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
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
news:mnk31i$gck$2@dont-email.me...
> On 7/8/2015 1:54 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
>> news:mn6q3e$n7b$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 7/3/2015 1:17 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When LEGISLATION is judged against the constitution, the result is pass
>>>> or fail. If pass, nothing else. If fail, then the legislation is
>>>> reworked or abandonded. But when the voters of a state pass an
>>>> amendment
>>>> to the constitution, then that is a higher hurdle to knock down than
>>>> mere legislation passed by a governing body.
>>>
>>> When it comes to whether it is constitutional under the federal
>>> constitution, it makes no difference how it was passed. Ordinary
>>> legislation and a state constitutional amendment have to overcome the
>>> same hurdle.
>>>
>>>> Everything in marriage is available through the legal system to gays.
>>>
>>> That's not true. For example, you can't collect spousal Social
>>> Security benefits if you are not married.
>>>
>>>
>> That's a specious argument, Josh. Lots of straight couples actively
>> avoid marriage for a variety of reasons, and they forego spousal SS
>> benefits. Yes, they _can_ get married but for personal reasons they do
>> not.
>>
>> Are we now supposed to create a new class of unmarried people to give SS
>> benefits to in the name of treating them equally? I think not.
>
> I agree (it was Peter's idea). And now that marriage equality is the law
> of the land, we don't have to.
>
>>>> nothing says gays cannot marry, so they must be
>>>> allowed to. More dumb is that anybody bought the argument, and now we
>>>> have gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's a dumb argument. But, The Court did not use that argument.
>>
>> It's the argument made (one of them) by gay rights advocates -- There is
>> no specific ban on gay marriage, therefore it must be allowed. It is
>> precisely the argument made in all states where the state courts imposed
>> gay marriage.
>
> That's nonsense. Please provide citations to back your claim.
>
Look up gay marriage in Hawaii. The argument made was that there was no law
forbidding it, therefore it had to be allowed. It was not allowed because it
is just icky to think of butt plugs and vasoline used at the same time, so
there was no law forbidding gay marriage. Nobody thought to make such a law
because the homosexual acts are so repugnant that the 3 or 4 people that did
it would never want to marry.
Some gays came out of the closet in Hawaii and wanted to marry, and nobody
could come up with a reason why they could not -- there was no law banning
it. They sued for the right to marry since there was no legislation barring
it, or constitutional constraint.
Other states, California among them, set about to define through legislation
what marriage is because there was no ban or definition, just like the
problem in Hawaii. Gays won in Hawaii on the argument that, there's no law
against it so it has to be okay.
I have dumbed this down so even you can understand, but the legalese used
boils down to exactly what I described. There was no legal reason to not
give a marriage license to gays, so the gays sued to force the issuance of
the license. No law against it so it must be okay.
The same argument that won marriage licenses for Hawaian gays was used
everywhere else.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
