Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
This is completely irrelevant, as it is a dissenting "opinion" of a Justice, not a law within the United States Code.
Incorrect. It is the majority opinion and thus is the law of the land. That's why the Supreme Court is there.
quote:
Plain English. Homosexual unions will not be respected by jurisprudence.
And such law is clearly unconstitutional. This happens all the time: Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President signs the unconstitutional law, and the Supreme Court overturns it as is their function.
Do you deny the decision of Loving v. Virginia? The SCOTUS got it wrong? Marriage is not a fundamental right?
quote:
I very plainly stated that if a specific right is not cased in law, that it should be left for the states to decide for themselves.
And that's exactly the "laundry list" attitude I was talking about. There are rights that are not "cased in law" that are constitutionally protected. The Constitution directly says so. That's the entire point behind the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
quote:
You have to show that it is a right to have homosexuals marry one another.
Incorrect. It is your burden to show that there is compelling state interest to deny the fundamental right of marriage.
Or are you saying the SCOTUS got Loving v. Virginia wrong?
quote:
You have cited a dissenting opinion from one case
Incorrect. I quoted the majority opinion of Loving v. Virginia.
You were the one quoting the dissenting opinion of Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas.
Current law directly states that laws cannot be written against gay people and that marriage is a fundamental right. How does that jibe with the Defense of Marriage Act which targets gays by denying the fundamental right of marriage?
Or are you saying that the SCOTUS got both Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas wrong?
quote:
But the US Code has specifically outlined it
Indeed, unconstitutionally. I handily agree that the law exists. But the question is: Does it agree with the Constitution?
So given the Ninth Amendment's declaration of rights not enumerated, the Tenth Amendment's declaration of rights of the people, the Fourteenth Amendment's declaration of due process and equal treatment under the law, Loving v. Virginia's declaration of marriage as a fundamental right, and Lawrence v. Texas' declaration that laws cannot be targeted against gays, how does one reconcile DOMA?
quote:
you are going to have to first battle that out through legislation.
The courts work just as well.
Or are you saying the SCOTUS got Loving v. Virginia wrong?
quote:
cite obscure passages
Huh? Since when are the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments "obscure passages"? Since when are Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas "obscure passages"?
Are you saying the SCOTUS got those cases wrong?
quote:
pass it off as some unassailable proof that the Framers of the Constitution were cool with homosexual marriage.
Nobody said that. But, the Constitution is not something frozen in the 18th century. The Framers had no concept of nuclear power, telephonic communications, the internet, etc., and yet the Constitution is just as capable of handling those things as anything else. It has to be able to handle new concepts or it is a nearly worthless document.
That's part of the genius of the document. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically state that they knew they couldn't get everything and thus there are rights that the people have that won't be listed and cannot be denied.
It doesn't matter what the Framers thought of gay marriage. The Constitution clearly defends it and it is your burden to show why the state has any interest in denying it.
Or does the Fourteenth Amendment mean nothing?
quote:
Note the due process and the equal protection of the law portion. Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law are already established.
Precisely. Ergo, denying the fundamental right of marriage to gay people is clearly unconstitutional.
Or are you saying the Fourteenth Amendment is meaningless?
quote:
You can't say that they aren't given due process, or that they aren't protected by the law.
Sure we can. Gays can't get married while straights can. Ergo, gays are denied due process and equal protection. That's the entire point. The fact that a woman is allowed to enter into a legal contract with someone that her brother is not is prima facia denial of due process.
quote:
What you are actually wanting, is a special exception of the law, and then calling it "equal."
If she can enter contract and he can't, how is that "equal"?
What you are demanding is special treatment for straights. But, this is typical conservative-think: Up is down, black is white, heroes are traitors.
quote:
Reading the Constitution, what prohibits a man from marrying a tree?
Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead one to consider interspecies marriage in a way that opposite-sex marriage doesn't? What is it about the sex of the participants that leads one to question the species involved?
Your question makes no sense. Are you trying to tell us you want to marry a tree?
quote:
Incest between consenting adults then?
Huh? How does same-sex marriage lead one to consider incest in a way that opposite-sex marriage doesn't?
Your question makes no sense. Are you trying to tell us you want to marry your child?
quote:
What Constitutionally constitutes a "basic right" anyhow?
That's what the Supreme Court is for.
What does NJ's homophobic screed have to do with Huckabee?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2