Doth he protesteth too much?

Aaron wrote:Article IV of the United States Constitution states...

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

DOMA, passed and signed into law in 1996 states...

1.No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

Marriage is a public act and a judical proceeding. DOMA contradicts the Constitution which makes it unconstitutional.

As it cannot be any more clear, It is PROVEN.

Now show me one example of what you are referring to, specifically regarding the 14th Amendment. Or are you saying you agree that Congress should be allowed to write and pass bad laws that are clearly contradictory with the Constitution of the United States of America?

Let's start again. This is the statement you made ... . the only thing you'll find there is the courts refusing to hear the case simply because they know if they do, they will have to reject it as it is not only indefensible, it's clearly unconstitutional to anyone who doesn't have a pre-set agenda

Prove to me that is the case, that courts are refusing to hear these arguments.

Here you go skippy.

Now what will you come up to deny the truth?

Aaron wrote:Here you go skippy.

Now what will you come up to deny the truth?

And this proves what exactly? The marriages go forward and it certainly doesn't back your claim that they are afraid to hear the case. Moreover you got your info from a fairly biased group wouldn't you say.

So your point is what?

Skippy

I knew that no matter what I posted you would find fault with it which is why I didn't post more links. I made the statement, proved it and as far as I'm concerned it's settled. You want to provide evidence otherwise then feel free but I won't jump through your hoops when your thoughts on this subject are crystal clear to everyone here.

It's clear DOMA is unconstitutional and you know it but the truth is, you don't care becasue of your homophobia. We all know it so why even pretend that's not the case?

Aaron wrote: I knew that no matter what I posted you would find fault with it which is why I didn't post more links. I made the statement, proved it and as far as I'm concerned it's settled. You want to provide evidence otherwise then feel free but I won't jump through your hoops when your thoughts on this subject are crystal clear to everyone here.

You didn't post more links saying that the Supreme is as you posted ... the only thing you'll find there is the courts refusing to hear the case simply because they know if they do, they will have to reject it as it is not only indefensible, it's clearly unconstitutional to anyone who doesn't have a pre-set agenda is because they don't exist. Even the links you posted didn't back up your point.

I'm not asking you to jump through any hoops, in fact I don't care if you accept my views or not. However, I'm not going to change them just to satisfy you.

Aaron wrote:It's clear DOMA is unconstitutional and you know it but the truth is, you don't care becasue of your homophobia. We all know it so why even pretend that's not the case?

What is clear to me is that you want it to be so or you have to be right, thus like so many have already you are willing to bend and twist the US Constitution to prove you are right. Remember however, the end has never justified the means and it never will.

Now to the rest of your post, as I have stated so many times, I don't care what consenting adults do, not because I'm a homophobe, but because what they do is not my business and as long as what they practice doesn't affect my rights they can do as they please. If it makes you feel like a man to label me a homophobe, fine, you are a man. However, just because you think it, doesn't make it true.

You've been challenged numerous times to show how recognizing same sex marriage is twisting the Constitution and you have yet to rise to the challenge. In fact, you haven't even tried. Every time the challenge is given, you divert the subject by rambling off into some inane nonsense about how someone using the force of law to impose their views on you or how activist judges are twisting the constitution.

It's time to put up or shut up Cato. The challenge is simple.

1) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is twisting the constitution.

2) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is anyone using the force of law to impost their views on you.

3) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is judicial activism.

Considering that I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wording of DOMA is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, this shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it?

Aaron wrote:You've been challenged numerous times to show how recognizing same sex marriage is twisting the Constitution and you have yet to rise to the challenge. In fact, you haven't even tried. Every time the challenge is given, you divert the subject by rambling off into some inane nonsense about how someone using the force of law to impose their views on you or how activist judges are twisting the constitution.

It's time to put up or shut up Cato. The challenge is simple.

1) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is twisting the constitution.

2) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is anyone using the force of law to impost their views on you.

3) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is judicial activism.

Considering that I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wording of DOMA is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, this shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it?

OK you've proven it, Happy!!!!!

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:So tell me Cato, when our founding fathers authored the 1st Amendment, do you think they had Larry Flint in mind?

You're wrong again.

All we know about what they had in mind comes from their writings.

And the ONLY part of their writings that counts is what is written in the official document- the Constitution in the case at hand. What they might or might not have "had in mind" otherwise is irrelevant- because that did not make it into the official document.

