Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:39:32 PM EDT
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:41:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/
View Quote



Fuck Rand Paul
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:43:45 PM EDT
But muh tax breaks!!!!
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:44:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:



Fuck Rand Paul
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


What exactly is the fault with his logic on this matter?
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:44:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:



Fuck Rand Paul
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


What an articulate counterargument. You must be a real winner in life and an absolute pleasure to be around.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:46:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 11:49:25 PM EDT by tcrpe]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By spartandieseltech:


What exactly is the fault with his logic on this matter?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By spartandieseltech:
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


What exactly is the fault with his logic on this matter?



Small world. I mentioned my younger sister in a thread tonight. That's her Godfather in your avatar.

Fuck Rand Paul. NAGR
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:48:14 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:


What an articulate counterargument. You must be a real winner in life and an absolute pleasure to be around.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


What an articulate counterargument. You must be a real winner in life and an absolute pleasure to be around.




burned
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:49:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OKSoda:
But muh tax breaks!!!!
View Quote


There is also an easy answer to that. One that the ancients knew well and approved of.

Don't tax people, tax things.

Repealing the 16th amendment, going to a consumption tax, and eliminating Social Security would go a long ways towards making federal regulation of marriage a moot point.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:49:40 PM EDT
Now he's against traditional marriage as well as the Confederate flag
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:51:38 PM EDT
It doesn't have to be between consenting adults either. Look beyond antiquated ideals and mores. Begin to progress toward a complete redefining of commitment and love and move on to a new brighter future where we all can celebrate our true diversity in a new utopia.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:53:04 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
Now he's against traditional marriage as well as the Confederate flag
View Quote


Do you even read bro?

He's against government being involved in marriage. How is that against the concept of traditional marriage, (ie a contract between a man, a woman, and God, the government shouldn't be in the picture)
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:54:56 PM EDT
Were going to loose, not because we can't win, but people can't get the concept that we have to defend liberty at all costs, not just our particular brand of liberty.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:55:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:



Fuck Rand Paul
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


Another intelligent argument from the derpy wing of "the right".

Put on your surprised face.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:57:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 11:58:20 PM EDT by NHTriumph]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
Now he's against traditional marriage as well as the Confederate flag
View Quote



Because the sanctity of marriage means oh so much anymore.

Who gives a shit if gays want to marry. No skin off my back.

I agree with Rand. The gov needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business. Why should two people need to pay anyone to get the approval to share their lives together. Gay or strait.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:00:03 AM EDT
I have no problem with Same Sex Marriage, but I recognize that the method used to get there sets a devastating precedent.
Rand Paul's solution is elegant, but potentially moot.

"Elegant" in that the real issue wasn't the 'definition' of marriage as argued by talking heads today; so much as it was about who 'owned' the institution of marriage. Paul's solution was to separate the emotional name "MARRIAGE" from the legal realities. Place the Church in charge of the name and the state in charge of the paperwork. Easy, and everyone gets what they want (more or less).

But all that was blown to shit when the SCOTUS flipped out like some retarded King Solomon and just chopped the baby in half. Now everyone "owns" the institution of marriage and as such it's meaning is subject to the political winds of the day. It's probably too late to go back to a point where Paul's solution makes sense.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:10:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
Were going to loose, not because we can't win, but people can't get the concept that we have to defend liberty at all costs, not just our particular brand of liberty.
View Quote


But the gays, the gays are bad the bible says so and as we all know the bible is the law of the land.


















Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:10:44 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
Were going to loose, not because we can't win, but people can't get the concept that we have to defend liberty at all costs, not just our particular brand of liberty.
View Quote


This is it, man. This is the parting groan. This is how liberty dies. They dont want liberty, they dont want freedom. No one wants the responsibility. This current population is not deserving of it, and people get what they deserve. The party is over. I feel defeated, my fire for this is dying. I have been shouted down and their voice is overwhelmingly loud. I look around and see only those shouting at me, and those walking by content to be oblivious, content to be apathetic. Whose liberty do I fight for when all of society desires serfdom?
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:20:44 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:



Fuck Rand Paul
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul




But you forgot to inject the ever appreciated "Damned Dopers!"
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:24:15 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:



Fuck Rand Paul
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


Ooo soo angwy
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:25:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 12:27:12 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
So...

