Gay marriage guaranteed under originalism/strict constructionism

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I'm not a communist for saying the state owns you.

That is Communist philosophy. Perhaps you would be more comfortable at a Communist forum.

And I'm sick of hearing "Ron Paul says"

You wouldn't read that at all if you bothered to educate yourself with what Ron Paul says. This is a Ron Paul forum, after all. You should start there and then tell us where he's wrong. But your starting point isn't Ron Paul, it's totalitarianism. Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

And btw, the First Amendment explicitly references Congress, leaving out the states, so you're just wrong.

We were discussing the Second Amendment. "1" and "2" are different numbers. Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a remedial pre-K math forum.

And can someone actually explain how the fourteenth did not create birthright citizenship? {sic}

Ron Paul can. You really should read what Ron Paul has said on this. This is a Ron Paul forum, after all. Then again, perhaps you would be more comfortable on Communist forum.

The fourteenth has empty, meaningless clauses?

It does not. You should stop arguing that it does.

[jmdrake]

Lol I'm not a communist for saying the state owns you. That's the most libertarian thing I could say. You'll never hear a non-libertarian say "the state owns you."

Oh really?



Anyway, your philosophy on this explains a lot.

And my pt was that the government's monopolistic nature makes any religious endorsement a discriminatory/special endorsement that violates the establishment clause (absent neutrality/pluralism/inclusiveness).

I get it. You don't like it...except for when you do. So we don't have an official U.S. Bible. But different religious groups have endorsed different Bibles. I guess that's a violation of the establishment clause? Oh but you put that "absent neutrality/pluralism/inclusiveness" parenthetical in there. Nobody has argued that marriages should be the realm of any one religion. In fact everyone has even said if atheists want to get married under the auspices of whatever it is they choose that's fine. Again, the "bar mitzvah" example I gave. (And yes there are atheists that go through a bar mitzvah". A bar mitzvah is merely a "coming of age" ceremony. There are all sorts of coming of age ceremonies that have absolutely nothing to do with the government. (The "government coming of age" ceremony is to force young men to register for the draft.) The fact that bar mitzahs aren't recognized by the government doesn't "establish" anything. Now if the law was "Once you've had a bar mitzvah you must have this government benefit or that government liability" the libertarian thing to do would be to push to get the government out of bar mitzvahs.

[maybemaybenot]

That is Communist philosophy. Perhaps you would be more comfortable at a Communist forum.



You wouldn't read that at all if you bothered to educate yourself with what Ron Paul says. This is a Ron Paul forum, after all. You should start there and then tell us where he's wrong. But your starting point isn't Ron Paul, it's totalitarianism. Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a Communist forum.



We were discussing the Second Amendment. "1" and "2" are different numbers. Perhaps you would be more comfortable on a remedial pre-K math forum.




Ron Paul can. You really should read what Ron Paul has said on this. This is a Ron Paul forum, after all. Then again, perhaps you would be more comfortable on Communist forum.


It does not. You should stop arguing that it does.

So you want ME to find the Ron Paul quote that YOU are relying on? No, that's not how it works, you go find your own logic for yourself. You're not persuading me by telling me to go find an argument that you're too lazy or ignorant to make for yourself. And I don't just hand my brain over to Ron Paul like a f'n drone.

And again, what does the fourteenth amendment mean, then? If it didn't incorporate the bill of rights? I know YOU are talking about the second amendment, but obviously you're using Paul's argument that the bill of rights in general wasn't incorporated by the fourteenth.

Lol and it doesn't make me communist to say the government owns us. That's me my identifying everything I hate about the world, like when the govt uses my money to endorse homophobia. I don't like it, its just the truth. When the government endorses a religious practice (like heterosexual marriage only, an explicit endorsement of particular persons' religious views, the only argument made on this thread or anywhere else to justify the policy of hetero marriage only), they're doing it with my money, against my will, AND "my money" was a stupid board game token they're forcing me to use. I don't like it, I hate it, but its true, and you refuse to respond to the argument itself. Due to the govt's monopolistic nature, endorsing a religious practice (without being inclusive/neutral/plural) violates the establishment clause.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

OP is a big government troll. Notice that he came on RPF to post about two issues.

I did not even read any of his crap after it was clear right from the beginning that he's just another big gov advocate uninterested in liberty. He claims that government should not be involved in marriage, but this line is baloney.

Neg reps all around for this clown.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

So you want ME to find the Ron Paul quote

It's not "a quote," it is legislation he introduced in several Congresses. It it is not my job to give you a remedial education.

