[Hoot Gibson]

What amendment in the Bill of Rights grants heterosexuals to a government recognized marriage?

None. As far as I know, the US Constitution does not require state or federal government to recognize or promote any kind of marriage. Because it is not among the powers specifically granted to the federal government, marriage is an issue that should be handled by states - if it should be addressed by government at all. However, the federal government likes to pretend that the 10th Amendment simply does not exist.

[thecavemaster]

Wrong. The 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. Why not just admit your mistake instead of continuing to pretend that the 14th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights?

I believe that you are confused again. This thread is about Judge Walker's decision regarding gay marriage. It has nothing to do with radical Muslims wanting to build a victory mosque two blocks from the former location of the World Trade Center, which they destroyed. Focus, man - focus. :biggrin:

What, Hoot? The first ten Amendments are called "the Bill of Rights." How does this impact the Equal Protection Clause argument concerning gay marriage? It may not be this year or next year, but soon, the Supreme Court will extend equal protection to gay couples wanting to marry because, in a civil society, unlike a theocratic one, this issue is not a moral one. Two men or women who marry under the umbrella on the 14th Amendment threaten NOTHING, not the traditional family, not the institution of marriage, NOTHING. Two consenting adults desiring to be joined in marriage, same sex or no, is a matter of civil rights under our Constitution. Oh, I'm focused, Hoot. Both issues have to do with civil rights not being subject to the passions of the day. Perhaps read Bloomberg's speech? Might help you understand a bit better the country you live in.

[Hoot Gibson]

What, Hoot? The first ten Amendments are called "the Bill of Rights."

I am glad that you have finally admitted the obvious. You are making progress. :Thumbs:

How does this impact the Equal Protection Clause argument concerning gay marriage? It may not be this year or next year, but soon, the Supreme Court will extend equal protection to gay couples wanting to marry because, in a civil society, unlike a theocratic one, this issue is not a moral one. Two men or women who marry under the umbrella on the 14th Amendment threaten NOTHING, not the traditional family, not the institution of marriage, NOTHING. Two consenting adults desiring to be joined in marriage, same sex or no, is a matter of civil rights under our Constitution. Oh, I'm focused, Hoot. Both issues have to do with civil rights not being subject to the passions of the day. Perhaps read Bloomberg's speech? Might help you understand a bit better the country you live in.

You still have not acknowledged that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that grant gay couples the right to marry. Nada.

Nor have you cited any other amendment that explicitly grants such a right because there is none. If and when the Supreme Court rules that gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage, then the liberal members of the Court and Anthony Kennedy will need to once again read between the lines and declare that the US Constitution is a "living" document.

If socialists and gay activists want there to be a constitutional right to marriage for gay couples, then they should lobby their representatives and demand a Constitutional Amendment. Of course, because 31 out of 31 states that have voted on anti-gay marriage referenda have voted to maintain the status quo, a constitutional amendment would never pass.

Consequently, we have a liberal judge once again nullifying the will of the overwhelming majority of voters.

[ukyfootball]

I am glad that you have finally admitted the obvious. You are making progress. :Thumbs:

You still have not acknowledged that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that grant gay couples the right to marry. Nada.

Nor have you cited any other amendment that explicitly grants such a right because there is none. If and when the Supreme Court rules that gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage, then the liberal members of the Court and Anthony Kennedy will need to once again read between the lines and declare that the US Constitution is a "living" document.

If socialists and gay activists want there to be a constitutional right to marriage for gay couples, then they should lobby their representatives and demand a Constitutional Amendment. Of course, because 31 out of 31 states that have voted on anti-gay marriage referenda have voted to maintain the status quo, a constitutional amendment would never pass.

Consequently, we have a liberal judge once again nullifying the will of the overwhelming majority of voters.

Although the Contitution is a living document, it is also very ambiguous that can be interpreted a number of ways. And although there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that grants homosexuals to marry, theres also nothing in the Bill of Rights that grants heterosexuals the right to marry.

