Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

Gala, You aren't a local are you? How are you so familiar with the local names?

Brandon9000 wrote:

There is no direct reference to same sex marriage in the Constitution and the attempts to read it in are nonsensical.

There also is no direct reference to your right to eat oatmeal for breakfast, or to drive a Ford rather than a Chrysler, or work as a computer programmer rather than a janitor. Does it follow that you do not have these rights under the constitution?

And has the point finally sunk in that Washington DC introduced same sex marriage through its legislature? You're awfully quiet about that one.

No, I'm not quiet about that one. You just missed my response a few posts above.

The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise. If the people pass a law explicitly forbidding gay marriage, then it becomes illegal - period.

The Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply, since a refusal by the government, whether based on law or custom, to perform same sex marriages doesn't constitute permitting something to some people but not others. Such laws and such rules apply equally to everyone. Everyone may marry someone of the opposite sex and no one may marry someone of the same sex. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't mean that the law must permit each person to do what he wants to.

The Equal Protection Clause says that a law may not describe different rules for different people, and no law under discussion here does that.

The Equal Protection Clause says that a law may not describe different rules for different people, and no law under discussion here does that.

The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise. If the people pass a law explicitly forbidding gay marriage, then it becomes illegal - period.

Why have a constitution if everything passed by the legislature is automatically legal?

Indeed, a law prohibiting the use of oatmeal as a breakfast food would be stupid, and forbid a very tasty breakfast food, but it would be legal. The Constitution doesn't protect oatmeal as a right. You simply cannot rightly claim all sorts of things are in the Constitution that it doesn't say.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply, since a refusal by the government, whether based on law or custom, to perform same sex marriages doesn't constitute permitting something to some people but not others. Such laws and such rules apply equally to everyone. Everyone may marry someone of the opposite sex and no one may marry someone of the same sex. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't mean that the law must permit each person to do what he wants to.

That's a pretty silly argument. Made me laugh. Thanks.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The Equal Protection Clause says that a law may not describe different rules for different people, and no law under discussion here does that.

No, the equal protection clause says that a law may not describe different rules for the same people. The constitution presumes that all people are politically equal, and so any law that sets up a distinction among people is suspect. A law that treats otherwise equal persons unequally must have some sort of compelling state interest behind it, otherwise it's unconstitutional.

So, what is the compelling state interest behind treating people differently with regard to marriage?

Brandon9000 wrote:

The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise. If the people pass a law explicitly forbidding gay marriage, then it becomes illegal - period.

Why have a constitution if everything passed by the legislature is automatically legal?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Indeed, a law prohibiting the use of oatmeal as a breakfast food would be stupid, and forbid a very tasty breakfast food, but it would be legal. The Constitution doesn't protect oatmeal as a right. You simply cannot rightly claim all sorts of things are in the Constitution that it doesn't say.

Although I have theoretically withdrawn in exhaustion, I do have to respond to this point of yours. The opposite of what you say is true: You simply cannot rightly claim that the Constitution doesn't protect a right unless it explicitly enumerates it. The Constitution specifically invalidates this line of reasoning.

The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Your whole argument against same sex marriage is that since it isn't among the rights enumerated in the Constitution, you can therefore deny and disparage that it's a right. How do you reconcile your argument with the Ninth Amendment? I don't see how you logically can.

In order for the Constitution (or any law) to protect a practice, it must make some mention of it, whether directly or indirectly.

Yes, liberals usually choose mockery over argument.

I can claim that the Constitution protects my right to get a 20% raise this year, but it doesn't.

Everything passed by the legislature isn't automatically legal. Must you make your point based on misrepresenting my position? Doesn't speak well for your position. My point is that the Constitution doesn not state that there should be a right to marry a person of one's own gender. Therefore, you cannot nullify a referendum which was voted into law based on the Constitution. I can claim that the Constitution protects my right to get a 20% raise this year, but it doesn't.

....You cannot claim that the Consitution (or any law) protects something if it doesn't ever refer to it either directly or indirectly....

WASHINGTON, DC--In a historic decision with major implications for the future of U.S. participatory democracy, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Monday that the American people are unfit to govern........As a result of the ruling, the American people will no longer retain the power to choose their own federal, state and local officials or vote on matters of concern to the public.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, liberals usually choose mockery over argument.

lol. Too bad conservatives don't choose rational arguments that make sense.

Brandon9000 wrote:

In order for the Constitution (or any law) to protect a practice, it must make some mention of it, whether directly or indirectly.

Okay, let's run with your standard for the moment. How would you apply it to interracial marriage? Do you agree with the Supreme Court about Loving v. Virginia, where it held that the Lovings had a right to marry each other? After all, he was white, she was black, and Virginia had criminalized their marriage in a duly enacted anti-miscegenation law. If you agree with the outcome in this case nevertheless, where in the Constitution do you find the Loving's right to marry?