Gay Marriage Mega-Thread (lawyer, solutions, atrocities, Maryland)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What good is constitutional protection of individuals against the rule of the majority if the court needs to decide what minority can and can't be discriminated against?
The issue should never even have to make it to court, we are all either free adults who decide what is best with our lives and liberties as long we are not harming or infringing on the rights of others, or we are slaves to the whims of the majority.
That would be your interpretation. The founders were concerned with a government that was responsive to the will of the people. They had just fought a long war against a european government that wasn't.
Ahhh, when the majority can enforce their moral beliefs on the minority. That's what America was created for, right???
Actually a contract for marriage is not based on morality, but upon property rights.
Those who have property rights can contract a common law marriage.
Since 1935, and national socialism, enumerated Americans no longer have property rights and need LICENSE to wed.
Now, if you examine history, you will note these facts:
[] An illegitimate child cannot inherit from his father
[] A legitimate child can inherit from his father
In either case, the child inherits from his mother.
Clear?
The marriage contract endows the offspring with the JOINED property rights of both parents.
THAT IS THE ONLY (legal) REASON FOR MARRIAGE.
Since homosexual couples still cannot gene splice progeny, entering into a contract to merge their property rights for the benefit of progeny that they cannot create is MEANINGLESS.
Two (or more) people in love, do not need a legally binding contract to stay together, nor endow the survivor(s) with their property.
BUT - - -
Most Socialist indoctrinated Americans seek to maximize their socialist entitlements, which make the status of married attractive to those who cannot emit progeny.
For all the other misapplications of laws that prohibited partners from interaction, one has to look to the scope of the law. For example, if the law is only applicable to 'persons liable' it is not universally applicable to all Americans.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states."
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
Verify if the punitive laws were only applicable to "persons". Sovereign people are not subject to them.
That would be your interpretation. The founders were concerned with a government that was responsive to the will of the people. They had just fought a long war against a european government that wasn't.
So they wanted a democracy? Welcome to 1984!
This sounds verty fitting!
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10:
In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
James Madison gave a comprehensive dissertation on how a Republic would guard against such losses of freedom, in an effort to get our proposed Constitution ratified by the people and their states. The following are excerpts from Madison's paper:
... When a majority is included in the faction, the form of popular government ... enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. ...
... Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. ...
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
...Two (or more) people in love, do not need a legally binding contract to stay together, nor endow the survivor(s) with their property...
True, but it doesn't *default* to the partner if they're not married. Also, the partner has to pay taxes on that estate if they're not married. Further, if one partner is sick and hospitalized, the other partner cannot make medical decisions on behalf of that partner, without power of attorney, if they're not married.
What logical, legal reasoning is there to justify denying the ability to legally marry to homosexuals?
Don't give me any of that children/offspring crap, there's no law that says my wife and I have to procreate since we're married, so that's a non-starter.
I'm all ears...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The marriage contract endows the offspring with the JOINED property rights of both parents.
THAT IS THE ONLY (legal) REASON FOR MARRIAGE.
Then please explain all of the other legal rights, protections and benefits - at both the State and Federal level - that go along with the legal status of being married.
If the gays want the same benefits that married couples have, let them go the civil union route, but no, they must try and usurp "marriage" for their own political agenda, making it easier to declare it "normal" and "natural", making it easier to teach the kids that as well.
Everywhere it has come to a vote by the people, it has failed, even in bluer than blue California.
The founders also knew that the majority were arrogant and ill-informed and government forces needed to take control of the masses at times. You know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01
That would be your interpretation. The founders were concerned with a government that was responsive to the will of the people. They had just fought a long war against a european government that wasn't.
For whatever it's worth - that bill was dead in the water when they presented it. They were just trying to make a fuss. The senate already said it's not going to happen.
REGARDLESS of the fact it's completely unconstitutional and everyone from the Iowa attorney general to every lawyer or expert or anyone with a 9th grade education looked at the bill and said it's silly and insulting to even bring it up.
The founders also knew that the majority were arrogant and ill-informed and government forces needed to take control of the masses at times. You know that.
I heartily disagree with this one. Democracy relies on the participation of it's peoples. It is up to them to decide. Your post is elitist in the extreme. I cannot disagree with you more. "Control of the masses" is a socialist stratagim not a classical liberal one and the founders were classical liberals.
Take your religious values to the middle east, they like religion there. Some of us want to be a free country.
Does "your freedom" also allow people the freedom to their own cultural norms, or just yours?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