Btw, the fact that across almost every civilized country has a homosexual citizens that make up 10% of the population pretty much shows the homosexuality is something youre born as.

[Hoot Gibson]

Although the Contitution is a living document, it is also very ambiguous that can be interpreted a number of ways. And although there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that grants homosexuals to marry, theres also nothing in the Bill of Rights that grants heterosexuals the right to marry.

Btw, the fact that across almost every civilized country has a homosexual citizens that make up 10% of the population pretty much shows the homosexuality is something youre born as.

If the Constitution does not grant the federal government a power, then the 10th Amendment reserves that power for states. Marriage should rightly be a state issue, not a federal one - although that is true of many other areas in which the federal government has intruded on rights reserved to the states.

I believe that your 10 percent figure is much too high. Most studies that I have seen have placed the number closer to 5 percent, and many people believe that overstates the number of homosexuals in society. I am sure that you can find a study to support your 10 percent number because there have been many polls taken and some of them have been deliberately biased by design.

[BillyB]

Consequently, we have a liberal judge once again nullifying the will of the overwhelming majority of voters.

That's funny. A "liberal" nominated by both Reagan and Bush 41 and criticized for perhaps being too conservative on gay issues in the past. Now -- after a decision that some don't agree with -- he's a liberal activist judge.

[Hoot Gibson]

That's funny. A "liberal" nominated by both Reagan and Bush 41 and criticized for perhaps being too conservative on gay issues in the past. Now -- after a decision that some don't agree with -- he's a liberal activist judge.

What is funny is your belief that Bush is a conservative and that he appointed no liberal judges to the bench. That is not how the system works. Appointed federal judges must get the consent of the Senate. Unless one party controls a large majority of the Senate seats, as Democrats do for the time being, either presidents make some compromises with their appointments or their picks never reach the floor for a vote. Does the fact that Bush appointed this liberal judge make a little more sense to you now?

[BillyB]

What is funny is your belief that Bush is a conservative and that he appointed no liberal judges to the bench. That is not how the system works. Appointed federal judges must get the consent of the Senate. Unless one party controls a large majority of the Senate seats, as Democrats do for the time being, either presidents make some compromises with their appointments or their picks never reach the floor for a vote. Does the fact that Bush appointed this liberal judge make a little more sense to you now?

Bush wasn't known for throwing out liberals just to get them on the bench. Remember all the backlog? Besides, Reagan appointed him first.

From 1988:

[INDENT]In what may be another bitter fight over the Reagan Administration's judicial appointments, civil rights groups say they will vigorously oppose the nomination of a prominent San Francisco lawyer to the Federal District Court there.

The lawyer, Vaughn R. Walker, has made enemies in the California bar through his representation of chemical companies, the National Rifle Association and the United States Olympic Committee in its efforts to bar gay athletic competitions from using the word ''Olympics.''

***

Mr. Walker, a 43-year-old partner at the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro who has been active in Republican politics, represented the National Rifle Association in a successful effort to overturn a ban in San Francisco on the private ownership of pistols.

****

Among Mr. Walker's critics are women's groups, homosexual-rights advocates and the Coalition for Civil Rights, a consortium of several prominent civil rights groups in California. T. J. Anthony, a spokesman, said the coalition voted on Tuesday to oppose the nomination. [/INDENT]

Sounds like a real liberal.

[Hoot Gibson]

Bush wasn't known for throwing out liberals just to get them on the bench. Remember all the backlog? Besides, Reagan appointed him first.

From 1988:

[INDENT]In what may be another bitter fight over the Reagan Administration's judicial appointments, civil rights groups say they will vigorously oppose the nomination of a prominent San Francisco lawyer to the Federal District Court there.

The lawyer, Vaughn R. Walker, has made enemies in the California bar through his representation of chemical companies, the National Rifle Association and the United States Olympic Committee in its efforts to bar gay athletic competitions from using the word ''Olympics.''

