Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"State's Rights" Nonsense and Gay Marriage

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 7:59:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This phrase in the 10th Amendment, which is often ignored by Christians who oppose gay marriage (and, historically, also was ignored by pro-slavery advocates who demanded that the issue of slavery be a state's rights issue), seems to imply that issues concerning the states are left to the states and issues concerning the people are left to the people. This does not permit you to create fascist utopias in your state. Marriage is an issue that concerns the people,so the states have no right to regulate it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 7:59:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, if the states are violating the rights of their citizens, the federal government absolutely has every right to prevent them from doing so.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 8:10:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 7:59:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if the states are violating the rights of their citizens, the federal government absolutely has every right to prevent them from doing so.

Isn't that the point of the 14th amendment (equal protection clause)?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 8:12:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 8:10:49 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 7:59:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if the states are violating the rights of their citizens, the federal government absolutely has every right to prevent them from doing so.

Isn't that the point of the 14th amendment (equal protection clause)?

Yes. Apparently the Constitution violates states' rights.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 8:16:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 8:12:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/28/2013 8:10:49 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 7:59:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if the states are violating the rights of their citizens, the federal government absolutely has every right to prevent them from doing so.

Isn't that the point of the 14th amendment (equal protection clause)?

Yes. Apparently the Constitution violates states' rights.

Mind=blowm
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 8:46:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is very ironic, then, that the Supreme Court has found that DOMA might be in violation in states' rights.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:26:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 7:59:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Other than the 14th amendment (the real issue here).... The constitution doesn't suggest any method for the US federal govt to decide which are left to the states, and which to the people..

Other than through the 14th amendment the US govt has no legal support for backing a position on the matter either way.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:27:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:26:41 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Other than through the 14th amendment the US govt has no legal support for backing a position on the matter either way.

The real question is upon how the 14th amendment's to be interpreted...

otherwise the Fed Govt has no place telling States how it's gonna be.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:45:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 7:59:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This phrase in the 10th Amendment, which is often ignored by Christians who oppose gay marriage (and, historically, also was ignored by pro-slavery advocates who demanded that the issue of slavery be a state's rights issue),

Sorry but the conclusion does not follow the premise. If the issue of slavery was left up to the individual, every state would be a slave state. Slaves were not citizens, therefore they did not possess civil rights. For the same reason tourists can't vote, the 10th amendment does not grant slaves rights. Thus your premise would conclude that slave owners had the right to decide, not the states, and not the federal government. If the people were able to decide whether or not they wanted slavery, than anyone in any state could decide to buy a slave.

seems to imply that issues concerning the states are left to the states and issues concerning the people are left to the people. This does not permit you to create fascist utopias in your state.

first off "the people" refers not only to individuals, but to corporations aka legal people.
While we are a federation of states, each member state is a unitary state. In a federation sovereignty is shared between the union state and it's member stats. The subdivisions of a unitary are known as "municipal corporations", and their authority is granted to them by the sovereign state. The sovereign state delegates powers and authority to the municipal corporation. Unincorporated towns and counties have no authority to govern themselves; as a result, they are directly governed by the sovereign state.

Prior to the revolution, the colonies were municipal corporations, with sovereignty resting in the King and Parliament of the British Empire. After the Glorious Revelation, the Dominion of New England revolted. After the revolt, local governments readopted old charters, but many were left without charters. They pleaded with King William to create, or renew their charters, so they could become incorporated colonies, rather than remain unincorporated.

When it says those powers are reserved for the states or the people, it means those powers are reserved for the states, it's subdivisions, or the individuals. It does not differentiate between powers reserved for the states and powers reserved for the people, but rather the powers not exercised by the states are reserved for the people, just as the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.

Marriage is an issue that concerns the people,so the states have no right to regulate it.

Not true. I would argue however, that marriage is an issue involving the church, so the government has no right to regulate it. Right direction, wrong amendment.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:53:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"States' Rights" is just a way for people to preserve their backwards and reductive beliefs. Gay marriage should not be a state issue because we shouldn't stand by and watch as some states have the right to maintain their unjust policies. When one side is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong we need to push for the complete elimination of the wrong side and the complete adoption of the right side. Not to mention that today a state-based distinction is somewhat arbitrary.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:27:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:53:25 AM, LeafRod wrote:
"States' Rights" is just a way for people to preserve their backwards and reductive beliefs.
Hitler and Mussolini would agree with you. They too favored unitary states.
Gay marriage should not be a state issue because we shouldn't stand by and watch as some states have the right to maintain their unjust policies.
1st amendment. The state should not be involved in marriage, period.
When one side is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong we need to push for the complete elimination of the wrong side and the complete adoption of the right side.
Who decides who is right or wrong? What if you use government force to completely eliminate one side, and the side you eliminated ended up being right?
Not to mention that today a state-based distinction is somewhat arbitrary.
when is it not?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Somebody doesn't know what fascism is.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:57:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it can be very reasonably argued that all states rights should be eliminated. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If our aim is to optimise government, this can never be achieved without a homogeneous government.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:49:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Marriage licenses are a "right?" That is news to me.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:51:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, was there a point to this thread other than to scream "fascism" until you felt better?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 2:12:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 7:59:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This phrase in the 10th Amendment, which is often ignored by Christians who oppose gay marriage (and, historically, also was ignored by pro-slavery advocates who demanded that the issue of slavery be a state's rights issue), seems to imply that issues concerning the states are left to the states and issues concerning the people are left to the people. This does not permit you to create fascist utopias in your state. Marriage is an issue that concerns the people,so the states have no right to regulate it.

They don't regulate marriage, per se. To my knowledge, there is nothing stopping anyone from getting married by the grace of God at their church, or to have some sort of pagen commencement ceremony where they publically declare their love and dedication.

