Jump to content

On "Defense of Marriage": A reply to Quinn


Lamanite

Recommended Posts

Is not the creation of life part of the process of life?
Yes.
If it is then it is constitutionally protected from being removed without due process of the law under the fifth amendment.
What this means, however, is that the state, nor any other individual may deprive them of their life except as punishment for a capital crime or in defense of one's own rights or the rights of another. In the case of abortion, there is the question of when a developing embryo or fetus becomes recognized by the state as a person with unalienable rights. SCOTUS concluded in Roe v. Wade and other related cases that the embryo or fetus is not a person with unalienable rights during the first trimester and therefore the protections of privacy are not overridden. During the second trimester, the fed defers to the state statutes but during the third trimester the fetus is considered a person with rights and thus only the life or long-term health of the woman are considered to be justification for late-term abortion. Unfortunately, certain anti-life activists wish to completely disregard the rights of the child after the first and second trimester and in some cases even after birth. Such individuals aren't satisfied merely with the termination of pregnancy, they want the termination of the fetus as well. I believe such individuals should be prevented from killing the fetus unnecessarily when terminating a pregnancy, and those would do so be educated that such is not their right and that they be prosecuted for infanticide if they persist after being so educated.
Link to comment

What this means, however, is that the state, nor any other individual may deprive them of their life except as punishment for a capital crime or in defense of one's own rights or the rights of another. In the case of abortion, there is the question of when a developing embryo or fetus becomes recognized by the state as a person with unalienable rights. SCOTUS concluded in Roe v. Wade and other related cases that the embryo or fetus is not a person with unalienable rights during the first trimester and therefore the protections of privacy are not overridden. During the second trimester, the fed defers to the state statutes but during the third trimester the fetus is considered a person with rights and thus only the life or long-term health of the woman are considered to be justification for late-term abortion. Unfortunately, certain anti-life activists wish to completely disregard the rights of the child after the first and second trimester and in some cases even after birth. Such individuals aren't satisfied merely with the termination of pregnancy, they want the termination of the fetus as well. I believe such individuals should be prevented from killing the fetus unnecessarily when terminating a pregnancy, and those would do so be educated that such is not their right and that they be prosecuted for infanticide if they persist after being so educated.

But as I previously said the Constitution cannot be interpreted by Courts it can only be enforced. If they want to change the fifth Amendment then they must amend the US Constitution not allow a liberal USSC to unconstitutionally change the fifth amendment.

The Court does not have the power to interpret the US Constitution only to enforce the US Constitution.

Link to comment
What is the basis of this notion, or is it simply the most convenient explanation you could invent to support your position?
The basis for the Constitution is largely statements like Jefferson's in the Bill of Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights." The Constitution was built on the premise that Nature's God (as the founding fathers tended to describe the concept) was above the government. It is the gov'ts job to protect the rights of people that can't be taken away by man, implying that"Nature's God" is above the government. So when nature or God take a life, that comes from a higher source than government. For someone who talks down to me, as if I have no idea what I'm talking about, you're pretty poorly educated on this stuff. Anyone who has listened to at least one or two Constitutional scholars knows about this stuff.
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.

But we're not talking about rights. We're talking about policies that are for the greater good. There is a big difference between a right and a good. Regardless, when a law is made, it is made as a generalization, even when it comes to rights. The courts will deal with individual cases. For example, even with laws against murder, obviously, the law in general says that murderers are punished.

However, in practice, that doesn't always happen. There are "justifiable homicides" and self-defense laws to help ensure justice is served. But that doesn't change that murder laws are written as they, applying essentially as a blanket statement. That's how the law works, because the law is written to apply to an extremely large number and you must deal in generalizations in that situation. To not do so is anti-common sense.

No, it does not make sense. The state has no business showing favoritism.

LOL Really? So the state shouldn't let the President fly Air Force One, because that shows favoritism to the President? Really? The state shouldn't send murderers to prison, because that shows favoritism to people that don't murder? LOL Yeah, you know all about making laws and government stuff. Genius.

Then "as proven as it can get" is not very well. It has far less to do with DNA and far more to do with bonding and desire. Many biological parents fail to bond with their offspring, and the vast majority of adoptive parents bond with their children.

I never said it was about DNA. You're correct that it's about bonding and motivation. Your claim is simply downplaying the fact that biological parents are proven to be more committed to their children than step or adoptive parents. It's just a fact. I know liberals and atheists hate facts, whenever it gets in the way of their political ambition, but it's just a reality. The studies show that even adoptive mothers (and women are statistically more nurturing), are less sensitive to their adopted offspring than biological mothers, past a certain age.

