Author Topic: is it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage? (Read 63054 times)

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #100 on:** May 12, 2008, 09:12:34 AM »

Quote

Why do we have to pretend [that the 14th was properly ratified]?

It is my understanding that the 14th failed every part of the ratification process described in Article V. I am thinking that there were 36 States in the Union, but only 25 were represented in the Congress that proposed the 14th. And I believe that 13 States would have refused to ratify the amendment if they had been free to do so. The Southern States were put under military rule and denied a place in the Union until they agreed to ratify the reconstruction amendments. New Jersey and Ohio turned against the 14th but they were told that they could not change their ratification vote.

Just yesterday I finished reading a book on reconstruction and Virginia (Unleased at Long Last - Squires) which said "Congress had little respect for the Constitution in 1868, so Congress decided that the [14th]amendment was passed and ordered it proclaimed". I believe that even their proclamation was invalid, not just because it was false, but because the President had to approve it, and they skipped that step, because President Johnson was opposed to the 14th.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #101 on:** May 12, 2008, 01:23:59 PM »

So, the sixteenth is phony, and now the fourteenth. Are there any REAL amendments left? cheesy

I've read the same thing about the fourteenth, BTW. FWIW.

SteveS · « **Reply #102 on:** May 13, 2008, 02:56:33 AM »

There were some issues with the ratification process. Some had to do with how the Southern states were 'counted' and influenced, but losing the war probably had some effect as to how this was worked out. NJ and Ohio were told they couldn't change their votes. Since there is nothing in Art. V that talks about this it could have been proper to tell them this. It wasn't just Congress. The President and the Supreme Court also went along with the 14th. I am not aware of any cases where they said it was invalid due to the ratification process.

This may be somewhat of a moot point, though. All states have ratified the 14th.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1076805

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #103 on:** May 13, 2008, 03:41:58 AM »

Quote

Some had to do with how the Southern states were "counted' and influenced, but losing the war probably had some effect as to how this was worked out.

Of course losing the war had everything to do with it. Yankees took over, and they modified the US Constitution by force, because they could.

Quote

NJ and Ohio were told they couldn't change their votes. Since there is nothing in Art. V that talks about this it could have been proper to tell them this.

I don't think so ... how can it be proper to tell the Northern States that voted "yes" that they CANNOT change their votes, while telling Southern States that voted "no" that they MUST change their votes or remain under military rule?

Quote

It wasn't just Congress. The President and the Supreme Court also went along with the 14th. I am not aware of any cases where they said it was invalid due to the ratification process.

The President was opposed to the 14th and he advised the States to not ratify it. President Johnson was so opposed to what Congress was doing that they tried to impeach him and get him out of the way. And when the 14th came to the SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse cases they didn't "go along with it" but rather they cut it down to size. So I wouldn't say that the President and the SCOTUS went along with the 14th, but it's true that the US treats the 14th as if it was ratified. I think it demonstrates a lack of integrity and credibility.

Quote

This may be somewhat of a moot point, though. All states have ratified the 14th.

I don't think that's true, or at least we're back to pretending that it was properly ratified when it was ratified by force. For instance, when did my State of Virginia ratify the 14th, and under what conditions? My understanding is that we would be held under military rule until we agreed to it. So yeah, Virginia ratified the 14th, with a gun to our heads. If parties sign a contract because they have a gun to their head, do you consider that to be a valid contract, and would you say that all parties signed it, as if it was legitimate?

It's not moot to me. Folks like to pretend that the 14th was properly ratified, and pretend that it means things that it was never intended to mean. My point is that, even if we pretend that it was properly ratified, there was no intent to force homosexual marriage upon the States. You asked why we have to pretend that the 14th was ratified, and I think I have answered that question well enough.

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #104 on:** May 13, 2008, 11:37:37 PM »

I'd like to see the reasons people have of how allowing gay marriage would affect them as it doesn't appear anyone has so far. Also allowing something is not forcing it on you, allowing gay marriage in your state will not force you to run out and marry a man. Thirdly comparing gays to heroin addicts is apples and oranges at best.

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #105 on:** May 14, 2008, 05:25:50 AM »

Quote

I'd like to see the reasons people have of how allowing gay marriage would affect them as it doesn't appear anyone has so far. Also allowing something is not forcing it on you, allowing gay marriage in your state will not force you to run out and marry a man. Thirdly comparing gays to heroin addicts is apples and oranges at best.

No it is not apples and oranges. You say that the federal government can strike down a Virginia law on the basis that it wouldn't impact me, and I am trying to show how that assertion is completely removed from any sense of government. If what y'all keep repeating had any substance, if it was true, then the federal government could strike down other Virginia laws, such as our laws against prostitution, on the same basis, that it would not impact me. That is what y'all keep repeating, that it wouldn't impact me. It makes no sense whatsoever. Supreme Court Justice Scalia had this to say about Lawrence v Texas:

"Texas Penal Code Ann. Â§21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to "liberty" under the Due Process Clause, though today's opinion repeatedly makes that claim."

What's more, if foreign and horrid values are forced upon Virginia, then that will impact me and every Virginian. It isn't a question of which foreign and horrid values they force upon us, it might be homosexual marriage, or prostitution, or legalized heroin ... and it isn't a question of whether I will be forced to marry a homosexual, or be a prostitute or use heroin, that doesn't even sound like an adult argument to me ... it's a question of Virginians having a right to control our own State within certain federal limits.

"should the whole body of New England continue in opposition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. It can never be harmonious & solid, while so respectable a portion of it's citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal constitution, to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that. Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government." -Thomas Jefferson

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #106 on:** May 14, 2008, 02:15:51 PM »

Ahh... but you already don't have that right. Look at the medical marijuana case out of California (Raich?).

