The Constitutional SSM Argument

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly right.



I am strongly anti-DOMA and I think it is unconstitutional for the reasons you list in the second half- no legitimate state interest, so it violates the equal protection clause.

However, I don't agree with the 10th amendment rationale. If the federal government is acting within the powers it was granted for an objective that falls within the traditional realm of the states, that does not violate the 10th. You only violate the 10th if you are acting outside of powers granted to the federal government. For example, the federal government can cut spending to a state to try to coerce it to set the drinking age to 21 because it is empower to spend or not to spend, so it didn't violate the 10th amendment. And things like deciding who to give federal benefits to and whatnot are powers granted to the federal government.

Um, didn't the SCOTUS just say that was unconstitutional in its PPACA ruling? That the federal gov't COUND NOT punish states if they did not expand their medicaid coverage to the 133% "mandated" by PPACA or lose ALL existing medicaid funding? I think you are way offf base on the federal gov'ts ability to TAKE OVER state's rights by denying them UNRELATED federal aid. I know that the DOT threatened withholding federal highway funds to extort a national "drive 55" speed limit (I think only WY said no, thank you), but that is far different than your example of with holding (some unnamed) funds for adopting a "prefered" national drinking age.

 

[AGENT J]

Anyone NOT in support of gay marriage that read the appeal by the legal team for Prop 8, could only conclude that their argument is not only sound, and rational, it is also compelling. The mere fact that a single gay judge (In walkers case) or a panel of three loons (in the case of the 9th circus) struck it down, doesn't grant those in support of gay marriage some victory in the hearts and minds of the people. I laugh whenever I hear the rhetorical talking points by the gay left when they claim that there really is no moral argument, or any other rational argument against gay marriage anymore, so why is it still illegal..

There's a few good arguments, and whether you like it or not, or whether you consider their arguments objective or not, does not grant you the right to claim your right on the issue. The tactic of brow beating those against gay marriage into submission will work for some, and has to some degree shamed enough people into either being indifferent, and or dispassionate about the matter, or even changed some minds, however I fear that it will still be a long time before the vast majority of people are accepting of it. You might find tolerance as a result of the shaming and brow beating but acceptance is a whole nother thing. I think people instinctively and inherantly abhor same sex relationships, and this is as a difficult thing to chnage as same sex attraction itself.


Tim-

you laugh all you want because we laugh at you LOL you deny the truth or you just arent educated enough on the subject to understand it.

Morally people can be in support of or against what ever they want, doesnt really matter to me. Nor is it a factor to equal gay rights.

But legally and rationally there is no reason to be against equal gay rights AND TRY TO STOP THEM.

People can believe there is a rational reason but they have all been thoroughly debunked with facts, logic and common sense over and over again and the reality is they are no objective. If you disagree please feel free to give an argument why one should fight to stop equal gay rights.

again pay attention to the question, you can believe whatever idiocy you choose, Im asking you to defend the opinion that people should fight to stop equal gay rights. Why should people fight to stop it, there are no rational, sound, logical, reasonable, objective non-bias, non-bigoted, non-selfish, non-hypocritical, honest reason to stop equal gay rights.

Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about women’s rights, equal rights, interracial marriage etc. the reasons were dumb and illogical then and they most certainly still are today. They are even more stupid today since not only common sense and facts proves them wrong but history does to.

I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

but theres no reason to logically stop it.

Deflect from the facts ll you want, try to down play it all you want but nobody rational and objective believes such hyperbole.

 

[teamosil]

Um, didn't the SCOTUS just say that was unconstitutional in its PPACA ruling? That the federal gov't COUND NOT punish states if they did not expand their medicaid coverage to the 133% "mandated" by PPACA or lose ALL existing medicaid funding? I think you are way offf base on the federal gov'ts ability to TAKE OVER state's rights by denying them UNRELATED federal aid. I know that the DOT threatened withholding federal highway funds to extort a national "drive 55" speed limit (I think only WY said no, thank you), but that is far different than your example of with holding (some unnamed) funds for adopting a "prefered" national drinking age.

Yeah, I was simplifying it. You're right. It needs to be related and it can't be such an excessive penalty that the states would have no choice but to comply.

But, DOMA doesn't run afoul of that at all. It is just the federal government refusing to give marriage related benefits to same sex couples. It doesn't interfere with state's rights. Everything the federal government is doing is a power it has.

Again though, just to be clear, IMO DOMA totally violates equal protection. It just doesn't violate the 10th amendment.

 

[kmiller1610]

At a state level, a number of judges have tried to parse the rights of Gay Couples (which should be equal to Straight Couples) and the right of the majority to name its own social institutions. Polling shows that the majority is clearly for the equal rights but less so on the labels. Legally, the thing gets messy because the two are mixed (the rights and the label) in the cases that are tried.

I personally thing that labeling rights have always and fundamentally been determined by the majority. Men/Women, Adults/Children, Marriage/Domestic partnerships.

It's how dictionaries are written. The majority determines the meanings of the words.