It's easy for an adoptive mother to bond with an infant. Infants don't rebel or talk back. But once a child develops a personality, adoptive parents might have thoughts like, "This frustrating behavior is not my fault anyway! They inherited from their biological parents!"

We should not be voting on laws which deny individuals the equal protection and treatment under the law, except to vote to uphold such protection and treatment.

I agree with the equal protection part. But treatment? Again, "Mr. President, you can't fly Air Force One, because no one else can. It's preferential treatment. Illegal!"

Obviously wrong. A homosexual union between consenting adults has no relevant differences than a heterosexual union between consenting adults...

Man, my ribs hurt. Yeah, they're exactly the same. Just keep telling yourself that. Don't ya' HATE reality? You really have to be a drone to accept that a gay union is the same as a real marriage. I've talked to the intellectual elites about this, and while they are happy to have drones follow their lead, they admit that their are relevant differences between gay unions and a marriage. Intellectual elites, being lawyers and such, people that have a real grasp on logic and know when to back down from a fight they can't possibly win. Do you REALLY want to debate whether it's relevant to be able to reproduce naturally, to be missing one or both biological parents and to be missing one gender? Seriously?

This really is a fight you can't possibly win, but if you want to argue how your obviously false dogma is correct, feel free to make yourself look like a fool. In fact, we've had this debate on this message board before, and the gay-marriage dogma side lost. Badly. Embarrassingly. Don't embarrass yourself. It's boring to win an argument by such a wide margin, so I have no interest in doing so again. But I will if I have to.

...If it had nothing to do with sexual orientation, you would not be seeking to make laws preferential to the coupling of heterosexuals over homosexuals.

The law doesn't specify sexual orientation. It only specifies gender. Any two people of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation, can get married.

Link to comment
But as I previously said the Constitution cannot be interpreted by Courts it can only be enforced...

Technically, the courts' only job is to interpret the Constitution. But what they do instead is essentially rewrite it, usurping the power of elected officials. Of course, elected officials can only change the Constitution, when they have a 2/3's majority. In other words, judges are the most powerful people in the country in practice, illegally. They are essentially dictators, and the laws, as they are currently written, give us almost no recourse to put them in their place. Was it Newt Gingrich that suggested that judges who are law makers are law breakers? That's exactly right. If we're talking "gay marriage," the Constitution never mentions marriage and never condones equal treatment. Gay-marriage dogma has no place in government.

Link to comment

Technically, the courts' only job is to interpret the Constitution. But what they do instead is essentially rewrite it, usurping the power of elected officials. Of course, elected officials can only change the Constitution, when they have a 2/3's majority. In other words, judges are the most powerful people in the country in practice, illegally. They are essentially dictators, and the laws, as they are currently written, give us almost no recourse to put them in their place. Was it Newt Gingrich that suggested that judges who are law makers are law breakers? That's exactly right. If we're talking "gay marriage," the Constitution never mentions marriage and never condones equal treatment. Gay-marriage dogma has no place in government.

I agree if one uses the definition interpret as you did here, but usually when you hear about the Courts interpreting the Constitution it means rewriting it like you mentioned.

The USSC has the power to enforce the Constitution as it is written though court decision that strike down unconstitutional laws or compel federal or state agencies to follow the Constitution. But when it starts striking down or compelling things based on interpreting the constitution instead of following the Constitution as it is written they are overstepping there scope of power quickly become tyrannical if political ideology rules Court decisions.

You need Justices that will follow the Constitution not rewrite it from the bench, if this nation is to survive. "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges" (Alma 10:27) I think this wise council applies just as much today as it did back then!

Link to comment

The USSC has the power to enforce the Constitution as it is written though court decision that strike down unconstitutional laws or compel federal or state agencies to follow the Constitution....

Technically, they are making laws. The power to enforce is in the hands of the executive branch, i.e. the President, his cabinet, the President's czars and a whole slew of extensions of the President that are not mentioned in the Constitution, e.g. the EPA.

Link to comment
Of course, elected officials can only change the Constitution, when they have a 2/3's majority. In other words, judges are the most powerful people in the country in practice, illegally.

This is not 100% correct, a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress can propose a Constitutional Amendment but then the Amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the States (which is currently 38 States) to become an amendment.

