Separate, Not Equal

Constitution.gif

Share this

To be fair, GWB never used

To be fair, GWB never used the word "homos".

Heh. Since when were

Heh. Since when were cartoonists fair?

although I strongly

although I strongly disagree with GWB on this one, I'm trying to figure out if this stand will actually help or hurt him in the November elections (not that anyone on this blog cares about voting!)

I doubt Bush is doing this

I doubt Bush is doing this on principle. Whether it will help or hurt him in actuality, I'm pretty sure he thinks it will help him politically.

Hey Micha, Do Polygamists

Hey Micha,

Do Polygamists and people who want to marry their dog or their Brother/Sister/Mother also have a Constitutional right to get married?

Perhaps you could help illuminate some of the other hidden "rights" in the Constitution that no one has noticed until just recently?

Polygamists and those who

Polygamists and those who engage in consensual adult incest certainly should have the same legals rights as everyone else. Those who wish to form a legal contract with children or animals may only do so if those children or animals can demonstrate contractual capacity.

Your last comment merely demonstrates that you have no clue how the Constitution works. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Under the enumerated powers doctrine, it is not the people who must point to the Constitution before they may act; but rather, the government."

I have yet to hear you explain how the 14th Amendment permits selective marriage rights to some groups and not others.

Micha Ghertner: Polygamists

Micha Ghertner: Polygamists and those who engage in consensual adult incest certainly should have the same legals rights as everyone else.

Even if ?everyone else? disagrees that they should have those same ?legal rights??

Micha, in your opinion is it unfair that ?everyone else? has decided that murderers and rapists don?t have the ?right? to rape and murder people and maintain their freedom at the same time?

Do you acknowledge that consequences are the inevitable side effect of choice?

Micha Ghertner: Those who wish to form a legal contract with children or animals may only do so if those children or animals can demonstrate contractual capacity.

Ahhh, I see. So if My Wife and I want to have a child, or purchase a pet, I have to get consent from the infant or animal before it is okay to proceed?

Does the consent have to be written?

Micha Ghertner: Your last comment merely demonstrates that you have no clue how the Constitution works.

Thank the Goddess I have you here to explain it to me.

Micha Ghertner: As I mentioned in a previous post, "Under the enumerated powers doctrine, it is not the people who must point to the Constitution before they may act; but rather, the government.

Silly me, and here I thought the government was comprised of nothing more than ?We the People?. But I don?t see what you comment has to do with the issue at hand.

Besides it is rather disingenuous for someone who professes not to believe in democracy to be lecturing me about the Constitution.

Micha Ghertner: I have yet to hear you explain how the 14th Amendment permits selective marriage rights to some groups and not others.

No one possesses any ?rights? (not in any real sense) unless the majority voluntarily acknowledges and consents that they do.

You have simply confused forcing someone to submit to your will with actually convincing them that your way is better.

Even if ?everyone else?

Even if ?everyone else? disagrees that they should have those same ?legal rights??

Dammit, we've already been through this. It doesn't matter what "everyone" believes. At one point in our nation's history, "everyone" believed that slavery and segregation were fine and dandy.

The entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit what the government can do, even if a majority of people want the government to do it.

Ahhh, I see. So if My Wife and I want to have a child, or purchase a pet, I have to get consent from the infant or animal before it is okay to proceed?

Having (i.e. taking care of) a child or a pet does not involve or require contracting with the child or pet. Are you being intentionally dense?

Micha Ghertner: As I mentioned in a previous post, "Under the enumerated powers doctrine, it is not the people who must point to the Constitution before they may act; but rather, the government.

Silly me, and here I thought the government was comprised of nothing more than ?We the People?. But I don?t see what you comment has to do with the issue at hand.

The government is only authorized to do those acts that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Private citizens do not need to justify what they do by pointing to a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution; rather, the government must justify what it does by pointing to a specific power mentioned in the Constitution.

Besides it is rather disingenuous for someone who professes not to believe in democracy to be lecturing me about the Constitution.

Why? The Constitution is an entirely anti-democratic document; it's entire purpose is to place limits on what the democracy can do.

Micha Ghertner: I have yet to hear you explain how the 14th Amendment permits selective marriage rights to some groups and not others.

No one possesses any ?rights? (not in any real sense) unless the majority voluntarily acknowledges and consents that they do.

