Doth he protesteth too much?

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:I see the problem. Cato doesn’t under the constitution.

Either that or he understands it, knows he's flat out wrong as this is not an issue of the government defining marriage but simply a contractual issue and the recognition of such by the government, which is applying bigotry on this case and he doesn't have a problem with it.

You and Ziggy are the one's that keep saying I don't understand the US Constitution. Then you and he have the guts to refer to me as a bigot, then Ziggy has the gall to say I have to recognize queer marriages, but I'm not entitled to the "quite enjoyment" of my property. I don't think either you know what you want other than to prove how ignorant you really are.

I'm still waiting on you to show how the government acting in a legal manner and abiding by the 14th Amendment infringes on your rights or in any way, shape or form or has anything to do with your quite enjoyment Cato.

Why don't you quit trying to divert the conversation and answer what is clear to anyone willing to take 10 minutes and actually read the Equal Protection Clause.

I have never said it did? If I have, show me where I have said it, date and post.

So then you support equal protection and recognition of marriage for all as it should be since that is what the 14th Amendment requires. Good for you Cato. I'm proud of you.

Aaron wrote:So then you support equal protection and recognition of marriage for all as it should be since that is what the 14th Amendment requires. Good for you Cato. I'm proud of you.

No I don't because it doesn't

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:So then you support equal protection and recognition of marriage for all as it should be since that is what the 14th Amendment requires. Good for you Cato. I'm proud of you.

No I don't because it doesn't

How doesn't it? The 14th Amendment calls for equal protection under the laws. That means equal protection for blacks and whites to vote, to enter into contracts of marriage, etc.; and it means equal legal protection to a man and a woman, or to two men, or to two women who want to enter into a contract of marriage.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:So then you support equal protection and recognition of marriage for all as it should be since that is what the 14th Amendment requires. Good for you Cato. I'm proud of you.

No I don't because it doesn't

How doesn't it? The 14th Amendment calls for equal protection under the laws. That means equal protection for blacks and whites to vote, to enter into contracts of marriage, etc.; and it means equal legal protection to a man and a woman, or to two men, or to two women who want to enter into a contract of marriage.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If then if your conclusion is true wouldn't this apply to all the state laws that disagree with each other. For example, if prostitution is allowed in Nevada, then a person seeking to practice prostitution should be allowed in all states. After all the laws are to be applied equally. Additionally, wouldn't the differing rates charged for gasoline taxes between the states be illegal under your view of the constitution. After all you are saying that law needs to be applied equally.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong Cato? You need to read the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Cato wrote:If then if your conclusion is true wouldn't this apply to all the state laws that disagree with each other. For example, if prostitution is allowed in Nevada, then a person seeking to practice prostitution should be allowed in all states. After all the laws are to be applied equally. Additionally, wouldn't the differing rates charged for gasoline taxes between the states be illegal under your view of the constitution. After all you are saying that law needs to be applied equally.

No, you are drawing false anologies- and deliberately so I do believe. Nevada allows county options re: prostitution. 8 of Nevada's 16 counties allow prostitution. Any state could allow county options on prostitution. But only Nevada does. Nothing keeps any state from allowing prostitution on a county option basis. Only if Nevada allowed county option prostitution in some of its counties, but arbitrarily disallowed it in other counties would your analogy apply.

Most states allow marriage to opposite gendered couples, but arbitrarily disallow marriage to same gendered couples. That is unequal application / protection of the laws as relates to a contract of marriage and violates the 14th Amendment. Only if a state allowed county option prostitution in some counties, but arbitrarily disallowed it in other counties would your analogy apply.

As to your example of gasoline taxes, if a state applies gasoline taxes uniformly within its jurisdiction, then it is engaging in equal protection. But if the state applied one level of gasoline taxes to men, but another rate to women, or one rate to male-female marital partners, but a different rate to male-male or female-female marital partners, then you would have a basis for saying that the state was denying equal protection under its laws.

