_Vols in NC...get out and vote!!! Need your help. MAY 8

#676
#676
therealUT said:
It is not a natural right; however, equal treatment under the law is a legal right that is granted by the Constitution of the United States, specifically Section I of the 14th Amendment (which was used as the primary justification for the opinion in Brown which regarded privileges under the law, viz. education privileges).
Click to expand...

So should North Carolina's constitutional amendment be overturned in court?
 
#678
#678
People are discriminated against every day, always have been and always will be. People can make their own choices, come to me for a job interview with neck tats, face peircings wild colored hair, I discriminate, sorry. Go somewhere else for a job, it was your choice to get that stuff.

I'm not debating if homosexuality is a choice or not but they do have a choice to move. It's still a somewhat free country, your gay and want to marry move to MA??? Oh and by the way enough with the Christian bashing, why don't you include the muslims, in Saudi they kill gays.
 
#679
#679
hog88 said:
I'm not debating if homosexuality is a choice or not
Click to expand...

yet you used an example of a choice to make your point

hog88 said:
why don't you include the muslims, in Saudi they kill gays.
Click to expand...

when the Saudis start passing laws that affect the US Constitution then I will care. As of now they are simply idiots that I can do nothing about

what I don't understand is that while the average US citizen doesn't respect the sanctity of marriage we need more laws restricting it for others. Why does that make sense?
 
#680
#680
volfanjustin said:
States rights be damned I guess.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say, that could possibly be the dumbest argument presented, yet.

So, by not allowing states to infringe on the rights of a minority population, we are infringing on the rights of the state? States are not individuals. I don't understand what "rights" you're talking about.

Do you mean the rights of the majority? If so, what right is infringed upon by not allowing them to ban gay marriage? How is allowing gay people to wed an infringement on the rights of others? Wow.
 
#681
#681
therealUT said:
It is not a natural right; however, equal treatment under the law is a legal right that is granted by the Constitution of the United States, specifically Section I of the 14th Amendment (which was used as the primary justification for the opinion in Brown which regarded privileges under the law, viz. education privileges).
Click to expand...

I assume the SCOTUS has weighed in on the matter and has not found that state laws prohibiting gay marriage violate this Amendment?
 
#682
#682
utvolpj said:
yet you used an example of a choice to make your point



when the Saudis start passing laws that affect the US Constitution then I will care. As of now they are simply idiots that I can do nothing about

what I don't understand is that while the average US citizen doesn't respect the sanctity of marriage we need more laws restricting it for others. Why does that make sense?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense, but people have a tendency to fear/hate what they do not understand or cannot comprehend. They have a problem viewing homosexuals as equals because they are unable to relate. Change sometimes takes a lot of time.
 
#683
#683
hog88 said:
I'm not debating if homosexuality is a choice or not but they do have a choice to move. It's still a somewhat free country, your gay and want to marry move to MA???
Click to expand...

This keeps coming up. It's really dumb. Can we stop being dumb about this?

People should be able to live wherever they want, while maintaining all of their civil rights.
 
#684
#684
So what is marriage in the eyes of the state?

1. A contract between two (only two) people that provides for particular joining of interests and a few benefits or privileges.

2. A symbolic recognition via a term (marriage) of said contract.

Civil unions provide for #1 but not for #2.

I can see where people get the idea that #1 is about "rights" even though it is more accurately the sanctioning of a particular contractual agreement.

I don't see how the second part has much to do with "rights" at all. It's purely symbolic.

In the end, I don't give a crap if gays are granted 1 and 2. I can see arguments either way and I'm fine with gay marriage. I do think at a minimum there should be civil union options and ultimately, that's really all the state should do - leave #2 (not the euphemism) to the churches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#685
#685
hog88 said:
People are discriminated against every day, always have been and always will be. People can make their own choices, come to me for a job interview with neck tats, face peircings wild colored hair, I discriminate, sorry. Go somewhere else for a job, it was your choice to get that stuff.

I'm not debating if homosexuality is a choice or not but they do have a choice to move. It's still a somewhat free country, your gay and want to marry move to MA??? Oh and by the way enough with the Christian bashing, why don't you include the muslims, in Saudi they kill gays.
Click to expand...

