Jsc, serious question about homosexuals

[mvscal]

Let's assume that a state voted to prohibit the sale of contraceptives, and made it a crime for a physician to advise a patient regarding birth control.

Contraceptives and birth control are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

May a state do that?

Of course they can and they do.

[Kansas City Kid]

Sorry.....it is factual as I thought.

You didn't address how you made a statement into a question. That was my point.

Right.....no question about it: YOU ARE THE PRODUCT OF A BUTTFUCK.

[poptart]

homosexuals

[Dinsdale]

homosexuals

Not sure how that whole international dateline thingy works, but round these parts, it's...

Friday

[Atomic Punk]

Ummm.... so you ask the 'dog killer' multiple questions about gays because you're concerned about jobs in America and think gays are going to want to hit it harder so they won't have to work due to a health care initiative ?

am I actually following this correctly ?

Sorry, I missed your response as I passed out for a few hours/days on this cruise and didn't respectfully respond to you.

I think you have lead poisoning due to excessive exposure while wearing chain mail. Asking an attorney with a gay daughter and I have a lesbian friend that strips and hates those that lust after her... a legitimate set of questions on rights. For the record I don't like homosexual males that post on this board, but I fully support really hot strippers that are mostly gay and want to have legal rights.

I went to a scrip club one time because this girl friend wanted me to see her dance... the one that wanted me to take that picture due to her having a friend that was straight that I dated for her amusement... Anyway I laughed when the fat fucking retards were next to the stage smiling and giving out dollars. Those strippers are mostly lesbians or bi's and they hate those asshats that give them dollars.

What else do you want to know M2 lying shit troll?

[missjo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOzWAxJt ... detailpage[/youtube]

[R-Jack]

Anyway I laughed when the fat fucking retards were next to the stage smiling and giving out dollars.

Were you laughing at these folks before or after she got you to take pictures of yourself in panties? If after, it's nice to know you get a chuckle out of irony too.

[Atomic Punk]

Anyway I laughed when the fat fucking retards were next to the stage smiling and giving out dollars.

Were you laughing at these folks before or after she got you to take pictures of yourself in panties? If after, it's nice to know you get a chuckle out of irony too.

You won't believe this, but while we are here in port in Cabo San Lucas the Mexican police helped the sick off the ship. The curious thing was there was an old Jew in a wheel chair they pitched over the fantail of the ship and said, "Swim to freedom." She was strapped in the and I was too bored to see if she made it to shore because the bar was open.

BTW, not to go weak KC IKYABWAI on you, but didn't you have a posted pic of yourself from years ago with a tank top that was too short that exposed your wide "Linea nigra?" Look that up if you don't know what I'm talking 'bout.

[smackaholic]

Look that up if you don't know what I'm talking 'bout.

wasn't aware there was an incoherent drunken trannie ramblings translation site on the interwebs.

[MadRussian]

[smackaholic]

first time i've seem amphibious beer guy pic wytched this way. nice.

[R-Jack]

BTW, not to go weak KC IKYABWAI on you, but didn't you have a posted pic of yourself from years ago with a tank top that was too short that exposed your wide "Linea nigra?" Look that up if you don't know what I'm talking 'bout.

No worries. It's not IKNABWAI when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The closest pic to the non-existant shit you're trying to peddle out here was me in my white trashy sleeveless Raider tee sitting with a couple of dogs on yet another awful looking R-Jack couch, circa 2004.

Have another one you walking booze cruise.

[R-Jack]

first time i've seem amphibious beer guy pic wytched this way. nice.

Nice that you've been able to avoid every fourth MadRetard post this long.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

This is probably a glass dick, but still hilarious...

[Rooster]

All of this Constitutional right to marriage argument misses the point in my eyes. Gays have as much right to marry as straights, it's just that they wish to have extra rights not spelled out by our founding fathers to be able to marry someone other than what is the accepted norm.

It boils down to a conservative/traditional vs. liberal/progressive viewpoint wherein the Left wishes to move the majority of the populace to a place where they are not yet ready to move and are willing to force the issue via the justice system rather than let democracy do its' work in its' own sweet time. Indeed, 88's question to Jsc about him being willing to live with a living Constitution if it goes against his core beliefs is right on the money.