How exactly do we get ALL of government out of the marriage business?




On a completely unrelated note.... Why is it that so many Gay and Transgender activists are also avowed Marxists?

Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:28:46 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
Now he's against traditional marriage as well as the Confederate flag
View Quote


He's against the Confederate flag but he doesn't believe it should be banned or legislated against.

Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:29:17 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
So...

How exactly do we get ALL of government out of the marriage business?

View Quote


So whats your argument the government should have been in it in the first place?

Why wouldn't a private marriage "contract" be equally as valid as a government sanctioned marriage license? (The ATF doesn't seem to have a problem accepting my private trust for buying NFA items)
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:31:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:34:47 AM EDT
I agree with Rand. The government shouldn't be involved in things like defining marriage as a right. We're getting to the day and age where our society thinks that a right is something the government has to provide you with, or force others to accept... when a right should be nothing more than a freedom of action.

As far as the legal privileges that married couples have, there should be a civic structure for it, but that's just a contract. Rand is right in this regard, too.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:40:46 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By spartandieseltech:


What exactly is the fault with his logic on this matter?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By spartandieseltech:
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


What exactly is the fault with his logic on this matter?

Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:46:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 12:51:17 AM EDT by winxlite]
What are the legal ramifications,if any, when a member of the clergy refuses to sign a state license. What if churches offered religious marriages for members only, separate from govt regulation, and enforceable only by threat of excommunication.

What if a state decided to grant civil unions instead of marriage licenses. Further, suppose that state offered them to any two(or more) consenting adults irregardless of any other relationship the people may have(while still maintaining laws against incest).
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 1:01:21 AM EDT
And this is why we can't win. So many of you won't support someone unless it's your "perfect candidate". Meanwhile the libs will rally around Hillary full force. We are a dying species.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 1:12:49 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gym007:
And this is why we can't win. So many of you won't support someone unless it's your "perfect candidate". Meanwhile the libs will rally around Hillary full force. We are a dying species.
View Quote


Oh I'm sure Romney would've saved the day.

Link Posted: 6/30/2015 1:58:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 2:31:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 2:32:12 AM EDT by happycynic]
An idea I've been batting around - no state recognized marriage period. No joint tax filing. Property disputes handled like any other property. No alimony. Child support is a flat amount per child not based on income, and only applicable if the two parents are not living together. Everything else is handled by legal contract/designation. End the death tax so no issue of passing property to surviving spouse. The only exception would be that a spouse would be presumed to have first say to an incapacitated person and be the first inheritor intestate, all of which could be changed by legal document. Get the state out of family life as much as possible.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 2:38:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:27:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 5:48:25 AM EDT by nametaken158]
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/
View Quote


Government is defined by social constructs, and the idea of formal recognition of relationships--be it social, tribal, governmental, or otherwise--extends back thousands of years. Government is right to acknowledge the joining of two individuals in a consenting relationship, because society does so--and society dictates that which governs it. There are other objective reasons why government should grant recognition to a partner, born from the rights and laws we've crafted, to include taxation, shared benefits (healthcare, etc), inheritance rights, visitation, special powers of attorney, etc--actions and privileges that can't readily be ignored by the State, as they are matters that require the legislative attention they've been afforded. It is also a 10th Amendment/State's rights issue so far as them wishing to extend benefits to couples in regards to many of these matters. The article is right in that the 14th Amendment does not require that state (or federal) governments recognize marriage, but societal norms and laws regarding such norms that have been enacted by publicly elected representatives and signed by democratically elected presidents, do. And, so long as government recognizes such relationships, it must do so equally; THAT is an edict which the states have no authority to refuse.