The 10th Amendment allows states to have different laws about various things- as long as those laws do not violate the Constitution- of which the 14th Amendment is a part. The laws of any state which discriminate based on gender of the people involved are violative of the 14th Amendment. Any state could decide to do away with marriage of anyone to anyone else within its borders. The 10th Amendment allows a state to make its own domestic relations laws. And as long as the state recognizes with full faith and credit the acts of the other states- as the Constitution requires- it can have whatever marital contract laws it cares to for its own citizens. But once a state makes such laws, it must make the laws apply equally to each citizen of the state- without making arbitray application of the laws, marital contract laws, for example, to some citizens but not to others. That is what the 14th Amendment and the related case law says.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong Cato? You need to read the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Sometimes it seems that Cato sees each sentence or clause of the Constitution as only standing alone- and without seeing it in the context of the other sentences and clauses of the same Constitution- and without realizing that Amendments to the Constitution change the application of certain previous Articles, Sections and clauses of the Constitution.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:If then if your conclusion is true wouldn't this apply to all the state laws that disagree with each other. For example, if prostitution is allowed in Nevada, then a person seeking to practice prostitution should be allowed in all states. After all the laws are to be applied equally. Additionally, wouldn't the differing rates charged for gasoline taxes between the states be illegal under your view of the constitution. After all you are saying that law needs to be applied equally.

No, you are drawing false anologies- and deliberately so I do believe. Nevada allows county options re: prostitution. 8 of Nevada's 16 counties allow prostitution. Any state could allow county options on prostitution. But only Nevada does. Nothing keeps any state from allowing prostitution on a county option basis. Only if Nevada allowed county option prostitution in some of its counties, but arbitrarily disallowed it in other counties would your analogy apply.

Most states allow marriage to opposite gendered couples, but arbitrarily disallow marriage to same gendered couples. That is unequal application / protection of the laws as relates to a contract of marriage and violates the 14th Amendment. Only if a state allowed county option prostitution in some counties, but arbitrarily disallowed it in other counties would your analogy apply.

As to your example of gasoline taxes, if a state applies gasoline taxes uniformly within its jurisdiction, then it is engaging in equal protection. But if the state applied one level of gasoline taxes to men, but another rate to women, or one rate to male-female marital partners, but a different rate to male-male or female-female marital partners, then you would have a basis for saying that the state was denying equal protection under its laws.

The 10th Amendment allows states to have different laws about various things- as long as those laws do not violate the Constitution- of which the 14th Amendment is a part. The laws of any state which discriminate based on gender of the people involved are violative of the 14th Amendment. Any state could decide to do away with marriage of anyone to anyone else within its borders. The 10th Amendment allows a state to make its own domestic relations laws. And as long as the state recognizes with full faith and credit the acts of the other states- as the Constitution requires- it can have whatever marital contract laws it cares to for its own citizens. But once a state makes such laws, it must make the laws apply equally to each citizen of the state- without making arbitray application of the laws, marital contract laws, for example, to some citizens but not to others. That is what the 14th Amendment and the related case law says.

As I told Aaron, why not do it right to begin with. Amend the US Cosntitution to get what you want. Afterall, government gets its power from the consent of the people. If you are so agrieved by this and you are as much a constitutional adhearent as you proclaim, then why wouldn't you would seek to amend the constitution, instead of using some weasal wording to get what you want.

Now I know that I'm not nearly as intelligent as you or Aaron. I have said time and again that I don't care what consenting adults do. What I fail to understand is what your's and Aaron point is at trying to convience me that the equal protection clause applies. Could it be maybe that you aren't fully convienced either? If that is the case then I would be very careful what I wished for. If you are convienced then don't tell me, write the Supreme Court and tell them.

Now also for the umteenth time, the only ledgitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights and liberties we have. They do this by providing a police force to protect people from criminals. The government provides a military whose purpose is to protect the people from foreign enemies. The government provides the court system so disputes between epople can be settled using objective laws. That and that alone is the sole purpose of government. It is doesn't define social policy or do social engineering. I'm a very conservative person and I choose to live that way. If another chooses to live differently so be it. Niether of us have the right so push our views on the other or force our wishes on the other. Niether is any of us entitled anything fromt he other. If we want something we trade value for value. We don't use the force of government to take from one to give to another. Personally, I think the US Constitution over steps the bounds of proper governance, but that is my personal vew point.

