# Gay marriage opponents, listen up: I've got a secret to tell you **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496 "2008-11-06T19:08:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/321 "2008-11-13T05:53:52Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > None. I feel they are not entitled to some privileges, much in the sense that 14-year-olds can’t vote. You’re not denying them a right. > (I know that eventually they will, it’s just an imperfect analogy) And what specific rights are me and my partner not entitled to under the law? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/322 "2008-11-13T12:51:38Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It wasn’t convincing the first time you said it. It’s not now. THE JUDICIAL POWER. You can, as you are wont to do, deny it. Or, for the fourth time, say it’s NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH for you. But it’s there, and that won’t change no matter how many times you falsely accuse me of lying. But that’s the problem. You keep saying it’s there, but you can’t show that it is. You just keep repeating, without any evidence, that it is there. > [@](#): > > So instead of this inane game of “those words aren’t specific enough”… “yes they are” shit you insist on engaging in, how about we agree on something. The words: “the Supreme Court has the power to define new rights” are not in the Constitution. There, we agree on something. Now, the $64,000 dollar question, SO THE FUCK WHAT? So the fuck this -[ul][li]the power to define new rights is not assigned to the Supreme Court or the federal government[\*]All powers not assigned to the federal government go to the states, or the people.[/ul]That’s what the Tenth Amendment says. [/li] You claim you’re not stupid, but you sure are doing your best to prove that you are. You admit that both my major and minor premises are correct, but you deny the conclusion. I realize you don’t like it, but that’s how logic works. > [@](#): > > It does nothing to disprove the fact the “The judicial power” includes the power to find laws unconstitutional that violate the rights of its citizens. This is not a fact, it is an assertion. And it is contradicted by the text of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment does not say, 'All unenumerated powers pass to the federal government". It gives them to the states, or the people. That’s what the words mean. The power to decide which are rights and which are not, is an unenumerated power. Therefore, it belongs to the states, or the people. It’s quite simple, really. If the judicial power included the power to find laws unconstitutional that violate the not-previously-established rights of its citizens, then the judicial power would include the power to establish not-previously-established rights. As already demonstrated, the power to establish not-previously-established rights is not assigned specifically to the federal government. Therefore, that power belongs to the states, or the people. So, your assertion violates the Tenth Amendment, and is therefore incorrect. Your assertion that the Tenth Amendment violates the Ninth Amendment is equally ridiculous. A right cannot be said to be denied or disparaged unless and until it has been found to exist. Unless and until the states or the people exercise their power to determine that a right exists (or if said right is enumerated in the Constitution), it has not been found to exist. Therefore, it is not disparaged. As mentioned, the Ninth Amendment is not a source of substantive rights. The Tenth Amendment is - it assigns the power to determine what are those rights not to be disparaged. > [@](#): > > But, once again, because I know you’re intentionally ignoring it. The Ninth Amendment says that rights not enumerated are not to be denied or disparaged. Your … fallacious… reading of the 10th Amendment (that the Court can only judicially review enumerated rights), flies directly into the face of the 9th Amendment. Ergo, your reading of the 10th Amendment is wrong. No, it doesn’t. I have already demonstrated that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution. Unenumerated rights, by definition, are not enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, cases establishing unenumerated rights do not come under the purview of the federal government, since that would mean establishing unenumerated rights, which we have already discovered is not one of the powers of the federal government. Your difficulty is to try to parse the plain text of the Constitution and change the meaning of “cases arising under this Constitution” to “cases not arising under this Constitution, and having nothing to do with anything mentioned in it”. That doesn’t work, which is why you are having such troubles. Logic does work. Unfortunately, in this case it works rather definitely against you. > [@](#): > > Now that we’ve cleared up your multiple misperceptions, are you going to actually engage in debate, answer my questions, address my responses to you? Or are you going to insist on remaining a troll completely incapable of debate? I have addressed them several times. In fact, I have refuted them. All of your assertions have been debunked. Your factual inaccuracies have been corrected. You simply repeat the same nonsense, over and over again, generally without evidence. And when you are asked for evidence, you repeat the same nonsense, over and over. and accuse me of not addressing issues that have been exploded ten times over. If that’s all you got, fine. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/323 "2008-11-13T13:10:55Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Because marriage is a man and a woman, simple. A hotdog is a bun and a sausage, substitute sausage for bacon and, voilà, no hot dog. > Marriage ISN’T very flexible. So what would _you_ call the legally and/or religiously sanctioned relationship of a gay couple? In the vernacular, I mean, because trust me, “civil union” is fine as a legal term, but nobody is going say, “Bob and Sam got civil unioned last weekend” or “Are you going to Sylvia and Joan’s civil union?” ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/324 "2008-11-13T14:39:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > But that’s the problem. You keep saying it’s there, but you can’t show that it is. You just keep repeating, without any evidence, that it is there. I thought you had already conceded judicial review is one of The Judicial Powers. If you now insist that the courts are not able to find statutes that violate citizens’ rights unconstitutional, we can just stop now. I’ll have to settle for the fact that judicial review has been a part of the judicial power since the Constitution was written (and before for that matter). And you can continue to wallow in your willful blindness. But, what I understood you to say, is that you believe judicial review is part of the Judicial Power, but you, for whatever reason, think it only applies to rights specifically enumerated. And, for the 5th time, that limitation on judicial review VIOLATES THE VERY WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. The Ninth Amendment clearly states that listing rights in the Bill of Rights does nothing to “deny or disparage” other rights not listed. Your inane reading of the 10th Amendment to try and deny judicial review of non-enumerated rights, clearly violates that. Again, if you want to deny judicial review of statutes violating citizen’s rights, knock yourself out. You lost that battle 200+ years ago. But you can’t pretend that judicial power includes judicial review for only enumerated rights because that distinction isn’t in the Constitution (I love the irony of you violating your own requirements) AND the Constitution specifically says otherwise. > [@Shodan](#): > > You admit that both my major and minor premises are correct, but you deny the conclusion. I realize you don’t like it, but that’s how logic works. Your confused. Again. I agree “the Supreme Court has the power to define new rights” are not in the Constitution. As I asked before, SO FUCKING WHAT? The judicial power IS granted in the Constitution and it includes, as I thought you already conceded, judicial review of statutes that violate citizen’s rights. I have no clue how Shodanlogic works, but here in the real world, your conclusion is wrong. > [@Shodan](#): > > This is not a fact, it is an assertion. And it is contradicted by the text of the Constitution. > > The Tenth Amendment does not say, 'All unenumerated powers pass to the federal government". It gives them to the states, or the people. That’s what the words mean. The power to decide which are rights and which are not, is an unenumerated power. Therefore, it belongs to the states, or the people. > > It’s quite simple, really. If the judicial power included the power to find laws unconstitutional that violate the not-previously-established rights of its citizens, then the judicial power would include the power to establish not-previously-established rights. As already demonstrated, the power to establish not-previously-established rights is not assigned specifically to the federal government. Therefore, that power belongs to the states, or the people. > > So, your assertion violates the Tenth Amendment, and is therefore incorrect. Do you even realize what you’re doing there? You’re limiting, without any support and in violation of the Constitutional language, the judicial power of judicial review to ONLY cases of “not previously established” rights of its citizens. YOU are the one who is flying in the face of the clear language of the Constitution. For the 6th time, the 9th Amendment forbids the non enumeration of rights to be used to “deny or disparage” rights not enumerated. And that is EXACTLY what you are doing. > [@Shodan](#): > > Your assertion that the Tenth Amendment violates the Ninth Amendment is equally ridiculous. Again, we would have a much better chance of debating these issues if you would stop pretending what you think I assert. Because, invariably, you are wrong. It gets annoying after awhile, and it makes you like the dishonest debater you are. I assert that SHODAN’S INTERPRETATION of the 10th Amendment violates the 9th Amendment. See, the founding fathers (and probably their livestock) were WAAAAAYYYY smarter than you. So, when