• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Idaho to vote for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Kelzie said:
Dude, I am not going to read that. Summerize please.

Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government not the State Governments (the states wanted to retain their own autonomy) after the 14th amendment was passed following the civil war due process and equal protection clauses changed that through the Supreme Courts incorporation of some of the fundamental rights found in the Bill of Rights upon the state governments and their legislation.

This explains it better:

The Bill of Rights is a set of laws originally intended to protect the liberties of the individual citizens and the individual states from the centralized federal government of the United States. The historical and theoretical basis for the Bill of Rights came from the inherent distrust of big government which was forged by the Colonists during the Revolutionary war of Independence against the British Empire. The Bill of Rights draws on a wide array of principles which can be found in the works of many of the great thinkers of the time starting with the spring of the enlightenment period, first we can begin with John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government which was the basis for everything which was going to follow, in fact some of Locke‘s exact phrases; such as, the guaranty to life, liberty, and property, can be found word for word directly in the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights. Secondly, we have the Declaration of Independence; penned by Thomas Jefferson which specified the disputes the Colonists had against the tyrannical practices of the Crown of England against the right to self determination of the individual Colonies and the civil liberties of the Colonists; such as, taxation without representation on imports and exports, the rights to trade with whatever country they wished, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus and Due Process . We also have the Articles of the Confederation the precursor to the Constitution, the anti-Federalist papers and even the Federalist papers. Both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, draw upon the concepts of individual liberty found in all of these works. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in order to ratify the Constitution.

As was specified in the aforementioned text, the Bill of Rights was at first only responsible for regulating the power of the Federal Government, because at the time the individual State Governments wanted to maintain much of their own autonomy and apply their own regulations and legislations on the rights of the individual, however, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights after the Civil War, has allowed for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights upon the state Governments through a series of Decisions regarding the Constitutionality of State Laws by the Supreme Court. -- Me
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government not the State Governments (the states wanted to retain their own autonomy) after the 14th amendment was passed following the civil war due process and equal protection clauses changed that through the Supreme Courts incorporation of some of the fundamental rights found in the Bill of Rights upon the state governments and their legislation.

This explains it better:

The Bill of Rights is a set of laws originally intended to protect the liberties of the individual citizens and the individual states from the centralized federal government of the United States. The historical and theoretical basis for the Bill of Rights came from the inherent distrust of big government which was forged by the Colonists during the Revolutionary war of Independence against the British Empire. The Bill of Rights draws on a wide array of principles which can be found in the works of many of the great thinkers of the time starting with the spring of the enlightenment period, first we can begin with John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government which was the basis for everything which was going to follow, in fact some of Locke‘s exact phrases; such as, the guaranty to life, liberty, and property, can be found word for word directly in the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights. Secondly, we have the Declaration of Independence; penned by Thomas Jefferson which specified the disputes the Colonists had against the tyrannical practices of the Crown of England against the right to self determination of the individual Colonies and the civil liberties of the Colonists; such as, taxation without representation on imports and exports, the rights to trade with whatever country they wished, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus and Due Process . We also have the Articles of the Confederation the precursor to the Constitution, the anti-Federalist papers and even the Federalist papers. Both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, draw upon the concepts of individual liberty found in all of these works. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in order to ratify the Constitution.

As was specified in the aforementioned text, the Bill of Rights was at first only responsible for regulating the power of the Federal Government, because at the time the individual State Governments wanted to maintain much of their own autonomy and apply their own regulations and legislations on the rights of the individual, however, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights after the Civil War, has allowed for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights upon the state Governments through a series of Decisions regarding the Constitutionality of State Laws by the Supreme Court. -- Me

But I'm not talking about the bill of rights at all. :confused:
 
Kelzie said:
But I'm not talking about the bill of rights at all. :confused:

The issue of Gay Marriage is found in the equal protection portion of the 14th amendment. Originally it was left for the states to regulate the behavior of their own citizenry because the Bill of Rights orignally set out only to regulate the power of the Federal Government not that of the Individual States but through the 14th amendment the Supreme Court has been able to change that through the incorporation of the Bill of Rights on the State Governments by striking down the Constitutionality of the laws they pass and laws they already passed.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The issue of Gay Marriage is found in the equal protection portion of the 14th amendment. Originally it was left for the states to regulate the behavior of their own citizenry because the Bill of Rights orignally set out only to regulate the power of the Federal Government not that of the Individual States but through the 14th amendment the Supreme Court has been able to change that through incorporation of the Bill of Rights on the State Governments by striking down the Constitutionality of the laws they pass.

However, I am saying now that Mass. has legalized gay marriage, it is unconstitutional for any other state to not recognize a gay marriage from Mass. because of the full faith and credit clause.
 
Kelzie said:
However, I am saying now that Mass. has legalized gay marriage, it is unconstitutional for any other state to not recognize a gay marriage from Mass. because of the full faith and credit clause.