Also a Constitutional Convention can be called by 2/3 majority of the State (currently 33 States) to start the amendment process without Congress (to prevent the Federal Government from ignoring the States pleas) it also requires 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment. I will also point out that in the history of the US Constitution none of the 27 Amendments have begun from a Constitutional Convention all happened on a federal level.

This is why those who seek to destroy the Constitution do it in the Courts with immoral judges because they know that they haven't got a snowballs chance in a hot place of getting the Constitution Amended the legal way so they try and do it the illegal way with bias judges with political agendas.

Link to comment

Technically, they are making laws. The power to enforce is in the hands of the executive branch, i.e. the President, his cabinet, the President's czars and a whole slew of extensions of the President that are not mentioned in the Constitution, e.g. the EPA.

The President is the chief law enforcement official in the nation, but the Courts can still order the agencies to implement something (or to stop implementing something) against the Preisidents wishes if the current administration is doing something unconstitutional. They are not making any law only ensuring that the Constitution is upheld.

If there non question about Constitutionality of something the USSC has no power to act, as long as someone isn't violating the Constitution by some action or inaction the USSC is Constitutionally powerless to do anything.

Added by Edit:

The confusion comes when the President orders the Government to ignore the USSC and do what he wants anyway, usually then the USSC can't force compliance since the executive is ignoring the judiciary. Of course at that point the legislature could impeach the President, but that has never happened in US history.

Good examples of this is Andrew Jackson forcing the natives out of Georgia even though the Court sided with the natives that the government cannot force them off there land without due cause, Lincoln ignoring the Court decision that he didn't have the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, or the current administration continuing to implement the healthcare bill illegally despite the bill being stuck down by a Federal Court in Florida.

Link to comment

The President is the chief law enforcement official in the nation, but the Courts can still order the agencies to implement something (or to stop implementing something) against the Preisidents wishes if the current administration is doing something unconstitutional...

They can order agencies to adopt policy, but at the same time, that's not the enforcement of the law to tell someone what to do. I'm just saying, the courts have been illegally making laws, not enforcing them.

Speaking of impeachment, Congress technically has the power to remove Supreme Court justices, but they are too scared to exercise the power that is rightfully theirs. That's what we get for electing a bunch of unscrupulous cowards.

Link to comment

They can order agencies to adopt policy, but at the same time, that's not the enforcement of the law to tell someone what to do. I'm just saying, the courts have been illegally making laws, not enforcing them.

Speaking of impeachment, Congress technically has the power to remove Supreme Court justices, but they are too scared to exercise the power that is rightfully theirs. That's what we get for electing a bunch of unscrupulous cowards.

I agree the Congress has let the Executive and Judaical Branches slap it around way to much, they need to assert themselves and impeach a few Justices or a President or two for misconduct to knock these two bloated branched down to size.

Constitutionally the most powerful branch is the Legislature, they have the power to make laws, pass budgets, ratify treaties and presidential nominations, declare war, make peace, levy taxes ect.

The President is just a figure head according to the Constitution with little real power outside his role as Chief executive and Commander in Chief.

The Courts have the least power all they can do is declare something Unconstitutional and that is it.

But the Executive and the Judiciary have consistently eroded the Legislature and taken power from it unconstitutionally over the years, and they have never done legally.

The Legislative branch today is a weak remnant of what it is suppose to be under the US Constitution, it is constantly undermined by the Executive and Judiciary unlawfully and it refuses to assert itself to the detriment of the People.

The founders put the most power in the legislature to prevent the tyranny that is a natural consequence of putting too much power in a few peoples hands.

Link to comment

<<reposted from page 1 because it appears to have been ignored>>

I believe it is a fundamental right for children to be raised by a mother and father.

Do you really?

Then why do you waste your efforts trying to stop a lesbian couple from calling their committed relationship a "marriage," and concentrate instead on creating laws that take their children away and give them to acceptable mixed-gender couples? Prop 8 and similar measures do nothing to prevent single-gender couples (or even single individuals) from having and raising children.

You seem to know what's "best for children." If being raised by two mommies is bad, surely a single mommy is even worse for them. Get going on that legislation, tout de suite! I want to see you and your church backing laws that prohibit divorce and take children away from any couple that is not properly married and gendered. Otherwise you are failing the fundamental rights of these poor children.

Link to comment
" If being raised by two mommies is bad, surely a single mommy is even worse for them.

I don't see any logic in any of your ranting especially this part, please explain how there is any intelligence in this spiteful and ignorant statement at all.