How it works is, before you log on to a website called RON PAUL FORUMS and start lecturing everyone about the 14th Amendment, it is your job to familiarize yourself with what Ron Paul thinks about the 14th Amendment.

That is what a decent, sincere person would do. Your rank ignorance and failure to do so only identifies you as a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

[Sonny Tufts]

Look, the war on drugs isn't going to go away, and to keep insisting that government shouldn't be involved in the war on drugs simply ignores reality. The issue is, given that the war on drugs exists, can the government refuse to allow alcohol to be included in it? So far, no one has come up with a cogent reason why the state shouldn't be able to do so.

The analogy is hopelessly misplaced. In the alcohol/drug case, no one's rights are being infringed by excluding alcohol from the war on drugs, and users of alcohol aren't asking the government to ban it. In the gay marriage case, people whose right to equal protection is being infringed are asking to be included in the civil marriage system.

[jmdrake]

The analogy is hopelessly misplaced. In the alcohol/drug case, no one's rights are being infringed by excluding alcohol from the war on drugs, and users of alcohol aren't asking the government to ban it. In the gay marriage case, people whose right to equal protection is being infringed are asking to be included in the civil marriage system.

And if the civil marriage system as it now stands is done away with these people's "rights" are infringed upon how exactly? Seriously? I am confused as to why this silly thread has gone on so long or what exactly it is that you want? Nobody in this thread has argued for the current state of things to be codified permanently. Nobody is asking for a "marriage amendment" or the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas (striking down of sodomy laws) or anything else. All Gunny and I and others are saying is that this movement should stick its principles of seeking to reduce the size of government and through that the "marriage equality" issue is solved. Period. If you want to expand the federal role in marriage by expanding the definition of marriage as the way forward, there are tons of big government democrats and republicans that support your cause. Why not spend your time rallying them?

Edit: And for the record, Gunny's analogy was not misplaced. That it went over your head apparently is not his fault. The point he was making is that either we believe we can make a difference on reducing the size and scope of the federal government or we don't. If we get rid of the income tax that takes a huge chunk out of the marriage issue. In fact the marriage/health insurance issue is largely a bi-product of the tax system.

[jmdrake]

So you want ME to find the Ron Paul quote that YOU are relying on?

If I give you the quote will you shut up already?

[maybemaybenot]

It's not "a quote," it is legislation he introduced in several Congresses. It it is not my job to give you a remedial education.

How it works is, before you log on to a website called RON PAUL FORUMS and start lecturing everyone about the 14th Amendment, it is your job to familiarize yourself with what Ron Paul thinks about the 14th Amendment.

That is what a decent, sincere person would do. Your rank ignorance and failure to do so only identifies you as a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

I disagree.

If I give you the quote will you shut up already?

Lol finally someone actually states the Ron Paul position that they keep insulting me for not knowing. His argument here (since you're unable to articulate it yourself) is that ppl born here to illegal immigrants are not under U.S. "jurisdiction," but that's retarded. U.S. (state) courts can deport illegal immigrants precisely because they have jurisdiction over them. Jurisdiction refers to a court's power to hear/enforce a dispute. In Texas, an illegal immigrant is violating our laws, because our laws cover that jurisdiction, hence our courts and law enforcement can (but idiotically don't) deport ppl for being here illegally. The fact that they're here illegally refers to the fact that they're under U.S. jurisdiction. To say that they're not under our jurisdiction is to say that all illegal immigrants are actually here legally by extending their nation's sovereignty into U.S. sovereignty.

Oh, and this argument about birthright citizenship has nothing to do with the equal protection clause, even if its correct. So... I'm not sure if this is the vague Ron Paul/fourteenth amendment position other ppl keep referring to, but refuse to articulate because they can't remember. But of course they keep insulting me for not knowing their argument... when they don't know their own argument.

OP is a big government troll. Notice that he came on RPF to post about two issues.

I did not even read any of his crap after it was clear right from the beginning that he's just another big gov advocate uninterested in liberty. He claims that government should not be involved in marriage, but this line is baloney.

Neg reps all around for this clown.

And if the civil marriage system as it now stands is done away with these people's "rights" are infringed upon how exactly? Seriously? I am confused as to why this silly thread has gone on so long or what exactly it is that you want? Nobody in this thread has argued for the current state of things to be codified permanently. Nobody is asking for a "marriage amendment" or the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas (striking down of sodomy laws) or anything else. All Gunny and I and others are saying is that this movement should stick its principles of seeking to reduce the size of government and through that the "marriage equality" issue is solved. Period. If you want to expand the federal role in marriage by expanding the definition of marriage as the way forward, there are tons of big government democrats and republicans that support your cause. Why not spend your time rallying them?