However, the millennia-long recognitions of relationships being almost (but not entirely) exclusively centered on a man and a woman do not necessarily mean that we must stick to this narrow definition. The ideas that government should recognize a relationship, and the types of relationships the government should recognize--while both rooted in societal tradition--are two separate issues. Our Constitution provides that laws of the states must be applied equally to all individuals situated in similar legal circumstance (14th). And while not a constitutional lawyer or Supreme Court Justice, I can't think of a reasonable, objective, non-religiously based argument for how two cogent, consenting, monogamous males or females who wish to have their relationship recognized are legally different from a male and female who wish the same. From a purely legal perspective, if two women spend 30 years together in a live-in relationship, there's no reason why one should be constitutionally (at the state level) denied the right to the inheritance of the other if they fail to construct a will before an untimely death...and an untold additional number of hypotheticals.

A number of the arguments in that article are ill formed. Government isn't just now conferring "a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage." Less than 50 years ago it was redefined legislatively, but with legal test, to be a right that extended to people of different races; in our parent's lifetime (and in some of ours), this was still a jailable criminal offense in some states. Our courts and legislators have often--and rightly--redefined long held traditional definitions based on what was morally and constitutionally acceptable. They redefined personal property rights to no longer include humans. They declared that black American citizens had to be counted as an entire person. They redefined the voting rights of citizens to first include black males and then, much later, all females. They affirmed that the right to own a firearm is an individual right, free of any requirements for the maintenance of a regulated militia. One of the court's main duties is to interpret and define legislation in a manner consistent with the freedom's afforded in this great country and in the Constitution that is their guarantor. Occasionally, this means the destruction of well-established institutions that have endured thousands of years throughout a global environment in which they enjoy almost universal acceptance (for example, slavery.) And in some cases, it means the much-less-invasive restructuring of an institution that has, for so long as this country has existed, excluded large groups of similarly-situated individuals (homosexuals), just as it had bi-racial couples only a generation or two ago. This argument is a tired one, simply repackaged for a new era and a new group of American citizens to whom we still feel justified in denying legal protection for reasons unknown.

Justice Thomas' argument quoted in the article likewise falls flat to me, as the article explicitly (and rightfully) states that the government shall not prevent people from entering into contracts, but then goes on to conjecture (via the quote from Thomas) that marriage was intended to consist of actions requiring no special recognition or contract whatsoever. The Framers would have no need to recognize marriage as an independent right to "making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse", as those were all freedoms expressly afforded to individuals already (for example, through the First Amendment.) In that right, it can be inferred (at least from Justice Thomas' argument) that it is not the Framers of the Constitution who sought to define marriage, but society as a whole who has done so. And being that nothing in the Constitution ought to deny people from entering into a contract, either privately or with the State, and that the 10th Amendment affords the states the right to acknowledge such contracts, and that society has expressed the want and need for such recognitions, marriage both can and ought to exist as a State institution. It was only the Framer's intent (and the intent of the legislatures and interpretations of justices that have come since) that such institutions and definitions be enjoyed and applied equally among all U.S. persons, without inhibiting their rights to make vows, hold religions ceremonies celebrating said vows, raise children, and enjoy the company of their spouse--actions that the recognition of gay marriage deny to no one. Society can dictate those institutions that ought to exist, but it may not dictate to whom they are available.

As for the not-so-veiled references to God as our creator and guarantor of rights, Paul's argument is nothing short of insulting to somebody who champions himself as a constitutionalist. It is true that the vast majority of the Framers were theists, and a very many of them practiced a form of Christianity that I'd venture would be very foreign to our modern version of it. It's also true that they made many references to our rights being manifested to us by our Creator. But, much more importantly, in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights they included an Establishment Clause, which established the United States as one of (if not THE) first EVER constitutionally secular states. Because of the system of government put in place by the Founders of this country, despite their theological convictions, we defined what it meant to be a government without religion. "Ours" may very well have been "the first where rights came from our creator", but it was also the first in which we declared that any creator or any beliefs surrounding one will have no part in determining our government or its laws. 226 years ago this was a radical concept, and still the Founders recognized the importance of separating the two. We must continue to do so today.

