7
   

Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

 
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 12:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.


If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:43 pm
Rights are rights. You don't vote on them.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:54 pm
The extension of rights to everybody is what this country is all about.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 03:23 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Who is being denied equal protection by a state policy of not issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples? Where is this case where one person is allowed something that another person is denied? I am unaware of it. Every person is allowed at the legal age to marry another person of the opposite sex. Everyone is being treated precisely the same.


These semantic gymnastics are one of the central planks in Brandon's argument. As I pointed out in the Prop 8 thread, Brandon, you're trying to shift focus toward what the law grants and away from what is required for inclusion in that law so that everything looks equal. The feeble distinction you're trying to make is no different from the one that once barred non-Christians from voting since, according to your logic, everyone was free to vote as a Christian and nobody was allowed to vote as a non-Christian; therefore the law treated everyone equally. The people were eventually able to see through that transparently phobic reasoning in the 18th and 19th centuries, and I'm glad to see that people are starting to see through it again in the 21st.
0 Replies
 
tempuser
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 10:20 pm
@blueflame1,
I strongly support the idea of removing the concept of marriage from government completely. Although I think it would take a lot of work to take marriage records out of the federal government and state governments hands, I think this is really the best way forward in the debate of same sex marriage. Such a direction could also garner support from Mormons or other religious groups who see it as their right and sometimes as their duty to be able to maintain more than one spouse. Where does anybody get the nerve to try to restrict other free peoples right to engage in these personal relationships.

For those who are unaware, the Republican Party has opened up a new web forum for submitting ideas to rebuild the party. I suggested such an idea as described above and it could use as much support as possible to try to get signal to the party that people want this type of sensible solution from government.

Separation of Marriage and State
http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/pages/general/suggestions/66509
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:58 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
What you want is to amend the definition of marriage.


What you want is for your definition to be the preferred one. <shrug>


Obviously. I want to continue to use the definition that's alwats been used.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:01 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
If you believe that the Connecticut court actually was enforcing the people's Constitution, quote the passage in it which protects gay marriage.


Actually, it's very simple: the highest court of the State of Connecticut said it quite clear, understandable even for these without an academical degree in jurisprudence:

Quote:
Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.


Quote:
We note that this case only addresses the state’s prohibition against
same sex marriage, a ban that we conclude violates the state constitution.
Our holding does not affect the recognition of civil unions in this state.


If all the Connecticut Constitution has to say on the subject is something about equal protection of citizens, then using the traditional definition of marriage is niot a violation, since there is no law which applies different standards to different people.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:03 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.


If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:13 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.


If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?

Non-sequitur. If the court was to say prop8 was unlawful, it would be resolving a internal constitutional discrepancy not creating a new law.

You ramble about judicial legislation, but obviously don't care to educate yourself about the issues involved here.

T
K
O
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:14 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Obviously. I want to continue to use the definition that's alwats been used.


The definition has varied over the decades and centuries.

You've picked one you like and you want everyone to use it. It's understandable that it's easier for you that way. <shrug>
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:16 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
What you want is to amend the definition of marriage.


What you want is for your definition to be the preferred one. <shrug>


Obviously. I want to continue to use the definition that's alwats been used.

"One of the definitions that has been used" you mean.

"the" implies it is the only definition.
"always" implies that never has this definition been different.

Your statements RE: The history of homosexuals and marriage is consistently wrong.

T
K
O
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:41 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
What you want is to amend the definition of marriage.


What you want is for your definition to be the preferred one. <shrug>


Obviously. I want to continue to use the definition that's alwats been used.

"One of the definitions that has been used" you mean.

"the" implies it is the only definition.
"always" implies that never has this definition been different.

Your statements RE: The history of homosexuals and marriage is consistently wrong.

T
K
O

Okay, let's see who's right. Please mention one example of a country that issued licenses for same sex marriages before, say, thirty years ago.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:42 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.


If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?

Non-sequitur. If the court was to say prop8 was unlawful, it would be resolving a internal constitutional discrepancy not creating a new law.

You ramble about judicial legislation, but obviously don't care to educate yourself about the issues involved here.

T
K
O

Only if the court was acting in accordance with written law, but not if they were claiming falsely to.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 10:10 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Okay, let's see who's right. Please mention one example of a country that issued licenses for same sex marriages before, say, thirty years ago.


okay, bunny, you're really hopping down the wrong trail now.

Marriage licences are a comparatively new piece of business* in the history of relationships/partnerships.

Marriages/relationships/partnerships existed for centuries before there were licenses. Same sex or otherwise.



*business as in show business


Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 12:16 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Okay, let's see who's right. Please mention one example of a country that issued licenses for same sex marriages before, say, thirty years ago.


okay, bunny, you're really hopping down the wrong trail now.

Marriage licences are a comparatively new piece of business* in the history of relationships/partnerships.

Marriages/relationships/partnerships existed for centuries before there were licenses. Same sex or otherwise.



*business as in show business

DTKO seems to be claiming that the definition of marriage has included same sex couples in the past, and I have the right to request an example.
alex240101
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 12:23 pm
I can think of a thousand different ways to spend my tax dollars.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 02:54 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Okay, let's see who's right. Please mention one example of a country that issued licenses for same sex marriages before, say, thirty years ago.


okay, bunny, you're really hopping down the wrong trail now.

Marriage licences are a comparatively new piece of business* in the history of relationships/partnerships.

Marriages/relationships/partnerships existed for centuries before there were licenses. Same sex or otherwise.



