Joe wrote:They couldn't have legally ruled based on equal protection under the law, since sexual orientation isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither is privacy, for that matter, but we don't need to go down that road.
9th Amendment wrote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
They put this one in just in case someone made that argument
That is a constitutional can of worms that has never been opened, I'm afraid.
The 10th Amendment is a bigger one. I'm still arguing with a bunch of secessionists who seem to think the 10th Amendment makes secession legal (Texas vs. White notwithstanding) and that Virginia should secede from the Union even today. And that open ended clause could be applied to just about anything; heck, I could use it to argue that murder statutes are unconstitutional if I wished.
The secession argument is an easy one to deflate, actually:
The Constitution grants the President wide-ranging powers to suppress rebellion against the Federal government. It does not define a legal method for secession, therefore no secession from the United States can be legally discerned from an illegal rebellion. It is therefore within the powers of the Presidency to suppress and return any seceding State to the Union.
"Carriers dispense fighters, which dispense assbeatings." - White Haven
| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
Iceberg wrote:The secession argument is an easy one to deflate, actually:
The Constitution grants the President wide-ranging powers to suppress rebellion against the Federal government. It does not define a legal method for secession, therefore no secession from the United States can be legally discerned from an illegal rebellion. It is therefore within the powers of the Presidency to suppress and return any seceding State to the Union.
theski wrote:New Mexico county begins issuing marriage licenses to gay couples
02-20) 11:01 PST BERNALILLO, N.M. (AP) --
A lesbian couple was issued a marriage license and exchanged vows outside the courthouse Friday as other same-sex couples lined up for their chance to tie the knot.
At least a half-dozen gay and lesbian couples waited outside the Sandoval County courthouse after county clerk Victoria Dunlap began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. /quote]
Joe wrote:They couldn't have legally ruled based on equal protection under the law, since sexual orientation isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither is privacy, for that matter, but we don't need to go down that road.
9th Amendment wrote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
They put this one in just in case someone made that argument
As Darth Wong mentioned before I think, it can be construed as gender discrimination because the inability to get married is due to gender.
Gay people are not banned from marriage, gay people are banned from marrying people of the same gender but can still marry people of the opposite gender. Therefore it cannot be sexuality discrimination but rather gender discrimination based on the gender of the pair.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
Joe wrote:They couldn't have legally ruled based on equal protection under the law, since sexual orientation isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither is privacy, for that matter, but we don't need to go down that road.
SCOTUS has interpreted a right to privacy from the Constitution's protections against unlawful search and seizure. While the Constitution may not explicitly say, "right to privacy," the courts have interpreted it in such a way that all citizens do, in fact, have this protection.
I can't wait for gay marriages to be legalized nation-wide. It'll happen eventually. People will begin to realize that homosexuality is, in fact, a trait that certain people have, not a lifestyle choice made to rebel against The Man. I'll be laughing at all the people who were against gay marriage. Laughing because Jesus Christ won't come down and preside over the Apocalypse. Laughing because God won't strike the country down. Laughing because everyone will continue with their lives normally after it happens.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
kojikun wrote:Expansion from neoolong's statement:
Gay people are not banned from marriage, gay people are banned from marrying people of the same gender but can still marry people of the opposite gender. Therefore it cannot be sexuality discrimination but rather gender discrimination based on the gender of the pair.
Of course it's gender discrimination. If the government told you that you couldn't marry a black person, it'd be racial discrimination, wouldn't it?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Rogue 9 wrote:
The 10th Amendment is a bigger one. I'm still arguing with a bunch of secessionists who seem to think the 10th Amendment makes secession legal (Texas vs. White notwithstanding) and that Virginia should secede from the Union even today. And that open ended clause could be applied to just about anything; heck, I could use it to argue that murder statutes are unconstitutional if I wished.
Texas vs. White didn't argue on the constitutionality of secession. It just argued that Texas never really left the Union during the entire Civil War.
Dark Heresy: Dance Macabre - Imperial Psyker Magnus Arterra
BoTM
Proud Decepticon
Post 666 Made on Fri Jul 04, 2003 @ 12:48 pm
Post 1337 made on Fri Aug 22, 2003 @ 9:18 am
Post 1492 Made on Fri Aug 29, 2003 @ 5:16 pm
Durandal wrote:I'll be laughing at all the people who were against gay marriage. Laughing because Jesus Christ won't come down and preside over the Apocalypse. Laughing because God won't strike the country down. Laughing because everyone will continue with their lives normally after it happens.
They won't relent, however. We have examples all over Europe of gay marriage, and yet the fundies are convinced that it will destroy society as we know it because they don't live in the world as a planetary community, they live in the world as their own little imaginary domains. They have a fantasy that they just can't give up, and part of that is the idea that gay marriage will destroy society, in much the same way they thought womens rights and blacks rights would. In much the same way the most people still think drugs do.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
kojikun wrote:
They won't relent, however. We have examples all over Europe of gay marriage, and yet the fundies are convinced that it will destroy society as we know it because they don't live in the world as a planetary community, they live in the world as their own little imaginary domains. They have a fantasy that they just can't give up, and part of that is the idea that gay marriage will destroy society, in much the same way they thought womens rights and blacks rights would. In much the same way the most people still think drugs do.
Actually some of them claim that women's and black's rights HAVE destroyed society, and in some ways they're right. It has destroyed their backwards WASP-only social club where only members were allowed to do anything other than cleaning the house and picking crops.
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!
SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
Yeah, there are several throughout the South, and even some in Montana and New York.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Joe wrote:
Yeah, there are several throughout the South, and even some in Montana and New York.
Actually, they just want to turn Upstate New York into a seperate state from the lower counties in the NYC area, not leave the USA. This would be entirely constitutional if both sides agreed to it. The new state would be called Adirondack and would still have the capital in Albany. The largest city would be Buffalo. I am entirely sympathetic to the cause but know it has about a nil chance of happening, even with a few people on the NYC council who want to turn said city into a state themselves.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 wrote:New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
That's a lot of permission to be getting. Also, I don't see Congress doing it anytime soon because the size of the House has been capped so that they could all fit in the building and that would make other states lose representatives to make room for Adirondack's. I don't see that happening. *Shrug* Sorry.
Strange...I haven't gotten anything on the New Mexico marriage licenses yet from the ministry I work with. They'd be very happy to hear about that one. We're trying to work our way up to having full equal rights for lgbt's in the US, as well as get the Methodist church to allow their ordination.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
Re the New Mexico marriages, I received word that those liscenses were revoked. On the same note, though, I also heard that it's a 48%/46% on a poll in support of/in opposition to gay marriages in New Mexico. I personally was surprised that they'd be this up front about it, but I suspect New Mexico will become one of the forerunners in the nation regarding gay marriages.
Darth Wong wrote:Interesting how most of the progressive states are on the outside, eh? The inland portion of the nation looks very blue.
It does. o.O
Also, I have heard something about the Chicago mayor pushing for legalising gay marriages, and as soon as I decide to find a link for it, there's a story on the Georgia ban and the political stance (or lack thereof) of the reps voting against gay marriages.. If I don't find a link, I'll type the damned thing.
If the gays do win, which I hope they do. Could they please, and I say this with humility, stop the gay pride parades with half naked men prounceing around. And they can't have the "gay sheild" where someone can't fire them from a job, regardless of the reason of the firing, because their gay.
And that open ended clause could be applied to just about anything; heck, I could use it to argue that murder statutes are unconstitutional if I wished. 