Unless and until society no longer acknowledges the idea of two person relationships, marriage is right to remain an institution recognized and fairly regulated by the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment, in order to provide for those issues which accompany such relationships (mentioned, in part, in the opening paragraph.) But so long as the states recognize such a right, they must do so equally among similarly legally situated couples, regardless of any insistence that our rights are given to us by a god.




This is, for the record, the argument of a moderately drunk layman. I'm sure that the many legal professionals on this sight may have great reason to rip it apart, and I welcome such criticism. It's the way I see it, at least so well as I'm able to put it into type, but I'm always willing to consider new and different information.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:27:39 AM EDT
Boom. Essay.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:41:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 7:45:37 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:


So whats your argument the government should have been in it in the first place?

Why wouldn't a private marriage "contract" be equally as valid as a government sanctioned marriage license? (The ATF doesn't seem to have a problem accepting my private trust for buying NFA items)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
So...

How exactly do we get ALL of government out of the marriage business?



So whats your argument the government should have been in it in the first place?

Why wouldn't a private marriage "contract" be equally as valid as a government sanctioned marriage license? (The ATF doesn't seem to have a problem accepting my private trust for buying NFA items)


It doesn't matter. They ARE involved. Debating the point whether or not they SHOULD have been involved is a pointless, academic exercise. ESPECIALLY if there are no realistic ideas regarding extricating them from it.

Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:47:47 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nametaken158:


Government is defined by social constructs, and the idea of formal recognition of relationships--be it social, tribal, governmental, or otherwise--extends back thousands of years. Government is right to acknowledge the joining of two individuals in a consenting relationship, because society does so--and society dictates that which governs it. There are other objective reasons why government should grant recognition to a partner, born from the rights and laws we've crafted, to include taxation, shared benefits (healthcare, etc), inheritance rights, visitation, special powers of attorney, etc--actions and privileges that can't readily be ignored by the State, as they are matters that require the legislative attention they've been afforded. It is also a 10th Amendment/State's rights issue so far as them wishing to extend benefits to couples in regards to many of these matters. The article is right in that the 14th Amendment does not require that state (or federal) governments recognize marriage, but societal norms and laws regarding such norms that have been enacted by publicly elected representatives and signed by democratically elected presidents, do. And, so long as government recognizes such relationships, it must do so equally; THAT is an edict which the states have no authority to refuse.

However, the millennia-long recognitions of relationships being almost (but not entirely) exclusively centered on a man and a woman do not necessarily mean that we must stick to this narrow definition. The ideas that government should recognize a relationship, and the types of relationships the government should recognize--while both rooted in societal tradition--are two separate issues. Our Constitution provides that laws of the states must be applied equally to all individuals situated in similar legal circumstance (14th). And while not a constitutional lawyer or Supreme Court Justice, I can't think of a reasonable, objective, non-religiously based argument for how two cogent, consenting, monogamous males or females who wish to have their relationship recognized are legally different from a male and female who wish the same. From a purely legal perspective, if two women spend 30 years together in a live-in relationship, there's no reason why one should be constitutionally (at the state level) denied the right to the inheritance of the other if they fail to construct a will before an untimely death...and an untold additional number of hypotheticals.