[Van]

No, marriage is not a Constitutional fundamental right. It's a religious rite.

[Tom In VA]

No, marriage is not a Constitutional fundamental right. It's a religious rite.

Good one Van.

I'd actually put forth it isn't always a religious rite either as much as a business transaction/contract.

Depends on the people and culture.

[Dinsdale]

No, marriage is not a Constitutional fundamental right. It's a religious rite.

See JSC's 3 citations.

"Fundamental rights" are Constitutional rights, just not specifically listed (might wanna read the Ninth One again).

"Religious rite" flew out the window the day two atheists got married -- it's a legal contract, not a religious rite...

Haven't you been married a couple of times, Vannar?

The only issue here, IMO (as a person who just can't seem to give a shit if homos marry or not), is whether it's a Ninth Amendment "fundamental right," as JSC makes a compelling case for, or whether it's a Tenth Amendment "stay the fuck out of our business, Fed -- we'll decide" issue.

As a states' rights guy, and since the fed doesn't license anyone to marry (thank goodness), I see it as up to the voters of an individual state... which gets tricky, were the same-sex married couple to move to a non-same-sex state... that's where it would get interesting.

But on the whole -- if two queers getting married is what gets a person in a tizzy and gets them shouting from the rooftops... I'm jealous of the overwhelming simplicity of that person's life. Shit, I'm an accomplished slacker, and I still don't have that much time to spend on my "hobbies."

[Van]

Tom, regardless, it's a state-governed practice, not a Constitutionally mandated, fundamental right.

That being said, I couldn't care less. Let 'em marry. It's none of my business. The thing is, it's also none of the Federal Government's business.

[Van]

Dins, it's both a legal contract and, quite often, a religious rite. In many cultures, the religious component far outweighs the contractual.

[Dinsdale]

Tom, regardless, it's a state-governed practice, not a Constitutionally mandated, fundamental right.

Again -- just because it isn't listed specifically, it doesn't mean it isn't a fundamental right. Again -- see JSC's 3 SCOTUS decisions on marriage -- it's been determined to be a fundamental right multiple times, therefore protected by the Ninth Amendment (which you need to reread).

That being said, I couldn't care less. Let 'em marry. It's none of my business. The thing is, it's also none of the Federal Government's business.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts. It's none of my fucking business.

[Tom In VA]

Tom, regardless, it's a state-governed practice, not a Constitutionally mandated, fundamental right.

That being said, I couldn't care less. Let 'em marry. It's none of my business. The thing is, it's also none of the Federal Government's business.

Agreed.

[Van]

Other non-specified fundamental rights, according to our suddenly nebulous Constitution...

Never having to hear prayers to pagan gods—'cause they're all pagan if you don't believe in 'em—in public schools.

Never having one's ears assaulted willy-nilly in public places by rap music.

Ditto one's eyes, regarding fat chicks' exposed muffin tops.

Walmart...its very existence, including the grand haven it provides for the calorically challenged.

Ditton one's soul, in being forced to live through another moment of the San Francisco Giants' every-day line-up.

Forcible exposure to Jude Law's wretched smile.

THE Ohio State University's ability to FUCK ME every time I pick them as a home favorite over a team of 1-AAA sled dogs.

The abolition of topless bans in public, especially as they pertain to gorgeous college coeds who wish to frolic properly through sundry malls and drive-in theaters.

Having to work when we'd rather play, knowing Euros still get paid for it. We're better than them, right, so can an American get some?

A system of checks and balances that would allow us to firebomb the offices of the NCAA, the BCS, Jim Delany and that bitch principal in NoCal who's forcing her school's cheerleaders to wear sweatpants beneath their skirts in accordance with her ridiculous dress code.

Food for fundamental thought.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The only issue here, IMO (as a person who just can't seem to give a shit if homos marry or not), is whether it's a Ninth Amendment "fundamental right," as JSC makes a compelling case for, or whether it's a Tenth Amendment "stay the fuck out of our business, Fed -- we'll decide" issue.

One could also make the case that it's a Fourteenth Amendment "privileges and immunities" issue, although that ties into the Ninth Amendment right as well. As an individual rights guy, I'm inclined to go that route.

As a states' rights guy, and since the fed doesn't license anyone to marry (thank goodness), I see it as up to the voters of an individual state... which gets tricky, were the same-sex married couple to move to a non-same-sex state... that's where it would get interesting.

