Live Webcast of NJ Same Sex Marriage Case

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
knewsom wrote:
I don’t understand this whole debate. I mean, maybe I’m an idiot, but…there isn’t a law specifically BANNING same sex marriage, right? …so why is it illegal?

Marriage entails a bundle of legal rights. Think of tax treatment for married couples.

Gay couples are not eligible for this bundle of legal rights because states don’t recognize their union as legally entitled to receive them. Same goes for polygamists - you can’t declare five wives on your tax form, for example.

So, a gay-friendly church might marry a gay couple, but until the state recognizes that union in law, they get no access to the bundle of legal rights, privileges, etc.[/quote]

Exactly

42

The 9th amendmend is still not a blank check for judges to make law. They have and always have had license to interpret law. They are free to interpret a law limiting gay civil unions/marriage for now and all time as unconstiutional and void in keeping with the principles and text of our Constitution. What they cannot do is judicially CREATE a law that recognizes civil unions. That must be left to state or federal legislatures.

43

[quote]dermo wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

I have no problem with the people of any state choosing to grant whatever rights to people they want – but let the PEOPLE through their LEGISLATURES choose. The problem with you libs is that you don’t want that, because without the liberal courts creating rights and circumventing the people, you cannot pass gay marriage in any of the 50 states legislatively.

So when the people of Oregon voted for the right to die with dignity, or to allow people suffering through unbearable cancer to gain relief through medical marajuana, it was the liberal activist judges who overruled the state? Oh, it was the conservative activist judges, legislating from the bench, usurping the rights of the citizens. [/quote]

Be careful with your conservative/liberal divisions here.

I believe Clarence Thomas ruled that California had the right to allow medical marijuana and the federal government should butt out.

44

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I don’t understand this whole debate. I mean, maybe I’m an idiot, but…there isn’t a law specifically BANNING same sex marriage, right? …so why is it illegal?

I mean, killing people, yeah, there’s laws agianst that. Buying babies, also illegal. Using Gasoline to fertilize my neighbor’s lawn… yup, that too can be pinned down to specific legislation.

I just don’t get it.[/quote]

Clinton signed the Protection of Marriage Act into law which bans same sex marriage.

So there is a federal law against same sex marriage.

45

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Funny to quote the DSM III, when the DSM IV does not consider it a mental illness. What does it matter that the Greek and Roman Empires are gone? They were still great and complex societies. There was no same-sex marriage in other. But there was a lot of homosexual activity that no one cared about.[/quote]

They also held slaves and no one seemed to care about that either.

46

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Funny to quote the DSM III, when the DSM IV does not consider it a mental illness. What does it matter that the Greek and Roman Empires are gone? They were still great and complex societies. There was no same-sex marriage in other. But there was a lot of homosexual activity that no one cared about.

They also held slaves and no one seemed to care about that either.[/quote]

True enough. It all depends on what you consider progress and regress.

47

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I don’t understand this whole debate. I mean, maybe I’m an idiot, but…there isn’t a law specifically BANNING same sex marriage, right? …so why is it illegal?

I mean, killing people, yeah, there’s laws agianst that. Buying babies, also illegal. Using Gasoline to fertilize my neighbor’s lawn… yup, that too can be pinned down to specific legislation.

I just don’t get it.[/quote]

There’s no law banning two same sex individuals from holding themselves out as being “married”, save for collection of government benefits reserved for people married according to the legal definition.

In other words, it’s not a ban - it’s a definitional issue - and it’s mostly a fight over government benefits.

However, does anyone have any opinions on the issue at hand – specifically, the interpretation of the NJ constitution?

My biggest problem with this idea is general – I don’t like reading things into constitutions that obviously weren’t intended when they were written and approved. There is a perfectly well laid out mechanism for amending a constitution if that’s the goal.

48

Courts strike down such laws all the time based on constitutional principles.

But in order for the Ninth Amendment to have any meaning there has to be a way to enforce those unenumerated rights. This goes beyond the whole gay marriage thing (which I actually think is a stupid issue, but I’ll save that for later) into the abstract concept of are individual rights created or are they inherent? I’ll go back to the Griswold case as an example.

According to you, Thunderbolt23, that case was wrongly decided. Since the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy, then there is nothing to prevent a legislature from regulating what goes on in a couple’s bedroom. The only way to avoid such uninvited regulation is to vote out the old representatives, vote in new ones, and hope they repeal the law. The other option is to amend the Constitution to prevent any such legislation in the future.

