Marriage Admendment:Missouri

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 01:23pm

Augustus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Augustus wrote: Fact of the matter remains. the MO electorate excercised its will. Nothing but intervention from another group in MO seeking another amendment, or the SCOTUS will change that.
The fact that this violates the US Constitution is either above your level of reading comprehension or do you simply feel there's no such thing as immoral if you can get away with it?
No its not. I fully expect the SCOTUS will strike it down. Save your indignation and sarchasim for someone else.

I am. I'm just mocking those who both think this is somehow not reprehinsible, and who somehow manage to spell even worse than I do. Which is a major feat.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-05 01:35pm

SirNitram wrote: I am. I'm just mocking those who both think this is somehow not reprehinsible, ...

I agree its unfortunate, but still legal for MO to do it regardless of what the Federal Constitution says. It's up to the Feds to make MO alter its constitution, but only after it has been challanged in court.

Why do you think I'm in favor of the ban?

But as for morality, isn't that defined soley by the majority?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 01:37pm

Augustus wrote:
SirNitram wrote: I am. I'm just mocking those who both think this is somehow not reprehinsible, ...
I agree its unfortunate, but still legal for MO to do it regardless of what the Federal Constitution says. It's up to the Feds to make MO alter its constitution, but only after it has been challanged in court.

Why do you think I'm in favor of the ban?

Because you are defending it as a legitimate choice when it is not, because of the US Constitution.

But as for morality, isn't that defined soley by the majority?

Only if you beleive in Subjective Morality, in which case it's perfectly okay for me to set you on fire without you doing anything if we live in the right time period. The majority of folks here understandably comprehend that subjective morality is bullshit and lean towards Absolute Morality.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-05 01:45pm

Because you are defending it as a legitimate choice when it is not, because of the US Constitution.

I'm not defending the content of the Amendment which is abhorant. I'm defending the right of the state and citzens of MO to enact a change to its constitution without the approval of the Federal goverment.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 01:47pm

Augustus wrote:
Because you are defending it as a legitimate choice when it is not, because of the US Constitution.
I'm not defending the content of the Amendment which is abhorant. I'm defending the right of the state and citzens of MO to enact a change to its constitution without the approval of the Federal goverment.

I do not recall any such right being enshrined, as it rather goes against the whole idea of having the national-level constitution. If such a right exists, I'd like to see where it is.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-05 02:03pm

SirNitram wrote:I do not recall any such right being enshrined, as it rather goes against the whole idea of having the national-level constitution. If such a right exists, I'd like to see where it is.

Just read the Bill of Rights.

Tenth amamendment applies to MO passing the amendment without consultation to the FEDs. The 14th Amendment guarantees it will be struck down provided it goes to the SCOTUS.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 02:05pm

Augustus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I do not recall any such right being enshrined, as it rather goes against the whole idea of having the national-level constitution. If such a right exists, I'd like to see where it is.
Just read the Bill of Rights.

Tenth amamendment applies to MO passing the amendment without consultation to the FEDs. The 14th Amendment guarantees it will be struck down provided it goes to the SCOTUS.

I'm sorry, I have trouble with the concept of 'It's not illegal unless you're caught' being a method of running a government. Wouldn't a far more sane and logical outcome of the 14th be that you're not supposed to propose the damn things in the first place?

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-05 02:27pm

SirNitram wrote:I do not recall any such right being enshrined, as it rather goes against the whole idea of having the national-level constitution. If such a right exists, I'd like to see where it is.

The US Constitution

Article X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The amendment to the state consitution of Missouri does not explicitly violate the US Constitution. However, as many have pointed out, it does implicitly goes against the Equal Protection Clause. Missouri now makes it five states (Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada) who have amended their constitution to ban gay marriage. People had better hope that this gets fast-tracked to the US Supreme Court. Then again, Hawaii passed theirs back in 1998 (69% for, 29% against.....it's not just the South people), so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Other states with marriage-amendment votes scheduled are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah. Michigan, Ohio and North Dakota will join the list if their petition signatures are validated.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 02:29pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I do not recall any such right being enshrined, as it rather goes against the whole idea of having the national-level constitution. If such a right exists, I'd like to see where it is.
The US Constitution
Article X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The amendment to the state consitution of Missouri does not explicitly violate the US Constitution. However, as many have pointed out, it does implicitly goes against the Equal Protection Clause. Missouri now makes it five states (Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada) who have amended their constitution to ban gay marriage. People had better hope that this gets fast-tracked to the US Supreme Court. Then again, Hawaii passed theirs back in 1998 (69% for, 29% against.....it's not just the South people), so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Other states with marriage-amendment votes scheduled are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah. Michigan, Ohio and North Dakota will join the list if their petition signatures are validated.