They are caught in a difficult spot on the Muslim thing because they know no bounds when it comes to defending Muslims yet they think its ok to be gay and to get married. Christians don't kill gays they just think it's wrong and should not be allowed to marry, and you are right Muslims want them killed. And it's Christians who are evil.
 
#687
#687
Thrasher865 said:
If you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say, that could possibly be the dumbest argument presented, yet.

So, by not allowing states to infringe on the rights of a minority population, we are infringing on the rights of the state? States are not individuals. I don't understand what "rights" you're talking about.

Do you mean the rights of the majority? If so, what right is infringed upon by not allowing them to ban gay marriage? How is allowing gay people to wed an infringement on the rights of others? Wow.
Click to expand...

Go read the 10th Amendment. The states have rights to make laws in their state. Is that so hard for you to understand?
 
#690
#690
The Wiki entry on the topic indicates that marriage has been traditionally left to the states and that until DOMA, the Federal government did not define marriage and recognized any marriage by any state.

My hunch is that if these laws were a blatant violation of the 14th then we would have seen them make to the SCOTUS.
 
#693
#693
States cannot pass laws that infringe on our protected rights. Is that so hard for you to understand?
 
#695
#695
Thrasher865 said:
This keeps coming up. It's really dumb. Can we stop being dumb about this?

People should be able to live wherever they want, while maintaining all of their civil rights.
Click to expand...

Really? Small examples:

SC - can't buy booze on Sundays. Do I not have the right to have a drink on Sunday? Why Sunday, why not Wednesday?

NYC - Almost impossible to own a gun. 2nd amendment gives me the right why does NYC get to take that away?

TN - Have to wear a motorcycle helmet. I'm an adult why can't I ride without a helmet?

Point is, it's the rule of the land and all violate some of my precieved rights. If you don't like it, work to change it or move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#696
#696
volinbham said:
I assume the SCOTUS has weighed in on the matter and has not found that state laws prohibiting gay marriage violate this Amendment?
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are not considered a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause, I don't believe. And I doubt there is any impetus on the Court to extend it.
 
#697
#697
hog88 said:
Really? Small examples:

SC - can't buy booze on Sundays. Do I not have the right to have a drink on Sunday? Why Sunday, why not Wednesday?

not a right in the constitution

NYC - Almost impossible to own a gun. 2nd amendment gives me the right why does NYC get to take that away?

not impossible. Also see the DC ruling

TN - Have to wear a motorcycle helmet. I'm an adult why can't I ride without a helmet?

not a right in the constitution

Point is, it's the rule of the land and all violate some of my precieved rights. If you don't like it, work to change it or move.
Click to expand...

you don't seem to get this
 
#698
#698
lawgator1 said:
Homosexuals are not considered a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause, I don't believe. And I doubt there is any impetus on the Court to extend it.
Click to expand...

This.

I'm 100% certain that states have the right to pass laws or amend their constitutions the way that NC is doing. I just think they should refrain from doing so.
 
#699
#699
volinbham said:
So what is marriage in the eyes of the state?

1. A contract between two (only two) people that provides for particular joining of interests and a few benefits or privileges.

2. A symbolic recognition via a term (marriage) of said contract.

Civil unions provide for #1 but not for #2.

I can see where people get the idea that #1 is about "rights" even though it is more accurately the sanctioning of a particular contractual agreement.

I don't see how the second part has much to do with "rights" at all. It's purely symbolic.

In the end, I don't give a crap if gays are granted 1 and 2. I can see arguments either way and I'm fine with gay marriage. I do think at a minimum there should be civil union options and ultimately, that's really all the state should do - leave #2 (not the euphemism) to the churches.
Click to expand...

I have agreed with you before on the point of civil unions. I think the best option would be for the government get out of the marriage game altogether, and move to a civil union based benefit structure. Marriage can then be a strictly symbolic/religious arrangement. Everyone would then have access to the same benefits afforded via marriage today through civil unions.

Also, disturbing that the NC amendment reached out to civil unions as well as marriage.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top