Cato wrote:
As I told Aaron, why not do it right to begin with. Amend the US Cosntitution to get what you want. Afterall, government gets its power from the consent of the people. If you are so agrieved by this and you are as much a constitutional adhearent as you proclaim, then why wouldn't you would seek to amend the constitution, instead of using some weasal wording to get what you want.

Now I know that I'm not nearly as intelligent as you or Aaron. I have said time and again that I don't care what consenting adults do. What I fail to understand is what your's and Aaron point is at trying to convience me that the equal protection clause applies. Could it be maybe that you aren't fully convienced either? If that is the case then I would be very careful what I wished for. If you are convienced then don't tell me, write the Supreme Court and tell them.

Now also for the umteenth time, the only ledgitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights and liberties we have. They do this by providing a police force to protect people from criminals. The government provides a military whose purpose is to protect the people from foreign enemies. The government provides the court system so disputes between epople can be settled using objective laws. That and that alone is the sole purpose of government. It is doesn't define social policy or do social engineering. I'm a very conservative person and I choose to live that way. If another chooses to live differently so be it. Niether of us have the right so push our views on the other or force our wishes on the other. Niether is any of us entitled anything fromt he other. If we want something we trade value for value. We don't use the force of government to take from one to give to another. Personally, I think the US Constitution over steps the bounds of proper governance, but that is my personal vew point.

The constitution doesn't need to be amended, simply followed.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:
As I told Aaron, why not do it right to begin with. Amend the US Cosntitution to get what you want. Afterall, government gets its power from the consent of the people. If you are so agrieved by this and you are as much a constitutional adhearent as you proclaim, then why wouldn't you would seek to amend the constitution, instead of using some weasal wording to get what you want.

Now I know that I'm not nearly as intelligent as you or Aaron. I have said time and again that I don't care what consenting adults do. What I fail to understand is what your's and Aaron point is at trying to convience me that the equal protection clause applies. Could it be maybe that you aren't fully convienced either? If that is the case then I would be very careful what I wished for. If you are convienced then don't tell me, write the Supreme Court and tell them.

Now also for the umteenth time, the only ledgitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights and liberties we have. They do this by providing a police force to protect people from criminals. The government provides a military whose purpose is to protect the people from foreign enemies. The government provides the court system so disputes between epople can be settled using objective laws. That and that alone is the sole purpose of government. It is doesn't define social policy or do social engineering. I'm a very conservative person and I choose to live that way. If another chooses to live differently so be it. Niether of us have the right so push our views on the other or force our wishes on the other. Niether is any of us entitled anything fromt he other. If we want something we trade value for value. We don't use the force of government to take from one to give to another. Personally, I think the US Constitution over steps the bounds of proper governance, but that is my personal vew point.

The constitution doesn't need to be amended, simply followed.

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

As I told Aaron, why not do it right to begin with. Amend the US Cosntitution to get what you want. Afterall, government gets its power from the consent of the people.

Why should I seek to amend it? You are the one who says it does not conform to your view of proper governance.

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

Now you have come around to what I told you years ago, Cato- that your problem is really with the Constitution itself- that you think it, in your words, "over steps the bounds of proper governance".

And that is not the fault of the Courts, nor of Aaron nor of Ziggy.

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.

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. However, homosexual marriage was recognized then, it wasn't recognized a 100 years later either. That indicates to me that you are using the 14th in a manner it was never intended to be used. You can beleive as you desire, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation, which is the 14th amendment was never intended to to be used as a free ticket to recognize anything one wanted to recognize as constitutional.

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.

