Live Webcast of NJ Same Sex Marriage Case

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Thanks Barrister for the information!

Another attempt by the extreme fringe left-wing to circumvent the will of the people by using unelected judges to make new law and create rights that are not there and were NEVER INTENDED.

This country was founded upon a Judeo-Christian belief system which sees sodomy (yes, this is the legal term I believe) as sin. Therefore, our Founders would never have given such a right in the constitution and no state has given that right.

The people of N.J. and other states have spoken – no marriage.

If you are “gay” you have every right to live the way you wish. I have no problem with that – this is a free country. However, don’t expect government sanction or recognition for your behavior either.

Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

We need to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment now!

SteveO, you don’t speak for the American public. You speak for bible thumping Republicans. I know this is hard to belive… but other people might think differently!!

My God! People not only might gasp not believe in the Bible but also double gasp not care if gays get married!!!

Now take a second…breath…breath…[/quote]

There are plenty of bible thumping Democrats that he speaks for, too.

Individual couples should define their relationship, not “the majority.” Why? Because it’s none of “the majority’s” damn business. If someone wants more than one wife, which I have no idea why they would, that’s their business. The law should protect the general public from conduct that will actually cause harm.

If someone can explain how gay marriage will “harm” the rest of us, please speak up. I’ll listen. Other than thinking that it’s “gross” or immoral, I don’t see the harm.

At one point in time heterosexual marriage was considered holy and divorce was a sin. A divorce between heterosexuals who have children probably causes greater harm to society than homosexual marriage. The kids get shuffled from one household to another and it really messes up their lives. However, I don’t see the people calling for the protection of marriage advocating laws that prohibit divorce. Why is that? Can you say hypocritical?

BTW Steveo - Our government is not a constitutional democracy - it’s a constitutional republic. Government has limited powers. It is not the job of the court’s to merely interpret laws that are passed but to enforce the limits on governmental power. The fact that a majority of people want a certain law passed does not necessarily give government the power to pass that law. And just because a right isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The Constitution was never meant to give rights; it was meant to delimit governmental power. What this means is that people have the right to say and do stuff that offends you. Deal with it.

You should visit the Cato Institute’s Web site to see an explanation of how government should work.

You may want to widen your search a little bit before you make such sweeping statements.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Individual couples should define their relationship, not “the majority.” Why? Because it’s none of “the majority’s” damn business. If someone wants more than one wife, which I have no idea why they would, that’s their business. The law should protect the general public from conduct that will actually cause harm.

If someone can explain how gay marriage will “harm” the rest of us, please speak up. I’ll listen. Other than thinking that it’s “gross” or immoral, I don’t see the harm.

At one point in time heterosexual marriage was considered holy and divorce was a sin. A divorce between heterosexuals who have children probably causes greater harm to society than homosexual marriage. The kids get shuffled from one household to another and it really messes up their lives. However, I don’t see the people calling for the protection of marriage advocating laws that prohibit divorce. Why is that? Can you say hypocritical?

BTW Steveo - Our government is not a constitutional democracy - it’s a constitutional republic. Government has limited powers. It is not the job of the court’s to merely interpret laws that are passed but to enforce the limits on governmental power. The fact that a majority of people want a certain law passed does not necessarily give government the power to pass that law. And just because a right isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The Constitution was never meant to give rights; it was meant to delimit governmental power. What this means is that people have the right to say and do stuff that offends you. Deal with it.

You should visit the Cato Institute’s Web site to see an explanation of how government should work.[/quote]

Mike,

I stand corrected on my use of the term “Constitutional Democracy.” I misspoke, and should have said Republic.

You made this following comment:

“And just because a right isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

I quote verbatum from the Constitution of the Untied States of America:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

End of debate – deal with it.

If the right or power over a certain issue is not found in the Constitution, it is RESERVED to the STATES or to the PEOPLE.

Thus, is it the STATES via the LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES that make the laws governing whatever the majority decides (period).

As for the Courts, again from the Constitution:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Now for the Congress:

Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof

, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Oooo…it is the Congress that makes the laws. NOT the courts!

