Gay Marriage Analogy

[bedstuy]

I'm sure you could go on in circles forever with that ridiculous line of argument. 

But again, your hatred of a certain group of people is not a valid basis for making laws.  You don't have any empirical, rationally based reason that being gay is wrong or immoral.  Without that premise, there's no good reason to maintain our unfair treatment of gay people. 

Given the billions of people who have lived and died before me, I have no "empirical, rationally based reason" to believe Jesus rose from the dead...yet I do.  And dispite this lack of evidence, the US Constitution condones faith.  In fact, the whole premise of our independence is based upon a faith that despite not having any "empirical, rationally based reason", makes its premise to be "self-evident".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are different documents, in case you're wondering.   Likewise, having beliefs and denying basic civil rights to groups of people based on said beliefs, are different.  But, whatever, you're free to not understand anything about the US legal system.

1) I did make the distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

2) "basic civil right"...if this is a so called "basic" civil right, why was it uniformally outlawed for 200 years?

1.  The Declaration of Independence is not the law. 

2.  Because people back then were wrong about homosexuality.  We've also had institutional racism, sexism, slavery and despotism persist for hundreds of years at a time.  It doesn't make them correct.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

1.  The Declaration of Independence is not the law.  

when did the US rescind it?  doesnt it provide the basis for self-governance?

---

2.  Because people back then were wrong about homosexuality.  We've also had institutional racism, sexism, slavery and despotism persist for hundreds of years at a time.  It doesn't make them correct.

being wrong doesn't change the meaning of the constitution, otherwise the constitution means nothing and every minority can be subject to the tyranny of every majority

[bedstuy]

1.  The Declaration of Independence is not the law.  

when did the US rescind it?  doesnt it provide the basis for self-governance?

---

2.  Because people back then were wrong about homosexuality.  We've also had institutional racism, sexism, slavery and despotism persist for hundreds of years at a time.  It doesn't make them correct.

being wrong doesn't change the meaning of the constitution, otherwise the constitution means nothing and every minority can be subject to the tyranny of every majority

You're a piece of work. 

You need to know at least a little bit about the Constitution, law and the history of this country to discuss this issue.  You clearly need to brush up on that, so I'm done.

[DemPGH]

Given the billions of people who have lived and died before me, I have no "empirical, rationally based reason" to believe Jesus rose from the dead...yet I do.

That's frankly not our problem, gay or hetero, and in context it quite honestly sounds like your problem. It's certainly no basis to discriminate against a set of people for living their lives in a way that infringes on no one. After all, there is also a right to a pursuit of happiness.

the US Constitution condones faith.  In fact, the whole premise of our independence is based upon a faith that despite not having any "empirical, rationally based reason", makes its premise to be "self-evident".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The founders were 18th century rationalists, which means they were Deists. They thought God was an aloof architect or mathematician who set up everything as an experiment and then stepped back.  We later answered questions that they could not, so later the rationalist position developed to be an agnostic, and later still an atheist.

Setting that aside, if the founders wanted a government where some bizzarro legalistic interpretation of their religion and myths allowed for social norms to be enforced as laws, they would have set that up. But they did not want that.

Do The People have the right to choose not to condone interracial marriage, jmfcst?

some of the original states allowed interracial marriage from the beginning of the union, and the issue of race was a basis of disagreement from the beginning...but for the first 200 years, SSM was uniformally outlawed by all states.

Just because the opinion of the majority changes doesn't mean that something becomes unconstitutional, otherwise, the Constitution means nothing.

I don't think you answered his question. If you think it should be legal to discriminate against gays, then surely not allowing women to vote, or interracial people to marry, should be legal on the same grounds - you are arguing that the majority has the right to discriminate against the minority based on ancient social norms - can you not see that?! Honestly, society is headed in the other direction. You ridiculously call it "sin." But it's really just empathy and acceptance.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

I do know a little bit about history…I know that faith in a power higher than the King of England, namely God, was cited as the basis of the Declaration of Independence…I know the Constitution did NOT rescind the Declaration of Independence…I know that the first and foremost right in the Bill of Rights (which was part of the original Constitution) is the right to have faith and preach faith…I know that the States that ratified the Constitution did NOT allow SSM, and I know their reason of not allowing it was 100% based on morals defined by faith…

...therefore, I conclude that those who wrote the constitution did not intend it to include the individual right to have the government condone SSM, and that they excluded SSM based solely on religious morality and did not see such reasoning as contrary to the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. 

Now, where did my facts or logic jump the track?  Unless you’re going to argue the writers of the Constitution uniformly misunderstood their own writing, then denial of SSM is NOT unconstitutional.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

Setting that aside, if the founders wanted a government where some bizzarro legalistic interpretation of their religion and myths allowed for social norms to be enforced as laws, they would have set that up. But they did not want that.

Yet, in context of what we are discussing - SSM - the governments they set up did NOT recognize or condone it, in fact, they viewed homosexuality as criminal behavior.

Any one of you "SSM is a constitutional right" folk want to quote the founding fathers' opinions on homosexuality?

[the man with no name...and now muted]

here are the laws AGAINST homosexuality among the original 13 states:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK
 
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT
 
Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. GEORGIA
 
That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. MAINE
 
That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. PENNSYLVANIA
 
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA
 
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution, tho its lack was commented upon with considerable disfavor during ratification which is why amendments concerning rights were among those sent to the States by the first Congress.  Incidentally, the first amendment approved was only the third in the list of the twelve sent to the states.  The second wasn't approved until over two centuries later as the 27th Amendment and the first concerns House apportionment, which while it technically could still be approved, it is doubtful as it would have no practical effect on the size of the House.  The current size of 435 satisfies the amendment as it was sent to the States, as would any size from 200 to a number a bit larger than 6000 based on the 2010 census.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

now, I don't believe outlawing homosexuality is good or wise law...but to say it is unconstitutional for a state to choose not to recognize SSM, when for over 200 years that was THE STANDARD among all the states, is laughable.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

correct, not part of the original, but passed by the original congress (1st congress)

[Torie]

The schtick of this latest sock of jmfcst seems to be sophistry. What next?

[50 (out of 10)]

The schtick of this latest sock of jmfcst seems to be sophistry. What next?

He is prophesied to reappear one day in the form of a red-skinned Negro with braided hair, only to be flogged and muted once again by the tyranny of evil mods.

[Jared]

now, I don't believe outlawing homosexuality is good or wise law...but to say it is unconstitutional for a state to choose not to recognize SSM, when for over 200 years that was THE STANDARD among all the states, is laughable.

The founding fathers where also white nationalist who exterminated natives Americans and enslaved black people.  They set up a government that only allowed white male land owners to vote.

No where is interracial marriage said to constitutional in the US constitution and yet the Supreme Court ruled bans on interracial marriage unconditional in the 1967 case of Loving v Virginia because of the 14th amendment. Those who argued against it said that God had separated the races and that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to breed with each other.

The equal protection claus says all US citizens deserve equal protection under the law.  That's why bans on gay marriage are both unconstitutional but morally wrong because they are denying tax paying citizens equal rights under the law who happen to be gay.  No other reason to prohibit gay marriage than bigotry, just like interracial marriage.

Are you saying we should go back to the time when only white male land owners could vote and interracial marriage was banned?