***

Mr. Walker, a 43-year-old partner at the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro who has been active in Republican politics, represented the National Rifle Association in a successful effort to overturn a ban in San Francisco on the private ownership of pistols.

****

Among Mr. Walker's critics are women's groups, homosexual-rights advocates and the Coalition for Civil Rights, a consortium of several prominent civil rights groups in California. T. J. Anthony, a spokesman, said the coalition voted on Tuesday to oppose the nomination. [/INDENT]

Sounds like a real liberal.

There is a surprise, the New York Times opposed a Bush federal judge appointment. (If you quote a source, you should identify said source.)

Yes, I remember the huge backlog of Bush judicial appointments. Democrats did all that they could to block as many appointments as possible. They did so for purely political reasons and the fact that Walker's appointment was contested by the New York Times does not make him a conservative. Walker was confirmed by the US Senate by unanimous consent. If John Kerry and Ted Kennedy voted to confirm him, Walker is no conservative.

[BillyB]

There is a surprise, the New York Times opposed a Bush federal judge appointment. (If you quote a source, you should identify said source.)

Yes, I remember the huge backlog of Bush judicial appointments. Democrats did all that they could to block as many appointments as possible. They did so for purely political reasons and the fact that Walker's appointment was contested by the New York Times does not make him a conservative. Walker was confirmed by the US Senate by unanimous consent. If John Kerry and Ted Kennedy voted to confirm him, Walker is no conservative.

See, that's where I went wrong. I didn't know that a NYT article made you a liberal. Please, stop already. You don't like his decision and can't face that he didn't decide the case the way you wanted. Now you're looking for anything to criticize him about. Find me the articles where the conservatives opposed him either time he was nominated. They did nothing, but now they ***** about him. Spare me the silliness.

[Hoot Gibson]

See, that's where I went wrong. I didn't know that a NYT article made you a liberal. Please, stop already. You don't like his decision and can't face that he didn't decide the case the way you wanted. Now you're looking for anything to criticize him about. Find me the articles where the conservatives opposed him either time he was nominated. They did nothing, but now they ***** about him. Spare me the silliness.

Sure you knew. That is why you failed to identify the New York Times as your source. You tried to portray the judge as somebody who faced stiff liberal opposition, yet every liberal in the US Senate voted to confirm him. As for silliness, you have enough for the both of us.

[BillyB]

Sure you knew. That is why you failed to identify the New York Times as your source. You tried to portray the judge as somebody who faced stiff liberal opposition, yet every liberal in the US Senate voted to confirm him. As for silliness, you have enough for the both of us.

Wrong again. I portrayed him as a conservative, not his opposition as liberal, stiff, or anything else. If he was a liberal where was his conservative opposition either time he was nominated?

[Hoot Gibson]

Wrong again. I portrayed him as a conservative, not his opposition as liberal, stiff, or anything else. If he was a liberal where was his conservative opposition either time he was nominated?

That's not a very original question, considering that I just pointed out that no liberal US Senators opposed his confirmation. Given that Senate Democrats blocked the nomination of a large number of Bush appointees, do you honestly believe that this guy is a conservative judge?

As for Republican opposition, the top Republican (who is not a conservative, IMO) nominated Walker. Is it really that hard for you to understand why Republican Senators did not oppose Bush's nomination of Walker to a position below the federal appellate court level?

How many Demcrats have voted against a single Obama judicial nomination in the past 18 months?

[BillyB]

That's not a very original question, considering that I just pointed out that no liberal US Senators opposed his confirmation. Given that Senate Democrats blocked the nomination of a large number of Bush appointees, do you honestly believe that this guy is a conservative judge?

As for Republican opposition, the top Republican (who is not a conservative, IMO) nominated Walker. Is it really that hard for you to understand why Republican Senators did not oppose Bush's nomination of Walker to a position below the federal appellate court level?

How many Demcrats have voted against a single Obama judicial nomination in the past 18 months?

So, the answer to my question is: "there wasn't any." All the more odd considering that conservatives Meiered a nominee by the "compassionate conservative."