[quote]vroom wrote:
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

You may want to widen your search a little bit before you make such sweeping statements.
[/quote]

You may want to disprove my assertion with FACTS, Vroom.

Where was this ever accepted as “normal?” In fact, until 20 years ago or so – the DSM III – the book that diagnosis mental disorders had Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Why would that be if this was not aberrant behavior and just normal?

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

[/quote]

***What are you saying? “…which is does not…”…huh?

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

I have no problem with the people of any state choosing to grant whatever rights to people they want – but let the PEOPLE through their LEGISLATURES choose. The problem with you libs is that you don’t want that, because without the liberal courts creating rights and circumventing the people, you cannot pass gay marriage in any of the 50 states legislatively.

[/quote]

So when the people of Oregon voted for the right to die with dignity, or to allow people suffering through unbearable cancer to gain relief through medical marajuana, it was the liberal activist judges who overruled the state? Oh, it was the conservative activist judges, legislating from the bench, usurping the rights of the citizens.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

You may want to widen your search a little bit before you make such sweeping statements.

You may want to disprove my assertion with FACTS, Vroom.

Where was this ever accepted as “normal?” In fact, until 20 years ago or so – the DSM III – the book that diagnosis mental disorders had Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Why would that be if this was not aberrant behavior and just normal? [/quote]

Lol. Nothing like close mindedness.

Homosexuality was okay with the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, and many other great empires. It has gone through phases of acceptance, like many other things.

Like I said, you speak for Bible thumpers here (no party is specified, ok Doogie?). But if NJ lets it go, its ok with me. Just because you hate them and think they have a mental disorder doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as anyone else.

Some folks think that relying on a 2,000 year old novel for political advice might be a mental disorder too…but you get the same rights.

[quote]dermo wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

***What are you saying? “…which is does not…”…huh?[/quote]

Meant to say:
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which does not conform to the natural order of things.

Just a typeo – no need to attack me for a typeo, dermo now is there…?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

You may want to widen your search a little bit before you make such sweeping statements.

You may want to disprove my assertion with FACTS, Vroom.

Where was this ever accepted as “normal?” In fact, until 20 years ago or so – the DSM III – the book that diagnosis mental disorders had Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Why would that be if this was not aberrant behavior and just normal?

Lol. Nothing like close mindedness.

Homosexuality was okay with the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, and many other great empires. It has gone through phases of acceptance, like many other things.

Like I said, you speak for Bible thumpers here (no party is specified, ok Doogie?). But if NJ lets it go, its ok with me. Just because you hate them and think they have a mental disorder doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as anyone else.

Some folks think that relying on a 2,000 year old novel for political advice might be a mental disorder too…but you get the same rights.[/quote]

Greek Empire…Roman Empire…

Can’t recall where these are today? Extinct I’d say…

Also Irish, please quote me correctly, OK.

I never said that I thought gays are mentally ill – I said that the DSM III said it. Take it up with the medical profession. Also, it is not that I don’t like “them.” I never said that. I did say that gays have a right to do what they wish in this free country of ours in the privacy of their own homes, etc. The only point I am making is that, we the people get to decide the policies for such things as marriage and we the people have spoken in all 50 states – its not cool with us.

So if N.J. wants to allow it through its Legislature, well that’s N.J.'s business. Just don’t make us across the Hudson have to recognize it.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Just a typeo – no need to attack me for a typeo, dermo now is there…?

[/quote]

It is a “typo”. (j/k)

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.

You may want to widen your search a little bit before you make such sweeping statements.

You may want to disprove my assertion with FACTS, Vroom.

Where was this ever accepted as “normal?” In fact, until 20 years ago or so – the DSM III – the book that diagnosis mental disorders had Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Why would that be if this was not aberrant behavior and just normal?

Lol. Nothing like close mindedness.

Homosexuality was okay with the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, and many other great empires. It has gone through phases of acceptance, like many other things.