Not really tricky, even in that case. That's where Art. IV, §1 comes into play:

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

That being said, I couldn't care less. Let 'em marry. It's none of my business. The thing is, it's also none of the Federal Government's business.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

In that case, two questions for each of you:

1. Do you support DOMA?

2. The Obama Administration has decided not to enforce DOMA, based upon the Administration's belief that DOMA is unconstitutional. Do you agree with that decision?

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I am just checking in to RACK Van.

Carry on...

[Van]

1. Do you support DOMA?

On a purely intellectual level, yes. Marriage has always been defined as being a legal contract/non secular monkey-love hickey between a man and a woman. As 88 is wont to point out, there is no precedent to the contrary.

The SCOTUS has no business creating new Constitutional definitions here.

2. The Obama Administration has decided not to enforce DOMA, based upon the Administration's belief that DOMA is unconstitutional. Do you agree with that decision?

Nope. DOMA is the correct conclusion.

And still I don't care. Like I said, this is purely an intellectual debate. In the bigger picture, why should I give a rat's ass if gays marry? In point of fact, I don't. However, according to the Constitution and all case precedents, not to mention the will of the People in many states, there is no call for granting same-sex marriage rights. Until the Constitution is amended to include language that redefines marriage, neither the Fed nor the SCOTUS ought to have anything to do with this debate. It should remain a matter for each individual state to decide, and it should be determined by a referendum of the individuals of each state, not the government.

[Bizzarofelice]

SCOTUS should find all marriage benefits discriminatory.

[Atomic Punk]

I am just checking in to SUCK Van.

Carry on my wayward son...

When are you and KC Scrote going to have make up sex? This is supposed to be a discussion by the adults that practice law.

[Bizzarofelice]

this will be going to the scotus soon enough. don't think the court will uphold "certain people have more rights than others".

states' rights? fucking unreal.

all federal marriage benefits will be overturned. that way, ignorant scum can be equal to buttpirates and chaz bono.

[Truman]

this will be going to the scotus soon enough. don't think the court will uphold "certain people have more rights than others".

Obtuse fuck. Think again, Mensa. Stop making Mizzou grads look retarded.

Gay people can marry anybody they want. 'Cept others of the same sex. They are also prohibited from making legal unions with multiple partners, children, and animals. So are folks who profess themselve "straight". Why do hate the constitutional will of the people?

states' rights? fucking unreal.

Yeah, I can see where that whole 10th Amendment deal might be a real bitch. I'm guessing your civics class was a 7:40, and drug-addled indifference couldn't motivate you enough to drag yourself out of the Snake house half the time to make class. Only reason why half the states agreed to join the Union - and why half the states elected to leave.

all federal marriage benefits will be overturned. that way, ignorant scum can be equal to buttpirates and chaz bono.

...Or freely junk up a message board with ill-informed, brain-dead, knee-jerk posts. One-of-the-two.

[Terry in Crapchester]

1. Do you support DOMA?

On a purely intellectual level, yes. Marriage has always been defined as being a legal contract/non secular monkey-love hickey between a man and a woman. As 88 is wont to point out, there is no precedent to the contrary.

The SCOTUS has no business creating new Constitutional definitions here.

2. The Obama Administration has decided not to enforce DOMA, based upon the Administration's belief that DOMA is unconstitutional. Do you agree with that decision?

Nope. DOMA is the correct conclusion.

The point I was making is that DOMA is federal law. Not state law. And you said earlier that the federal government has no business determining who can marry whom.

DOMA is unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds, if nothing else.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Gay people can marry anybody they want. 'Cept others of the same sex.

Not exactly true. A number of states permit gay marriages.

Therefore, a same-sex couple can get married if either: (a) they reside in a state which permits gay marriages; or (b) they are affluent enough to travel to a state (or foreign country) which permits gay marriage and marry there, whereupon when they return to their home state, that state would be required to recognize their marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

[Truman]

Gay people can marry anybody they want. 'Cept others of the same sex.

Not exactly true. A number of states permit gay marriages.

