@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
Quote:Quote:
Homosexual marriage is not a legislative matter IMO. It is a social.
Debra Law Says - "Your statement proves that you are ignorant and uneducated. You know little or nothing about the basic principles of our constitutional republic.
The legislative branch of government makes the laws. The LEGAL status of marriage may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with the law. It is the law that prohibits gay marriage. The right of an individual to marry the person of his/her choice is a fundamental right secured by Constitution against State infringement. Our Constitution prohibits majoritarian oppression of individuals and minorities. Our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, commands that all persons similarly situated must be treated equally. All state laws that violate the manifest tenor of the Constitution are VOID.
Woiyo9 wrote:Your arrogance is quite disturbing and typical of closed minded individuals who refuse to acknowledge as opposing point of view.
We are a nation of laws. That said, you are entitled to your opinion or "point of view," even if it is uneducated and ignorant. But your uneducated and ignorant opinions are NOT entitled to respect. It's your CHOICE to remain ignorant even when educational materials are readily available for your consumption. Because you refuse to educate yourself concerning our form of government (a constitutional republic) and the basic principles that are embedded into our Constitution, you can expect to be ridiculed for being a dunce. If you want respect for your opinions, then you have to earn it by doing the hard work to educate yourself so that you may espouse INFORMED opinions. Otherwise, your opinions will be dismissed as the rantings of an uninformed bigot.
You are also entitled to choose your own associations (just like gay people are entitled to choose their associations). If you despise gay people in general, or gay couples in particular, you don't have to associate with them. You're not required to invite them to sit at your kitchen table and drink coffee with you or your family. But, in this constitutional republic, you may NOT use the power of the State to oppress gay people through the operation of State laws. Likewise, when gay people combine with other groups of people and become the political majority, they cannot use the power of the State to oppress you. That's the very essense of our nation of laws with the Constitution being the supreme law of the land: Majoritarian oppression of individuals and minorities is forbidden.
Woiyo9 wrote:This Nation has long established in spirit and now in law that marriage is defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. Precedent has been set as Utah was prohibited admission into this Union due to it's alternative position on marriage.
That in itself clearly indicates that this Nation has established a social for of marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman.
You are now piss happy that a liberal federal court will once again try to overturn the will of the people. You clowns want to force you point of view into the social makeup of this country and continue to face resistance by the majority.
You should retink your position and accept compromise. The bottom line is this is all about property rights and NOT about "marriage". As a so called "lawyer" you should know that there are techniques to assist in this regard.
We're not discussing polygamy (plural marriages) which is denied to ALL; we're discussing monogamy (one marriage) which is
supposed to be available to ALL persons similarly situated in accordance with the supreme law of our land, but is denied to SOME persons similarly situated.
Long ago, when a man and a woman married, a woman was stripped of all legal existence separate from her husband and the man was legally the head of the household. That was the "marriage" of yore that resembled, for the sake of analogy, the 18th Century musket.
Here's what Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in
Heller, said about the 18th Century musket:
Quote:Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.html
The Constitution doesn't simply protect those things that existed in the 18th Century. Just like the Constitution protects modern forms of communication and modern forms of bearable arms, the Constitution protects MODERN FAMILIES. As Justice Scalia stated, any argument to the contrary borders on the frivolous.
Modern families do not come in one size fits all; some of our country's modern families consist of gay couples and gay couples and their children. Because these families exist, they have acquired social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. Look back to what the 19th Century Court said in the
Reynolds case:
"Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal."
REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html
The State has absolutely NO compelling interest in depriving gay couples of the right to marry and to deprive them and their existing modern day families the same dignity and respect that the State affords to other families. On the contrary, the State has a compelling interest in using our marriage laws to regulate the social relations and obligations and duties of existing gay families in the same manner that it regulates the social relations and obligations and duties of straight families. Establishing two separate but unequal government systems to regulate these families to satisfy YOUR bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance of gay families is UNACCEPTABLE under the core principles of our constitutional republic.
Why do you reserve liberty and justice for yourself, but deny it to others?
are you serious?