There are many single parents out there busting there backsides to provide the best home they can under a very difficult situation and it takes a really really deprived mentality to attack a single parent, IMO. Way to have no shame at all!

Link to comment

I don't see any logic in any of your ranting especially this part[.] [P]lease explain how there is any intelligence in this spiteful and ignorant statement at all.

There are many single parents out there busting [their] backsides to provide the best home they can under a very difficult situation and it takes a really really deprived mentally to attack a single parent, IMO. Way to have no shame at all!

I wonder how your friend Mordecai feels about you calling him a huge slime ball, since he's the one who said every child has a right to be raised by a father and a mother, and that is what's best for the child. Since that was his claim, it naturally follows that he should be even more opposed to one woman raising a kid than two.

Edit:

I just noticed, you changed the wording from "slime ball" to "deprived mentally." Is that really any better?

But please don't call me names for someone else's stance. I'm all for single parents or single-gender parents raising kids if they can pull it off. Your vitriol is badly misdirected.

Link to comment

I wonder how your friend Mordecai feels about you calling him a huge slime ball, since he's the one who said every child has a right to be raised by a father and a mother, and that is what's best for the child. Since that was his claim, it naturally follows that he should be even more opposed to one woman raising a kid than two.

As a Mormon he also would say that when there isn't two parents in the home that the single parent has the responcibility to providing the role of mother and father and that through faith in Jesus Christ they will receive the strength to do so.

I wasn't talking about mordecai, I was talking about you the ignorant person who twisted such a honest statement of faith to attach single parents, which is the VERY last thing a Latter-day Saint does. We have the deepest compassion for single parents and we do all we can do to help families that only have one parent!

Added by edit:

Nothing is misdirected at all, my distaste is properly aimed at you and not mordecai, the person who's honest opinion you twisted into a sick and false statement of YOUR intention not his.

Link to comment

Under what article of the US Constitution and/or what Amendment of the US Constitution is marriage declared a fundamental right? ...

Last time I checked marriage was not a fundamental right in this nation, ...

you are not well informed on the issue of marriage and marriage being a fundamental right.

So when you find that marriage clause in the Constitution, please let me know cause I have yet to find the clause of the US Constitution guaranteeing anyone the right to marry.

surely you can put forth a more informed and thoughtful point, "where is the marriage clause" is a lame attempt to try and make a point. I am willing to discuss marriage with you when you become informed that marriage is a fundamental right.

Link to comment
Do you really?

Yup.

Then why do you waste your efforts trying to stop a lesbian couple from calling their committed relationship a "marriage,"

They can call it whatever they want. I'm not trying to pass laws against free speech.

...concentrate instead on creating laws that take their children away and give them to acceptable mixed-gender couples? Prop 8 and similar measures do nothing to prevent single-gender couples (or even single individuals) from having and raising children.

I'm concentrating on making laws that take people's children away? Really? What laws are these and why haven't I heard of the very laws that I am supposedly supporting?

I think you're right that prop. 8 won't prevent same-sex couples from adopting. But then again, that's not on my priority list. I'd much rather have a homosexual couple raise a kid than no one at all.

If being raised by two mommies is bad, surely a single mommy is even worse for them.

Non-sequitur. Just because having a mom and a dad is best for children, being raised by two mothers isn't bad per se, particularly if one of them is the biological mother. I have no problem with two women raising a child. What I have a problem with is the absence of a biological father, which is never good (unless the father is abusive or something).

Get going on that legislation, tout de suite! I want to see you and your church backing laws that prohibit divorce...

The typical profoundly false analogy posited by the left. No LDS folks here are advocating for the gov't forcing behavior on people. Prop.8 simply changed the California constitution so that the gov't would not adopt gay-marriage dogma, i.e. the dogma that a gay union is the same as a marriage. They aren't the same, so why should the gov't pretend they are? We're advocating for reason here. You'll have to get used to that, because you are going to continue to be the one promoting obviously false homodogma.

...take children away from any couple that is not properly married and gendered...

Drama. Why the drama?

Otherwise you are failing the fundamental rights of these poor children.

Yes, I'm sure you actually put real thought into what's best for children, seeing as your top priority is not children but gay adults.

Link to comment

You cannot possibly paint same-gender parenting as being bad for children on the basis that they deserve both a father and a mother, and not also paint single parenting with the same brush.

You know, 86, if you expect to ever become an above-average communicator, you really ought to learn to distinguish between a person making a genuine criticism (what you apparently read) and a person following another's statement to its logical conclusion as an illustration (what actually happened). I know it's a bit higher level of communication than the basic "me good, you bad" banter, but you're still young, so there's still hope if you work on it.