[Hoot Gibson]

So, the answer to my question is: "there wasn't any." All the more odd considering that conservatives Meiered a nominee by the "compassionate conservative."

You have a really poor understanding of national politics. Low level judicial appointments generally do not draw much opposition on the merits, except in cases where a nominee has been blackballed for life (as California Democrats have done to former Congressman James Rogan because of his role in the Clinton impeachment).

Harriet Miers was put forward by Bush as a Supreme Court nominee. She was as unqualified to be on the Supreme Court as either of the political hacks that Obama has appointed to the Court. Had Miers been appointed to a federal district court seat, conservatives would have strongly supported her nomination. The Supreme Court is much too important to appoint novices to the position. Supporting the Miers nomination would have set a bad precedent for Republican conservative.

Most opposition to nominees to the federal judiciary arises when one party or the other tries to elevate a young liberal or conservative to a federal appeals court. The reason is that judges confirmed at that high level are threats to upset the ideological balance of the court. Of course, socialists like Obama will not hesitate to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who have absolutely no experience as judges.

[BillyB]

You have a really poor understanding of national politics. Low level judicial appointments generally do not draw much opposition on the merits, except in cases where a nominee has been blackballed for life (as California Democrats have done to former Congressman James Rogan because of his role in the Clinton impeachment).

Harriet Miers was put forward by Bush as a Supreme Court nominee. She was as unqualified to be on the Supreme Court as either of the political hacks that Obama has appointed to the Court. Had Miers been appointed to a federal district court seat, conservatives would have strongly supported her nomination. The Supreme Court is much too important to appoint novices to the position. Supporting the Miers nomination would have set a bad precedent for Republican conservative.

Most opposition to nominees to the federal judiciary arises when one party or the other tries to elevate a young liberal or conservative to a federal appeals court. The reason is that judges confirmed at that high level are threats to upset the ideological balance of the court. Of course, socialists like Obama will not hesitate to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who have absolutely no experience as judges.

Thanks for the education -- slanted as it was. Perhaps you should look at these nominations with more seriousness. It certainly seems to make a difference here doesn't it.

[thecavemaster]

Sooner, I don't know how soon exactly of course, the Supreme Court will extend the equal protection clause to same sex marriages. It appears to me, Hoot, that your stilted view of the Constitution is a status quo document. Thank goodness your views were not heeded in the civil rights decisions. If you are a staunch states rights guy, who believes state sovereignty trumps individual rights, have the guts to say so. Quit hiding behind "judicial activism" and all that rant. Apparently, you would rather think of yourself as a "winner" because of quibble than honestly suggest why equal protection should not extend to same sex couples?

[Hoot Gibson]

Sooner, I don't know how soon exactly of course, the Supreme Court will extend the equal protection clause to same sex marriages. It appears to me, Hoot, that your stilted view of the Constitution is a status quo document. Thank goodness your views were not heeded in the civil rights decisions. If you are a staunch states rights guy, who believes state sovereignty trumps individual rights, have the guts to say so. Quit hiding behind "judicial activism" and all that rant. Apparently, you would rather think of yourself as a "winner" because of quibble than honestly suggest why equal protection should not extend to same sex couples?

You apparently believe that debates can be won by intentionally crediting your target with positions that he has not taken. That won't fly here, CM. If you don't want to respond to the actual positions that I have taken, then don't bother responding at all. Just making up stuff and implying that I am a racist is not going to win you any points.

There are certain civil rights that are explicitly protected by the US Constitution and no state has the legal authority to deprive any individual of those rights. A universally government sanctioned marriage is not among those rights. IMO, any state has the constitutional right to eliminate the government's role in marriage if they so choose, including those among heterosexuals.