A number of the arguments in that article are ill formed. Government isn't just now conferring "a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage." Less than 50 years ago it was redefined legislatively, but with legal test, to be a right that extended to people of different races; in our parent's lifetime (and in some of ours), this was still a jailable criminal offense in some states. Our courts and legislators have often--and rightly--redefined long held traditional definitions based on what was morally and constitutionally acceptable. They redefined personal property rights to no longer include humans. They declared that black American citizens had to be counted as an entire person. They redefined the voting rights of citizens to first include black males and then, much later, all females. They affirmed that the right to own a firearm is an individual right, free of any requirements for the maintenance of a regulated militia. One of the court's main duties is to interpret and define legislation in a manner consistent with the freedom's afforded in this great country and in the Constitution that is their guarantor. Occasionally, this means the destruction of well-established institutions that have endured thousands of years throughout a global environment in which they enjoy almost universal acceptance (for example, slavery.) And in some cases, it means the much-less-invasive restructuring of an institution that has, for so long as this country has existed, excluded large groups of similarly-situated individuals (homosexuals), just as it had bi-racial couples only a generation or two ago. This argument is a tired one, simply repackaged for a new era and a new group of American citizens to whom we still feel justified in denying legal protection for reasons unknown.

Justice Thomas' argument quoted in the article likewise falls flat to me, as the article explicitly (and rightfully) states that the government shall not prevent people from entering into contracts, but then goes on to conjecture (via the quote from Thomas) that marriage was intended to consist of actions requiring no special recognition or contract whatsoever. The Framers would have no need to recognize marriage as an independent right to "making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse", as those were all freedoms expressly afforded to individuals already (for example, through the First Amendment.) In that right, it can be inferred (at least from Justice Thomas' argument) that it is not the Framers of the Constitution who sought to define marriage, but society as a whole who has done so. And being that nothing in the Constitution ought to deny people from entering into a contract, either privately or with the State, and that the 10th Amendment affords the states the right to acknowledge such contracts, and that society has expressed the want and need for such recognitions, marriage both can and ought to exist as a State institution. It was only the Framer's intent (and the intent of the legislatures and interpretations of justices that have come since) that such institutions and definitions be enjoyed and applied equally among all U.S. persons, without inhibiting their rights to make vows, hold religions ceremonies celebrating said vows, raise children, and enjoy the company of their spouse--actions that the recognition of gay marriage deny to no one. Society can dictate those institutions that ought to exist, but it may not dictate to whom they are available.

As for the not-so-veiled references to God as our creator and guarantor of rights, Paul's argument is nothing short of insulting to somebody who champions himself as a constitutionalist. It is true that the vast majority of the Framers were theists, and a very many of them practiced a form of Christianity that I'd venture would be very foreign to our modern version of it. It's also true that they made many references to our rights being manifested to us by our Creator. But, much more importantly, in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights they included an Establishment Clause, which established the United States as one of (if not THE) first EVER constitutionally secular states. Because of the system of government put in place by the Founders of this country, despite their theological convictions, we defined what it meant to be a government without religion. "Ours" may very well have been "the first where rights came from our creator", but it was also the first in which we declared that any creator or any beliefs surrounding one will have no part in determining our government or its laws. 226 years ago this was a radical concept, and still the Founders recognized the importance of separating the two. We must continue to do so today.

Unless and until society no longer acknowledges the idea of two person relationships, marriage is right to remain an institution recognized and fairly regulated by the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment, in order to provide for those issues which accompany such relationships (mentioned, in part, in the opening paragraph.) But so long as the states recognize such a right, they must do so equally among similarly legally situated couples, regardless of any insistence that our rights are given to us by a god.




This is, for the record, the argument of a moderately drunk layman. I'm sure that the many legal professionals on this sight may have great reason to rip it apart, and I welcome such criticism. It's the way I see it, at least so well as I'm able to put it into type, but I'm always willing to consider new and different information.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nametaken158:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/


Government is defined by social constructs, and the idea of formal recognition of relationships--be it social, tribal, governmental, or otherwise--extends back thousands of years. Government is right to acknowledge the joining of two individuals in a consenting relationship, because society does so--and society dictates that which governs it. There are other objective reasons why government should grant recognition to a partner, born from the rights and laws we've crafted, to include taxation, shared benefits (healthcare, etc), inheritance rights, visitation, special powers of attorney, etc--actions and privileges that can't readily be ignored by the State, as they are matters that require the legislative attention they've been afforded. It is also a 10th Amendment/State's rights issue so far as them wishing to extend benefits to couples in regards to many of these matters. The article is right in that the 14th Amendment does not require that state (or federal) governments recognize marriage, but societal norms and laws regarding such norms that have been enacted by publicly elected representatives and signed by democratically elected presidents, do. And, so long as government recognizes such relationships, it must do so equally; THAT is an edict which the states have no authority to refuse.