I fail to see 'You may freely violate the US Constitution until someone manages to drag it before the Supreme Court' in there. This is nothing more than 'It's not illegal unless you get caught' supported by nothing but a no-limits fallacy applied to the 10th amendment.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-05 02:58pm

SirNitram wrote:I fail to see 'You may freely violate the US Constitution until someone manages to drag it before the Supreme Court' in there. This is nothing more than 'It's not illegal unless you get caught' supported by nothing but a no-limits fallacy applied to the 10th amendment.

The States are sovereign bodies held equal to the Federal Government. They are only subservient to the Federal Government in situations defined by the US Constitution. So it means that the FEDS can't interfere with the MO constitution until there is a demonstration in the SCOTUS that it violates the US Constitution. Whats more, the Federal Government does not have a mechanism to tell MO to strike the ban, with out it coming to court first.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 03:01pm

Augustus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I fail to see 'You may freely violate the US Constitution until someone manages to drag it before the Supreme Court' in there. This is nothing more than 'It's not illegal unless you get caught' supported by nothing but a no-limits fallacy applied to the 10th amendment.
The States are sovereign bodies held equal to the Federal Government. They are only subservient to the Federal Government in situations defined by the US Constitution.

A logical position would be that the 14th amendment is a 'situation defined by the US Constitution'.

So it means that the FEDS can't interfere with the MO constitution until there is a demonstration in the SCOTUS that it violates the US Constitution. Whats more, the Federal Government does not have a mechanism to tell MO to strike the ban, with out it coming to court first.

So it's perfectly alright to utilize loopholes and fallacious logic to violate the rights of your citizens, because otherwise we'd be demanding States to stop masturbating to their supposed 'Rights' and obey the Constitution they ratified.

Pardon me, I can't take that sort of silliness seriously for a second.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-05 03:13pm

Actually guys, I'm not a fan of what Missouri did, but Augustus has a point. They may be stupid for doing it, but what Missouri did is legal in their state and very likely was the will of the people. Jumping on Augustus for being blunt about it isn't going to change that. Besides, going through his messages it doesn't sound like he agrees with the vote either, beyond that it's completely legal what they did and saying that it was their vote. Notice he says that he fully expects the Supreme Court to smack it down once it gets brought before them and make that sort of thing illegal, which is not the sort of thing a person says if they agree with what they voted for (a person that would like to see Gay Marriage made illegal would probably say that the SCOTUS has no grounds to touch Missouri). And he's right, the SCOTUS can't legally do a single thing until they get a an actual court case to rule on. It has to go through the system, like Gay Couple v. State of Missouri gets appealed up there and appears before them. They can't read the headlines, slide down a pole to the Justice Cave, and strike down the vote.

So maybe lay off him a bit, huh?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-05 03:15pm

SirNitram wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Rye wrote:Seems to me you're arguing from popularity of opinion in a christreich state, rather than examining the actual merits of what's happened.
Care to name me a state that isn't mostly Christian? (Assuming you count Mormons as Christians, so no Utah for you!)
Christian != Fundie Christian.

Conceeded.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 03:22pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:So maybe lay off him a bit, huh?

I certainly did not think he was the source, and I don't remember writing such, so it should not come out like that. Of course, it is still defending a practice which is based off fallacious logic and loophole wrangling, simply to support an utterly immoral practice. At no point did I contest it was legal; I simply took the position that it's bullshit.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2004-08-05 03:24pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Actually guys, I'm not a fan of what Missouri did, but Augustus has a point. They may be stupid for doing it, but what Missouri did is legal in their state and very likely was the will of the people. Jumping on Augustus for being blunt about it isn't going to change that. Besides, going through his messages it doesn't sound like he agrees with the vote either, beyond that it's completely legal what they did and saying that it was their vote. Notice he says that he fully expects the Supreme Court to smack it down once it gets brought before them and make that sort of thing illegal, which is not the sort of thing a person says if they agree with what they voted for (a person that would like to see Gay Marriage made illegal would probably say that the SCOTUS has no grounds to touch Missouri). And he's right, the SCOTUS can't legally do a single thing until they get a an actual court case to rule on. It has to go through the system, like Gay Couple v. State of Missouri gets appealed up there and appears before them. They can't read the headlines, slide down a pole to the Justice Cave, and strike down the vote.