Like I said, you speak for Bible thumpers here (no party is specified, ok Doogie?). But if NJ lets it go, its ok with me. Just because you hate them and think they have a mental disorder doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as anyone else.

Some folks think that relying on a 2,000 year old novel for political advice might be a mental disorder too…but you get the same rights.

Greek Empire…Roman Empire…

Can’t recall where these are today? Extinct I’d say…
[/quote]

LOL. And the American Empire will last forever? And if it doesn’t, it will be gays marrying that brings it down? Gimme a break.

You wouldn’t have brought it up if your thinking wasn’t similar.

And the people have not spoken- I haven’t seen a referedum in 50 states.

Your state is not something I care about.

Steveo,

I give you the Ninth Amendment:

Rights retained by people.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Founders believe in Natural Law, meaning that our rights are inherent. The Founders knew that a pure democracy would simply become a tyranny of the majority. Their intent was never to create a pure democracy. As a general rule I think that as long as certain behavior does not hurt others, at least not without their consent, it should be allowed. Gay marriage does not hurt others; therefore, there is no reason to prohibit it. I person who is dying from cancer and experiencing incredible pain does not hurt others by requesting a lethal dose of drugs to end his or her life.

As for the courts and “judicial activism,” I don’t have all the answers to this issue. But I will leave you with the following to ponder. A lot of people criticize the Roe v. Wade decision for “creating” a right to privacy, the argument being that the Constitution does not mention a right to privacy. Well, Roe did not mention the right to privacy. The right to privacy was first brought up in Griswold v. Connecticut. Know what law was challenged in that case? A Connecticut law that prohibited the dispensing or use of birth control devices to or by married couples. Yep, that’s right - a majority of the legislature in 1965 Connecticut decided that a married couple (we’re not talking unmarried people here but a married couple) couldn’t have nookie unless they were doing it for real. Where did the legislature get this power? Was it even any of their business? The Supreme Court came in and said, based on the Ninth Amendment’s right to retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution, the right of privacy to use birth control measures was a legitimate one.

Now I ask you Steveo - Suppose we got rid of the judge-made right to privacy. Now suppose that your state decided to pass such a stupid law as this one because a majority of the members of the legislature were good Catholics who believed that birth control was a sin? According to your argument, you would have to deal with it, like it or not. Either go drive 100 miles and have nookie at the state line or else start stocking up on diapers. We’re the majority of the legislature, and we know what’s best for you and your wife, even if you don’t agree.

The bottom line here is this: be careful what you wish for.

Thats just so…brokeback.

By your logic …

Thanks Barrister for the information!

Another attempt by the extreme fringe left-wing to circumvent the will of the people by using unelected judges to make new law and create rights that are not there and were NEVER INTENDED.

This country was founded upon a Judeo-Christian belief system which sees black people(yes, this is the legal term I believe) as sin. Therefore, our Founders would never have given such a right in the constitution and no state has given that right. As a result, we had a golly good ole fun Civil War.

The people of N.C. and other states have spoken – pro slavery.

If you are “black” you have every right to live the way you wish in my plantation. I have no problem with that – this is a free country with plantations. However, don’t expect government sanction or recognition for your behavior either. Please for future reference, slaves you may not vote.

Black people have NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by crazy people with bad behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things such as White People.

We need to pass the Slavery Amendment now!

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Steveo,

I give you the Ninth Amendment:

Rights retained by people.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Founders believe in Natural Law, meaning that our rights are inherent. The Founders knew that a pure democracy would simply become a tyranny of the majority. Their intent was never to create a pure democracy. As a general rule I think that as long as certain behavior does not hurt others, at least not without their consent, it should be allowed. Gay marriage does not hurt others; therefore, there is no reason to prohibit it. I person who is dying from cancer and experiencing incredible pain does not hurt others by requesting a lethal dose of drugs to end his or her life.

