Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

The Constitution does not specify what the Federal government cannot do.

Why is it, that folks who argue for absolute state power, always paint every scenario as a nightmare. As though the only outcome without state control, is chaos and evil.

It's such a sad view to hold. That one would think man is inherently evil, and left to his own devices, will be incapable of constructing equitable civil contracts with his family and neighbors. It's actually quite counter-intuitive, unless you truly believe there is a chicken and egg debate as to the origin of government.

As to the hell, my issue with the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but just as gays are being deprived of their equal rights now because you and others refuse to act, once you have gained the power to legislate morality via the mob.

Grant was one of the best pre-20th century Presidents on civil rights for African Americans.

Restaurant got separate bathrooms? Piss you off? Eat somewhere else.

That's how a free society works. That's how capitalism works. If someone discriminates against you, they lose your business. They are sh1tty businessmen. But the problem with Jim Crow was that the government was practicing segregation, and the government cannot show favor based upon group identity, race or any other discriminatory marker.

Also, I resent you trying to imply I am a racist or a neo-confederate (desired, cherished etc. era). Nothing could be further from the truth. It is in effect, slander. And of the cheapest sort, to cover for the lack of a compelling argument on your part, meant to diminish me, rather than my argument.

Similar to the tactics you decry when people use them against Obama. Similar to the shenanigans of a GTech.

1) Illegal with consequences is not consistent with your previous statement about the end of segregation.

2) I'm not doubting how immoral or evil it was. But it goes straight to your argument for mob law. The Constitution protected black Americans when slavery was abolished. It didn't suddenly start protecting them in the 60s. The difference is, the mob refused to enforce the law. I advocate consistent interpretation, and if I have understood you correctly, you believe that the law should be interpreted and implemented based upon the will of the majority, which is not at all what the Founders intended.

The whole idea that a law can be ignored if no one will speak up for it, or rather, not enough members of (sic) society is anathema to the concept of American justice.

3) The Federal government did not "impose the Constitution". Maybe that was a poor choice of words. State rights have not been destroyed, they could only be changed by Constitutional amendment. What has changed, is that a very liberal and loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause, starting around the time of the Civil War, has transferred power to the federal branch that has not been enumerated.

Everything not enumerated to the federal government, is the right of the states to legislate over.

Again, that's a legal interpretation, which has recently been called into question by Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas.

At best, legislating segregation by businesses, is an exploitation in a loophole of legal interpretation, for if the Founders truly intended this power for the Federal branch (to legislate the morals of property use) it is unlikely they would have left out personal or communal non-profit property. As it stands now, a church could probably segregate, but a coffee shop could not. Not very consistent justice, is it?

But of course it isn't. The Founders understood that Private Property was a foundation for liberty.

Have a nice night Paul. Maybe tomorrow you will be able to explain why you endorse discrimination against gays instead of trying to rehash the civil rights movement over and over.

 

The poster is repeating himself, and, characteristically, literally misstating what I write on this forum.

He has said Jim Crow and segregation is the inherent right of any private property owner in America.

The poster is wrong, on constitutional grounds, as has been amply shown throughout this thread. Briefly (very briefly, since it has been covered quite extensively throughout):

The poster is also, unfortunately, resorting to lies and calumny once again when he construes:

and

as

 

Such as?

Where did I say that?

 

In my country is legal.
But I don't like it very much. Nothing against the couple, but the kids they may adopt can have problems in its childhood, and can be marginalized or similar by its friends (the children sometimes are very cruel).

 

This is again, incorrect.

Originally Posted by NPT
It isn't a question of "should," or what makes sense, or even what is right. Defending the shameful era of segregation, and Jim Crow laws - the idiocy of white drinking fountains alongside "colored" drinking fountains and so on - is about as morally repugnant as it gets.

No, in our federal system, it must come down to what the constitution says as to what the federal government can, and cannot do.​

Again, the Constitution does not specify what the Federal Government cannot do.

Moreover, segregation is by definition a restriction on interstate commerce - people coming from one state are necessarily forced to choose someplace other than the place of their choice, when entering the environs of a segregationist state, and such a structure is simply unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.​

The Commerce Clause does not make segregation illegal. It "theoretically" affords Congress the authority to make segregation illegal. The Constitution does not offer an opinion on segregation.

Care to dispute what I have written above in blue?

If the Founders intended the Commerce Clause to be used to legislate morality, why did they leave personal private property, and non-commerce cooperatives (such as churches) outside the jurisdiction of the government?