So maybe lay off him a bit, huh?

I don't see Nitram attacking Augustus for his views o the morality of the ammendment, just having a debate on the legality of it.

SCOTUS doesn't make it illegal when it makes a decision (hint: when a person is found guilty of murder, the court hasn't made murder illegal, it already was), the court rules that Missouri has broken the law (violiated the constitution).

Making something illegal would be legislating, judiciary is there to interpret and identify breaches, so if SCOTUS strikes it down, then it was already illegal in the first place, hence Nitram is right if it violate the US constitution, it is an illegal ammendment, regardless of whether it has been ruled upon.

However legislation is effectively granted "due process" in the US, and is assumed to be legal until proved otherwise, which is what the court case does

God the legal system is crazy.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-05 03:24pm

SirNitram wrote:A logical position would be that the 14th amendment is a 'situation defined by the US Constitution'.

Yes, bu tthe FEDs still have only one mechanism to make MO strike the ban. The SCOTUS.

SirNitram wrote:So it's perfectly alright to utilize loopholes and fallacious logic to violate the rights of your citizens, because otherwise we'd be demanding States to stop masturbating to their supposed 'Rights' and obey the Constitution they ratified. Pardon me, I can't take that sort of silliness seriously for a second.

The situation in MO is an expression of a citzens (the majority) excrcising their rights under the 10th amendment.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 03:25pm

Augustus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:A logical position would be that the 14th amendment is a 'situation defined by the US Constitution'.
Yes, bu tthe FEDs still have only one mechanism to make MO strike the ban. The SCOTUS.

SirNitram wrote:So it's perfectly alright to utilize loopholes and fallacious logic to violate the rights of your citizens, because otherwise we'd be demanding States to stop masturbating to their supposed 'Rights' and obey the Constitution they ratified. Pardon me, I can't take that sort of silliness seriously for a second.
The situation in MO is an expression of a citzens (the majority) excrcising their rights under the 10th amendment.

In direct violation of the 14th. At no point am I declaring this illegal,I'm declaring it immoral bullshit in direct violation of the spirit of the Constitution. It's not State's Rights; it's Pissing On The Constitution They Ratified.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-05 03:26pm

SirNitram wrote:I fail to see 'You may freely violate the US Constitution until someone manages to drag it before the Supreme Court' in there. This is nothing more than 'It's not illegal unless you get caught' supported by nothing but a no-limits fallacy applied to the 10th amendment.

Are you arguing from a legal stance or a moral one?

If legal, show me how the Missouri amendment explicitly violates the US Constitution (where does the Constitution speak on marriage). This is the same reason why an amendment banning same-sex marriaged was proposed. And also the reason why the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed, so that it would be explicitly stated in the Constitution that women and men are equal before the law.

What if the US Supreme Court upholds the Missouri amendment? Your "it's not illegal until..." would become "It's not illegal". And the no limits fallacy? Cripes, the basis of many of the decisions of the Supreme Court are previous decisions. Can you say "appealing to their own authority"?

If moral, well then "duh".

This situation points out one of the flaws of a pure democracy: it does not prevent the people from enacting stupid and/or immoral law. The people voting for the amendment believed they were being moral, but that is incorrect as we all (with notable exceptions) know. Aside from the biblical law, which should hold no sway over secular law as per the Second Amendment, the appeal to popularity against gay marriage, and the "That's the way is always been" fallacy, there is no good reason to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying all the protections the institution of marriage affords.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-05 03:28pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I fail to see 'You may freely violate the US Constitution until someone manages to drag it before the Supreme Court' in there. This is nothing more than 'It's not illegal unless you get caught' supported by nothing but a no-limits fallacy applied to the 10th amendment.
Are you arguing from a legal stance or a moral one?