As for the courts and “judicial activism,” I don’t have all the answers to this issue. But I will leave you with the following to ponder. A lot of people criticize the Roe v. Wade decision for “creating” a right to privacy, the argument being that the Constitution does not mention a right to privacy. Well, Roe did not mention the right to privacy. The right to privacy was first brought up in Griswold v. Connecticut. Know what law was challenged in that case? A Connecticut law that prohibited the dispensing or use of birth control devices to or by married couples. Yep, that’s right - a majority of the legislature in 1965 Connecticut decided that a married couple (we’re not talking unmarried people here but a married couple) couldn’t have nookie unless they were doing it for real. Where did the legislature get this power? Was it even any of their business? The Supreme Court came in and said, based on the Ninth Amendment’s right to retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution, the right of privacy to use birth control measures was a legitimate one.

Now I ask you Steveo - Suppose we got rid of the judge-made right to privacy. Now suppose that your state decided to pass such a stupid law as this one because a majority of the members of the legislature were good Catholics who believed that birth control was a sin? According to your argument, you would have to deal with it, like it or not. Either go drive 100 miles and have nookie at the state line or else start stocking up on diapers. We’re the majority of the legislature, and we know what’s best for you and your wife, even if you don’t agree.

The bottom line here is this: be careful what you wish for.[/quote]

How would you define “hurting” others?

You made a good point with the privacy issue, though!

I don’t understand this whole debate. I mean, maybe I’m an idiot, but…there isn’t a law specifically BANNING same sex marriage, right? …so why is it illegal?

I mean, killing people, yeah, there’s laws agianst that. Buying babies, also illegal. Using Gasoline to fertilize my neighbor’s lawn… yup, that too can be pinned down to specific legislation.

I just don’t get it.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Steveo,

I give you the Ninth Amendment:

Rights retained by people.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Founders believe in Natural Law, meaning that our rights are inherent. The Founders knew that a pure democracy would simply become a tyranny of the majority. Their intent was never to create a pure democracy.[/quote]

The Ninth Amendment was not created to give judges a Promethean ball of clay to manufacture new constututional rights depending on their whim. The Ninth Amendment was added because of the Federalists’ objection that there was no way you could enumerate all rights, and listing some of them would create a situation where some legislators would assume the ones not listed would be fair game for the federal government to legislate upon. Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights for this very reason.

The Ninth Amendment was never meant to be a blank check for the Supreme Court to start writing constitutional common law. If this were true, the judiciary would be the most powerful branch of the government with no check. Under such an unconstrained Ninth Amendment privilege, what stops a court from striking down tax laws, zoning laws, and local ordinances as violative of the higher ‘Natural Law’? No way this type of uber-judiciary was the product of the Founding. The Ninth Amendment was merely added to pre-empt the idea that the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list of rights, no more, no less.

No problem - but you are making a political argument. You are suggesting lawmakers make this change.

Democracy produces winners and losers. I like the flat tax - and it is a loser right now, and has been politically for a while. Should I run to the nearest court and sue because I think a progressive tax is bad or unfair under the Ninth Amendment? Should I ask a court to declare for me that a flat tax should be instituted based on concepts of Natural Law?

Utter nonsense. Don’t forget, Dred Scott was one of the first exercises in ‘substantive due process’ where court decided that even if the legislature decided to emancipate black slaves, it couldn’t because blacks could not ever be legitimate citizens of the country.

Indeed, be careful what you wish for.

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I don’t understand this whole debate. I mean, maybe I’m an idiot, but…there isn’t a law specifically BANNING same sex marriage, right? …so why is it illegal?[/quote]

Marriage entails a bundle of legal rights. Think of tax treatment for married couples.

Gay couples are not eligible for this bundle of legal rights because states don’t recognize their union as legally entitled to receive them. Same goes for polygamists - you can’t declare five wives on your tax form, for example.

So, a gay-friendly church might marry a gay couple, but until the state recognizes that union in law, they get no access to the bundle of legal rights, privileges, etc.

Funny to quote the DSM III, when the DSM IV does not consider it a mental illness. What does it matter that the Greek and Roman Empires are gone? They were still great and complex societies. There was no same-sex marriage in other. But there was a lot of homosexual activity that no one cared about.