Ya exaclty right.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

But that doesn't mean that other states have to legalize gay marriage in their own states.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya exaclty right.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

But that doesn't mean that other states have to legalize gay marriage in their own states.

I agree. Although they all will eventually.
 
Kelzie said:
So what you're really saying is you have absolutely nothing to rebut my argument with. That's okay, I didn't expect you to. Your life time? Maybe not, I don't know how old you are. But mine? Hate to break it to you, but over 50% of people my age actively support gay marriage.


OK under the same precepts that protect gays I want them as polygamyst.I want 3 wives and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment must allow that if gays are allowed to marry.....

Oh and young people grow older and wiser they will learn that marriage should only between a man and a woman..............I can remember when I was young and idealistic like you.......
 
Navy Pride said:
OK under the same precepts that protect gays I want them as polygamyst.I want 3 wives and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment must allow that if gays are allowed to marryQUOTE]What is it about the 14th amendment that everyone sites? Why don't Americans have the right to marry the adult person of their choice?
 
Navy Pride said:
Oh and young people grow older and wiser they will learn that marriage should only between a man and a woman..............I can remember when I was young and idealistic like you.......

Or maybe as you prejudiced old farts die and are replaced by more progressive generations, society will learn that your attitude toward gay marriage is just as stupid as the attitudes toward interracial marriage were 50 years ago.

You know, you still haven't told us what the problem is with gay marriage. All you've done is shout "judicial activism" which is a separate issue entirely, and compare gay marriage to things that are incomparable. You've never explained why you oppose gay marriage, despite having created dozens of threads on the subject.
 
Navy Pride said:
Sorry kelzie, but you still can go to work for the ACLU....Maybe they will put you on that case where they are defending the pedophile organiztion called NAMBLA.......

Oh and one more thing a drivers license is not a right.........Its a privilege.......

Why you gotta be such a :censored everywhere you go? There's a reason you get run out on a rail most every forum you go. There is a reason most people just love to hate you. You are a bitter, mean spirited, poster who stinks up every room you enter. A common trait of the extremists of your sort.

I apologize to the forum for my unpleasantry. But this guy has been ruining neighborhoods for years. Plus, I haven't had my coffee yet.
 
Befuddled_Stoner said:
Seeing as the United States isn't supposed to be a theocracy, our government has no place arbitrating what is or is not sacred or holy. Every time I hear someone blather on about defending the sanctity of marriage, I get the irrational urge to cram the first ammendment down their throat and smack them around with a dictionary opened up to the definition of hypocrit.
I completely agree with Binary_Digit, we need to replace all mention of "marriage" with "civil union." Let the state register pair-bonds, and let the churches quibble over what is sacred.

BINGO!!

It is just a ploy of the bigots as they try to hide behind something remotely considered "rightous" (the bible) as they trumpet their unrightous bigotry's. Much like a cowardly little snot nosed kid might hide behind his mama's skirt tails. And it's not just with gay issues. My fishing buddy, who is a diehard male chauvanist pig, validates his delusions with parts from the bible.

I also just bend over in laughter as they escape to their slippery slope, albeit boringly predictable, argument that if we let gays marry, all of a sudden the people will be jumping into polygamy and screwing sheep. That is soooo weak. In fact, it's just plain retarded. But what else do they got?

I think we ought to slap a turban on their thick skulls and send them all to Lebonon. How 'bout it board? Anybody with me?
 
Last edited:
floridaguy said:
Navy Pride said:
OK under the same precepts that protect gays I want them as polygamyst.I want 3 wives and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment must allow that if gays are allowed to marryQUOTE]What is it about the 14th amendment that everyone sites? Why don't Americans have the right to marry the adult person of their choice?

They do have that right....Its the same right I have to marry someone of the opposite sex...........They want a special right, well if they can have a special right I want one to..........I want 3 wives.......
 
Kandahar said:
Or maybe as you prejudiced old farts die and are replaced by more progressive generations, society will learn that your attitude toward gay marriage is just as stupid as the attitudes toward interracial marriage were 50 years ago.

You know, you still haven't told us what the problem is with gay marriage. All you've done is shout "judicial activism" which is a separate issue entirely, and compare gay marriage to things that are incomparable. You've never explained why you oppose gay marriage, despite having created dozens of threads on the subject.

Your wrong, I have given the reason for my opposition to gay marriage a dozen times and you know it........
 
Captain America said:
Why you gotta be such a :censored everywhere you go? There's a reason you get run out on a rail most every forum you go. There is a reason most people just love to hate you. You are a bitter, mean spirited, poster who stinks up every room you enter. A common trait of the extremists of your sort.

I apologize to the forum for my unpleasantry. But this guy has been ruining neighborhoods for years. Plus, I haven't had my coffee yet.