You believe what you want Aaron. I imagine the odds are quite good that in the end you are going to get your wish. You'll be happy and the US Constitution will become just a bit more subjective.

And as it is a document about freedom to have rights it is a subjective document to begin with. The more subjectively it can be applied to both allowing and protecting the rights of all individuals the better for preserving social freedoms.

But what the hell, it is just about meaningless now.

It is meaningless to you anyway. Because you have already said that the Constitution does not represent your view of proper governance anyway.

To wit:

Cato wrote:Personally, I think the US Constitution over steps the bounds of proper governance, but that is my personal vew point.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:
Tell me Aaron what was the orginal purpose of the 14th amendment.

It doesn't matter what the purpose was. It is a legal part of the constitution as set forth by the Amendment procedure thus it must be followed to the letter of the law regardless of what you think.

Yes, it does matter. It was the nation's first attempt at an equal rights amendment and not a very well worded attempt at that.

How was it "not very well worded"? Do you think it allows for too many rights? How would you have worded it differently?

ziggy wrote:

How was it "not very well worded"? Do you think it allows for too many rights? How would you have worded it differently?

Those aren't my words, they actually belong to Ron Paul. I agree with him however. The amendment becomes a fall back for everything that comes down the pike. In my personal opinion the way the amendment is being used today, it would practically do away with states rights.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:You've been challenged numerous times to show how recognizing same sex marriage is twisting the Constitution and you have yet to rise to the challenge. In fact, you haven't even tried. Every time the challenge is given, you divert the subject by rambling off into some inane nonsense about how someone using the force of law to impose their views on you or how activist judges are twisting the constitution.

It's time to put up or shut up Cato. The challenge is simple.

1) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is twisting the constitution.

2) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is anyone using the force of law to impost their views on you.

3) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is judicial activism.

Considering that I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wording of DOMA is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, this shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it?

OK you've proven it, Happy!!!!!

What I've proven is what I've know all along; on this subject, you're full of hot air. I knew you wouldn't even take a crack at the questions because you have no answers. NONE.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:You've been challenged numerous times to show how recognizing same sex marriage is twisting the Constitution and you have yet to rise to the challenge. In fact, you haven't even tried. Every time the challenge is given, you divert the subject by rambling off into some inane nonsense about how someone using the force of law to impose their views on you or how activist judges are twisting the constitution.

It's time to put up or shut up Cato. The challenge is simple.

1) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is twisting the constitution.

2) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is anyone using the force of law to impost their views on you.

3) Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is judicial activism.

Considering that I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wording of DOMA is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, this shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it?

OK you've proven it, Happy!!!!!

What I've proven is what I've know all along; on this subject, you're full of hot air. I knew you wouldn't even take a crack at the questions because you have no answers. NONE.

Whatever. Actually you've proven nothing to me other than you are alot like a spoiled brat who has to have his way or else and everyone has to agree or else. I don't agree and I ain't going to agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is in violation of the US Constitution. To borrow from Ziggy, it will be a violation, if and when the US Supreme says it is. Until that time your opinion means nothing. If you feel this strongly about it, I wouldb e talking tot he US Supreme Court, not wasting your time posting to me.

As I have said for the unteenth time, I don't give a tinkers damn about homosexuals marrying or not. I will tell you this, if they are allowed to marry then they face all the samethings a hetrosexual faces, like the marriage penalty. Also, if and when they are allowed to marry, don't force me to condone or recognize their marriage, because I won't. Don't demand that I in any way am force to condone their activities or use my property in a manner that indicates I may condone wha they do.

Cato wrote: I don't agree and I ain't going to agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is in violation of the US Constitution.

Constitution
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

DOMA
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

It doesn't matter what you agree with. It's right there, in black and white so if you don't agree, simply put, you're wrong.

And I'm still waiting on you to answer those questions.

One other thing Cato. I'm curious, do you eat hot dogs?

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote: I don't agree and I ain't going to agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is in violation of the US Constitution.

Constitution
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

DOMA
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

It doesn't matter what you agree with. It's right there, in black and white so if you don't agree, simply put, you're wrong.

And I'm still waiting on you to answer those questions.

One other thing Cato. I'm curious, do you eat hot dogs?