It's because the Commerce Clause was meant for the Federal government to negotiate trade agreements, between states, the Indian nations and foreign countries.

Regardless, based on the legal rationale as presented, Congress merely needs to pass a law allowing segregation, and the theory is, they have that right because segregation is not enumerated in the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause allows them to do so.

 

Ok, I really gotta sleep, but I just want to reiterate for the record, I think that segregation is wrong, I have no problem with white people and black people having children, let alone using the same bathroom or eating with the same cutlery.

But the government should not, and does not have the authority to legislate how I run my business, who I like or dislike, who I associate with, who is entitled to use my private property, who I choose to sell my goods or render my services to etc.

In the hands of the wrong people, such power could be devastating. And while I have been painted as a Jim Crow fan (which couldn't be further from the truth), the reality is, Jim Crow laws existed because state government took such power and Federal government did not protect the rights of it's citizens to stop it. This was an immoral (IMO) abuse of the law, perpetuated by the same system that finally stopped it (sadly, by taking away the private property rights of business people).

Government is great, when you're calling the shots and they are implementing your social and moral agenda. Ideas like freedom and liberty get pretty icky when you will fight for the rights of blacks, but not the rights of gays. All of a sudden, people start to look like hypocrites. We're not for freedom for everyone, just everyone we can tolerate...

I'm not afraid as an imperfect man, to try to defend perfect liberty. Sometimes, it means I have to endorse the possibility of someone segregating their customers, but the alternative, is to empower a system that can tell us what to think, what is right or wrong, and how we may behave.

And I'll take my risks with the segregators than to acquiesce the right to freedom and free will anyday.

 

The logic is flawed. It was shown in Atlanta that segregation, prima facie, unconstitutionally restricts interstate commerce - citizens from one state, a "free state," may not freely transact business in another state, a "Jim Crow" state. Since it is decidedly federal jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, Atlanta plaintiffs failed. Rightly so.

Constitution and what federal government cannot do - please see Amendments X, XI of the U.S. Constitution, for a couple.

Yes, and much like the constitutional provision vesting ultimate juridical review in the Supreme Court, the commerce clause allows congress to do what it says, and as I have said many times, in Atlanta. Complaining that the Supreme Court pulled a big "whoops" over Plessy with the host of cases I earlier provided is to say one doesn't agree with the constitution's vesting of that precise power in that precise Court.

In short, segregation was ultimately, rightfully and irrevocably destroyed, despite rigorous challenges by Jim Crow states and parties invested in continuing the era of shame. Some may wish a return to those days, but they are rightfully gone.

 

It was not destroyed. There is no law to prevent a church from segregating. Or another non-profit.

There is nothing to stop me from asking a black or white guest to use a separate bathroom at my house, or eat in the kitchen instead of the dining room.

You can argue it forever, but the reality is, the government was never vested with the power to control what happens on private property. Interpretation of the commerce clause has allowed them limited authority, that many Constitution scholars feels is an incorrect one.

You need to read my previous post in this thread. Your continued insinuations that I want a return to racism or endorse racism (particularly as phrased here) is just subtle slander meant to distract the reader and diminish my positions.

I could continue to tear down the civil rights '64 arguments, but not when I am being continually subjected to the charge of bigotry and not at the expense of the discussion on gay marriage.

Back to which, what kind of civil society only awards rights based on majority vote? Isn't that the same kind of society that can take rights away based on majority vote?

Is our right to free speech a natural, human right we and all other humans are entitled to at all times, or is that right contingent upon the consensus of our peers?

 

Sure they should let gay marriages happen.
They sure let enough unhappy marriages happen.


No, I didn't miss the point, I was attempting to show how ludicrous the whole affair is that SOME PEOPLE are so worried about what other people are doing in their own bedrooms.

Sheesh, It is very apparent that there is so little love exhibited in this world that it should not be denied to ANYONE who has actually found a bit of it!

 

I still don't get why people compare being black to being gay. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

 

I love the way people that have no clue keep stating this as a fact... How do you know that it's a choice? Are you gay?

Haha, I've decided that I'm not really going to continuously read this thread; instead I'll just chime in now and then

 

I’m absolutely awed, at the polls! Wouldn’t think they’d be so close, I’m really shocked.

 

You know, I am considering putting Bogart's theory to a test. I might decide to be gay for a couple weeks to get some more perspective.

Bogart, could you offer some tips on how to be gay?

Sound advice. For me.