Using your poorly reasoned argument, it could be argued that states have no right to pass laws that are not identical to those of the 49 other states. Why? Because not having identical laws means that individuals who are residents of different states are not being treated equally. The purpose of the 14th Amendment is to ensure that no state infringes upon the rights that the US Constitution guarantees all people.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to create additional federally protected rights nor was it intended as a means to nullify the votes of state residents when those votes do not deprive anybody of their real constitutional rights. You and your socialist buddies are as wrong on this issue as you are on the economic theories that have been discredited repeatedly.

[ukyfootball]

You apparently believe that debates can be won by intentionally crediting your target with positions that he has not taken. That won't fly here, CM. If you don't want to respond to the actual positions that I have taken, then don't bother responding at all. Just making up stuff and implying that I am a racist is not going to win you any points.

There are certain civil rights that are explicitly protected by the US Constitution and no state has the legal authority to deprive any individual of those rights. A universally government sanctioned marriage is not among those rights. IMO, any state has the constitutional right to eliminate the government's role in marriage if they so choose, including those among heterosexuals.

Using your poorly reasoned argument, it could be argued that states have no right to pass laws that are not identical to those of the 49 other states. Why? Because not having identical laws means that individuals who are residents of different states are not being treated equally. The purpose of the 14th Amendment is to ensure that no state infringes upon the rights that the US Constitution guarantees all people.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to create additional federally protected rights nor was it intended as a means to nullify the votes of state residents when those votes do not deprive anybody of their real constitutional rights. You and your socialist buddies are as wrong on this issue as you are on the economic theories that have been discredited repeatedly.

We all do it, even you.

[thecavemaster]

You apparently believe that debates can be won by intentionally crediting your target with positions that he has not taken. That won't fly here, CM. If you don't want to respond to the actual positions that I have taken, then don't bother responding at all. Just making up stuff and implying that I am a racist is not going to win you any points.

There are certain civil rights that are explicitly protected by the US Constitution and no state has the legal authority to deprive any individual of those rights. A universally government sanctioned marriage is not among those rights. IMO, any state has the constitutional right to eliminate the government's role in marriage if they so choose, including those among heterosexuals.

Using your poorly reasoned argument, it could be argued that states have no right to pass laws that are not identical to those of the 49 other states. Why? Because not having identical laws means that individuals who are residents of different states are not being treated equally. The purpose of the 14th Amendment is to ensure that no state infringes upon the rights that the US Constitution guarantees all people.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to create additional federally protected rights nor was it intended as a means to nullify the votes of state residents when those votes do not deprive anybody of their real constitutional rights. You and your socialist buddies are as wrong on this issue as you are on the economic theories that have been discredited repeatedly.

This is tired mantra. The only reason to exclude same sex couples from 14th Amendment protection has nothing to do with the shenanigous drivel you've offered here. You know it, and I know it. In fact, the drivel you spew HAS been used in time to suggest that interracial marriages do not have to be recognized in some states. I am not suggesting you are a racist; I am suggesting that your attachment to state's rights and a sort of view of capitalsim that takes little account of the corrupt state of man is the bent of thought that allows a lot of abuses of human rights to take place.

[Hoot Gibson]

This is tired mantra. The only reason to exclude same sex couples from 14th Amendment protection has nothing to do with the shenanigous drivel you've offered here. You know it, and I know it. In fact, the drivel you spew HAS been used in time to suggest that interracial marriages do not have to be recognized in some states. I am not suggesting you are a racist; I am suggesting that your attachment to state's rights and a sort of view of capitalsim that takes little account of the corrupt state of man is the bent of thought that allows a lot of abuses of human rights to take place.

The 10th Amendment exists for a reason, whether the socialists in this country like it or not. The founding fathers were very much states' rights advocates and the 14the Amendment did not repeal the 10th Amendment.

If you and other gay rights advocates want to force states to recognize gay marriages, then you need to sway public opinion and lobby your representatives to pass a constitutional amendment.

[thecavemaster]

The 10th Amendment exists for a reason, whether the socialists in this country like it or not. The founding fathers were very much states' rights advocates and the 14the Amendment did not repeal the 10th Amendment.