I know you have difficulty answering questions, primarily because you don't have a clue but it's really a very simple question.

Do you eat hot dogs?

Aaron wrote:I know you have difficulty answering questions, primarily because you don't have a clue but it's really a very simple question.

OK I'm about to do something I doubt seriously you have either the ethical value or courage to do, admit I'm wrong in my view.

Question 1 - Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is twisting the constitution.

First, I'm not certain that "mandated" is the correct word, but that is not important. I ran across an article this morning that made a ton of sence. The article's abstract follows -


While the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to protect African American civil rights since the 1950s, it was first cited as protective of gay and lesbian civil rights only in 1996. This work analyzes the new social construction of gay and lesbian civil rights within the historical context of African American civil rights. I find that such a comparative analysis is key to understanding contemporary debates relating to same-sex marriage, since same-sex marriage policy is richly based upon the historical struggle in U.S. society to recognize interracial marriage. Furthermore, though the complicated hierarchy of legal case scrutiny created in recent decades by the Court seems incompatible with democracy and indicates to us that Fourteenth Amendment values of equal protection and due process cannot be taken at face value in the American system of government, I find that the Court's new inclusion, albeit limited, of gays and lesbians in the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment shows us that the U.S. Constitution can still be a significant and promising source of rights. The Court now understands sexuality, like race, as a fixed characteristic. By constructing gays and lesbians as a legal entity in need of protection, the Court is making it easier for them to challenge discrimination.

Bergeron, Joe. "Flexing the Fourteenth Amendment: The New Inclusion of Gay and Lesbian Americans in the U.S. Constitution" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Marriott Hotel, Oakland, California, Mar 17, 2005 . 2009-05-25

The point of the matter is that if the 14th amendment is going to be applied to interracial marriage, which was also considered a perversion, then it has to be applied to same sex marriage. It has to allow it jsut the same as it allows interracial marriage.

I still believe that the 14th amendment was never intended to cover items like homosexual marriage, however, that being said, the amendment says what it says. That being said until the 14th amendment is changed or repealed what it says is law and if I am going to stand by my guns on the importance of standards then by the 14th amendment it is unconstitutional to deny a couple the right to marry based on sexual orientation.

Question 2) - - Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is anyone using the force of law to impost their views on you.

I have never said that the government recognizing same sex marriage was using the force of law to impose their views on me. Here is what I have said. Just as now denying homosexuals the right to marry is unconstitutional, denying me my right to the quiet enjoyment of my property should also be unconstitutional. To require that I rent or sell to a homosexaul couple my property is to require me to recognize their marriage, something I do not and cannot do.

Question 3 - Show how the government recognizing same sex marriage as mandated by the 14th Amendment is judicial activism.

Obviously, it is not based on my answer to question one.

As I have said a number of times already, I don't care what consenting adults do. Think I'm kidding, I'm not. As I further said, I don't believe any level of government should be in the business of defining marriage, since that relationship is really between consenting adults. The only thing the government need concern itself with is having a court system to settle issues between the parties, when issues arise. The laws that the courts apply need to be very objective. My personal veiw is very simple, if you want to do it fine, accept the responsibility for your actions, respect the views and rights of others, and accept all consequeses for your actions, both good and bad.

Bravo Cato. Except for you questioning my ethics or courage. You're wrong there as I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or changing my view when confronted with the proper evidence as I did on this subject about a year ago.

And for the record, what I would truly love to see happen is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely. That starts with an overhaul of the tax system so I don't know if I'll see that in my lifetime but one can only hope, right.

Aaron wrote:

And for the record, what I would truly love to see happen is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely. That starts with an overhaul of the tax system so I don't know if I'll see that in my lifetime but one can only hope, right.

I want the politicans out of everything (period end of sentence). All any level of government need do is provide protection against those who would deny one their rights. The only other function of government is to provide a court system whereby disputes can be settled under objective law. I don't need the politicans telling me what to eat, how to raise my kids, who I can and can't marry, what I can and can't say, where I can take a dump, what car I drive, or what is safe and what isn't. I also object to some do-gooder trying to inflict their views on me in any way shape or form using the force of law because they happen to think it is the best for me. I'll make my own decisions and I'll be responsibile for what happens. I will accept the consequences be that good or bad. Will ask no other person to releive of my responsibility. All I ask is the same consideration from others.