Moral. While what Missouri is doing is technically legal, it is a clear wiping-of-the-ass with the 14th Amendment with naught but fallacious logic to support it's existance.

If moral, well then "duh".

Heh.

This situation points out one of the flaws of a pure democracy: it does not prevent the people from enacting stupid and/or immoral law.

We aren't a pure democracy, though. Never were.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-05 03:30pm

SirNitram wrote: At no point am I declaring this illegal,I'm declaring it immoral bullshit in direct violation of the spirit of the Constitution. It's not State's Rights; it's Pissing On The Constitution They Ratified.

That's what I thought. And in my post remove the "pure" from "pure democracy".

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-05 03:30pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Actually guys, I'm not a fan of what Missouri did, but Augustus has a point. They may be stupid for doing it, but what Missouri did is legal in their state and very likely was the will of the people. Jumping on Augustus for being blunt about it isn't going to change that. Besides, going through his messages it doesn't sound like he agrees with the vote either, beyond that it's completely legal what they did and saying that it was their vote. Notice he says that he fully expects the Supreme Court to smack it down once it gets brought before them and make that sort of thing illegal, which is not the sort of thing a person says if they agree with what they voted for (a person that would like to see Gay Marriage made illegal would probably say that the SCOTUS has no grounds to touch Missouri). And he's right, the SCOTUS can't legally do a single thing until they get a an actual court case to rule on. It has to go through the system, like Gay Couple v. State of Missouri gets appealed up there and appears before them. They can't read the headlines, slide down a pole to the Justice Cave, and strike down the vote.

So maybe lay off him a bit, huh?

Very kind of you .

Many Thanks

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-05 04:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:The fact this bullshit has no basis outside stupid-head-up-ass-christian-bigotry and it's being passed shows that basically you have a theocracy full of fucking morons on your hands in Missouri. Though given the fact you're a fucking retard this would of course seem to be a plus point to you.
Well thanks for the blatant flame. That helps your argument tremendously.

When 70% of the voters vote to ban gay marriage, I would say that they have their "head up their ass." Seems they are a bit more main-stream than you.
You've gotta love this demonstration of profound idiocy on Moron Karrde's part. Notice how Keevan says that this blatantly discriminatory amendment is Christian bigotry, and Karrde responds not by acknowledging this, defending it, or excusing it but by saying it's "mainstream".

A) It is not a rebuttal at all.

B) The same could have been said of racial segregation once.

C) The same could have been said of slavery once.

Karrde is obviously addicted to shitty logic, as are most of his theocratic ilk.

How exactly do you define mainstream then? Your telling me that 70% support for something makes it an extremist thought?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-05 04:27pm

Look, Talon, you're just digging yourself deeper. I wish I'd gotten around to putting my "Read. Comprehend. Post." pic of Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the church door for use in this post, but I haven't. Oh well. Here goes anyway.

Mainstream =/= correct. It can be correct, but being a mainstream opinion does not in and of itself make a certain view automatically correct.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-05 04:30pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Nice to see TK is still the homophobic piece of shit he's always been the whole time he's here.

Hey TK, what is so frightening about the "EVIL" Homosexual to you that you have to repeatedly fling yourself at them in rage and hate only to get beaten back with logic and true morality, the kind that doesn't or couldn't ever come from a book written by committee but that which flows from the heart of a real honest-to-Gods human who's been raised to believe everyone has certain inalienable rights?

First off, I don't "fling myself at them in rage" nor do I think they are "EVIL". I'm beaten back with true logic and morality? Explain this morality please, I'm dieing to hear it.

All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry, just as all don't have a right to drink until 21, smoke until 18... etc.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 04:34pm

Talon Karrde wrote:First off, I don't "fling myself at them in rage" nor do I think they are "EVIL". I'm beaten back with true logic and morality? Explain this morality please, I'm dieing to hear it.

Any form of discrimination must be JUSTIFIED, you blithering idiot.

All humans do have inalienable rights, just not all have the right to marry, just as all don't have a right to drink until 21, smoke until 18... etc.

In general principle, age discrimination is justified by the fact that children should not be allowed to engage in certain self-destructive behaviours. Once people are adults, they can be a stupid as they like. Most people think the drinking age should be 18 instead of 21 anyway.