Edit: And for the record, Gunny's analogy was not misplaced. That it went over your head apparently is not his fault. The point he was making is that either we believe we can make a difference on reducing the size and scope of the federal government or we don't. If we get rid of the income tax that takes a huge chunk out of the marriage issue. In fact the marriage/health insurance issue is largely a bi-product of the tax system.

Again, these arguments here are for shrinking government, and ignoring the constitution. You wanna say we should ignore the constitution to push for liberty, that's a valid argument. But to say that state-sanctioned same-sex marriage isn't guaranteed under the constitution (since hetero marriage is in every state/territory) is to ignore the constitution. Which is precisely why your arguments against state-sanctioned same-sex marriage literally ignore the constitution. As to jmdrake's argument that no right is violated when someone can't government-marry someone, this ignores the constitutional/legal conception of rights, which includes the constitutional right of U.S. citizens to sue in federal court to have the U.S. constitution enforced, which includes the right to equal protection. You may not care about that right, but the U.S. constitution guarantees that legal right/privilege/power/ability/whatever. That means that if a man can marry a woman (sanctioned by the state), then a woman can marry a woman (sanctioned by the state). That's not the libertarian position, its just what the constitution says.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Which is precisely why your arguments against state-sanctioned same-sex marriage literally ignore the constitution...You may not care about that right, but the U.S. constitution guarantees that legal right/privilege/power/ability/whatever.

Your foundation of definition is sloppy and erroneous. There is no such thing as "literally" ignoring the constitution. Terms such as "right," and "privilege" are not interchangeable. You certainly don't swap them with "whatever." There is also no such thing as a constitutional "guarantee" of privilege, power, ability, and your other "whatevers." The word does not even apply.

...which includes the right to equal protection. ....the constitutional right of U.S. citizens to sue in federal court....which includes the right to equal protection.

These items are not rights. There is no such thing as "gay rights." It's fine you want to cite privileges, protections, exemptions, and your "whatevers," but they are not "rights" or "equal rights."

You have a difference in values stemming from this erroneous idea that the constitution grants rights. You simply wish to apply the constitution so that you can lick the king's boot like everyone else does. You are opting into a privilege. So be it, but your invocations have nothing to do with liberty and rights, the constitution notwithstanding.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Now that I think of it--the OP is starting to sound quite familiar. One line--one word, actually--got my attention.

And OP, I noticed that you did not answer my question about why you're here. I'm guessing he won't answer.

[maybemaybenot]

Your foundation of definition is sloppy and erroneous. There is no such thing as "literally" ignoring the constitution. Terms such as "right," and "privilege" are not interchangeable. You certainly don't swap them with "whatever." There is also no such thing as a constitutional "guarantee" of privilege, power, ability, and your other "whatevers." The word does not even apply.





These items are not rights. There is no such thing as "gay rights." It's fine you want to cite privileges, protections, exemptions, and your "whatevers," but they are not "rights" or "equal rights."

You have a difference in values stemming from this erroneous idea that the constitution grants rights. You simply wish to apply the constitution so that you can lick the king's boot like everyone else does. You are opting into a privilege. So be it, but your invocations have nothing to do with liberty and rights, the constitution notwithstanding.

So... you don't think US citizens can sue in federal court to have the constitution enforced?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So... you don't think US citizens can sue in federal court to have the constitution enforced?

Where did I say that?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What's the matter, troll boy? Thinking about your next move?

[heavenlyboy34]

Successful troll is successful.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yep, PRB logged out, just as it is his style in our early morning conversations. How's it going, PRB? Thought you would elude me in the subforums that I don't visit? Heh heh, fat chance, troll boy. I'm on you like a fly on $#@! because that is how bad you smell. So you can cut the crap now because your game is up. Again.

Still trying to figure out that lone word that gave you away? Don't know it? Then you better work harder, bub. You know that changing up your writing style occasionally is not that hard. You know what IS difficult? Maintaining your fake writing. No matter how hard you try--you eventually revert. And that is what you did here. The pitiful thing about you is that it did not take that long. That's because you are lazy. And really. That avatar. What is that--Hulk Hogan and his New World Order? Very cute. Do you know why that avatar is one of the things that gave you away? I'll give you a reverse hint. It is not because it actually says NWO.

