Ohio Sets back Gay Rights Laws

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 07:51pm

The right to privacy is implied throughout the protections against unreasonable searches and siezures. It isnt spelled out, but it is implied to the point that any reasonable person could come to the conclusion that privacy is included.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-22 08:04pm

revprez wrote: It's probably a loser in NJ (not by much as far as polarizing issues go at 55 to 41) or other blue states. The recent Zogby poll has red states breaking 70% in favor of banning gay marriage. In South Carolina, one in four (24%) would support a Democratic candidate who favored marriage of gay people, while two-thirds would not.

That poll sadly lacked the question on whether it was a serious campaign issue to the respondents. While there are many people who would never support a candiadate who was Pro-choice, the same division has not been established on the abortion issue.

What early signs? The blue states are far more narrowly divided in their support for gay marriage than red states in their opposition to it. It doesn't seem likely that it will hurt the GOP pushing it.

Aside from an initial bit of criticism from the extreme right groups and the church, we haven't seen much reaction to the Massachusetts court decision. If it was a serious issue to voters, you would expect more attention for the issue.

Don't be so sure. Those numbers in the blue states suggest that Democrats (probably traditional union members and gun owners) and independents aren't as supportive of gay marriage as the liberal base.

Until we see if voters actually care enough to change their vote, the poll is meaningless.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court referred to the state constitution using the Lawrence decision, it did not find a national constitutional right to gay marriage.

Rev Prez

Huh? The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Lawrence decision with regards to gay sex, how does it differ in regards to gay rights?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-22 08:11pm

The Kernel wrote:
revprez wrote: It's probably a loser in NJ (not by much as far as polarizing issues go at 55 to 41) or other blue states. The recent Zogby poll has red states breaking 70% in favor of banning gay marriage. In South Carolina, one in four (24%) would support a Democratic candidate who favored marriage of gay people, while two-thirds would not.
That poll sadly lacked the question on whether it was a serious campaign issue to the respondents. While there are many people who would never support a candiadate who was Pro-choice, the same division has not been established on the gay marriage issue.

What early signs? The blue states are far more narrowly divided in their support for gay marriage than red states in their opposition to it. It doesn't seem likely that it will hurt the GOP pushing it.
Aside from an initial bit of criticism from the extreme right groups and the church, we haven't seen much reaction to the Massachusetts court decision. If it was a serious issue to voters, you would expect more attention for the issue.

Don't be so sure. Those numbers in the blue states suggest that Democrats (probably traditional union members and gun owners) and independents aren't as supportive of gay marriage as the liberal base.
Until we see if voters actually care enough to change their vote, the poll is meaningless.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court referred to the state constitution using the Lawrence decision, it did not find a national constitutional right to gay marriage.

Rev Prez
Huh? The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Lawrence decision with regards to gay sex, how does it differ in regards to gay rights?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 08:17pm

The Kernel wrote:That poll sadly lacked the question on whether it was a serious campaign issue to the respondents. While there are many people who would never support a candiadate who was Pro-choice, the same division has not been established on the gay marriage issue.

Well, you could ask that question but it won't you won't learn much more. The South Carolina question was telling, since it did ask whether or not you would support a candidate on that issue. And the polling does leave a huge safety margin for the Republicans to exploit the issue.

Aside from an initial bit of criticism from the extreme right groups...

Define "extreme right groups."

...and the church, we haven't seen much reaction to the Massachusetts court decision. If it was a serious issue to voters, you would expect more attention for the issue.

It isn't the paramount issue, but if you can stand strong on the others you can bring voters aboard on it.

Until we see if voters actually care enough to change their vote, the poll is meaningless.

I disagree. We've seen similar polling trends over gun control and saw what happened throughout the South.

Huh? The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Lawrence decision with regards to gay sex, how does it differ in regards to gay rights?

[/quote]

Marriage is a state interest, not a privacy right issue. Read O'Conner's concurrence.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 08:26pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The right to privacy is implied throughout the protections against unreasonable searches and siezures.

The argument is that some right to privacy, articulated in Griswold and reaffirmed in Roe, falls out of a particular reading of the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Nineth Amendments. Unfortunately, penumbral rights can be wildly interpreted so that the Courts can literally legislate from the bench. If such a Court so chose, it could outlaw murder in the home so long as it defined murder not to be of a compelling state interest to violate a zone of privacy. I shudder to think what this sort of ruling would have meant in 1856.

It isnt spelled out, but it is implied to the point that any reasonable person could come to the conclusion that privacy is included.

