- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,860
- Reaction score
- 30,125
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
But that is (currently) not recognized in most of Alabama.
No one gives them to you.
They are a concept humans invented based mainly on what we as a collective view as fair. This is why they are recognized and can be different for different groups of people depending on what governs those people.
Ok, but here's where you run into trouble for your statement. The 14th isn't just some one size fits all amendment, there are degrees of what the government must show. In this case, it has been established, even by Walker that SSM requires rational basis, and it has been shown, regardless of whether you agree, that by states amending their constitutions to place limits on marriage, they are by definition rational on their face. Walker didn't like that, even though he knew it, so what he did was invent gender as the basis for SSM, not sexuality. The lawyers in opposition, and since in many court cases have followed the Prop 8 guide and have argued rational basis. How this reflects upon your statement that people are afforded rights by collective compromise seems to be inconsistent with the way this is all playing out. It doesn't seem like there's any compromising going on, instead we have judges changing laws, laws voted on by the people, not because of tyranny of the will of the people, but because they simply don't like them.
Judges are writing law in America today, and to do so, they're changing the perception of the argument, by ignoring that the petitioners are petitioning not based on their gender, but on the basis of their sexual orientation. By invoking gender (Of which those against Prop 8 did not even argue in any of their briefs but Walker gifted them) Walker created a distinction without a distinction for the sake of raising the level of scrutiny to be considered by the court. That is NOT compromise, it isn't a collective, in fact, what Walker and seemingly every single judge thereafter has done, is effectively ignore the process by which rights are afforded, and or limited in the US, by manipulating the level of review. The real question that needs to be answered is: What is the nature of the SSM debate, and how should it be reviewed, and viewed by not only our judges, but by its citizens, and leaders?
Tim-
The most intelligent thing I've heard all day. You should have stopped there.
The whole point of the Declaration is that, no, these rights don't depend on what government you have, not at all. And they don't vary. That is what they are saying. Looks like you think the Founders were wrong.
Let me explain something to you, the DOI is a wonderful historical document, but it is not part of our law. And while I have a lot of respect for our founding fathers, they are not infallible. They were wrong.
Why? Because guys like Roy Moore seem to want to structure the government around the so called god given rights.
You really can't address this can you? How do you know that we have rights granted to us by god?
Yeah, it is in the Declaration of Independence. But......proof. It is so easy to say that we have god given rights....but that is just a person saying it.
Get the big guy upstairs to clarify, otherwise it is just words.
BTW, when that was written, were slaves part of that "all men created equal" language?
Its very telling that the bigots in Alabama used the same argument a few decades ago. Telling but not surprising.
Alabama used the states' right argument to ban marriages before
Let me explain something to you, the DOI is a wonderful historical document, but it is not part of our law.
It's known as Organic Law.
Now there's one for the ages. Damn, and almost everyone thought they got it right with the Declaration of Independence. When I say a leader has gotten it wrong, it's usually Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc... For you, it's Thomas Jefferson.And while I have a lot of respect for our founding fathers, they are not infallible. They were wrong.
It's known as Organic Law.
Now there's one for the ages. Damn, and almost everyone thought they got it right with the Declaration of Independence. When I say a leader has gotten it wrong, it's usually Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc... For you, it's Thomas Jefferson.
Its very telling that the bigots in Alabama used the same argument a few decades ago. Telling but not surprising.
Alabama used the states' right argument to ban marriages before
Why do you feel the need to call me a bigot?
Most of it, the most important parts, they did get right. People should be treated fairly under the law, have rights recognized. They just didn't logically come from any creator. It isn't their fault. At that time, atheism was basically unheard of. The logic of the time concluded that God gave us everything.
I think it is noteworthy that the Declaration says "Creator" rather than "God." The Creator can be interpreted as one's parents, nature, the planet or the universe.. I take the phrase to mean that we are all intrinsically entitled to human rights, not that a supernatural being decided to give Americans rights that are not given to everyone.
So... what is the proof you want again? You keep asking for it, but I'm getting the impression that you have no idea what you are asking for.
Oh, and for maybe the fourth time, forget God in this, it works without religion, if you understand the concept.
So... what is the proof you want again? You keep asking for it, but I'm getting the impression that you have no idea what you are asking for.
Oh, and for maybe the fourth time, forget God in this, it works without religion, if you understand the concept.
Why do you feel the need to call me a bigot?
The entire point though was that people do take that to mean "God" and that this makes the basis for rights religious in nature.
I suspect that some of the founders believed that and some didn't, and the word Creator was chosen as compromise.
Moderator's Warning: |
I've tried multiple times to explain this, but you still don't get it. Nothing is playing out as if "any judge or state legislator violating that law is doing so illegally and will be held accountable," but you still don't get it. Even most of the media is now starting to explain this correctly, but you still don't get it.Could you possibly be more dense
"It is ORDERED and DECLARED that ALA CONST ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA . CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "
Yes, the law is unconstitutional, therefore any judge or state legislator violating that law is doing so illegally and will be held accountable. That's it!
It's not been recognized yet in all parts of the country... in some it is not recognized by the US Constitution - that is the authoritative interpretation, so are you of the view that no such right truly exists in those parts of the country? Just trying to square your view of rights with that of gay marriage.The right to equal protection however is recognized by the US Constitution, and Alabama is part of the USA and bound by that Constitution.
I've tried multiple times to explain this, but you still don't get it. Nothing is playing out as if "any judge or state legislator violating that law is doing so illegally and will be held accountable," but you still don't get it. Even most of the media is now starting to explain this correctly, but you still don't get it.
Nobody is trying to contradict the judge's ruling, just your interpretation of who it applies to. And yes, we know you don't get it, no need to remind us.Trying to explain something that directly contradicts what i just quoted from the judge's ruling, no i will not get that.
It's not been recognized yet in all parts of the country... in some it is not recognized by the US Constitution - that is the authoritative interpretation, so are you of the view that no such right truly exists in those parts of the country? Just trying to square your view of rights with that of gay marriage.
It's not been recognized yet in all parts of the country... in some it is not recognized by the US Constitution - that is the authoritative interpretation, so are you of the view that no such right truly exists in those parts of the country? Just trying to square your view of rights with that of gay marriage.
Therefore it's not true that "rights do not truly exist unless they are recognized" - unless you're of the opinion that so long as someone, somewhere recognizes the right it exists (a very strange position).The "right" exists, even if it isn't recognized yet by everyone to apply in this situation. Even after the SCOTUS rules on this, almost certainly recognizing the right to same sex marriage throughout the country, there will be people who do not agree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?