However, the millennia-long recognitions of relationships being almost (but not entirely) exclusively centered on a man and a woman do not necessarily mean that we must stick to this narrow definition. The ideas that government should recognize a relationship, and the types of relationships the government should recognize--while both rooted in societal tradition--are two separate issues. Our Constitution provides that laws of the states must be applied equally to all individuals situated in similar legal circumstance (14th). And while not a constitutional lawyer or Supreme Court Justice, I can't think of a reasonable, objective, non-religiously based argument for how two cogent, consenting, monogamous males or females who wish to have their relationship recognized are legally different from a male and female who wish the same. From a purely legal perspective, if two women spend 30 years together in a live-in relationship, there's no reason why one should be constitutionally (at the state level) denied the right to the inheritance of the other if they fail to construct a will before an untimely death...and an untold additional number of hypotheticals.

A number of the arguments in that article are ill formed. Government isn't just now conferring "a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage." Less than 50 years ago it was redefined legislatively, but with legal test, to be a right that extended to people of different races; in our parent's lifetime (and in some of ours), this was still a jailable criminal offense in some states. Our courts and legislators have often--and rightly--redefined long held traditional definitions based on what was morally and constitutionally acceptable. They redefined personal property rights to no longer include humans. They declared that black American citizens had to be counted as an entire person. They redefined the voting rights of citizens to first include black males and then, much later, all females. They affirmed that the right to own a firearm is an individual right, free of any requirements for the maintenance of a regulated militia. One of the court's main duties is to interpret and define legislation in a manner consistent with the freedom's afforded in this great country and in the Constitution that is their guarantor. Occasionally, this means the destruction of well-established institutions that have endured thousands of years throughout a global environment in which they enjoy almost universal acceptance (for example, slavery.) And in some cases, it means the much-less-invasive restructuring of an institution that has, for so long as this country has existed, excluded large groups of similarly-situated individuals (homosexuals), just as it had bi-racial couples only a generation or two ago. This argument is a tired one, simply repackaged for a new era and a new group of American citizens to whom we still feel justified in denying legal protection for reasons unknown.

Justice Thomas' argument quoted in the article likewise falls flat to me, as the article explicitly (and rightfully) states that the government shall not prevent people from entering into contracts, but then goes on to conjecture (via the quote from Thomas) that marriage was intended to consist of actions requiring no special recognition or contract whatsoever. The Framers would have no need to recognize marriage as an independent right to "making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse", as those were all freedoms expressly afforded to individuals already (for example, through the First Amendment.) In that right, it can be inferred (at least from Justice Thomas' argument) that it is not the Framers of the Constitution who sought to define marriage, but society as a whole who has done so. And being that nothing in the Constitution ought to deny people from entering into a contract, either privately or with the State, and that the 10th Amendment affords the states the right to acknowledge such contracts, and that society has expressed the want and need for such recognitions, marriage both can and ought to exist as a State institution. It was only the Framer's intent (and the intent of the legislatures and interpretations of justices that have come since) that such institutions and definitions be enjoyed and applied equally among all U.S. persons, without inhibiting their rights to make vows, hold religions ceremonies celebrating said vows, raise children, and enjoy the company of their spouse--actions that the recognition of gay marriage deny to no one. Society can dictate those institutions that ought to exist, but it may not dictate to whom they are available.

