XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor
From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com
wrote in message
news:mbmdpaht0g4muthqmetp0jei75j5retu6o@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 10:17:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> wrote in message
>>news:6338pa9thr34u0r28lqvu2c8ckd4l893vv@4ax.com...
>>
>>Just because you put yourself outside of social norms does not mean there
>>must be a remedy for normal people wanting to keep you at a distance.
>>
>>The court should consider the fact that many states have had elections to
>>define what a social norm is, in this case marriage shall be between one
>>man
>>and one woman, and the court by its action has nullified every election
>>ever
>>to be held again if just one person feels he/she is slighted by the
>>outcome.
>
> Counter: "States" are not the arbiter of "rights" that the FEDERAL
> constitution grants. EVERY citizen of a nation under a national
> constitution---have identical rights.
>
The VOTERS ARE THE ARBITER OF RIGHTS, that's the point.
The state makes a law -- legislation -- that is then challenged against what
rights there are and defined by the respective constitutions, and when the
VOTERS amend a constitution, it by definition arbitrates new rights. When
you and I vote on things, especially a constitutional amendment, that vote
is supreme over any legislation. Frankly, it should also be supreme over any
court ruling.
When a majority vote that marriage shall be between one man and one woman,
and do so as an amendment to the constitution, then that vote is supreme to
any law. If the amendment turns out to be bad, then amend again to repeal
the previous one. That's the way it works. Or, should work.
>>When LEGISLATION is judged against the constitution, the result is pass or
>>fail. If pass, nothing else.
>
> Counter: Not so fast. Any legislation MIGHT be struck based on only
> PART of the act legislated....while the totality of the act survives.
> Congress MAY choose to abandon the legislation, revise those
> sections/words to conform to legal standards, or start over.
>>
>>The 10th Amendment says that anything not covered by the constitution is
>>the
>>perview of the states to legislate.
>
> Counter: The Constitution DOES cover the present issue.
>
> States are NOT the giver of rights under the constitution---the
> federal constitution specifies it does.
>
The US Constitution does not touch on homosexuality at all. Period. You can
jump through hoops and bring in unrelated passages, but marriage regulations
have always fallen onto the states to administer.
>>Everything in marriage is available through the legal system to gays.
>
> Counter: It is not. States have a patchwork of things---and not all
> give any rights. That is adverse to the RIGHTS of ALL individuals
> under the law---based on the FEDERAL constitution.
>>
>>The Supremes have struck down the entire notion of States Rights,
>
> Counter: The BOR does not give any rights to discriminate based on
> race, color,creed, religion, national origin---and now gender. States
> are SUBSERVIENT to a federal constitution.
>>
>>I'm going to fight a leash-law violation because my dog does not need to
>>be
>>on a leash, despite everybody else saying that he does.
>
> Counter: Poor ( very poor) example---. "Leashing", "dogs", etc are
> not components of a federal constitution. THAT----is state/local
> stuff
Hello! Marriage is state stuff. That's the whole idea. Some gays filed suit
in Hawaii to demand marriage rights IN THAT STATE. Other states voted to
define marriage as one man and one woman because that's the way they always
handled the situation without any legal definition to specifically spell it
out. If not spelled out as one then it must be okay as the other, that was
the very argument used in Hawaii. California, among others, held elections
where the majority of voters approved measures to define marriage, and
passed multiple bills to legislate a marriage definition. CALIFORNIA, a
liberal/progressive pillar of society voted several times, one of them to
amend the state constitution because an amendment is supreme to any
legislation or juidicial ruling, to definen marriage as one man and one
woman. The state itself -- the governor's office specifically -- refused to
represent the state before the courts to demand that the constitution is the
supreme law of the land, and therefore beyond reproach by the state court,
which without any argument from the state overturned the state
constitutional amendment.
Now, the Supremes are bending in the wind to popular opinion and not holding
to the law. By the decision handed down, the notion of States Rights has
been thrown out the window.
One cannot make an argument that the state has jurisdiction in some law but
not other law. If the US Constitution does not govern, then the state does.
That's the whole point of the 10th Amendment.
The US Constitution specifically says that if it is not goverened by the
feds then it is the purview of the states. Marriage is not governed by the
feds, it is the purview of the states.
>>
>>There's nothing in the constitution that says my dog must be leashed,
>>therefore any legislation that demands it is illegal.
>
> Counter: There is NO law(s) that require a "literal reading" of the
> National constitution.
>
I'm only using the same reading of the constitution that you are using.
There is no literal reading that demands gays be allowed to marry, yet we
now have a new line of social norm that can move with the whims of the
court. Progressives once scoffed at the idea that striking sodomy laws would
lead to gay marriage, yet here we are a few decades later with progressives
getting precisely that.
Today, progressives scoff at the idea of marrying a sister. If the sodomy to
gay marriage model is used, we will have this as a legal right by 2050. Some
lesbian chick will want to marry her german shepard.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