Yet plenty of reasonable people don't, and plenty of reasonable people want to see Griswold overturned. There is a very compelling argument that the Courts should not be finding rights or powers not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and then using a vague notion of those rights (evolving through case law) to supplant the legislature and the executive.

Rev Prez

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-01-22 08:49pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:This is legalized gender discrimination. If this gets challenged even in state court it will be thrown out.

How is this gender discrimination? It equally fucks over gays and lesbians. If Gays were ok but not lesbians or vice versa, then sure, but not this as far as I understand it.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 08:50pm

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

No troops in the home. Pretty damn simple. The home is private property.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The government has no business inside a persons private residence, unless the governmt has reason to believe that a crime is being commited, and has ample evidence to prove it. What goes on inside the home is no business of the government, until harm is done to another person.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Whatever rights the people choose to give themselves that are not in this constitution, are theirs to give to themselves.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 08:51pm

Ender wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:This is legalized gender discrimination. If this gets challenged even in state court it will be thrown out.
How is this gender discrimination? It equally fucks over gays and lesbians. If Gays were ok but not lesbians or vice versa, then sure, but not this as far as I understand it.

It essentially says that haterosexual relationship A is more valid than homosexual ralationship B, because of the gender of one partner.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 08:52pm

*heterosexual.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 08:57pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:No troops in the home. Pretty damn simple. The home is private property.

The privacy part of it isn't all that simple. Are you permitted to do anything you want in the home? Exactly what bounds this particular zone of privacy? Exactly what standard do Courts use to define zones of property beyond those supposedly listed in the constitution (associations and homes only).

The government has no business inside a persons private residence, unless the governmt has reason to believe that a crime is being commited, and has ample evidence to prove it.

Well so now you have a state interest in violating this zone of privacy, but the Courts have articulated a concept of privacy that does not give any concreteness to this idea of the state's interest when a "crime is being commited [in a zone of privacy], and [there is] ample evidence to prove it."

What goes on inside the home is no business of the government, until harm is done to another person.

Or to property? Or to children? This concept of harm seems in and of itself pretty damned vague. Lot's of room for judicial activism along that dimension.

Whatever rights the people choose to give themselves that are not in this constitution, are theirs to give to themselves.

Really, prove it.

Rev Prez

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-22 09:27pm

Really, prove it.

...

The Ninth Amendment To the Constitution of the United States of America reads thusly:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-22 09:29pm

And yes, I realize that Alyrium already quoted it, but I just wanted to make it abundantly clear that if a thing is not in the Constitution, it does not mean that the government can control it.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 09:33pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Really, prove it.
...

The Ninth Amendment To the Constitution of the United States of America reads thusly:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'm asking how you go from that to this:

"Whatever rights the people choose to give themselves that are not in this constitution, are theirs to give to themselves."

Even you've set a sensible yet arbitrary limit that would give the state interest to restrict rights insofar as murder, assault, theft, etc., are involved.

Rev Prez

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-22 09:35pm

The key difference being that murder infringes on the rights of others (three guesses as to why) and homosexual marriage does not, and no, "not being offended" is not a right.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 09:38pm

HemlockGrey wrote:And yes, I realize that Alyrium already quoted it, but I just wanted to make it abundantly clear that if a thing is not in the Constitution, it does not mean that the government can control it.

The question is who gets to determine what those rights are, and the process by which those rights are recognized. The accepted interpretation of the Ninth Amendment was that it left the enumeration of additional rights (i.e., the right to vote) up to the state governments. The prenumbra argument, which was not initially derived from the Ninth Amendment but has been, in case law, cited as sourced from this constitutional statement about unenumerated rights, is potentially dangerous to the federalism argument of reading the Ninth and Tenth amendments together.

For those who want to go with the most expansive interpretation, is there a right to harm in the Ninth Amendment? If not, then why?

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 09:42pm

HemlockGrey wrote:The key difference being that murder infringes on the rights of others (three guesses as to why) and homosexual marriage does not, and no, "not being offended" is not a right.

How does murder, assault and theft infringe on other rights? What if we were to say that the right to live, live free of deliberate injurty, and live free and secure in property infringes on the right to harm? What's to stop me from articulately such a right (if the Ninth Amendment is read expansively).

Rev Prez

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-01-22 09:49pm

it's doesn't exactly take rocket science to figure out.

1. murder infringes on others rights to live.

2. assault infringes on others rights to safety.

3. theft infringes on others rights to own property.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 09:59pm

Darth_Zod wrote:it's doesn't exactly take rocket science to figure out.

1. murder infringes on others rights to live.

2. assault infringes on others rights to safety.

