the 9th Amendment as a defense of Same Sex Marriage.

Ah, the incomprehensible response I expected.

So you came up with this notion (that rights may only be retained by the people if a majority of them vote for them) by my appeal to the Ninth Amendment? Seriously?

Link to comment

Ah, the incomprehensible response I expected.

So you came up with this notion (that rights may only be retained by the people if a majority of them vote for them) by my appeal to the Ninth Amendment? Seriously?

This isn't my notion it is the words of the Amendment as you presented them, how else does the people retain something except through popular consent if I might ask?

If the people are retaining anything it is by popular consent, unless there is some form of a dictatorship involved.

Link to comment
You are right the rights not delegated to the Federal Government no reserved by the States are still protected if they are retained by the PEOPLE, for a right to be retained by the People one must have a majority in favor.
Actually, governments don't have rights, they have powers delegated to them. A right need not be voted upon by the majority to be retained by the people. Such a notion would imply that government is the grantor of rights which is not the case, especially here in the U.S.
Link to comment

Seeing that you do not present any evidence to defend you claim and refute the presented Constitutional facts and my explanation of them, I ultimately accept this statement as a[n] involuntary admission of defeat. Unless you decide to discuss the why and present evidence or logic to support that claim, you are simply accepting I was right in the first place but are too proud to admit so, IMO.

Be my guest. By all means, feel free to believe that my dismissal of your valiant but failed efforts are tantamount to your triumph.

After all, who would not be impressed by the assertion that the amendment that requires due process before taking life, liberty or property, actually grants a right of conjugal relations?

Link to comment

Or a Constitutional Approach to Constitutional Law, the US Constitution does not allow for any judicial body to interpret the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution states or implies that the Constitution is suppose to be a living document that changes with the addition of each new Justice to the Court.

I hate to break it to you, but you lost the argument in 1803, when the Court issued Marbury v. Madison.

So, would it be fair to say, being the ultra strict constructionist that you don't believe Jefferson had the authority to purchase Lousiana from the French, and that Lincoln exceeded his constitutional mandate in his War of Northern Aggression.

Link to comment

I hate to break it to you, but you lost the argument in 1803, when the Court issued Marbury v. Madison.

So what you are actually saying is I am right the USSC has no Constitutional power to interpret the Constitution, but you don't seem to care as long as you agree with there decisions?

So, would it be fair to say, being the ultra strict constructionist that you don't believe Jefferson had the authority to purchase Lousiana from the French, and that Lincoln exceeded his constitutional mandate in his War of Northern Aggression.

When did I say I was an "ultra strict constructionist (sic)", those who are your so called ultra strict constitutionalist tend to want to disregard every amendment after the 10th Amendment, saying the rest were taking us away from the founders plan for our nation.

I support the US Constitution and all 26 Amendments as the Supreme Law of the Land, I do not support politically motivated judges unconstitutionally "interpreting' the Constitution to add or remove protections. If you want to make marriage a constitutional right then lobby your congressman or your state to call for the 27th Amendment which makes marriage a guaranteed right in the United States, then I would change my opinion because the law would support your argument, but the law does not support your argument and a unconstitutional decision from a liberal USSC in the 70's does not change the US Constitution, only a Constitutional Amendment can change the US Constitution.

If you don't like the supreme law of the land then lobby for it to be amended, don't rely on corrupt judges to unconstitutionally change things.

Also not that the discussion is germane to the topic but yes, Jefferson did not have the power to make an agreement with France without Senate approval, nor did Lincoln have the power to invade the Confederacy without a declaration of war from Congress.

Link to comment

Be my guest. By all means, feel free to believe that my dismissal of your valiant but failed efforts are tantamount to your triumph.

After all, who would not be impressed by the assertion that the amendment that requires due process before taking life, liberty or property, actually grants a right of conjugal relations?

Is not the creation of life part of the process of life?

If it is then it is constitutionally protected from being removed without due process of the law under the fifth amendment.

