22 replies to this topic

[swmr545]

Federal judge in Mass. rules that portions if DOMA are unconstitutional:

http://www.msnbc.msn...s/us_news-life/

[swmr545]

Are you in favor of Gay Marriage?

I don't mind gays getting married, nor do I think it will effect my marriage in any way. Maybe because my marriage isn't based on any religious beliefs, but rather a sense of a higher human goal of being more civilized when living together and raising a family. An agreement to be with one partner and only one partner, is that goal.

But what if two sisters wanted to get married, just for the benefits of the insurance the other sister has? What if a daughter and mother wanted to marry so she could provide her mother with care that her health insurance only covered for her spouse? These people could call themselves GAY, couldn't they? Who would make them prove it?

I mean, where do we draw the line?

I know these questions may sound silly. But lately, I have dropped my ideas about what ends some may follow to achieve the goals they have, even if they are highly unethical.

From my knowledge of what has happened in CA and other states, the rules for entering into a civil union/domestic partnership are the same as it would be for a heterosexual marriage. Both parties have to be consenting adults that are unrelated.

However, in Oregon it is my understanding that their domestic partnership law does not have a provision about being unrelated so a widowed parent can register as a domestic partner to their child to be able to claim the health insurance and other medical benefits the child could get through their job (if their work's insurance recognizes domestic partners).

That said, if the only way an individual can get comprehensive insurance coverage is through "marrying" another relative, I think that speaks to how messed up our health care system is and not towards why we should have a ban on allowing same-sex marriages.
-------------------

As I have stated before the Politics thread was deleted, I do not care if it is called "marriage" or "civil union/domestic partnership", just as long as the benefits and whatever else that comes with marriage is the same. Many others that are against the idea of allowing same-sex marriage are saying the same.

However, that isn't good enough anymore it seems. Hawaii's legislature passed a bill that would have granted same-sex couples the opportunity to eneter into a CIVIL UNION...the governer vetoed the bill saying, "HB 444 is essentially same sex marriage by another name."

So now we are essentially being told that "seperate but equal" isn't good enough for us.

[Robert Giacometti]

Federal judge in Mass. rules that portions if DOMA are unconstitutional:

http://www.msnbc.msn...s/us_news-life/

Its kinda ironic in that the Judge is applying a conservative philosophy in ruling for States Rights on this issue. I wonder how consistent this Judge has been throughout their career following this philosophy?

If one used his rationale on this case, then applied that rationale to the Federal Healthcare Bill, it too would have to be ruled unconstitutional.

I suspect this is just another step in the legal process towards getting this to the SCOTUS.

I'm still convinced that its the peoples right to determine what they want their constitution to include, not the politicans and not some judges, telling the people. This tramples our rights for ALL of us when this happens.

[folsombound]

I'm still convinced that its the peoples right to determine what they want their constitution to include, not the politicans and not some judges, telling the people. This tramples our rights for ALL of us when this happens.

I believe that some rights are above the right of the people to determine! Equal treatment under the law is one of them. The electorate DOES NOT have the right to abrogate that. Marriage may be one of those inalienable rights.
As I have said before, why deny anyone the right to marriage, divorce, alimony and/or child support? There is nothing sacred about marriage in this country when 51% of them end in divorce.

[Robert Giacometti]

I believe that some rights are above the right of the people to determine! Equal treatment under the law is one of them. The electorate DOES NOT have the right to abrogate that. Marriage may be one of those inalienable rights.
As I have said before, why deny anyone the right to marriage, divorce, alimony and/or child support? There is nothing sacred about marriage in this country when 51% of them end in divorce.

If our laws and righst are defined in the constitution, How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

Since marriage is now defined in the constitution in California, as being between a man and woman, what man or woman isn't being treated equally?

IMO, the most important inalienable right of the people, is the right to determine what is in our constitution!

[folsombound]

IMO, the most important inalienable right of the people, is the right to determine what is in our constitution!

Sorry, but we disagree. There are some rights that the people do not have the right to vote on and change. Equality is one of them. Equal rights ARE an inalienable right and the voters do not and should not have the right to change that.

