Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Fundamental rights do not need to be granted or legislated.  Legal rights do.

Why are you unwilling to answer my question: is marriage a fundamental right, or a legal right?

I already answered.  Right here.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Fundamental rights do not need to be granted or legislated.  Legal rights do.

Why are you unwilling to answer my question: is marriage a fundamental right, or a legal right?

I already answered.  Right here.

I didn't ask you to distinguish between a fundamental right and a legal right.

You said that there is a difference between the government granting a right to do something and allowing you to do something.

What is the difference?

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.

See?  Right there.  "Entirely different meaning."

"Right to marry" implies a fundamental right.

"Allowed to marry" implies a legal right.

So is the "civil right" of marriage a fundamental right or a legal right?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
"Right to marry" implies a fundamental right.

"Allowed to marry" implies a legal right.

So is the "civil right" of marriage a fundamental right or a legal right?

If, according to your link, the only fundamental right is the right to life, then any other right is a legal right.

All of your rights are granted by the constitution and are legal rights.

Glad that we agree that "legal right" and "allowed to" are the same thing.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
"Right to marry" implies a fundamental right.

"Allowed to marry" implies a legal right.

So is the "civil right" of marriage a fundamental right or a legal right?

If, according to your link, the only fundamental right is the right to life, then any other right is a legal right.

All of your rights are granted by the constitution and are legal rights.

Glad that we agree that "legal right" and "allowed to" are the same thing.

Again, I'm not asking for what my link says.  I can read.

I'm asking YOU what YOU think: is the "civil right" of marriage a fundamental right or a legal right?

Why is it relevant?  If you think there is no other fundamental right other than life, what is and isn't a fundamental right is irrelevant to this discussion.

I didn't write that article.  So it doesn't necessarily entirely or accurately reflect my views.

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
I didn't write that article.  So it doesn't necessarily entirely or accurately reflect my views.

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Because what is and isn't a fundamental right is irrelevant to this entire discussion if fundamental rights can't be granted by the government.

EDIT: Your words - "Fundamental rights do not need to be granted or legislated.  Legal rights do"

It is absolutely relevant to this discussion if the Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect fundamental rights.

Do you agree or disagree that, in addition to other things, the U.S. Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
It is absolutely relevant to this discussion if the Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect fundamental rights.

Do you agree or disagree that, in addition to other things, the U.S. Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens?

So a fundamental right can be granted by the constitution?

Should I read the last 4 pages or is JRDX still insisting that everyone has the right to get married to whoever they choose?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
It is absolutely relevant to this discussion if the Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect fundamental rights.

Do you agree or disagree that, in addition to other things, the U.S. Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens?

So a fundamental right can be granted by the constitution?

No.  But it can be identified and affirmed by the Constitution as a fundamental right.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2012 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Should I read the last 4 pages or is JRDX still insisting that everyone has the right to get married to whoever they choose?

Don't waste your time.  I'll give you a brief summary.

jrd_x is unable to define exactly what a right is; he is having trouble differentiating between a fundamental right and a legal right, and in turn is unable  to answer whether or not he believes marriage is a fundamental right that all people inherently have or is a legal right that is granted by the government.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
It is absolutely relevant to this discussion if the Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect fundamental rights.

Do you agree or disagree that, in addition to other things, the U.S. Constitution is intended to guarantee and protect the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens?

So a fundamental right can be granted by the constitution?

No.  But it can be identified and affirmed by the Constitution as a fundamental right.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

Identified and affirmed???  Your rights are granted legally by the constitution.  You can believe that you have those rights absent the legal protection, but there isn't much you can do about it if someone decides to take them away.