Prop 8 Overturned

#77
#77
TennesseeOrange said:
What do you think the EP was intended to apply to?
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights like freedom of speech/religion, gun ownership, etc.

when you can show me where it is in the Constitution that two individuals have a right to marry each other, I'll concede the point
 
#78
#78
MG1968 said:
Constitutional rights like freedom of speech/religion, gun ownership, etc.

when you can show me where it is in the Constitution that two individuals have a right to marry each other, I'll concede the point
Click to expand...

its explained that prop 8 has the intent to take rights away once they are given.
 
#79
#79
MG1968 said:
Constitutional rights like freedom of speech/religion, gun ownership, etc.

when you can show me where it is in the Constitution that two individuals have a right to marry each other, I'll concede the point
Click to expand...

I never said it was a Constitutional Right.
 
#80
#80
MG1968 said:
Constitutional rights like freedom of speech/religion, gun ownership, etc.

when you can show me where it is in the Constitution that two individuals have a right to marry each other, I'll concede the point
Click to expand...

It doesn't address it directly, but it covers it. The EP clause basically states you can't treat groups differently (which is why I think tax brackets should be illegal). So allowing straight people to marry, and banning gays is considered to be a violation of equal protection.

That is if you accept the 14th amendment as legitimate. I question its ratification.
 
#81
#81
KiffinKiller said:
its explained that prop 8 has the intent to take rights away once they are given.
Click to expand...

am I typing in a foreign language here, I've stated, repeatedly, that I have no problem with Prop 8 being overturned. I just don't like the fact that the EPC was used in order to defeat it.

taking this to extremes, the EPC can be applied to any issue the states normally reserve for themselves
 
#82
#82
MG1968 said:
am I typing in a foreign language here, I've stated, repeatedly, that I have no problem with Prop 8 being overturned. I just don't like the fact that the EPC was used in order to defeat it.

taking this to extremes, the EPC can be applied to any issue the states normally reserve for themselves
Click to expand...

That is where I have issues. The constitution was never intended to give the federal government jurisdiction over the states in such matters. They just started doing it (mostly post-Civil War). The bill of rights are protections against the Federal government and were never intended to be applied onto the states. It was up to the states to adopt similar bills of rights.
 
#83
#83
MG1968 said:
am I typing in a foreign language here, I've stated, repeatedly, that I have no problem with Prop 8 being overturned. I just don't like the fact that the EPC was used in order to defeat it.

taking this to extremes, the EPC can be applied to any issue the states normally reserve for themselves
Click to expand...

I understand. I was just trying to figure out your exact position. You basically disagree with the 14th Amendment and see it as an overreach of Federal Power?
 
#84
#84
TennesseeOrange said:
I understand. I was just trying to figure out your exact position. You basically disagree with the 14th Amendment and see it as an overreach of Federal Power?
Click to expand...

now you're putting words in my mouth, but if you want to play LG-type semantic games, go ahead
 
#87
#87
TennesseeOrange said:
That's what I figured. So you think the Supreme Court will decline to hear a case where a Federal Circuit interpreted the Federal Constitution because marriage is a state issue?
Click to expand...

Many of the so called legal experts do not think the SCOTUS will hear the case.
 
#91
#91
No problem with overturning Prop 8 (neutral, imo) but doesn't think the 14th Amendment is applicable in this instance. Pretty clear to me.
 
#93
#93
Why is banning something unconstitutional? They have banned my cocaine... It should also be unconstitutional.... I know a couple folks that would like to marry their dogs but it's banned too.
 
#94
#94
ImTheCrew said:
Why is banning something unconstitutional? They have banned my cocaine... It should also be unconstitutional.... I know a couple folks that would like to marry their dogs but it's banned too.
Click to expand...

they're free to marry their dogs if they want, they just can't have that marriage recognized by the state if they don't want to end up in a psychiatric ward
 
#96
#96
MG1968 said:
they're free to marry their dogs if they want, they just can't have that marriage recognized by the state if they don't want to end up in a psychiatric ward
Click to expand...

there is no difference between gay marriage and beastiality , if nature intended for it than they could re produce.
 
#97
#97
ImTheCrew said:
there is no difference between gay marriage and beastiality , if nature intended for it than they could re produce.
Click to expand...

then how do you explain it? You telling me that tomorrow I could rationally choose to be sexually attracted to a man? gtfo.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top