Meanwhile, those who don’t like the law just have to deal with it. In the case of your flat tax, that’s just what people need to do - wait until the next round of elections. However, there is no fundamental right to a flat tax. Marital rights, however, are fundamental. That’s the distinction. The Founders specifically set up the Constitution to avoid a pure democracy which is merely a tyranny by the majority.

The problem is, we’re all arguing over how to implement that intent. I think it’s simple - the government needs to stay the hell out of people’s private lives.

49

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Courts strike down such laws all the time based on constitutional principles.[/quote]

All the time, huh? Example?

Well, actually I am quite sympathetic to Black’s dissent in Griswold. But some clarity: Griswold was not decided under the 9th Amendment, it was decided under the now-infamous prenumbras construction. Goldberg remarked on the 9th Amendment in his concurrence.

Moreover, recent ‘rights creation’ jurisprudence - like Lawrence v. Texas - doesn’t even rely on the 9th Amendment.

Yep - and that is exactly what a legislature is supposed to do.

Well, let’s assume your premise - marital rights are fundamental - for the sake of argument. What are marital rights? Do they include homosexuals? They never have before. If you think marital rights should be extended to homosexuals, no problem - but that would be a brand spanking new development in marital rights. And if something is brand spanking new, ipso facto it cannot be regarded fundamental, rooted, historic, etc. Creating a brand new right is not the same as protecting an old, existing right - and if you think the 9th Amendment protects these old, existing rights, you’ll have to get a taxonomy that distinguishes new ones from old ones.

Certainly, but even more so, the Founders set up the Constitution to avoid tyranny by the minority - that is, the robed oligarchy you are suggesting. Read Federalist #78 where Hamilton talks about the judiciary needing to exercise judgment, but not will.

Moreover, if you are that interested in the Founders’ intent, go figure out what they said about the 9th Amendment and see if it comports with your ‘blank check’ version - it doesn’t.

For the most part I agree - but the battle for this should be waged in the legislature.

50

Come on guys. The real question is do you believe gay marriage is wrong?

Or better yet, do you have ‘PROOF GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG’?

LOL

51

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Come on guys. The real question is do you believe gay marriage is wrong?

Or better yet, do you have ‘PROOF GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG’?

LOL[/quote]

Do you believe that Gay marriage is wrong?

Yes I do.

Or better yet, do you have ‘PROOF GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG’?

Yes I do:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26-32

Q.E.D.

52

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:

Courts strike down such laws all the time based on constitutional principles.

All the time, huh? Example?[/quote]

Landowners bring challenges to zoning laws all the time under the Fifth Amendment. See for instance Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992).

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Moreover, recent ‘rights creation’ jurisprudence - like Lawrence v. Texas - doesn’t even rely on the 9th Amendment. [/quote]

I’m in partial agreement with you here. Given my libertarian nature, Lawrence reached the right result but the reasoning was atrocious. The whole “emerging community standards” language just smacked of legislating and policy-making from the bench.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Since the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy, then there is nothing to prevent a legislature from regulating what goes on in a couple’s bedroom. The only way to avoid such uninvited regulation is to vote out the old representatives, vote in new ones, and hope they repeal the law. The other option is to amend the Constitution to prevent any such legislation in the future.

Yep - and that is exactly what a legislature is supposed to do.[/quote]

I think that this is giving the legislature a blank check to make any laws it sees fit. I don’t trust the legislature enough to give them that power.

As for your remaining comments, I see what you’re saying. But the courts don’t have nearly the same amount of power as legislatures. Courts must wait for a case to come to them before they can make any law, but legislatures can draft a law and pass it out of thin air. Courts also only have the power of a thumbs up/thumbs down vote - they can only decide whether a law is constititional or unconstitutional. They can’t add language that they think would have made it better. Frequently, an opinion will discuss ways that an unconstitutional can be made constitutional with the right drafting. This means that the legislature can try again.

One of the reasons I am not as worried about an oligarchy of judges is that, with some exceptions, the issues involved deal with purely private conduct that doesn’t affect anyone but the parties involved. Lawrence v. Texas is a good example - the charges there were brought against two gay guys who were violating the sodomy law in the privacy of their residence. This law was struck down. Did this decision change forever the way Texans conduced their lives? I seriously doubt it. I assume sodomy done in public is still illegal, as it should be. The decision didn’t force people to have to watch two people sodomize each other nor do the people of Texas now have to “like” the idea of two people sodomizing each other. So the net effect of taking this law of the books is essentially zero to the majority who are against sodomy and freedom from government intrusion for those who choose to commit such acts.

As a footnote to the Lawrence case, the big outcry there was because the law specifically targeted homosexual acts. At one time in our history, there were laws on the books, and probably are still there in some states, that prohibited sodomy between heterosexual couples. Sodomy included such atrocious conduct as oral sex. I wonder what the reaction would have been if Lawrence, instead of involving two gay guys, involved football star Biff who was arrested for getting a blowjob from his girlfriend after the big game.