they wrote the Constitution, they tried not to make two parts of it contradict each other. It isn’t the 10th Amendment itself that violates the 9th. It’s your inane interpretation that does. > [@Shodan](#): > > A right cannot be said to be denied or disparaged unless and until it has been found to exist. Interesting, and completely unfounded, attempt. The founders were big believers in natural law, and that rights came from \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (a Creator, nature, whatever you wish) and not the government. And they thought that those rights were not dependent on being listed in order to exist. See, the founding fathers knew there would be people, people like yourself, who thought that rights, if they weren’t enumerated in the Bill of Rights, would not be protected from governmental intrusion. So they wrote the 9th Amendment, to make it clear to those people that simply by writing down some rights, that doesn’t mean the other rights can be “denied or disparaged”. > [@Shodan](#): > > Unless and until the states or the people exercise their power to determine that a right exists (or if said right is enumerated in the Constitution), it has not been found to exist. Therefore, it is not disparaged. This SHODANlogic is complete bizarre. It’s completely inane to insist that something has to exist to be denied. That’s the very heart of a denial, that it doesn’t exist. Denying a right, inescapably, means it doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly what you are saying. It’s humorous to see you contradicting yourself in such a bizarre way. > [@Shodan](#): > > No, it doesn’t. I have already demonstrated that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution. Unenumerated rights, by definition, are not enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, cases establishing unenumerated rights do not come under the purview of the federal government, since that would mean establishing unenumerated rights, which we have already discovered is not one of the powers of the federal government. Look, you can repeat your premise another dozen times too, and it doesn’t get any more right. See, debates like what I’m trying to do with you, shouldn’t be just repeating the same thing over and over. Granted, with you, it’s hard to avoid because that’s all you do, but it shouldn’t be. > [@Shodan](#): > > Your difficulty is to try to parse the plain text of the Constitution and change the meaning of “cases arising under this Constitution” to “cases not arising under this Constitution, and having nothing to do with anything mentioned in it”. That doesn’t work, which is why you are having such troubles. Logic does work. Unfortunately, in this case it works rather definitely against you. > I have addressed them several times. In fact, I have refuted them. The 9th Amendment, due process, and equal protection are all in the Constitution. Laws that violate those, therefore, “arise under the Constitution”. It ain’t that difficult to understand, and you’ve done nothing to refute it. > [@Shodan](#): > > All of your assertions have been debunked. Your factual inaccuracies have been corrected. You simply repeat the same nonsense, over and over again, generally without evidence. And when you are asked for evidence, you repeat the same nonsense, over and over. and accuse me of not addressing issues that have been exploded ten times over. > > If that’s all you got, fine. This must be more of that SHODANlogic that so confuses me. You’ve snipped, ignored, and didn’t refute my arguments. You don’t answer my questions. You misrepresent my arguments. And you simply repeat yourself over and over, even after I’ve shown you to be wrong. So, when you get a spine to answer my prior questions and answer the other arguments, let me know. Because all you’re doing is repeating one thing ("It’s not written specifically in the Constitution…WAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!) over and over and over. And, while I’ve thoroughly destroyed that “argument”, I think honest debate requires the discussion of ALL the points, not just the one you think helps you the most. But, then again, you and honest debate are aeons apart. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/325 "2008-11-13T14:50:00Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yes, in Judeo-Christian culture yes. Greeks and Romans seem to have had it too. Those guys are the foundation of western civilisation. Please read [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10437473&postcount=622) in the other thread. Trust me, the ‘foundation of western civilization’ had a very different kind of marriage than you want. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/326 "2008-11-13T14:56:56Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Please read [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10437473&postcount=622) in the other thread. Trust me, the ‘foundation of western civilization’ had a very different kind of marriage than you want. Ah, but remember that you’re an academic and therefore brainwashed by the Liberal psycho-sexual revisionism of history! ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/327 "2008-11-13T17:19:28Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Keep pushing back. When you’re literally thought of in the same moment and the same way as Bull Conner and Orval Faubus and their thousands of followers in the 50s and 60s, you can thank your stubborn attempt to cling to bullshit “tradition” for it. > > We SHALL overcome, and we’re going to march right up your back if you don’t get out of the way. Thanks for the warning, but don’t delude yourself into thinking you can walk up my back , metaphorically or literally. > [@Miller](#): > > Well, no, that’s not going to be easier, because if we don’t have SSM, we’re going to keep having this debate, over and over and over. We’re going to keep having protest marches, and ballot initiatives, and ugly political fights, every year. Forever. Because we’re not ever going to give up on this. Look forward to hearing about this for the rest of your life, because if the only way we can get SSM is to wait for dinosaurs like you to die out, well, that’s what we’re going to have to do, then. > Or you could just give up on this nonsense now, vote “Yes” on SSM, and get it all over with once and for all. > Nope. Totally wrong. A marriage is whatever people say a marriage is. And people have been using marriage to describe committed gay relationships for more than thirty years now. You’ve already lost the semantic fight. Now we’re just talking legalities, and the quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to sort out the legalities is to make same-sex marriage a legal reality, instead of simply a social reality. You want to delude yourself into thinking a lost any part of the fight, let alone the linguistic. Would you vote YES on a poroposal you disagree just becasue it is popular and so you won’t fell pressured? Wow, what a wuss. > [@Cisco](#): > > Good Christ, man, all in one post you: > > -Contradict yourself > -Dance around my question as I predicted > -Self-own by proving your own argument wrong > > Do you not see the irony in your words or are you really that blinded by your hate? > > By the way, since you’re such a strict, formal linguist, I have a question for you. I’m confused by the entry on marriage in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, especially definitions 1a(2), 1b, 1c, and 3. These all seem to be in direct contradiction to what you’re arguing here. Can you please explain? You say you \*married \*documents and sure you do. The word \*marry \*has several meanings (thus, the polysemy), the marrying of documents is metaphorical. I aswered your question and you said I danced around it? More like, stomp on it while taking a huge crap. Well, I also \*aborted \*a program, am I now pro-life? If a word is used for different meanings it has no effect on the “root” word. M-W, the key is “like that of traditional marriage”, thus recognising that traditional marriage is man-woman. Meaning 3 is metaphorical. Go study a bit before trying to get me with dictionaries man, don’t even try to come to gunfight only with a dictionary. > [@Sampiro](#): > > Demonstrably Bullshit. Marriage is what it is at any given time. > > I may have done this before but if I have it’s been years and it’s relevant here as well. I once demonstrated how “unchanging” and uniform marriage is by taking a random but I think well and fairly chosen sampling: people on U.S. Currency (bills and state quarters). This was specifically to debate people who maintained that marriage was a union based on love and primarily dedicated to the procreation and raising of children. > BILLS > > $1 George Washington- married his wife, a widow, for money (didn’t even much try to deny it) and had no children with her (though he did raise her kids and grandkids). > > $2 Thomas Jefferson- married a wealthy widow (though he does seem to have loved her) who made him vow to never remarry (which was selfish for a widow to do especially) which he honored by instead taking her half-sister whom he owned as a concubine. > > $5 Abraham Lincoln- after numerous false starts (at least one broken engagement and one cancelling of the wedding) he married Mary Todd. It was perhaps founded in love, perhaps not, but it was a miserable marriage. They probably never had sex after the birth of their youngest child, for doctors told her she stood a good chance of dying in childbirth if she became pregnant again, thus it was a chaste union by the White House. > > $10 Alexander Hamilton- he was absolutely shameless and blatant in admitting he married Elizabeth Schuyler for social position and money. He wrote letters some regard as love letters to an aristocratic male comrade (John Laurens- who abandoned his own wife when she was pregnant) and assured him nothing had changed in his love for him due to his marriage. > > $20 Andrew Jackson- his wife never bothered to divorce her first husband, at least not until long after she formally married Jackson. They had no biological children but when her sister had identical twins they took one home (no paperwork, just a “pick of the litter” agreement). I’ve always thought [one of his slaves](http://www.sitemason.com/files/bZje4U/Hannah2.jpg) looked