As for the not-so-veiled references to God as our creator and guarantor of rights, Paul's argument is nothing short of insulting to somebody who champions himself as a constitutionalist. It is true that the vast majority of the Framers were theists, and a very many of them practiced a form of Christianity that I'd venture would be very foreign to our modern version of it. It's also true that they made many references to our rights being manifested to us by our Creator. But, much more importantly, in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights they included an Establishment Clause, which established the United States as one of (if not THE) first EVER constitutionally secular states. Because of the system of government put in place by the Founders of this country, despite their theological convictions, we defined what it meant to be a government without religion. "Ours" may very well have been "the first where rights came from our creator", but it was also the first in which we declared that any creator or any beliefs surrounding one will have no part in determining our government or its laws. 226 years ago this was a radical concept, and still the Founders recognized the importance of separating the two. We must continue to do so today.

Unless and until society no longer acknowledges the idea of two person relationships, marriage is right to remain an institution recognized and fairly regulated by the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment, in order to provide for those issues which accompany such relationships (mentioned, in part, in the opening paragraph.) But so long as the states recognize such a right, they must do so equally among similarly legally situated couples, regardless of any insistence that our rights are given to us by a god.




This is, for the record, the argument of a moderately drunk layman. I'm sure that the many legal professionals on this sight may have great reason to rip it apart, and I welcome such criticism. It's the way I see it, at least so well as I'm able to put it into type, but I'm always willing to consider new and different information.

Oh for fucks sake.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:51:00 AM EDT
It should be a dead issue in the upcoming.

Question: Blah, blah, gay marriage.

Politician: Settled law, next question.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:53:36 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
It should be a dead issue in the upcoming.

Question: Blah, blah, gay marriage.

Politician: Settled law, next question.
View Quote


And Obamacare, too?
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:56:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 7:57:58 AM EDT by HenryReardon]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
Were going to loose, not because we can't win, but people can't get the concept that we have to defend liberty at all costs, not just our particular brand of liberty.
View Quote

The United States did not succeed because we tolerated anything and everything. It succeeded because we - through the Constitution - tried to stop the government from telling us what to do and what not to do. But American culture was never all-inclusive and all-tolerant. No society can be and hold together. We are now becoming so diverse - and with less and less of a common core of values - that the Constitution is well on its way to just being an old piece of paper with funny writing on it. It's not the document that holds things together, it's the shared values and common culture. And we don't have that anymore. Sorry, but diversity is not a shared value.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:58:47 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By marksman121:


Another intelligent argument from the derpy wing of "the right".

Put on your surprised face.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By marksman121:
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


Another intelligent argument from the derpy wing of "the right".

Put on your surprised face.


I have my doubts about him being on the right at all to be completely honest.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:59:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
It should be a dead issue in the upcoming.

Question: Blah, blah, gay marriage.

Politician: Settled law, next question.
View Quote



SHOULD, but the GOP is incapable of leaving shit alone, they will blabber on about this and other social issues and LOSE like always.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:06:12 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
So...

How exactly do we get ALL of government out of the marriage business?




On a completely unrelated note.... Why is it that so many Gay and Transgender activists are also avowed Marxists?

View Quote



When people decide to dissolve a marriage we can simply have them flip a coin or cut a deck of cards to resolve issues such as alimony, child support, and the division of property.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:11:01 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:



Fuck Rand Paul
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul

You don't like Rand Paul?

Stop the fucking presses!
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:12:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:



Fuck Rand Paul
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
I think he is the only republican candidate that gets it. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, and the concept of a marriage "license" is absurd, and only came about to squelch interracial marriage.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/



Fuck Rand Paul


You do realize you have awakened the Paulbot Hordes?
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:15:41 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:


And Obamacare, too?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
It should be a dead issue in the upcoming.

Question: Blah, blah, gay marriage.

Politician: Settled law, next question.


And Obamacare, too?


Sigh, If you must go there........

The ACA is fair game because it's not a issue so easy to defend and it's repeal has support of the majority of US citizens.