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

So with the 14th Amendment, you claim the purpose of the Amendment is somehow crucial in how it should be interpreted but with the first, you say "All we know about what they had in mind comes from their writings" meaning what? We're supposed to go back and see what all they had to say about the 1st Amendment and what? Allow that to guide us? Wouldn't that be the dead governing the living and if I'm not mistaken, you stated you don't believe in that?

You claim states shouldn't recognize other states 'contracts' even though the Full Faith and Credit Clause specifically states that his what is to be done.

You say that the Equal Protection Clause is subjective even though it clearly states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" yet you have no problem with the Government doing just that with marriage.

And now you say that it's "something I want" as if I have a personal stake in this and say the constitution will somehow become a bit more subjective when the simple truth is by denying equal protection, it is subjective now.

Every argument you've attempted to put forth on this subject has been thourghly rejected yet you continue to argue even though there is no way you are right on this subject.

It's clear to me that you don't follow the constitution as it is written but instead try to bend it to conform to your pre-conceived beliefs and in that, I don't see any difference between you and the politicians you wail against.

Seems to me you have a lot more in common with GWB and Barry Obama then you want to admit.

Aaron wrote:So with the 14th Amendment, you claim the purpose of the Amendment is somehow crucial in how it should be interpreted but with the first, you say "All we know about what they had in mind comes from their writings" meaning what? We're supposed to go back and see what all they had to say about the 1st Amendment and what? Allow that to guide us? Wouldn't that be the dead governing the living and if I'm not mistaken, you stated you don't believe in that?

You claim states shouldn't recognize other states 'contracts' even though the Full Faith and Credit Clause specifically states that his what is to be done.

You say that the Equal Protection Clause is subjective even though it clearly states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" yet you have no problem with the Government doing just that with marriage.

And now you say that it's "something I want" as if I have a personal stake in this and say the constitution will somehow become a bit more subjective when the simple truth is by denying equal protection, it is subjective now.

Every argument you've attempted to put forth on this subject has been thourghly rejected yet you continue to argue even though there is no way you are right on this subject.

It's clear to me that you don't follow the constitution as it is written but instead try to bend it to conform to your pre-conceived beliefs and in that, I don't see any difference between you and the politicians you wail against.

Seems to me you have a lot more in common with GWB and Barry Obama then you want to admit.

I've put forth everything I need to. You believe what you want, I don't care. I don't agree with you on this and that is that. There is nothing else to discuss so far as I'm concerned regarding the subject.

As far as having anything in common with Bush or Obama, it is obvious you can't read or you fail to comprehend the English language. I have nothing in common with either man, nor do I have much in common with most of the posters here. If you can manage to go back and look I have made my feeling quite clear on what I believe the ledgitmate purpose of government is and what their bounds should be.

I have also made it quite clear how I personally feel about homosexual marriage. However, I have also made it clear that the government has no business defining marriage or what two consenting adults decide to do. The only difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to bend a legal writing to make it match my views and you are.

As you've yet to show how the government recognizing same sex marriage would be bending legal writings, you haven't put forth all you can on this subject. You've made your opinion known but you've yet to put up anything substantial to back up that opinion. NOTHING.

As such, you've been wrong from the get go so this really hasn't been a discussion but more of a one sided argument in which you've been proven you wrong with every statement you've made. There has not been one thing that you've been right on, including the the comparison between yourself and GWB and BO.

As for your comment, the only difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to bend a legal writing to make it match my views , I wonder if you said that with a straight face.

Aaron wrote:As you've yet to show how the government recognizing same sex marriage would be bending legal writings, you haven't put forth all you can on this subject. You've made your opinion known but you've yet to put up anything substantial to back up that opinion. NOTHING.

As such, you've been wrong from the get go so this really hasn't been a discussion but more of a one sided argument in which you've been proven you wrong with every statement you've made. There has not been one thing that you've been right on, including the the comparison between yourself and GWB and BO.

As for your comment, the only difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to bend a legal writing to make it match my views , I wonder if you said that with a straight face.