If you and other gay rights advocates want to force states to recognize gay marriages, then you need to sway public opinion and lobby your representatives to pass a constitutional amendment.

In an "establish justice" America, one doesn't "sway public opinion" to grant essential liberties, or grant equal protection. That is established. You hide behind "state's rights" (founding fathers also very much concerned with mob rule),... these are issues of fundamental liberty. Within the Christian and Jewish polity, marriage can be between a man and a woman. Inside a civil polity, with "establish justice" as foundational, that's not the issue. My personal views on same sex marriage don't matter, nor do the Popes or the Rabbi's or the masses.

[Hoot Gibson]

In an "establish justice" America, one doesn't "sway public opinion" to grant essential liberties, or grant equal protection. That is established. You hide behind "state's rights" (founding fathers also very much concerned with mob rule),... these are issues of fundamental liberty. Within the Christian and Jewish polity, marriage can be between a man and a woman. Inside a civil polity, with "establish justice" as foundational, that's not the issue. My personal views on same sex marriage don't matter, nor do the Popes or the Rabbi's or the masses.

You are one seriously confused individual. You dismiss the democratic process as "mob rule," whenever you find your opinion to be shared by the minority of Americans - which seems to be a position that you find yourself on most issues. The founding fathers understood the importance of establishing a nation ruled by laws and not by men.

The difference between us is that if the Supreme Court eventually rules, incorrectly in my opinion, that gay marriage is a constitutional right, I will accept its decision as the law of the land, while supporting a constitutional amendment to change that law. If the decision goes the other way, you and others of your ilk, will continue to try to pack the court with activist judges to thwart the legislative process and nullify the votes of the majority.

It is attitudes like yours that are so common among the socialists who control the White House and Congress that are driving the current "throw the rascals out" mood of American voters. Democrats are going to pay a heavy price for ignoring public opinion and allowing the socialist wing of the party to become the face of the party.

[thecavemaster]

You are one seriously confused individual. You dismiss the democratic process as "mob rule," whenever you find your opinion to be shared by the minority of Americans - which seems to be a position that you find yourself on most issues. The founding fathers understood the importance of establishing a nation ruled by laws and not by men.

The difference between us is that if the Supreme Court eventually rules, incorrectly in my opinion, that gay marriage is a constitutional right, I will accept its decision as the law of the land, while supporting a constitutional amendment to change that law. If the decision goes the other way, you and others of your ilk, will continue to try to pack the court with activist judges to thwart the legislative process and nullify the votes of the majority.

It is attitudes like yours that are so common among the socialists who control the White House and Congress that are driving the current "throw the rascals out" mood of American voters. Democrats are going to pay a heavy price for ignoring public opinion and allowing the socialist wing of the party to become the face of the party.

Given history, Hoot, I would be careful about attributing mid-term losses by the majority as some grand movement. Of course, you know that. Same sex marriage is an essential liberty, in the same vein as the general grace of God, whereby Hitler's roses grew just like Billy Graham's. It's a foundational principle, without which, the rest of the Constitution doesn't matter. The Framers were balancing two great threats from historical observation: a despotic tyrant's government and the whim and caprice of a swayed by the wind public...either are a threat to essential liberty.

[Hoot Gibson]

Given history, Hoot, I would be careful about attributing mid-term losses by the majority as some grand movement. Of course, you know that. Same sex marriage is an essential liberty, in the same vein as the general grace of God, whereby Hitler's roses grew just like Billy Graham's. It's a foundational principle, without which, the rest of the Constitution doesn't matter. The Framers were balancing two great threats from historical observation: a despotic tyrant's government and the whim and caprice of a swayed by the wind public...either are a threat to essential liberty.

What nonsense. The republic has survived very well for more than two centuries without gay marriage and I think that it is safe to predict that the fate of our nation does not rest on whether the government participates in the mock marriage of gay couples or not. An "essential liberty?" History says not.

[EOE]

You hang in there Hoot!! Some of us has got your back!!