If anybody wants to compare PRB with Josh_LA, then just do a search on their threads. That's an easy one. Didn't bother to change anything.

And PRB, you have + repped me 10 times while I have neg repped you 10 times. Nice try. You simply + rep me so that you can + rep your sock puppet accounts (remember, you have to give three reps to others before you can rep the same person again).

The moderators could run an IP check on PRB, Josh_LA, TheCount, and this MaybeNot clown, but I'd guess he uses proxy.

[maybemaybenot]

Where did I say that?

Oh, so when you were bitching and whining about right/privilege/power/ability, you were saying the equal protection clause was meaningless? Because you don't think its a "right" to equal protection, the equal protection is just meaningless ink to you? And if you think US citizens can sue in federal court, what do you call that? A right, a privilege, what? I'm purposely combining them to avoid the semantic argument, because none of those words appear in the equal protection or article III judicial power to enforce the constitution, so when you bitch and whine about which word to use, you're evading the real issue. The equal protection clause exists, and its enforceable, whether you want to call it a right or a privilege or whatever

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I disagree.

Of course you do -- you are a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

that's retarded.

Wow, so now you're logging on the Ron Paul Forum to call Ron Paul "retarded." You really are a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

If you wish to no longer be an ignorant $#@!, you should probably read the Congressional record of the debate of the 14th's framers such as Sen. Trumbull. That might help you learn something about jurisdiction.

Oh, and this argument about birthright citizenship has nothing to do with the equal protection clause,

Well, you shouldn't have brought it up then. The two issues are related because you started ranting here and insulting people about both of them while being wholly ignorant of Ron Paul's position. It is that rank ignorance which identifies you as a rude, narcissitic, entitled, $#@! troll who might be more comfortable on a Communist forum.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm purposely combining them to avoid the semantic argument,...

You're combining them because you like to obfuscate. There is no semantics. The difference between a human being who is born and human being as a US citizen is the different between right and privilege. You know it, but you are muddling the issue.

Are you miffed now because I found out your identity? You mentioned Gaza as a $#@!hole in the other thread. Been to Gaza, PRB? Like to really, really fight hard?

What organization do your represent, PRB. How about your buddy, Zippy Juan, who also lives in Southern California where you live? Is the Jewish organization that pays you in Southern California too, or do you just work remotely?

Ever get a look a ZippyJuan's photography? His name would be Jeffry Zelt. Do you know him, PRB? What is the origin of his name?

You think you're slick? You can't even cover your tracks because simple google searching brings it all up. Zippy even just posted that he went to school with some famous IQ guy born in 1960. That would make him about 53 years old, the approximate age of one Jeffry Zelt.

You come on this board like liberty people are some kind of big threat to you? What a joke. You're so paranoid that you have to troll forums to try to set the record straight. Do you actually even get paid or is this some kind of survival instinct for you?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It becomes pretty clear now. ZippyJuan. PRB. This MaybeNot clown profile. I knew there was some connection with their longstanding presence on this forum. It all makes sense now.

[jmdrake]

I disagree.



Lol finally someone actually states the Ron Paul position that they keep insulting me for not knowing. His argument here (since you're unable to articulate it yourself) is that ppl born here to illegal immigrants are not under U.S. "jurisdiction," but that's retarded.

Oh shut up liar! You were asking for the Ron Paul quote, not for his position to be "articulated". I provided you the quote. Go go crawl back under whatever bridge you crawled out of.

Again, these arguments here are for shrinking government, and ignoring the constitution.

No they aren't troll. They are embracing the constitution. You are the one ignoring the constitution. Or rather you are the one twisting it beyond recognition.

[jmdrake]

Lies and/or bs from maybemabynot

Trollin trollin trollin....keep those posts a flowin..act like you be knowin...troll onnnnnn!

You jumped the shark when you asked for a Ron Paul quote and then attacked me for giving you the quote on the false pretense that I could not "articulate" his position when you didn't ask for his position to be articulated.

[Pericles]

Hmmmmm....doctor's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next. Attorney's licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next. Contractors licenses don't have to be recognized from one state to the next. The reason marriage licenses have to be recognized is....?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fa..._Credit_Clause

No real reason - just convenience. Like with concealed handguns what might be legal in one state can be a crime in another state.

It is generally helpful for the law to be internally consistent and rational - but we have ample evidence that it is not.

Of course, I would tend to be adverse to state licensing of professions ..... or requiring the obtaining a license as a requirement to practice.