 

It seems to me that people are voting with adoption in mind rather than marriage.

 

Seemingly so, but I wouldn’t have expected sophistication on this topic, 90% would’ve voted no in an election like statute. Like the Satanist expresses them as that for freedom of a “disgruntled” God, I guess this is expressing freedom, I doubt all of them who voted yes would actually engage in homosexual marriage. Only keeping in mind the right of freedom, I’m impressed.

 

I really don't get why propagandists refuse to read, since this poster has never done anything of the kind.

Another poster brought his defense for segregation and the Jim Crow society, and his disagreement with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in with his position on gay marriage, not this poster. That poster has a flawed premise of the constitutionality of his position, which was clearly shown; segregation on commercial premises is illegal, and the Civil Rights Act survived strenuous juridical review to become, unassailably, law.

 

-Is precisely a segregationist stance. The poster's words, not mine, so it is impossible to construe this as slander. Further, the "right" to segregate a business doesn't exist within the federal system of the United States of America. That "right" began the long, march to death from 1896 (Plessy) to 1964. While the poster does appear to wish for a return to those days, this poster does not, and applauds the land we have now, over 1896-1964 with respect to the treatment before the law of all American citizens.

The poster linked his defense of segregation with the issue of gay marriage, not this poster; so it is odd he now erroneously chastises another for dealing with the discussion the poster created in the first place.

The poster began by making the arrogant and ridiculous statement that he "didn't have time to lecture" on the constitution and constitutionality. It would do well for the poster to return to that study, and hopefully come to see the errors of his ways. The Federalist Papers, et seq, would also do him well.

The poster is now also seeking a global diffusion of the issue by attempting to conflate the issue of free speech in America with his support for segregation.

 

This poster, that poster, this poster, that poster.

Are you on the verge of a core meltdown?

"unassailably"? All it takes is a new law or a new judge to overturn the commerce clause provision. Far from unassailable.

Which is why I am concerned about people with your perspective, running the show. You seem to think law, right and wrong etc. is flexible. Whatever "society" wants is ok. Even I suppose, when that is escorting Jews on trains to camps, or segregating blacks into inferior schools. The good ol' power of the majority, or mob rule.

More hot air trying to paint this non-white as some sort of white supremacist, which is a slanderous tactic normally reserved for the bigots of the forum.

Unfortunately NPT, you fail to recognize basic human rights, such as the right to free will, the right to choice (even bad ones). That's the root of our disagreement. You think it is moral to legislate right and wrong, I say, "who has the right to say what is right and wrong?"

Is it Pol Pot? Is it Adolf Hitler? Is it George Bush? Is it the Pope? Who has the right to determine what constitutes good and evil in this world? Do you?

You've done your best to narrow this issue and paint me as a racist, when nothing could be further from the truth and I have made that clear. I can only assume because you refuse to acknowledge that there are bigger principles being compromised by imposing moralistic values or limiting free choice.

Anyone can go back and read. I made a point about the separation of public and private property using the Civil Rights Act of .64, you turned it into a moratorium on my views with regards to racism and have derailed this thread.

Numerous times now, I have tried to bring the conversation back to gay marriage, yet you refuse to acknowledge that your position essential is that you feel gays are not equal and do not deserve equal rights.

You can answer that charge and get the thread back on track anytime. The ball is in your court.

This is another fabrication, a pleasant way of calling it a lie.

Your ability to twist my posts to suit your attacks is astounding.

Free Speech was just an example of any supposed "self evident truths" that are rights, which you seem to believe exist only at the pleasure of a majority vote. You could insert any other right you wish, trying to conflate my position with a free speech defense only further exposes your hypocrisy.

 

The poster is repeating himself.

The poster has made a decisive statement supporting segregation in businesses - by definition, the claim that there is a legal right to bar people from one's place of business based on the color of their skin, ethnicity, religious faith, etc.:

This is flatly wrong, as I have shown, by reliance on the Constitution. Regretfully, the fact that the poster's stand is unsupportable appears to drive him to all manner of disingenuous methods - which I have also clearly shown. In this poster's experience this, too, is unfortunately a typical pattern on the part of the poster. Here, for example:

and

Is diametrically opposed to my position:

and

But such misstatements of others' positions are, unfortunately, something I've discovered is the poster's consistent method.

If others have questions regarding the legal and constitutional aspects involved, please PM me or post here. I'd be glad to discuss.

 

You could get locked up for melting down pennies and get married in prision

gay marriage is not an issue of civil rights