I kind of veered into the political realm in that last one, but anyway, this has been a good discussion.

53

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Do you believe that Gay marriage is wrong?

Yes I do.

Or better yet, do you have ‘PROOF GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG’?

Yes I do:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26-32

Q.E.D.[/quote]

Well I have proof that late night breakfast buffets at titty bars are wrong:

“I do not like green eggs and ham, Sam I am.”

Why is your book more important than my book?

54

Re: 9th Amendment,

The best advocate I’ve heard talk about a strong version of the 9th Amendment is Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University School of Law.

He’s actually written two books on the subject (which I haven’t yet read):

Here’s a link to his official page, which has all his papers – he’s a pretty hard-core libertarian:

http://randybarnett.com/texts.htm#articles

55

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

You may want to widen your search a little bit before you make such sweeping statements.

You may want to disprove my assertion with FACTS, Vroom.

Where was this ever accepted as “normal?”[/quote]

I think vroom was refering to the fact that gay marriage is legal in Canada.

It is also, I believe, legal in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Spain, France and many more european countries. And didn’t California pass a Bill recently allowing same sex unions?

56

[quote]doogie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

Do you believe that Gay marriage is wrong?

Yes I do.

Or better yet, do you have ‘PROOF GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG’?

Yes I do:

“?Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27?And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28?And even as they did not like to retain?h God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29?Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30?Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31?Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32?Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26-32

Q.E.D.

Well I have proof that late night breakfast buffets at titty bars are wrong:

“I do not like green eggs and ham, Sam I am.”

Why is your book more important than my book?[/quote]

Because God wrote it!

…and that’s the end of it!

57

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

You may want to widen your search a little bit before you make such sweeping statements.

You may want to disprove my assertion with FACTS, Vroom.

Where was this ever accepted as “normal?”

I think vroom was refering to the fact that gay marriage is legal in Canada.

It is also, I believe, legal in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Spain, France and many more european countries. And didn’t California pass a Bill recently allowing same sex unions? [/quote]

Pookie,

I think you know what I meant. I didn’t mean now, after the Worldwide Homosexual Lobby to change the way civil society has operated for THOUSANDS OF Years.

The fact of the matter is that BEFORE the recent “enlightenment” Homosexuality WAS aberrant behavior EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME. It NEVER has been recognized as a legitimate and equal lifestyle to hertosexuality.

My reference to the DSM III where it was claissified a mental disorder was exactly to show that point even in this country. I am well aware that the Gay lobby had this removed when the DSM IV came out (I think in the 1980’s). So therefore in the United States of America, until about 20 years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.

These are uncontrovertable facts Pookie. It is also a fact that the majority of the people and their legislatures in EVERY STATE of the Union is against Gay marriage. Since it is the legislatures that make the laws and we have a Constitutional Republic in which the people’s voice is expressed through ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, this is the way it is going to be, unless the PEOPLE in the various states want it another way.

58

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Because God wrote it!

…and that’s the end of it!

[/quote]

Can you prove that?

You do understand that it is only revelation if YOU hear it directly from God, right? Otherwise, it is hearsay.

God hasn’t told me anything other than to use a little common sense.

59

[quote]doogie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

Because God wrote it!

…and that’s the end of it!

Can you prove that?

You do understand that it is only revelation if YOU hear it directly from God, right? Otherwise, it is hearsay.

God hasn’t told me anything other than to use a little common sense.[/quote]

So far, it seems, you haven’t followed His advice then.

60

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

Do you believe that Gay marriage is wrong?

Yes I do.

Or better yet, do you have ‘PROOF GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG’?

Yes I do:

“?Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27?And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28?And even as they did not like to retain?h God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29?Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30?Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31?Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32?Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26-32

Q.E.D.
[/quote]

Dude, also according to the bible, shaving your sideburns is a mortal sin punishable by death. So is adultery - but by STONING to death. Also a nice bit of Leviticus, if a person has sex with an animal, they should be stoned unto death, and then so should the animal.

Frankly, I don’t give a flying SHIT what god you worship, HOW dear to you your faith is, or WHAT some 1800 year old book tells you, the MOMENT you try to use that faith and that book as “proof” in the legal realm, you are violating the Constitution of the United States of America, and acting the part of an opressive bigot. Legislation based on religion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and sir, I simply will not stand for it.

There are PLENTY of so called “theocratic” governments in the middle east - if you want to live your life according to religious law, I’m sure you’d be welcome there.

…but not in MY country, bub.