Therefore, a same-sex couple can get married if either: (a) they reside in a state which permits gay marriages; or (b) they are affluent enough to travel to a state (or foreign country) which permits gay marriage and marry there, whereupon when they return to their home state, that state would be required to recognize their marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Point taken, Ter, 'til you got to the "whereupon". A number of other states have decided otherwise.

Guess my point all along is that it is the states that have all individually decided what constitutes a marriage. Not the Fed. And certainly not the SCOTUS. Heck, some of 'em have even allowed the people ('sup Bace) to deliver the mandate all on their own.

Wonder how the popular vote in Iowa and New York woulda turned out were it not left up to their state's supremes to write the laws for them? Ponderous....

[mvscal]

(b) they are affluent enough to travel to a state (or foreign country) which permits gay marriage and marry there, whereupon when they return to their home state, that state would be required to recognize their marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Bullshit. Good luck trying to get New York to recognize a concealed carry permit from New Jersey or, for that matter, try practicing law in California with your New York license.

[Bizzarofelice]

this will be going to the scotus soon enough. don't think the court will uphold "certain people have more rights than others".

Obtuse fuck. Stop making Mizzou grads look retarded.

what is so difficult to understand about my hot, hot sex?

and are you a Mizzou grad?

Why do hate the constitutional will of the people?

Will of the people, in this case, is unconstitutional. Lots of states have cases in appeals where defined marriage has been thrown out as unconstitutional. So the courts took rights and the constitution into account whereas the will of the people just took ignorance into account.

states' rights? fucking unreal.

Yeah, I can see where that whole 10th Amendment deal might be a real bitch.

So cute. I know you've thought this through considering your talking heads only recently started whining about this stuff.

I'm guessing your civics class was a 7:40

I was at work at 7:40am. I was sleeping in BLaw at 2:40pm.




You are a dinosaur. Your ignorance is shameful to younger generations who think you are bigot trash.

[Bizzarofelice]

People of the United States

I'm surprised we don't get some national referendum on gay marriage the Nov 2012 ballot just to bring out the inbred pig molester vote.

[Van]

Terry, what I specifically said was that DOMA was the correct conclusion. I made no mention as to its Constitutionality. It's simply consistent with case precedent and the Constitution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I believe overseas military personnel may fall under a different umbrella, but in all but those select overseas situations the Federal Government doesn't grant marriage licenses; that's the job of the individual states. Until we reach the point of a Constitutional amendment, the Fed has no business redefining what is and isn't a marriage, and as it currently stands 'marriage' is not all-inclusive regarding one's partner's gender/species/flavor.

Go ahead and zip off to Vermont and get married. Knock yourself out. Just don't try to get either the Fed or the SCOTUS involved. This 'living Constitution' business has to have some sort of endgame. It can't simply be the plaything of a given Administration and/or group of agenda-driven SCOTUS judges.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The point I was making is that DOMA is federal law. Not state law. And you said earlier that the federal government has no business determining who can marry whom.

DOMA is unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds, if nothing else.

Have you taken the time to read the Defense of Marriage Act? Here it is, in its entirety (bold, enlarged emphasis by 88):

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof

``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.''.

[[Page 110 STAT. 2420]]

(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.

Approved September 21, 1996.

Note, the purpose of the DOMA is to:

(1) Not allow one State's decision to re-define the term "marriage" to be enforced under the Full Faith And Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

(2) To define the word "marriage" as it applies to federal law.

Where did Congress overstep its Constitutional boundaries on that one? It allows the States to enact laws re-defining marriage as the States see fit. Some States have re-defined "marriage" as encompassing relationships between same sex couples. It merely provides that other States do not have to recognize such "marriages" as being the equivalent of "marriages" as defined within such states. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to enact general laws doing just that. And Congress has the right to define "marriage" as it shall be interpreted insofar as federal law is concerned.

Esplain to me the unconstitutional part, Ricky.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the manner in which an act may be proved, not which acts are entitled to Full Faith and Credit. DOMA seeks to except same-sex marriage from the effect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[poptart]

It really is comical to see someone like Bace trumpeting the will of a judge over the will of the people - seemingly without considering the obvious.

Obvious: The same glorious judge(s) might decide to turn around and drop a brick on your head.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Watch and listen as David Boies explains what happened at the trial, especially following 2:45: we put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.

Nice find there, Jsc.

I thought Diego was the only one here with an intimate knowledge of Boies.