Link to comment

And here I was, after having read Mauss' article, hoping that the remainder of the thread would be a discussion of that article.

I think that might be because the point that was quoted ..

I think the LDS church or any other private, voluntary organization,

has the right to lay down whatever rules and sanctions it

wishes in order to regulate conjugal relations, including marriage, among

its own members.

... is not the subject of dispute.

Link to comment

This isn't my notion it is the words of the Amendment as you presented them, how else does the people retain something except through popular consent if I might ask?

If the people are retaining anything it is by popular consent, unless there is some form of a dictatorship involved.

Clearly you lack an understanding of the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded. The individual is sovereign, not the group, and certainly not the government on any level. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, people don't automatically cede their rights away unless they vote to retain them. That puts far too much power in the state. Instead, the state is delegated specific powers by the voice of the people.

Link to comment

Be my guest. By all means, feel free to believe that my dismissal of your valiant but failed efforts are tantamount to your triumph.

Once again your statement is not a discussion but an unsupported opinion, when you desire to discuss the matter with evidence instead of ignore the valid arguments made on my behalf I more than welcome the discussion, until then you unequivocally and completely accept my statements as the truth because you cannot refute them.

Continued unsupported denial is not needed nor is appreciated, thank you for presenting supporting evidence to your claims with further statements.

Link to comment

Clearly you lack an understanding of the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded. The individual is sovereign, not the group, and certainly not the government on any level. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, people don't automatically cede their rights away unless they vote to retain them. That puts far too much power in the state. Instead, the state is delegated specific powers by the voice of the people.

The foundational principals of this nation is the US Constitution and only the US Constitution, please show me where in the US Constitution it says that the individual is sovereign over the state, if that is the case then the Civil War is the greatest war crime in recorded history and Abraham Lincoln has now replaced Adolf Hitler as the worst man in history.

Also where did I say anything about "people automatically cede their rights away unless they vote for them"?

I never made such statement and you are putting words in my mouth, which is not appreciated.

What I have said is that the 9th Amendment cannot be used to try and state that same sex marriage is a fundamental right because the 9th Amendment refers specifically to the rights retained by the people. For the PEOPLE to retain a right, there must be a popular tradition or popular belief in order for the PEOPLE to retain something. People retaining certain rights not mentioned in the Constitution nor reserved by the States is not all the rights the people have simply the retained traditions of the majority of the people. The majority of Americans do not support same sex marriage so it cannot apply to the 9th amendment.

People derive rights from the US Constitution, there State's Constitution, and other rights retained by the people through popular consent (usually done by state ballot initiatives).

Just because you disagree with me does not give you free reign to misrepresent my position, I disagree with you on many of the things you have stated but I have the common courtesy to only use your words in context and by direct quote.

Also the state being Sovereign does not put too much power in the state, if that was the case then the USA has been a tyrant since 1787 when it was founded because our Republic has always had representatives who have the power to ignore there electors if they choose and pass poor laws (look at that piece of garbage Obamacare bill it had no support when it passed but it still passed) the repercussion though it that if they pass laws that the people do not want (Obamacare, Bank Bailout, Auto Bailout, Freddy/Fanny Bailout, ect) that the people will vote them out in the next election (like we say in Nov 2010).

So please do not act like the people are the sovereign in the USA, the Federal and State Governments are sovereign and they are elected by the voters of there jurisdictions.

America is not a democracy (people have the power) it is a Constitutional Federal Republic (The federal and state governments have the power which is held by elected representatives).

Link to comment

Philosophically, I also agree with BOML on this issue.

To a degree, I do as well. If marriage is defined merely as a committed relationship between two people, then there is no point for a state-sanctioned institution.

However, if there is a purpose to marriage beyond "two people in love" (say, the bearing and raising of the next generation), then the state might have an interest in establishing such an institution.

Depends on how the purpose of the institution is defined.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...