The feds stepped in there, and ignored a state law in favor of federal law. So... you're fine with a state deciding to make something legal, that the feds say is not?

roo_ster · « **Reply #107 on:** May 14, 2008, 06:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Strings on May 08, 2008, 03:54:37 PM

jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...

They already have the same protections I do. They have to jump through the same hoops I do, such as marry someone of the opposite sex.

Equal treatment, there you go.

Just another statist movement masquerading as libertarian. Feh.

=============

As to the "It doesn't effect you..." argument, I blew it outta the water a few pages back.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #108 on:** May 14, 2008, 06:29:15 PM »

Quote from: RaspberrySurprise on May 13, 2008, 10:37:37 PM

I'd like to see the reasons people have of how allowing gay marriage would affect them as it doesn't appear anyone has so far. Also allowing something is not forcing it on you, allowing gay marriage in your state will not force you to run out and marry a man.

1. Gay marriage doesn't affect me. Hence, there is no reason to grant it legal status.

2. Gay marriage is already allowed, just not legally recognized.

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #109 on:** May 15, 2008, 04:25:36 AM »

Quote

Ahh... but you already don't have that right. Look at the medical marijuana case out of California (Raich?).

The people of each State most certainly do have a right to control their own State within certain federal limits. That is our constituted frame of governent. Of course these rights have been trampled by the federal government for many generations.

Quote

The feds stepped in there, and ignored a state law in favor of federal law. So... you're fine with a state deciding to make something legal, that the feds say is not?

Are you asking about nullification? I have mixed feelings about it ... on the one hand, I think a State in the Union must abide by the laws of the Union ... on the other hand, I try to respect the separation between State and federal powers just as I respect the separation between the different State governments ... if California legalized pot and Alaska struck down the law, I don't think that California should abide by the will of Alaska ... I don't see how it's different if the US strikes down the California law, because they don't seem to have any more jurisdiction over it than Alaska does.

41magsnub · « **Reply #110 on:** May 15, 2008, 05:18:11 AM »

Quote from: jfruser on May 14, 2008, 05:07:58 PM

Quote from: Strings on May 08, 2008, 03:54:37 PM

jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...

As to the "It doesn't effect you..." argument, I blew it outta the water a few pages back.

Nobody has blown that argument out of the water. I saw the numbers on the aids stuff. You have a small point that they can pool resources which reduces the money base into insurance, but it is a very small point. All folks engaging in risky sex have the same risks. also the likelyhood of a gay guy catching aids goes down when folks are married. Gay folks can be as monogamous as the rest of us when they get hitched. All in all I'd call it a wash.

There seems to be a bit of homophobia on this forum, it's the only explanation I can think of. Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others? I mean seriously, every argument against gay marriage/civil union here comes across like that. Help me understand in simple bullet points why this is a bad idea besides health insurance since I do not buy that argument at all?

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #111 on:** May 15, 2008, 06:06:51 AM »

Quote

Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others?

I'd say that it is folks trying to enforce the immorality of their false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism. That is the yankee jihad that a marriage protection amendment is intended to stop. The way y'all keep framing this North/South conflict, Southern values are taboo because they are Christian in nature, and we must go with Northern values because they are based upon false religions ... the moral of the story seems to be that it is constitutional for Notherners to force their values upon the South, but unconstitutional for Southerners to force their values upon the North ... it all seems biased beyond all reason.

It's not about being afraid of homosexuals. It's about considering homosexual acts to be sodomy, buggery, a crime against nature, a sin, and not something that we want our society to condone. I don't see how people come up with this homophobia stuff ... as an analogy, if some people in Virginia were eating dogs, and we passed a law making it illegal to eat dogs in Virginia, would that mean that we have dogophobia? Or would it just mean that we don't condone eating dogs, just like we don't condone buggery.

And its about rule of law, constitutionalism, free government, federalism ... we shouldn't need an amendment to say that the federal government isn't empowered to force homosexual marriage upon the States! It's like saying "since the federal government defies the separation of State and federal powers, and the separation of legislative and judicial powers, and just legislates whatever they fancy from the bench, pretending to be empowered by the 14th dictate or the interstate commerce power or some such nonsense ... it is hereby declared that the federal government's despotic jihad shall not go to such an absurd extreme as to force homosexual marriage upon the States".

41magsnub · « **Reply #112 on:** May 15, 2008, 07:52:19 AM »

Quote from: Hugh Damright on May 15, 2008, 05:06:51 AM

Quote

Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others?

I'd say that it is folks trying to enforce the immorality of their false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism. That is the yankee jihad that a marriage protection amendment is intended to stop. The way y'all keep framing this North/South conflict, Southern values are taboo because they are Christian in nature, and we must go with Northern values because they are based upon false religions ... the moral of the story seems to be that it is constitutional for Notherners to force their values upon the South, but unconstitutional for Southerners to force their values upon the North ... it all seems biased beyond all reason.

It's not about being afraid of homosexuals. It's about considering homosexual acts to be sodomy, buggery, a crime against nature, a sin, and not something that we want our society to condone. I don't see how people come up with this homophobia stuff ... as an analogy, if some people in Virginia were eating dogs, and we passed a law making it illegal to eat dogs in Virginia, would that mean that we have dogophobia? Or would it just mean that we don't condone eating dogs, just like we don't condone buggery.

And its about rule of law, constitutionalism, free government, federalism ... we shouldn't need an amendment to say that the federal government isn't empowered to force homosexual marriage upon the States! It's like saying "since the federal government defies the separation of State and federal powers, and the separation of legislative and judicial powers, and just legislates whatever they fancy from the bench, pretending to be empowered by the 14th dictate or the interstate commerce power or some such nonsense ... it is hereby declared that the federal government's despotic jihad shall not go to such an absurd extreme as to force homosexual marriage upon the States".