Huh? What in Zeus's name are you babbling about? I asked you a specific question about the 14th Amendment. What the hell does that have to do with the majority believes?

Do you even care what the Constitution says? Or do you only care what the "majority" believes?

Micha Ghertner: Dammit,

Micha Ghertner: Dammit, we've already been through this. It doesn't matter what "everyone" believes. At one point in our nation's history, "everyone" believed that slavery and segregation were fine and dandy

Yep, that?s right, and when the majority believed that Slavery and segregation were fine and dandy, Slavery and Segregation were not only LEGAL, but they were a socially accepted forms of behavior.

Now the other day you did state that Democracy was a farce and that we would all be better off under the enlightened guidance and wisdom of some extraordinary individual or group of individuals (the communist party?) who would make laws and decree morals based on their ?superior? intellect(s).

However, you failed to stipulate and identify precisely who these extraordinary Individuals would be?

Micha Ghertner: The entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit what the government can do, even if a majority of people want the government to do it.

Actually, the true purpose of the Constitution is to protect the Republic from the power of any Individual. Everything in the Constitution was (theoretically) put there by a majority.

Micha Ghertner: Having (i.e. taking care of) a child or a pet does not involve or require contracting with the child or pet. Are you being intentionally dense?

Actually you are wrong, a panel of 3 judges on the 9th circuit court just decreed that having a child now requires written consent from the sperm and the egg prior to conception. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

Micha Ghertner: The government is only authorized to do those acts that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Private citizens do not need to justify what they do by pointing to a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution; rather, the government must justify what it does by pointing to a specific power mentioned in the Constitution.

Which probably has something to do with Bush proposing an Amendment ? don?t you think?

Look, this is a weak argument. The Constitution doesn?t say that you can?t marry your horse, or your dog, or your sister, or your daughter, or your 12 best friends either.

Either words (like ?Marriage?) have a meaning, or they do not. Who gets to decide what words mean Micha? Are you saying it?s the function of the Government to write the Dictionary? (BTW ? the dictionary doesn?t actually provide definitions, it provides usage).

Micha Ghertner: Why? The Constitution is an entirely anti-democratic document; it's entire purpose is to place limits on what the democracy can do.

Any organization, mechanism, or entity which serves society must promote consistency by necessity. I don?t see the Constitution as placing limits on Democracy so much as I see it providing a consistent framework for Individuals to operate under.

Micha Ghertner: Do you even care what the Constitution says? Or do you only care what the "majority" believes?

I care about right and wrong, anything else is secondary.

Now the other day you did

Now the other day you did state that Democracy was a farce and that we would all be better off under the enlightened guidance and wisdom of some extraordinary individual or group of individuals (the communist party?) who would make laws and decree morals based on their ?superior? intellect(s).

Wrong. I never said anything remotely like that. We would all be better off if we lived under our own guidance and wisdom.

Which probably has something to do with Bush proposing an Amendment ? don?t you think?

Yes, which is why I never claimed that Bush's Amendment would be unconstitutional. (I do believe that it would be an affront to justice and everything that the Constitution stands for).

The present state of affairs, on the other hand, is unconstitutional.

The Constitution doesn?t say that you can?t marry your horse, or your dog, or your sister, or your daughter, or your 12 best friends either.

But it does say that the law must treat people equally; that the government (including the state governments) cannot grant rights to some people and not others. Depriving homosexuals, polygamists, and incestuous couples from marrying is a violation of equal rights.

Micha Ghertner: Do you even care what the Constitution says? Or do you only care what the "majority" believes?

I care about right and wrong, anything else is secondary.

And right and wrong, in your opinion, as you have repeatedly stated, is determined by what the current majority believes. Which means that you do not care what the Constitution says if the majority disagrees.

There is nothing seperate

There is nothing seperate about it. Homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals. Conversely, heterosexuals do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Where is the seperate part?

Phelps, About 40 years ago,

Phelps,

About 40 years ago, interracial couples were prohibited from getting married. Black people had the right to marry black people and white people had the right to marry white people. Conversely, black people did not have the right to marry white people and vice-versa.

Similarly, black people had the right to use black water-fountains and white people had the right to use white water-fountains. Conversely, black people did not have the right to use white water-fountains, and vice-versa.

Where is the separate part?