Conversely around 58% of the US public favor gay marriage.

In fact the numbers are pretty much reversed on the two issues.

The ACA is just a passed Bill and a POTUS signature away from repeal. It is do-able with a GOP Congress and POTUS.

SCOTUS has not ruled that the ACA is a right, they just ruled on the particulars of the law.

SCOTUS rulings on the rights of US citizens (in this case gay marriage) are a bit more lasting and I really don't see any support for a Constitutional Amendment on the gay marriage issue gaining any traction what-so-ever.

Fight battles you have a chance of winning, gay marriage and abortion are not hills for a GOP politician to die on.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:23:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
Were going to loose, not because we can't win, but people can't get the concept that we have to defend liberty at all costs, not just our particular brand of liberty.
View Quote


Winner, winner chicken dinner. Nothing else matters. Picks my pocket or breaks my leg and all that. I am ok with a gay married couple defending their marijuana crop with an assault rifle.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:23:33 AM EDT
Hillary has my vote in 2016
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:25:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 8:26:51 AM EDT by RDak]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gatorade9001:
Hillary has my vote in 2016
View Quote

Why?

I would never vote for her because she is a rabid anti gunner who has serious communist leanings IMHO.

Plus she is about as dishonest as a person can get...........but I realize we are talking about politicians so that is to be expected.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:26:26 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:


So whats your argument the government should have been in it in the first place?

Why wouldn't a private marriage "contract" be equally as valid as a government sanctioned marriage license? (The ATF doesn't seem to have a problem accepting my private trust for buying NFA items)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
So...

How exactly do we get ALL of government out of the marriage business?



So whats your argument the government should have been in it in the first place?

Why wouldn't a private marriage "contract" be equally as valid as a government sanctioned marriage license? (The ATF doesn't seem to have a problem accepting my private trust for buying NFA items)



Its really about being able to have someone on your insurance, death benefits, common property, end of life medical decisions and other things where a spouse has special rights. You could always get some church to marry you but you couldn't do these things.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:36:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:

Why?

I would never vote for her because she is a rabid anti gunner who has serious communist leanings IMHO.

Plus she is about as dishonest as a person can get...........but I realize we are talking about politicians so that is to be expected.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Gatorade9001:
Hillary has my vote in 2016

Why?

I would never vote for her because she is a rabid anti gunner who has serious communist leanings IMHO.

Plus she is about as dishonest as a person can get...........but I realize we are talking about politicians so that is to be expected.


Do you know her personally? sources? Your talk is cheap my friend.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:39:31 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
So...

How exactly do we get ALL of government out of the marriage business?


On a completely unrelated note.... Why is it that so many Gay and Transgender activists are also avowed Marxists?

View Quote


Easy.

National sales tax replace the tax code. No more marriage taxation issues.

Require people to designate a survivor for benefits or they don't get survivorship benefits.

Treat it like a contract for state law purposes. Enact a Uniform domestic partnership act just like

we have a UCC, etc. If you want to deviate from the standard terms you must have a written contract.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 8:41:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2015 8:43:59 AM EDT by RDak]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gatorade9001:


Do you know her personally? sources? Your talk is cheap my friend.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gatorade9001:
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Gatorade9001:
Hillary has my vote in 2016

Why?

I would never vote for her because she is a rabid anti gunner who has serious communist leanings IMHO.

Plus she is about as dishonest as a person can get...........but I realize we are talking about politicians so that is to be expected.


Do you know her personally? sources? Your talk is cheap my friend.

You don't know that she is rabidly anti gun? This is a joke right?

You don't know about the recent destruction of her private server communications she used for formal Secretary of State duties? This is a joke right?

You don't know that she lied about why the attack on our embassy in Libya occurred? This is a joke right?

You don't know that politicians are generally the most dishonest people who have ever walked the face of the earth? This is a joke right?

If you are not joking I can see why you are a democrat.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top