*business as in show business

DTKO seems to be claiming that the definition of marriage has included same sex couples in the past, and I have the right to request an example.


Gay marriage was perfectly fine until it was suddenly declared wrong and then oppressed in ancient Rome.
Quote:
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.
below...
Quote:
Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.


Before this point, men could marry men. Is this historic enough for you? Rome was no little country either. It was an empire. As for marriage licenses, ehBeth already laid it out. Marriages existed long before the use of licenses. You're trying to design a question to make your definition of "historic" or "always" while ignoring the larger history or humankind.

Does any of this make it into your head? You're conclusions on homosexuality RE: nature, history and culture are based on wildly incorrect information.

Let's see who was right? I was, and am.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 12:59 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.


If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?


If you believed that the earth was flat, you would be wrong. Perhaps you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but you're not four-years-old anymore. In other words, you should not rely on your own ignorant "beliefs" to support your arguments. You should rely on facts, not fantasy.

If you assert that voters have the right to determine the law, then you should substantiate your assertion. What part of the federal constitution do you rely upon to substantiate your assertion that voters have the right to make laws that violate the manifest tenor of the constitution?

You can't substantiate your assertion because the Framers of the Constitution did not create a pure democracy as our form of government. Our founders/framers abhorred pure democracy because individual rights are just as insecure under mob rule as they are under an oppressive dictatorship. They created a constitutional republic. As a citizen or resident of the United States of America, you should educate yourself concerning our form of government. Educated people rely on the Federalist Papers to determine the framers' intent and purpose in forming a constitutional republic. I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers, but you refuse to acknowledge their content. After all, if you actually educated yourself, you could no longer rely on your ignorant beliefs to feed your infantile delusions.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides, "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."

The Constitution clearly prohibits elected state legislative bodies (or state voters through the initiative process) from making any law that denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you educated yourself, then you would know that our framers established a constitutional republic complete with checks and balances to secure individual rights to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the laws. It is the constitutional duty of the courts to decide cases and controversies. Any person injured or harmed by discriminatory laws may apply to the courts for relief. It is the duty of the courts to declare VOID all acts that violate the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

Thus, when a court complies with its constitutional duty and declares a law void for violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, the court is enforcing the constitution. The court is not creating laws.

It is your choice to wallow in ignorance. You should be embarrassed by your own refusal to educate yourself. In the meantime, you are wasting our time because this country was not founded upon the imaginary concoctions that exist only in your fantasyland.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 12:30 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.


If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?
....If you assert that voters have the right to determine the law, then you should substantiate your assertion. What part of the federal constitution do you rely upon to substantiate your assertion that voters have the right to make laws that violate the manifest tenor of the constitution?

The voters have the right to elect legislators, with whom they are in general philosophical agreement, to make law. If such legislators make laws that they disagree with, they have the right to replace them with other legislators, who will make laws that they do favor and not make laws that they oppose. In general, government is supposed to depend on the consent of the governed.

Debra Law wrote:
....The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides, "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."

The Constitution clearly prohibits elected state legislative bodies (or state voters through the initiative process) from making any law that denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you educated yourself, then you would know that our framers established a constitutional republic complete with checks and balances to secure individual rights to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the laws. It is the constitutional duty of the courts to decide cases and controversies. Any person injured or harmed by discriminatory laws may apply to the courts for relief. It is the duty of the courts to declare VOID all acts that violate the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

A law or policy which defines, either explicitly or implicitly, marriage as being between a man and a woman is not discriminatory, because it applies equally to everyone. We are not discussing laws which allow one thing to one group and forbid it to another group. Not allowing people to do whatever they want isn't discrimination, unless there is a law which permits one group of people to do something which it forbids to another group.

Debra Law wrote:
Thus, when a court complies with its constitutional duty and declares a law void for violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, the court is enforcing the constitution. The court is not creating laws.

The court is creating laws when it claims that the law in question says something which it doesn't say, purely in order to enforce its members own, personal philosophies.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 04:53 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
The voters have the right to elect legislators, with whom they are in general philosophical agreement, to make law.

Yes. A republic. Exactly what DL keeps trying to teach you about. A state can write a law, sure. Can it write a law that creates a internal conflict?

That's when it's time for the courts. It's not judicial legislation. You've been seduced into the notion that your disagreement with a ruling from the court means it was legislation from the bench. If you think the court does something wrong, you are totally free to make your case, but base it on the actual ruling from the court. This means going and reading the ruling and then posting how you disagree with their legal argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:
In general, government is supposed to depend on the consent of the governed.

Sure, but there is more. There are protections for the minority of the governed.

Brandon9000 wrote:
A law or policy which defines, either explicitly or implicitly, marriage as being between a man and a woman is not discriminatory, because it applies equally to everyone. We are not discussing laws which allow one thing to one group and forbid it to another group. Not allowing people to do whatever they want isn't discrimination, unless there is a law which permits one group of people to do something which it forbids to another group.

This argument has ZERO legal basis. You keep posting it ad naseum as it it will be any true if you just keep repeating it.

Brandon9000 wrote:
The court is creating laws when it claims that the law in question says something which it doesn't say, purely in order to enforce its members own, personal philosophies.

If I had to trust you or a judge on the constitution, and "what it says" I'm going to trust the judge. Your opinion about what the constitution says is very incongruent with 2 centuries of legal precedent Brandon.

Perhaps you need to do some re-evaluating.

T
K
O
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 08:02:12