They regulate who gets any benefits due to marriage, if performed/recognized by the state (for example, a marriage is not recognized if performed by a church official whose church is not recognized). If there were no special treatment of married persons, then the government shouldn't be involved in any way.

There is nothing stopping a gay man from having a wedding to another man, and referring to each other as their husband. The only issue is if they refer to themselves as such on government documents.
My work here is, finally, done.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 2:14:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:27:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:53:25 AM, LeafRod wrote:
"States' Rights" is just a way for people to preserve their backwards and reductive beliefs.
Hitler and Mussolini would agree with you. They too favored unitary states.

So what?

Who decides who is right or wrong? What if you use government force to completely eliminate one side, and the side you eliminated ended up being right?

I don't know what you're talking about. "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married" is a bad and wrong opinion, just like "black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people" and "black people should be slaves" and "murder should be legal." I said nothing about government force; I said that we shouldn't allow backwards and reductive policies to stand under the guise of "states' rights."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 2:14:48 PM, LeafRod wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:27:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:53:25 AM, LeafRod wrote:
"States' Rights" is just a way for people to preserve their backwards and reductive beliefs.
Hitler and Mussolini would agree with you. They too favored unitary states.

So what?

Who decides who is right or wrong? What if you use government force to completely eliminate one side, and the side you eliminated ended up being right?

I don't know what you're talking about. "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married" is a bad and wrong opinion, just like "black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people" and "black people should be slaves" and "murder should be legal."
I agree with you there, but those are our opinions. Where we disagree, is that I don't believe in forcing my opinions on others. The state should stay out of marriage; gay or straight.
I said nothing about government force; I said that we shouldn't allow backwards and reductive policies to stand under the guise of "states' rights."
The federal government has no right to make policies reserved for the states; you are claiming the federal government has the right to force their views on the states, regarding policies reserved for the states.

Gays are allowed to get married, but it is not recognized by the government. If the government recognized gay marriage, gay couples could file jointly (I am against joint filing), which means others would have to pay more taxes to make up for the lost revenue. There are numerous benefits that come with government recognition of marriage, that would effect others in the community. Claiming these benefits discriminate against gays is like saying it discriminates against singles; by the legal definition a the marriage is between a man and a women, and by the legal definition it requires two people. That being said, I don't believe that these benefits should exist at all, because it does not benefit the general welfare, it only benefits one segment of the population. If you said you disagreed with government involvement in marriage, I would agree with you, but if you are of the opinion that the government should be more involved in marriage, I would have to disagree.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:25:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:49:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Marriage licenses are a "right?" That is news to me.

They are a privilege. If they were a right, it would defeat the purpose of a license.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:26:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:50:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Somebody doesn't know what fascism is.

allot of people don't know what fascism is
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:33:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:26:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:50:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Somebody doesn't know what fascism is.

allot of people don't know what fascism is

Regulated morality is an authoritarian trait. With authoritarianism being an important part of a fascist state, the argument that it is fascism to regulate morality isn't something to go totally uncontested.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 4:20:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:49:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Marriage licenses are a "right?" That is news to me.

Married couples have different rights than non-married couples (Griswold v. Connecticut). If homosexuals count as a class under the 14th amendment, excluding gays from marriage violates the equality clause.

The most you could argue is that states which have yet to consider gays a distinctive class (i.e. not California) can avoid gay marriage by making sure gays have absolutely no rights that would constitute recognizing them as a distinct class.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 4:23:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:25:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:49:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Marriage licenses are a "right?" That is news to me.

They are a privilege. If they were a right, it would defeat the purpose of a license.

A privilege extended to convicts on death row for rape and murder, as long as marriage isn't perverted by a bunch of f*gs.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 4:36:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 4:20:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:49:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Marriage licenses are a "right?" That is news to me.

Married couples have different rights than non-married couples (Griswold v. Connecticut). If homosexuals count as a class under the 14th amendment, excluding gays from marriage violates the equality clause.

Why should married couples, of any sexual orientation, have different rights than non-married couples? Before redefining the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages, you first need to justify the state recognition of marriage.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 4:43:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:27:24 AM, DanT wrote:
Hitler and Mussolini would agree with you. They too favored unitary states.

Almost every single country in the world today is a unitary state. This includes countries that suck, yes, but it also includes Sweden, Norway, France, (modern) Germany, etc.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 4:53:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 4:43:04 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:27:24 AM, DanT wrote:
Hitler and Mussolini would agree with you. They too favored unitary states.

Almost every single country in the world today is a unitary state. This includes countries that suck, yes, but it also includes Sweden, Norway, France, (modern) Germany, etc.

Germany is actually a federal system. Please learn these things before spewing "knowledge".
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 5:17:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:49:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Marriage licenses are a "right?" That is news to me.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." " Chief Justice Earl Warren (Loving v. Virginia)

But...for the sake of discussion lets say it's not a civil right and it's a privilege

Equal Protection clause
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 5:22:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, the issue is about an ACTION, not people.

ALL individuals have the same ability to have a government contract with the opposite sex.

ALL individuals are denied the ability to have a government contract with the same sex.

Marriage laws apply equally to everyone across the board.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 5:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 5:17:35 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:49:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Marriage licenses are a "right?" That is news to me.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." " Chief Justice Earl Warren (Loving v. Virginia)


But...for the sake of discussion lets say it's not a civil right and it's a privilege

Equal Protection clause

Privileges aren't protected under the equal protection clause...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 5:29:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:33:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/28/2013 3:26:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:50:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Somebody doesn't know what fascism is.

allot of people don't know what fascism is

Regulated morality is an authoritarian trait. With authoritarianism being an important part of a fascist state, the argument that it is fascism to regulate morality isn't something to go totally uncontested.

Fascism =/= authoritarianism
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."