[swmr545]

If our laws and righst are defined in the constitution, How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

Since marriage is now defined in the constitution in California, as being between a man and woman, what man or woman isn't being treated equally?

IMO, the most important inalienable right of the people, is the right to determine what is in our constitution!

Just because it can be put into the Constitution doesn't mean it will stand up to judicial review.

[Robert Giacometti]

Just because it can be put into the Constitution doesn't mean it will stand up to judicial review.

If you believe in this, then what would prevent any activist Judge ruling that one of our Bill of Rights is unconstitutional?

In the case of DOMA, I can understand how it could get ruled unconstitutional by an activist Judge, because DOMA isn't in the constitution?

[Robert Giacometti]

Sorry, but we disagree. There are some rights that the people do not have the right to vote on and change. Equality is one of them. Equal rights ARE an inalienable right and the voters do not and should not have the right to change that.

Just for discussion, what document establishes these inalienable rights? Has this document EVER been changed? So in theory, the document could be changed eliminating rights?

I think you are confusing what could happen, with what you believe should happen. I'm concerend about the most basic right we have, that is Government by the People for the People. I can live with the results either way. The right to Self Governement is the most fundamental right we have and MUST be protected at all times.

I'll ask this question again, if marriage is defined as being between a man and woman, how is anyone NOT being treated equally? Every man and every woman has the same right to pursue the definition of marriage so there isn't any inequality.

If people want to change the definition of marriage I have no problem with that.

[Al Waysrite]

Just because it can be put into the Constitution doesn't mean it will stand up to judicial review.

What you're saying is the constitution itself can be ruled unconstitutional. If that were the case then the "supreme law of the land" is no longer supreme.

The reality is that if a constitutional amendment passes which specifically repeals a right granted by an earlier amendment (e.g. right to free assembly, right to counsel etc.), the later one takes precedence and the right would be repealed.

[Al Waysrite]

I think you are confusing what could happen, with what you believe should happen. I'm concerend about the most basic right we have, that is Government by the People for the People. I can live with the results either way. The right to Self Governement is the most fundamental right we have and MUST be protected at all times.

Excellent point Robert. The Articles of the Constitution were drafted first and the articles were the main point of the framers, that being to establish a representative form of government. The amendments were actually an afterthought, insisted upon by the Jeffersonian small-state advocates. Even Jefferson did not intend that the amendments would be used to thwart the electoral process.

[Bill Z]

Excellent point Robert. The Articles of the Constitution were drafted first and the articles were the main point of the framers, that being to establish a representative form of government. The amendments were actually an afterthought, insisted upon by the Jeffersonian small-state advocates. Even Jefferson did not intend that the amendments would be used to thwart the electoral process.

The first 10 ammendments (collectively known as the bill of rights) was in place at the signing of the contitution, so in effect, they were not an afterthought. They were a present thought by some of the framers as a necessary part to insure our government didn't overstep it's authority. IMO, they are more important than the rest of the document.

As for inalienable rights, those are clearly identified in the Declaration of Independence.

excerpt from the DOI

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

my bolding for emphasis

[Al Waysrite]

The first 10 ammendments (collectively known as the bill of rights) was in place at the signing of the contitution, so in effect, they were not an afterthought. They were a present thought by some of the framers as a necessary part to insure our government didn't overstep it's authority. IMO, they are more important than the rest of the document.

As for inalienable rights, those are clearly identified in the Declaration of Independence.

excerpt from the DOI


my bolding for emphasis

Irrelevant to the subject at hand. The law of the land is the constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not law.

[swmr545]

What you're saying is the constitution itself can be ruled unconstitutional. If that were the case then the "supreme law of the land" is no longer supreme.

The reality is that if a constitutional amendment passes which specifically repeals a right granted by an earlier amendment (e.g. right to free assembly, right to counsel etc.), the later one takes precedence and the right would be repealed.

The amendments that are in place are the basis for judicial review. If an amendment was passed that was aimed at repealing the First Amendment, it can be challeneged in court if 1 person feels it is discriminatory. If a judge deems that the repeal of the First Amendment is indeed unconstitutional and infringes upon the individual's right as a US citizen, then the judge can repeal the new amendment.