Link to comment

I'm concentrating on making laws that take people's children away? Really? What laws are these and why haven't I heard of the very laws that I am supposedly supporting?

I guess you misunderstood. The point was that if you think children need to be raised by a father and a mother (which you brought up in the context of a discussion of SSM for some reason), why not advocate for laws that enforce such instead of wasting energy supporting anti-SSM laws that don't affect the parenting of children in any way?

Of course you are not doing so. I'm saying you should if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

Yes, I'm sure you actually put real thought into what's best for children, seeing as your top priority is not children but gay adults.

Dude, you have no idea what my priorities are, so please don't guess at them.

Link to comment
I guess you misunderstood...

No. No, I didn't.

The point was that if you think children need to be raised by a father and a mother (which you brought up in the context of a discussion of SSM for some reason), why not advocate for laws that enforce such instead of wasting energy supporting anti-SSM laws that don't affect the parenting of children in any way?

Why not? The reasons to NOT have an oppressive and monstrous government are pretty self-evident. It might be because a monstrous gov't is bad in itself, obviously. The question is, why in the WORLD would I want ANYTHING bad in the gov't? I'm merely trying to prevent the gov't from adopting an obviously false dogma that will promote confusion on some very important family values.

Of course you are not doing so. I'm saying you should if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

My mouth is in for good and reason. Since a monstrous, oppressive gov't isn't good nor reasonable and is in fact, the opposite, I am against that.

Dude, you have no idea what my priorities are, so please don't guess at them.

It's inference. You obviously didn't put even a little bit of thought into why the gov't should have a gay-marriage dogma, so why should I think you put thought into anything else? Your priority is to be hip and trendy, obviously, like about half of the country. At least you're pretty typical.

Link to comment

You cannot possibly paint same-gender parenting as being bad for children on the basis that they deserve both a father and a mother, and not also paint single parenting with the same brush.

Correct, you cannot. However, you can note that in the least, under the condition that the other parent dies, removing the child from the single parent would be more traumatic to them then it would be helpful. Thus, this statement would only be applicable to permanent singles. I will try to figure it out even more so that way it doesn't even apply to them, that I will.

Link to comment

No. No, I didn't.

Of course you misunderstood. You cannot have read my post and come up with this idea...

I'm concentrating on making laws that take people's children away? Really? What laws are these and why haven't I heard of the very laws that I am supposedly supporting?

without misunderstanding, because I said the exact opposite (that you are not supporting such laws when you should, to be consistent with your stated principle).

It's inference. You obviously didn't put even a little bit of thought into why the gov't should have a gay-marriage dogma, so why should I think you put thought into anything else? Your priority is to be hip and trendy, obviously, like about half of the country. At least you're pretty typical.

Funny. How recent is this desire to be "hip and trendy" that you've detected, I wonder? I've held the same libertarian position regarding government and marriage for roughly thirty years.

That position is that government has no business sanctioning, condemning or licensing personal relationships, and should stay out of them completely. That would be my preference. But since they are involved, they may not discriminate based on the race, religion, gender, number of partners, etc. of consenting adults.

Link to comment
...That position is that government has no business sanctioning, condemning or licensing personal relationships, and should stay out of them completely...

If you have a general philosophy of leaving the gov't out of pretty much everything, that takes no thought either. While I'm libertarian in my political leanings, there are some things, like freedom of speech, national defense and marriage, that are so fundamental to a functional democracy and society, the gov't needs to protect them. But even without that premise, the gov't should never, ever adopt a dogma like the position that a gay union and a real marriage are identical. If the Fed. gov't got completely out of marriage and left it only to states, that would be a very Democratic approach. Then again, we're more of a Constitutional republic, and the Constitution is largely based on upholding the higher laws of "Nature's God." History and reason tell us that "Nature's God" highly favors biological parents raising their own children, so we ought to submit to the higher law and embrace this reality.

Then why do you waste your efforts trying to stop a lesbian couple from calling their committed relationship a "marriage," and concentrate instead on creating laws that take their children away and give them to acceptable mixed-gender couples?

Read this carefully. It suggests that I am both wasting efforts on stopping lesbians from calling their relationship a "marriage" and I'm also concentrating instead on creating laws that take children away from homosexuals. I didn't misunderstand so much as you misspoke.

You should have had a negative in the first clause of this sentence in order for you to get what you were trying to say across.

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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