[Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
David M. Budge
dave at davebudge.com
Mon Mar 14 11:17:03 PST 2005
Your answer is non-responsive. Answer my question please.
"So explain to me why, under your argument of the 14th Amendment,
polygamists and animal sodomists are not deserving of equal protection."
I agree with your point. I can't agree with your logic. It fails.
db
Art Deco wrote:
> You cannot be arguing seriously.
>
> If a man and a woman can enter a marriage contract which insures the
> application/protection of certain civil laws, the applying the
> language of the 14th Amendment below, then a man and man or a woman
> and woman deserve the same protection of the laws. Marriage is a
> legal, civil union in law. Pedestry is not.
>
>
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> deco at moscow.com <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: David M. Budge <mailto:dave at davebudge.com>
> To: Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> Cc: Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled
> Unconstitutional
>
> Sure I've read it. We can obviously take the implication to your
> point to ridiculousness. Does a bigamist require equal
> protection, or pedophiles, animal sodomists, or those who
> practice incest require the same? The implications of morality
> are cause for public consensus. That consensus thereby made under
> the legislative process of a democratic republic. It does not
> hold to reason that we cannot legislate morality. We do it all
> the time - murder, theft, child abuse, spousal abuse, rape,
> incest, polygamy, pornography.... So explain to me why, under
> your argument of the 14th Amendment, polygamists and animal
> sodomists are not deserving of equal protection.
>
> So when the time comes, as now, that the good argument can be
> made that the morality of homosexual partners fits the larger set
> of morality of the public, laws should be passed, amended, or
> repealed. If they are not, legislatures may, with the support of
> popular opinion, change constitutions so the the rights that
> should be afforded will be become constitutionally unattainable.
> Ergo - blowback. That is exactly what the Federal Marriage
> Amendment is about.
>
> Listen, I'm pro gay marriage, as I've said. But the 14th
> Amendment argument does not pass intellectual scrutiny.
>
> The proper argument is that these are good members of society that
> do not harm others in their practices and do not threaten a
> deleterious effect on society. They should be afforded the rights
> and privileges that others have as to property succession and
> custodianship. Simple as that.
>
> If, however, the government would get out of the marriage business
> this would all become moot and spousal rights could be afforded in
> a construct of contract law.
>
> db
>
>
> Art Deco wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> Have you not read the 14th Amendment to the United States
>> Constitution? I thought this amendment was one of the
>> cornerstones of libertarian philosophy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Amendment XIV
>>
>> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
>> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
>> United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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...
>>
>>
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> deco at moscow.com <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
>>
>> --- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: David M. Budge <mailto:dave at davebudge.com>
>> To: Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled
>> Unconstitutional
>>
>> Hail Machiavelli! But I warn all that think the ends justify
>> the means of the potential blow-back of judges over-ruling
>> legislation may just disable judges from doing just that.
>> The CA statute that makes marriage between one man and one
>> woman is an issue of democracy by legislation. Legislatures
>> have the upper hand and can change constitutions. Hence the
>> notion of of "three equal legs of government" is false.
>> One's reliance on judicial interpretation may some day come
>> back and bite one on one's ass.
>>
>> Listen, I'm for love and equal rights. The libertarian in me
>> says that government should stay the hell out of the marriage
>> business (to which I have the concurrence of Nick Gier.)
>>
>> But just as the Supreme Court made unconstitutional the
>> practice of executing minors (the outcome with which I
>> approve as I approve of the outcome of the decision in
>> question) the upshot is a loss of democracy for residence of
>> the states. Preferably the law should be changed by
>> democratic process. In other words, the day will likely come
>> when a law that you favor and is mandated by majority
>> representation will be overturned by judicial fiat. This is
>> the wrong way to run a democracy or a republic.
>>
>> Justice Brandies may be rolling over in his grave.
>>
>> db
>>
>> Tom Hansen wrote:
>>
>>>Alas! A reason to be proud to be from California.
>>>
>>>It is a simple matter of equality. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html
>>>
>>>Tom Hansen
>>>Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>>
>>>"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they
>>>are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say
>>>about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
>>>
>>>-- Robert F. Kennedy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_____________________________________________________
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _____________________________________________________
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050314/c948595b/attachment.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list