Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[AA&E]

Not even remotely the same. There is a world of difference between applying the 14th amendment to racial discrimination and judicial redefinition of legal terms.

Why because it supports you POV?

 

[Fargo]

Why because it supports you POV?

No because I support the rights of the states and the citizens of those states. Remember, I am one of those who loves the idea of federal nationwide carry but still argues against it because I believe it to be an unconstitutional violation of states rights.

 

[MisterChester]

No because I support the rights of the states and the citizens of those states. Remember, I am one of those who loves the idea of federal nationwide carry but still argues against it because I believe it to be an unconstitutional violation of states rights.

States do not have rights of any kind. States have powers.

 

[Fargo]

States do not have rights of any kind. States have powers.

Define your terms please. Specifically states, rights, and powers.

 

[aaron580]

Because this is totally a government issue and not a state issue… Social issues is not a federal issue but rather a state issue… BS in my opinion that there even was a ruling.

 

[Denny347]

Not even remotely the same. There is a world of difference between applying the 14th amendment to racial discrimination and judicial redefinition of legal terms.

For example when the laws against interracial marriage were struck down was the term marriage in anyway redefined? The answer is no. Certain prohibited marriages became allowed. The definition of what constituted marriage remained the same.

To play my favorite game "Devil's Advocate"

Sure they did. Way back in the olden days when anti-miscegenation laws were legal, marriage, by default, was defined as 1 black+1 black or 1 white+1 white but is WAS NOT defined as 1 white+ 1 black. By barring certain races from marrying each other you are defining what a legal marriage is. Striking down the anti-miscegenation laws did redefine marriage by race. Now, by sex.

 

[hornadylnl]

What is the states interest in defining marriage?

 

[MisterChester]

Define your terms please.

power[ pou-er ]
noun
1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.
2. political or national strength: the balance of power in Europe.

right[ rahyt ]

noun
1. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
2. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
3. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
4. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
5. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.


I stopped there because "right" has many definitions, the ones after 5 are not relevant to this discussion.

The federal government doesn't "owe" the states anything. The constitution empowers the states to create laws that are not contrary to the constitution. The courts interpret the constitution. If they say a law is unconstitutional, it's void and the states can't do anything except appeal and hope it's overturned.

 

[Fargo]

To play my favorite game "Devil's Advocate"

Sure they did. Way back in the olden days when anti-miscegenation laws were legal, marriage, by default, was defined as 1 black+1 black or 1 white+1 white but is WAS NOT defined as 1 white+ 1 black. By barring certain races from marrying each other you are defining what a legal marriage is. Striking down the anti-miscegenation laws did redefine marriage by race. Now, by sex.

There is a difference between making certain marriages illegal, and redefining marriage to include something wasn't before. Go read the old laws. They didn't purport to define the term, rather they criminalized certain unions already within the term.

There is a difference.

 

[Fargo]

power[ pou-er ]
noun
1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.
2. political or national strength: the balance of power in Europe.

right[ rahyt ]

noun
1. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
2. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
3. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
4. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
5. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.


I stopped there because "right" has many definitions, the ones after 5 are not relevant to this discussion.

The federal government doesn't "owe" the states anything. The constitution empowers the states to create laws that are not contrary to the constitution. The courts interpret the constitution. If they say a law is unconstitutional, it's void and the states can't do anything except appeal and hope it's overturned.

If you think the states derive their power to legislate from the federal Constitution you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both American history and government.

The states existed as sovereign entities prior to them ratifying the Constitution. They do not derive their power from it.

The Federal Constitution is fundamentally a list of powers the states ceded voluntarily to their newly formed federal government. Not the other way around.

Go reread the 10th amendment.

 

[Denny347]

What is the states interest in defining marriage?

TAX!!!!

What do I win?

 

[saleen4971]

this decision does not affect me in any way personally - however ther words "pursuit of happiness" mean something. if a gay couples pursuit of happiness means they want to get married, who is anyone else to say that they cannot? IMO it is unconstitutional to prevent such couples from doing so. marraige is not the business of the federal government, but ensuring all citizens rights are preserved is the duty of the government (even though we have seen attacks on such things)

 

[hornadylnl]

TAX!!!!

What do I win?

That's not the answer I've gotten when I've asked it in previous threads.

 

[Henry]

If you think the states derive their power to legislate from the federal Constitution you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both American history and government.

The states existed as sovereign entities prior to them ratifying the Constitution. They do not derive their power from it.

The Federal Constitution is fundamentally a list of powers the states ceded voluntarily to their newly formed federal government. Not the other way around.

Go reread the 10th amendment.

If only more understood this. Further, that which is delegated can be pulled back. That is a discussion for another day/thread.

 

[MisterChester]

If you think the states derive their power to legislate from the federal Constitution you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both American history and government.

The states existed as sovereign entities prior to them ratifying the Constitution. They do not derive their power from it.

The fact that they used to be sovereign entities before the constitution is irrelevant because it's not the case anymore. They willingly ratified the constitution fully aware that they were about to lose some powers in favor of a united national government. They agreed that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and everyone had to follow it. That's one reason why they added the amendment that says basically anything that's not covered or doesn't run contrary to the constitution is up to the states or the people.

 

[Fargo]

The fact that they used to be sovereign entities before the constitution is irrelevant because it's not the case anymore. They willingly ratified the constitution fully aware that they were about to lose some powers in favor of a united national government. They agreed that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and everyone had to follow it. That's one reason why they added the amendment that says basically anything that's not covered or doesn't run contrary to the constitution is up to the states or the people.

So the first premise of our system of government is now irrelevant? I suggest you read the Federalist papers.

Even the federal courts still pretend to recognize state sovereignty.

 

[Henry]

TAX!!!!

What do I win?

But...but...how could the be? I was told there would be no growth in government as a result of this?

(color purple wherever one wants)

 

[Henry]

So the first premise of our system of government is now irrelevant? I suggest you read the Federalist papers.

As well as the history of the States following the ratification of the Constitution, South Carolina's nullification acts of the late 1820s, the VA and KY resolutions as a start.

 

[Denny347]

There is a difference between making certain marriages illegal, and redefining marriage to include something wasn't before. Go read the old laws. They didn't purport to define the term, rather they criminalized certain unions already within the term.

There is a difference.

Perhaps...I still don't see the harm in this. I cannot fathom standing in the way of 2 consenting adults who love each other and want their relationship legal like every one else. We may whine and cry that marriage should mean nothing different to the government but it does and always will. The fact that homosexuality, once a very taboo subject never acknowledged in public policy, is now accepted means that our legal views regarding them will/should change.

 

[MisterChester]

So the first premise of our system of government is now irrelevant? I suggest you read the Federalist papers.

No, just to this discussion.