Aw shucks, why don't you tell us how you really feel CA........;)
 
Navy Pride said:
Aw shucks, why don't you tell us how you really feel CA........;)

It's OK. I'm on my fourth cup now. It's all good.:cool:
 
Navy Pride said:
Your wrong, I have given the reason for my opposition to gay marriage a dozen times and you know it........

No you haven't. All you've done when questioned about this is scream "Z0MG activist judges!!!!11 Bestiality!! Polygamy!! Pedophilia!!!!!!!!1111111"

You've never given a single reason gay marriage should be illegal. Not even a stupid reason.
 
Kandahar said:
No you haven't. All you've done when questioned about this is scream "Z0MG activist judges!!!!11 Bestiality!! Polygamy!! Pedophilia!!!!!!!!1111111"

You've never given a single reason gay marriage should be illegal. Not even a stupid reason.

You need to go back and read some of the threads on gay marriage..........When it comes to gay marriage I have never brought up pedophilia or bestiality..Those are your words, not mine.......
 
Navy Pride said:
You need to go back and read some of the threads on gay marriage..........When it comes to gay marriage I have never brought up pedophilia or bestiality..Those are your words, not mine.......

I call bullsh.it!!! Nearly every gay marriage thread you have used some slippery slope argument that ends with marrying children and animals. It wasnt even two weeks ago that I blew up at you for making some half-baked argument about "liberal 60's feel good so do it marry children and animals". I am finding the post right now...might take me a bit, but when I do, you will eat those words.
 
jallman said:
I call bullsh.it!!! Nearly every gay marriage thread you have used some slippery slope argument that ends with marrying children and animals. It wasnt even two weeks ago that I blew up at you for making some half-baked argument about "liberal 60's feel good so do it marry children and animals". I am finding the post right now...might take me a bit, but when I do, you will eat those words.

Well a lady in England just married a dolphin, and I do recall that in Georgia two 14 year olds just got married.
 
jallman said:
I call bullsh.it!!! Nearly every gay marriage thread you have used some slippery slope argument that ends with marrying children and animals. It wasnt even two weeks ago that I blew up at you for making some half-baked argument about "liberal 60's feel good so do it marry children and animals". I am finding the post right now...might take me a bit, but when I do, you will eat those words.

I really don't know what tour taling about I have never mentioned marrying animals....That is ridiculous.......I have mentioned family members marrying with no sex involved for the benefits they could receive....Maybe you have a mother and a son living together with the father dead.....If gays were allowed to marry then under the same equal protection clause of the 14th amemndment that gays cite so often why could not family members and people that were pro polygamy cite the same clause or only gays protected by that clause?:confused: ................Talk about a slippery slope..........

I won't address the rest of your post it is just pure bullshit as you say.........
 
Navy Pride said:
OK under the same precepts that protect gays I want them as polygamyst.I want 3 wives and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment must allow that if gays are allowed to marry.....

Oh and young people grow older and wiser they will learn that marriage should only between a man and a woman..............I can remember when I was young and idealistic like you.......

I'm not talking about legalizing it at all. That's already done. I'm saying it is unconstitutional for other states not to recognize a gay marriage performed in Mass.
 
Navy Pride said:
I really don't know what tour taling about I have never mentioned marrying animals....That is ridiculous.......I have mentioned family members marrying with no sex involved for the benefits they could receive....Maybe you have a mother and a son living together with the father dead.....If gays were allowed to marry then under the same equal protection clause of the 14th amemndment that gays cite so often why could not family members and people that were pro polygamy cite the same clause or only gays protected by that clause?:confused: ................Talk about a slippery slope..........

I won't address the rest of your post it is just pure bullshit as you say.........

Yeah, pride...all I am saying is that you are forever bringing up disgusting irrelevancies when you talk about gay marriage...oh this time I am thinking, it wasnt marrying kids and animals, it was having sex with them. Let me refer you to the post and my response:

Navy Pride and Reference to Pedophilia and Bestiality

That cut and paste sure is some chit, aint it? :mrgreen:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well a lady in England just married a dolphin, and I do recall that in Georgia two 14 year olds just got married.

I dont see how what some attention grabbing heffer in does in England has any bearing on US legislation. I would be interested in finding out just how legal that "dolphin marriage" really is and how much of it was just media sensationalism. As for 14 year olds getting married in Ga...well for those of you who dont want to change the definition of "marriage", I guess you just have to live with that one because ages of consent are historically low...especially in the south.
 
Man, is anyone suprised? It's ****ing Idaho, of course they're gonna ban gay marriage!
 
Kelzie said:
I'm not talking about legalizing it at all. That's already done. I'm saying it is unconstitutional for other states not to recognize a gay marriage performed in Mass.


That is not exactly true..........No gay marriages that have taken place in Mass. have been accepted in any other state as valid.............There may be some lawsuits pending on the matter though......

That is why it is imperative for every state to have their own amendment.......
 
Back
Top Bottom