Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Interpretation of constitutional versus unconstitutional is not an absolute science.  Often times, there is no single fundamentally or universally recognized correct answer for any given case.

If there were, then all Supreme Court rulings would be unanimous, wouldn't they?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/22/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I hate to keep pulling this back but this shouldnt be about philosophy, theology or theoretical physics.

This is about actual law.
the 14th Amendment allowed the federal government to throw its weight onto the states, but it isnt an absolute right.

Can anyone show a clear harm that comes from not redefining marraige to include same sex couples? This isnt riding a bus or eating in a restaurant. This is having to fill out extra forms for a civil union, as opposed to a marriage. No one is preventing parties or regestiering for a shower. This is a technical issue, not a civil rights issue,

We need to draw a line in the sand and let government "Of and by the people" have some meaning. We cannot allow a handful of people tell millions how to live!

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Interpretation of constitutional versus unconstitutional is not an absolute science.  Often times, there is no single fundamentally or universally recognized correct answer for any given case.

If there were, then all Supreme Court rulings would be unanimous, wouldn't they?

But we're discussing the legality of an issue.  The only federal court rulings we have so far fall on the side that says the state doesn't have a compelling interest in preventing same sex couples from marrying.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Interpretation of constitutional versus unconstitutional is not an absolute science.  Often times, there is no single fundamentally or universally recognized correct answer for any given case.

If there were, then all Supreme Court rulings would be unanimous, wouldn't they?

But we're discussing the legality of an issue.  The only federal court rulings we have so far fall on the side that says the state doesn't have a compelling interest in preventing same sex couples from marrying.

And that ruling is under appeal, and Proposition 8 is still legally in effect.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/22/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I hate to keep pulling this back but this shouldnt be about philosophy, theology or theoretical physics.

This is about actual law.
the 14th Amendment allowed the federal government to throw its weight onto the states, but it isnt an absolute right.

Can anyone show a clear harm that comes from not redefining marraige to include same sex couples? This isnt riding a bus or eating in a restaurant. This is having to fill out extra forms for a civil union, as opposed to a marriage. No one is preventing parties or regestiering for a shower. This is a technical issue, not a civil rights issue,

We need to draw a line in the sand and let government "Of and by the people" have some meaning. We cannot allow a handful of people tell millions how to live!

The problem, from that standpoint, is that same sex couples had the right to marry in California.  For the state to take that right away, they have the burden to prove that there is a compelling governmental interest in taking it away.

Government of and by the people still has to protect the minority.  This was clearly intended by the founders. 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/22/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I hate to keep pulling this back but this shouldnt be about philosophy, theology or theoretical physics.

This is about actual law.
the 14th Amendment allowed the federal government to throw its weight onto the states, but it isnt an absolute right.

Can anyone show a clear harm that comes from not redefining marraige to include same sex couples? This isnt riding a bus or eating in a restaurant. This is having to fill out extra forms for a civil union, as opposed to a marriage. No one is preventing parties or regestiering for a shower. This is a technical issue, not a civil rights issue,

We need to draw a line in the sand and let government "Of and by the people" have some meaning. We cannot allow a handful of people tell millions how to live!

The problem, from that standpoint, is that same sex couples had the right to marry in California.  For the state to take that right away, they have the burden to prove that there is a compelling governmental interest in taking it away.

Government of and by the people still has to protect the minority.  This was clearly intended by the founders. 

I think you are confusing "had the right" with "were allowed".

So "same sex couples had the right to marry in California" could also be expressed as "same sex couples were allowed to marry in California.".  Which has an entirely different meaning.

Just because you assume that something is a right doesn't necessarily make it so.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/22/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I hate to keep pulling this back but this shouldnt be about philosophy, theology or theoretical physics.

This is about actual law.
the 14th Amendment allowed the federal government to throw its weight onto the states, but it isnt an absolute right.

Can anyone show a clear harm that comes from not redefining marraige to include same sex couples? This isnt riding a bus or eating in a restaurant. This is having to fill out extra forms for a civil union, as opposed to a marriage. No one is preventing parties or regestiering for a shower. This is a technical issue, not a civil rights issue,

We need to draw a line in the sand and let government "Of and by the people" have some meaning. We cannot allow a handful of people tell millions how to live!

The problem, from that standpoint, is that same sex couples had the right to marry in California.  For the state to take that right away, they have the burden to prove that there is a compelling governmental interest in taking it away.

Government of and by the people still has to protect the minority.  This was clearly intended by the founders. 

I think you are confusing "had the right" with "were allowed".

So "same sex couples had the right to marry in California" could also be expressed as "same sex couples were allowed to marry in California.".  Which has an entirely different meaning.

Just because you assume that something is a right doesn't necessarily make it so.

Same sex couples had the right to get married in California prior to prop 8.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/22/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I hate to keep pulling this back but this shouldnt be about philosophy, theology or theoretical physics.

This is about actual law.
the 14th Amendment allowed the federal government to throw its weight onto the states, but it isnt an absolute right.

Can anyone show a clear harm that comes from not redefining marraige to include same sex couples? This isnt riding a bus or eating in a restaurant. This is having to fill out extra forms for a civil union, as opposed to a marriage. No one is preventing parties or regestiering for a shower. This is a technical issue, not a civil rights issue,

We need to draw a line in the sand and let government "Of and by the people" have some meaning. We cannot allow a handful of people tell millions how to live!

The problem, from that standpoint, is that same sex couples had the right to marry in California.  For the state to take that right away, they have the burden to prove that there is a compelling governmental interest in taking it away.

Government of and by the people still has to protect the minority.  This was clearly intended by the founders. 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
How about this: fundamental, inalienable right . . . versus . . . legal right?

Do you understand the difference between the two?

Where in your mind does marriage fall . . . fundamental, inalienable right, or legal right?

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
'You can drive 70 on the freeway"