more than a little bit like him. He also kindheartedly adopted a Creek Indian orphan after slaughtering the child’s parents and their village. > > $50 U.S. Grant- pretty much a Dick and Jane marriage- he married a woman he loved and they had kids. Nothing to see here, move along- a “conventional” marriage. > > $100 Benjamin Franklin- he began living with his wife sometime around 1730. She was a married woman at the time, though her husband had left her and could not be found to procure a divorce. Her first marriage was later annulled but she never formally married Franklin. His very famous early anniversary gift to her was his illegitimate son by an unknown mother. (She didn’t much care for the gift.) > > There are larger bills of course, but not in circulation. Cleveland’s probably the most interesting marriage of the lot, though Salmon Chase’s letters to his daughter Kate asking her to find him a fourth wife were something out of first century Rome (he had his heart set on Stephen Douglas’s widow, though he’d never met her, but ultimately decided 3 widowings was enough). > > COINS > > $1 Sacagawea- she was the wife and property of Jean Toussaint Charbonneau, who purchased another slave/wife [Otter Woman] around the same time. He beat the hell out of her on a regular basis [it’s recorded by Corps of Discovery chroniclers] and his abuse may be a large reason she gave her children to William Clark to raise, but she stayed married to him. He outlived her by many years- when he died he was around 80 and his youngest wife was around 15. > > Dime- FDR- married his bisexual cousin and kept a long term mistress. > > Missouri Quarter- William Clark (see above)- remained a bachelor until he was 38 when he married a 16 year old girl. A few months after she died in childbirth he married her first-cousin (who also died young). > > California- John Muir- disappointingly conventional marriage (though she was an heiress which may have had some bearing on the reason they wed). > > Of the others on State Quarters, all are either (as with Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, etc.) already mentioned or else (as with Helen Keller, Caesar Rodney, the Wright Brothers, etc.) never married, save for one- > > Saving the Best for Last- > > Hawaii - King Kamehemehe- not only did he have more than a dozen wives (probably a lot more), several of his wives had [simultaneous to him] other husbands, and several of whom were his close relatives. > > Just looking at the people on American currency, _Marriage Is Flexible_, in motive, in style, in practice. It’s not likely that any French Canadian could buy a bunch of adolescent Indian girls today or that many famous 38 year olds would marry a 16 year old or that political figures in common law relationships would be quite as respected, and we won’t even get into Hawaii. So, you’ve just found out that people fall short of (even their own) expectations, WOW, GOOD FOR YOU! King Kamehameha is definitely not part of western culture, not even sure if he was a US citizen, but polygamy is still a succession of paralel man-woman marriages; it’s not polyamorist. > [@Antinor01](#): > > And what specific rights are me and my partner not entitled to under the law? Now, I don’t know, check you state/country laws. > [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > So what would _you_ call the legally and/or religiously sanctioned relationship of a gay couple? In the vernacular, I mean, because trust me, “civil union” is fine as a legal term, but nobody is going say, “Bob and Sam got civil unioned last weekend” or “Are you going to Sylvia and Joan’s civil union?” Marriage, sure. > [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Please read [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10437473&postcount=622) in the other thread. Trust me, the ‘foundation of western civilization’ had a very different kind of marriage than you want. Your quote is uninformsative as to marriage being other than man-woman. Definitely reason to marry and extra curricular activities are nor part of the definiton of marriage. > [@jayjay](#): > > Ah, but remember that you’re an academic and therefore brainwashed by the Liberal psycho-sexual revisionism of history! irony only works when it’s closer to the truhth-. I have avoided (except once) personal insults or ad hominem , don’t imply that I did. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/328 "2008-11-13T17:22:44Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You say you \*married \*documents and sure you do. The word \*marry \*has several meanings (thus, the polysemy), the marrying of documents is metaphorical. > I aswered your question and you said I danced around it? More like, stomp on it while taking a huge crap. > Well, I also \*aborted \*a program, am I now pro-life? > If a word is used for different meanings it has no effect on the “root” word. > M-W, the key is “like that of traditional marriage”, thus recognising that traditional marriage is man-woman. > Meaning 3 is metaphorical. Go study a bit before trying to get me with dictionaries man, don’t even try to come to gunfight only with a dictionary. So you’re saying gay marriage should be called “marriage” and hetero marriage should be called “traditional marriage”? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/329 "2008-11-13T17:23:37Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Now, I don’t know, check you state/country laws. So you still don’t have anything concrete? You said that gay couples should get MOST of the benefits and rights of marriage. I see that you’re not going to actually respond to me so I guess we’re done here. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/330 "2008-11-13T17:33:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I thought you had already conceded judicial review is one of The Judicial Powers. If you now insist that the courts are not able to find statutes that violate citizens’ rights unconstitutional, we can just stop now. See now, there’s the problem. You left off the part that would give meaning to my argument, in a rather lame attempt at misrepresentation. You did notice the phrase “already established”, did you not? I repeated it several times. > [@](#): > > But, what I understood you to say, is that you believe judicial review is part of the Judicial Power, but you, for whatever reason, think it only applies to rights specifically enumerated. And, for the 5th time, that limitation on judicial review VIOLATES THE VERY WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. The Ninth Amendment clearly states that listing rights in the Bill of Rights does nothing to “deny or disparage” other rights not listed. Again, the problem is that I already addressed this. Your notion of the Supreme Court having the power to establish unenumerated rights contradicts the Tenth Amendment. Because, as you have already conceded, the power to establish rights is an unenumerated power, and therefore a power of the states, or the people. > [@](#): > > Your inane reading of the 10th Amendment to try and deny judicial review of non-enumerated rights, clearly violates that. No, that’s not it - you’re just stupid. > [@](#): > > But you can’t pretend that judicial power includes judicial review for only enumerated rights because that distinction isn’t in the Constitution (I love the irony of you violating your own requirements) AND the Constitution specifically says otherwise. See? you’re an idiot. I spent several paragraphs parsing the phrase “arising under this Constitution” for you, which you then ignore (because, as mentioned, you are stupid and stubborn). That’s fine. Simply pretending that arguments don’t exist if you can’t refute them, and then accusing me of not answering question or debating in good fiath, simply marks you as a persistently stupid person. > [@](#): > > Your confused. Again. I agree “the Supreme Court has the power to define new rights” are not in the Constitution. As I asked before, SO FUCKING WHAT? And I already answered this. You have ignored it, because you are exceptionally stupid and dull witted. Look for the phrase “So fucking this -” followed by a detailed explanation. Have a friend read it to you, if you have one. > [@](#): > > I have no clue how Shodanlogic works Or any other kind, apparently. > [@](#): > > Do you even realize what you’re doing there? You’re limiting, without any support and in violation of the Constitutional language, the judicial power of judicial review to ONLY cases of “not previously established” rights of its citizens. Nope, still wrong. See the previous discussion of “cases arising under this Constitution” for a detailed explanation. Or don’t - it is apparently beyond your intellectual grasp. > [@](#): > > I assert that SHODAN’S INTERPRETATION of the 10th Amendment violates the 9th Amendment. Right, but you haven’t got the IQ of a burnt out light bulb, so your assertion isn’t worth much. > [@](#): > > Interesting, and completely unfounded, attempt. The founders were big believers in natural law, and that rights came from \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (a Creator, nature, whatever you wish) and not the government. And they thought that those rights were not dependent on being listed in order to exist. OK, then you merely have to produce the evidence that shows that the Founding Fathers thought that there was a right to SSM granted by God, or nature. Interesting that you do not include the Supreme Court on that list. But again, if you can produce some evidence, in the form of a quote or something, where the Founding Fathers make it clear that they want the Supreme Court to be the source of rights rather than Nature or God. If not, this is another of your baseless assertions. > [@](#): > > It’s completely inane to insist that something has to exist to be denied. That’s the very heart of a denial, that it doesn’t exist. Denying a right, inescapably, means it doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly what you are saying. Unfortunately, by that “logic”, my right to have my mortgage paid for by Paris Hilton is being denied or disparaged. The Ninth Amendment says that I might have that right, and just because it isn’t in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. And your (or the Supreme Court’s) denial of that right means that it is being