Tell me, if what you are saying is so, how's come it hasn't been tested before the US Supreme Court. It would certainly seem to me, if this was something I wanted and using the 14th amendment would succeed in getting it, I would take it before the court. But then again, I'm not very smart.

For the same reason "In God We Trust" printed on money has never made it to the Supreme Court. Many of our judges are cowards and they succumb to the will of the far right. That doesn't change the fact DOMA is unconstitutional despite all the opportunities you’ve had to prove otherwise.

And it's nice to see you've finally said something I agree with.

Aaron wrote:For the same reason "In God We Trust" printed on money has never made it to the Supreme Court. Many of our judges are cowards and they succumb to the will of the far right. That doesn't change the fact DOMA is unconstitutional despite all the opportunities you’ve had to prove otherwise.

And it's nice to see you've finally said something I agree with.

I haven't set out to prove anything Aaron. As far as the US Constitution goes it has been made so subjective it is really meaningless anymore. Politicans do what ever they want and to back that up they load the courts with judges who will rule to support their specific agendas. Both the right and the left are guilty. That is why we see the fights we see when a court position comes open. That's not law or protecting liberty, it is authoritarianism.

As I said originally, personally, I don't care one way or another what consenting adults do. I also don't think the government on any level should be defining what marriage is. I have been honest enough to state that while I find homosexual marriage a disgusting perversion, obviously others don't. I have no right to force my views on them and they have no right to force their views on me. In other words, is homosexuals want to marry, fine. If I choose not to rent or sell property to them, that had better be fine also. What this all should be coming down to is the one makes choices and one assumes the responsibility of those choices along with the consequences both good and bad.

What this nation has become is a mess. We have groups, both right and left, all jockeying for postion, political favor, and special consideration. The bloodsucking politicians have granted such based on their never ending quest for votes and power. The consequence is that true liberty has been flushed down drain. The supreme law of the land is subjective, thus we live by no standard other than by who happens to be in power and who the care to curry favor with.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:For the same reason "In God We Trust" printed on money has never made it to the Supreme Court. Many of our judges are cowards and they succumb to the will of the far right. That doesn't change the fact DOMA is unconstitutional despite all the opportunities you’ve had to prove otherwise.

And it's nice to see you've finally said something I agree with.

I haven't set out to prove anything Aaron. As far as the US Constitution goes it has been made so subjective it is really meaningless anymore. Politicans do what ever they want and to back that up they load the courts with judges who will rule to support their specific agendas. Both the right and the left are guilty. That is why we see the fights we see when a court position comes open. That's not law or protecting liberty, it is authoritarianism.

As I said originally, personally, I don't care one way or another what consenting adults do. I also don't think the government on any level should be defining what marriage is. I have been honest enough to state that while I find homosexual marriage a disgusting perversion, obviously others don't. I have no right to force my views on them and they have no right to force their views on me. In other words, is homosexuals want to marry, fine. If I choose not to rent or sell property to them, that had better be fine also. What this all should be coming down to is the one makes choices and one assumes the responsibility of those choices along with the consequences both good and bad.

What this nation has become is a mess. We have groups, both right and left, all jockeying for postion, political favor, and special consideration. The bloodsucking politicians have granted such based on their never ending quest for votes and power. The consequence is that true liberty has been flushed down drain. The supreme law of the land is subjective, thus we live by no standard other than by who happens to be in power and who the care to curry favor with.

I'm confused. Didn't you just say there was nothing else to discuss.

Cato wrote:There is nothing else to discuss so far as I'm concerned regarding the subject.

Why yes you did. But since you've chosen to continue the discussion, perhaps you can give me some examples of what you are referring to, specifically regarding the 14th Amendment.

If you can of course. But considering the 14th is pretty clear, about the only example you will find regarding the 14th and marriage is DOMA and 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.

But I'll give you a shot. So show me an exapmle of how the 14th has been twisted to meet someone's agenda.

Aaron wrote:If you can of course. But considering the 14th is pretty clear, about the only example you will find regarding the 14th and marriage is DOMA and 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.

Can you prove that?

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?