[Christian Liberty]

I actually don't really have a problem with birthright citizenship, at least as far as citizenship itself should be a concept (I don't see why it would be in an anarcho-capitalist society.) And even if illegal immigration is a real (ie. non-victimless) crime, as I know is disputed in libertarian circles, I don't see why children who are born in the US should be punished for what their parent did. I didn't listen to Ron's comments yet (I will later when I have time) but my initial thought would be to disagree with him on this point. There are a ton of other stuff I object to in the 14th, though.

[maybemaybenot]

Okay, what do you guys think equal protection means? You like to get bogged down in semantics about rights/privileges/etc., well what does the equal protection clause mean to you ppl, then? I've given my interpretation, I said it means every individual gets equal rights, the only exceptions being when they conflict with other constitutional rights (which do include tenth amendment unwritten rights, the tenth amendment plainly says there are additional unwritten rights). The equal protection clause says that if men can marry women, then women can marry women. How is that not the case? What is the equal protection clause, if its not a clause that says the government have to treat individuals the same?

There are currently gender discriminatory rules which SCOTUS does not allow due to the equal protection clause: gender separate schools, gender-specific voting rights, etc. Meanwhile, SCOTUS has allowed certain gender discriminatory rules because those rules were necessary due to OTHER constitutional rights: gender-specific bathrooms are based on the right to privacy (4th amendment), association, liberty (which includes bodily privacy). Gender-specific sex education involves the same rights. Only allowing men to marry women violates the plain meaning of the equal protection, just like gender-specific bathrooms; unlike gender-specific bathrooms, however, a bigoted marriage policy is not necessitated by other constitutional rights. It just violates the equal protection clause and that's that.

But go ahead and scream at me for being a communist who doesn't belong here, and make sure to ignore the constitution entirely when making your case. You know, cuz acknowledging the equal protection clause makes someone a communist.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Okay, what do you guys think equal protection means? You like to get bogged down in semantics about rights/privileges/etc., well what does the equal protection clause mean to you ppl, then? I've given my interpretation, I said it means every individual gets equal rights, the only exceptions being when they conflict with other constitutional rights (which do include tenth amendment unwritten rights, the tenth amendment plainly says there are additional unwritten rights). The equal protection clause says that if men can marry women, then women can marry women. How is that not the case? What is the equal protection clause, if its not a clause that says the government have to treat individuals the same?

There are currently gender discriminatory rules which SCOTUS does not allow due to the equal protection clause: gender separate schools, gender-specific voting rights, etc. Meanwhile, SCOTUS has allowed certain gender discriminatory rules because those rules were necessary due to OTHER constitutional rights: gender-specific bathrooms are based on the right to privacy (4th amendment), association, liberty (which includes bodily privacy). Gender-specific sex education involves the same rights. Only allowing men to marry women violates the plain meaning of the equal protection, just like gender-specific bathrooms; unlike gender-specific bathrooms, however, a bigoted marriage policy is not necessitated by other constitutional rights. It just violates the equal protection clause and that's that.

But go ahead and scream at me for being a communist who doesn't belong here, and make sure to ignore the constitution entirely when making your case. You know, cuz acknowledging the equal protection clause makes someone a communist.

Probably should've just called yourself Maybe Not.















.

[TommyJeff]

Not really. There were marriages long before the institution became involved with religion. The issue isn't whether the government can force a religious body to marry a same-sex couple (it can't), but whether the government can discriminate against such couples by refusing to allow them to be married in a civil ceremony.

as I see it, the government has no constitutional power to grant special exceptions (specifically taxation) for married persons. The federal government has no authority to sanction nor deny a marriage and is therefore neither a 1st nor 14th amendment issue. But I’m open to discuss

[Swordsmyth]

Marriage has a definition that is centuries old, if any government wants to give a Q ueer couple similar benefits it should have to create "civil unions".

[euphemia]

Yes, government based marriage should be banned.

I agree with you in principle, Gunny, but not in practice. In today’s terms marriage has a contractual element to it with regard to property ownership and custody of minor children. We cannot ask a pastor, priest, or rabbi to marry people who asked to be joined outside the doctrine or confession of the church.

It has been many years since church records were considered official for anything.

[TommyJeff]

I agree with you in principle, Gunny, but not in practice. In today’s terms marriage has a contractual element to it with regard to property ownership and custody of minor children. We cannot ask a pastor, priest, or rabbi to marry people who asked to be joined outside the doctrine or confession of the church.

It has been many years since church records were considered official for anything.

this can be solved with a contract between two parties....the government can be involved if enforcement of the contract is necessary, as is their responsibility. What more Is needed?