disparaged. Help, help, I’m being oppressed! Or - Your point is completely silly and nonsensical. Of course you can deny a right that doesn’t exist. Don’t be idiotic. (Is that even possible?) > [@](#): > > The 9th Amendment, due process, and equal protection are all in the Constitution. Laws that violate those, therefore, “arise under the Constitution”. It ain’t that difficult to understand, and you’ve done nothing to refute it. Actually, I quoted the Supreme Court a couple of times to show that cases involving new rights cannot arise under the Ninth Amendment, because the Ninth Amendment is not a source of rights. I notice you haven’t tried to refute it. I’m not surprised. > [@](#): > > You’ve snipped, ignored, and didn’t refute my arguments. You don’t answer my questions. You misrepresent my arguments. And you simply repeat yourself over and over, even after I’ve shown you to be wrong. Here you are just lying, And projecting. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/331 "2008-11-13T17:34:12Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > So you’re saying gay marriage should be called “marriage” and hetero marriage should be called “traditional marriage”? How about “Classic Marriage” and “New Marriage?” You know, I thought that the argument “but we’ve always done it this way” had kind of gone out of fashion… ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/332 "2008-11-13T17:38:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Ah, bigots who wrap themselves in the cloak of progressivism. Fundamentally frightened little people. That’s your idea of a comeback? Really? I’m a bigot somehow? What’s next, “I’m rubber, you’re glue, etc.”? Grow up, kid. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/333 "2008-11-13T18:01:02Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > So you’re saying gay marriage should be called “marriage” and hetero marriage should be called “traditional marriage”? It could be called whatever, definitely civl unions wil be called marriage by some people for shorthand if for no other reason. Words have power. If you call a black man “nigger” you’re saying much more than “mispronunciation of negro”; the word is de-humanising but doesn’t affect that person humanity. > [@Antinor01](#): > > So you still don’t have anything concrete? You said that gay couples should get MOST of the benefits and rights of marriage. I see that you’re not going to actually respond to me so I guess we’re done here. Your use of the simple present tense (“are”) confused me. Frpm the top of my head I’d say adoption (but I don’t want to turn this thread into a “gay adoption” thread) and coimpulsory acceoptance in private religious schools. > [@Ogre](#): > > That’s your idea of a comeback? Really? I’m a bigot somehow? What’s next, “I’m rubber, you’re glue, etc.”? > > Grow up, kid. ..and still you couldn’t do any better…“grow up, kid” is the last resort of the unable to answer. You’re a bigot becasue you started the process of de-humanising by calling me a bigot. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/334 "2008-11-13T18:23:50Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re a bigot becasue you started the process of de-humanising by calling me a bigot. Errrr…have you lost your dictionary or something? That’s not what “bigot” means. Just because I think you’re a sullen, frightened homophobe doesn’t make me a bigot. It makes me correct. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/335 "2008-11-13T18:45:25Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Your quote is uninformsative as to marriage being other than man-woman. Definitely reason to marry and extra curricular activities are nor part of the definiton of marriage. I’m having a tough time understanding you. Yes, it seems likely that all Greek and Roman and ancient Jewish marriages were man-woman. That wasn’t my point. My point is that you’re saying that you want to protect ‘traditional marriage’ - and that isn’t actually as traditional as you think. If you want to claim that ‘western civilization’ defines marriage, then you’d better accept lack of religious sanction, common and faultless divorce, polygamy and no expectation of fidelity along with opposite sex partners. History is not on your side. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/336 "2008-11-13T18:45:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Because marriage is a man and a woman, simple. A hotdog is a bun and a sausage, substitute sausage for bacon and, voilà, no hot dog. > Marriage ISN’T very flexible. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > > [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > > > So what would _you_ call the legally and/or religiously sanctioned relationship of a gay couple? In the vernacular, I mean, because trust me, “civil union” is fine as a legal term, but nobody is going say, “Bob and Sam got civil unioned last weekend” or “Are you going to Sylvia and Joan’s civil union?” > > Marriage, sure. I… don’t know what else I can say. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/337 "2008-11-13T18:55:20Z")
> [@Aji de Gallina](#): > > You want to delude yourself into thinking a lost any part of the fight, let alone the linguistic. I’m deluded? Dude, you concede that you’ve lost the linguistic battle over the word marriage in this very same post! > [@](#): > > Would you vote YES on a poroposal you disagree just becasue it is popular and so you won’t fell pressured? Wow, what a wuss. Hey, you’re the one who wants the “easiest” solution. I’m just telling you what the easiest solution is: give up. If you want to do it the hard way, we can do it the hard way. The outcome’s going to be the same either way. If you want to waste a lot of time and money fighting the inevitable, knock yourself out. While you’re at it, I’ve got a thimble around here somewhere: you want to borrow it to hold back the sea? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/338 "2008-11-13T19:34:49Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > There’s no physical law preventing me from killing my neighbours, so that’s an even weaker-ass argument. Are you really this fucking dense? _You’re_ the one who compared it to heptagons being 8-sided, as if SSM went against natural/physical laws. If all you’re saying is it’s wrong because it’s illegal, your argument’s even weaker. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/339 "2008-11-13T19:42:31Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Errrr…have you lost your dictionary or something? That’s not what “bigot” means. Just because I think you’re a sullen, frightened homophobe doesn’t make me a bigot. It makes me correct. And now _homophobe_, man you’re really making me laugh, textbook ad hominem. > [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > I’m having a tough time understanding you. Yes, it seems likely that all Greek and Roman and ancient Jewish marriages were man-woman. That wasn’t my point. My point is that you’re saying that you want to protect ‘traditional marriage’ - and that isn’t actually as traditional as you think. > > If you want to claim that ‘western civilization’ defines marriage, then you’d better accept lack of religious sanction, common and faultless divorce, polygamy and no expectation of fidelity along with opposite sex partners. > > History is not on your side. Religoius sanction: For Greeks and Romans no, for Jes and Christians, yes. and I wasn’t basing my case in religion. Polygamy was basically dead at the end of patriarchial times and except for very specific cases (e.g. Solomon) not even remotely widespread. Common and faultless divorce: I’d love a good cite. Maybe your presidents, maybe powerful people, but most? No, was it held as the model? No…do people routinely fall short of their goals? Yes. Do societal pressures play a role? Definitely > [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > I… don’t know what else I can say. So shut up. > [@Miller](#): > > I’m deluded? Dude, you concede that you’ve lost the linguistic battle over the word marriage in this very same post! > > Hey, you’re the one who wants the “easiest” solution. I’m just telling you what the easiest solution is: give up. If you want to do it the hard way, we can do it the hard way. The outcome’s going to be the same either way. If you want to waste a lot of time and money fighting the inevitable, knock yourself out. While you’re at it, I’ve got a thimble around here somewhere: you want to borrow it to hold back the sea? ## You’re the one fixated on the word, I’m fixated on the concept. When words change their meanings it might affect how we appreciate the unchanging underlying fact. Well, dude, you couldn’t win California, one of the most liberal states. That thimble looks mighty big and hole-less and That fact that you prefer cowardly easy solutions baffles me. The GLBT community has fought a hard fight not accepting the easy solutions of shutting up (even if I think they are mistaken in what they fight for in some cases). Just to clarify the “linguistic” point some think I’m fixating. Marriage exists whatever we call it and despite what other may call marriage. I’m sure that if/when SSM is accepted most people will call it marriage as it externally looks like the real thing. I do not, however dismiss the power that words have in shaping how we perceive reality (reality which exists even if we don’t recognise it). “Nigger” was used to refer to African-americans; even if linguistically it means “black” the connotation of living in a place where African-americans are routinely called “niggers” (unless you’re AA) will shape your perception of that man’s persohood. The obejective reality of equality of personhood regardless of race still is there, but we have biased our perception. If we started calling triangles and squares “triangles”, we would see them differently that what their objective realities are. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/340 "2008-11-13T19:59:06Z")
> [@](#): > > And now homophobe, man you’re really making me laugh, textbook ad hominem. Actually, it would only be “textbook” if I were engaged in debate with you, since _ad hominem_ refers to a fallacious argument. I’m not debating you. I’m making fun of you. Please note the difference for future use. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=18)