3. theft infringes on others rights to own property.

I'm gonna assume you didn't read my last post and that you're looking at it right now.

Rev Prez

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-22 10:12pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Wake up Shrubby. Gay Marriage with full benefits IS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

What polls have you been reading?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-22 10:35pm

It depends on how you phrase it. If you phrase it in terms of equal rights, then it becomes a lot more attractive.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 10:54pm

revprez wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:The key difference being that murder infringes on the rights of others (three guesses as to why) and homosexual marriage does not, and no, "not being offended" is not a right.
How does murder, assault and theft infringe on other rights? What if we were to say that the right to live, live free of deliberate injurty, and live free and secure in property infringes on the right to harm? What's to stop me from articulately such a right (if the Ninth Amendment is read expansively).

Rev Prez

You realize that rights are not inherent, but rather are granted as societal constructs right? The rights to life, liberty, and property were accepted and called for by the american people at the time of the constitutions drafting. They were spelled out in the beginning. The ninth amendment, in simple language, says that " If you want to construct additional rights for yourselves, this document does not limit you"

The right to privacy, in addition to being implied n the 4th, is an additional right that we, as sentient bengs, have granted ouselves and codified into law through the use of an informal amendment(different nterpretation) to constitutional law.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 11:05pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You realize that rights are not inherent, but rather are granted as societal constructs right?

Actually I do think they're inherent, inalienable and given to us by God. But it works out to mean roughly the same thing.

The rights to life, liberty, and property were accepted and called for by the american people at the time of the constitutions drafting. They were spelled out in the beginning. The ninth amendment, in simple language, says that " If you want to construct additional rights for yourselves, this document does not limit you"

The argument is over the meaning of "yourselves," specifically the construct in which new rights are devised or discovered. In context with the explicit federalism principle of the 10th Amendment, the 9th amendment was interpreted as giving the states the power to define rights and state interests in suspending those rights by whatever mechanism their constitutions permitted. The prenumbra argument effectively removes that power from the state (those violating the 10th Amendment) and giving it to the federal judiciary.

The right to privacy, in addition to being implied n the 4th, is an additional right that we, as sentient bengs, have granted ouselves and codified into law through the use of an informal amendment(different nterpretation) to constitutional law.

I understand the reasoning behind the "right to privacy," I do not accept that such reasoning is permited under the Constitution. And that's the debate that is currently gripping courts and law schools across the country.

Rev Prez

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-22 11:28pm

revprez wrote: The argument is over the meaning of "yourselves," specifically the construct in which new rights are devised or discovered. In context with the explicit federalism principle of the 10th Amendment, the 9th amendment was interpreted as giving the states the power to define rights and state interests in suspending those rights by whatever mechanism their constitutions permitted. The prenumbra argument effectively removes that power from the state (those violating the 10th Amendment) and giving it to the federal judiciary.

No, the 9th amendment was put in because a large section of the Constitutional Congress, afraid that a Bill of Rights could be seen as an enumeration of all rights given to the people, demanded that the Bill of Rights say that it's only a guideline.

I understand the reasoning behind the "right to privacy," I do not accept that such reasoning is permited under the Constitution. And that's the debate that is currently gripping courts and law schools across the country.

Rev Prez

Unfortunately, you don't see the Constitution from the point of an attorney, or from the point of anyone who has worked at all in American politics, or politics in general. The 9th amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Using the Dictionary.com Thesaurus:
The listing in the Constitution, of guaranteed rights, shall not be interpreted as such to deny or dismiss others kept by the people.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 11:33pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:No, the 9th amendment was put in because a large section of the Constitutional Congress, afraid that a Bill of Rights could be seen as an enumeration of all rights given to the people, demanded that the Bill of Rights say that it's only a guideline.

How does this refute a single word I wrote? You're not addressing the question as to what mechanism additional rights and powers are discovered under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Unfortunately, you don't see the Constitution from the point of an attorney, or from the point of anyone who has worked at all in American politics, or politics in general.

I dsagree, I'm clearly articulating one of the arguments, only with respect to privacy as opposed to all rights derived from it, presented by government lawyers in Bowers and later in Lawrence.

Using the Dictionary.com Thesaurus:
The listing in the Constitution, of guaranteed rights, shall not be interpreted as such to deny or dismiss others kept by the people.

That's one way to analyze constitutional law, though I'm not sure how well it would hold up in court.

Rev Prez

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 11:54pm

That's one way to analyze constitutional law, though I'm not sure how well it would hold up in court.

Do you have some sort of problem with language moron?

what do you think it says? The exact opposite of what the wording actually means?