Gay marriage opponents, listen up: I've got a secret to tell you

[LilShieste]

@Aji_de_Gallina

(Remembering than I’m not a US citizen nor resident) If I could be convinced that the GLBT community would accept it and never again try to change it, yes.

They want the same rights. Once they have that, why in the world do you think they would want to “try to change it [again]”?

[Cisco]

@Antinor01

So you basically have nothing except linguistics.

Many of them don’t. That’s why I addressed that in the OP.

@Aji_de_Gallina

My main argument is simply same-sex couples cannot get married because marriage is a man-woman thing. That’s it, and the last 1000 years of western civilisation agree with me. I oppose it in the same sense that I would oppose a law saying that heptagons can be 8-sided on the second thursday of an odd-numbered month in a prime-numbered year. The harm, if any, would be negligible and I would stillopoose it simply because heptagons can never be 8-sided.

I’ve asked this question to anti-SSM people many times before but have never gotten an answer. Hopefully you’ll do me the honor of being the first. At work a couple years ago, we got an entirely new software system. During the transition period we had to split files into 2 parts to go to different departments, and when they came back we had to marry them back together. Yes, that was the word used in meetings, everyday speech, and company emails and memoes. Would you support legislation banning our use of the word in this way, since the two halves of the files weren’t man and woman?

[Cat_Whisperer]

They marry ketchups in restaurants, too.

[Hamlet]

@Shodan

Actually, I have explained this to you several times.

Never sufficiently. You end up getting frustrated and running away. I sense that the same will happen here.

@Shodan

So the Tenth Amendment states that if the Constitution does not explicitly assign a power to the federal government, or specifically forbid a state some power, then the power belongs to the states, or the people. So unless one can point to a clause in the Constitution that clearly states that the federal government can do this or that, then the federal government may not do this or that. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court may establish rights.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. The power to “establish rights” (accepting for a moment your ridiculous assumption that “establishing rights” is a specific power that needs enumeration) is part of the judicial power, specifically granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

@Shodan

Therefore, that power belongs to the states, or the people.

And, once again, you’re taking a federalism issue, and trying to cram it into a separation of powers issue.

To take it a step further, do you think Congress if forbidden from “establishing rights”? I’ve never seen you advocate that position before. Anti-discrimination laws, eminent domain restrictions, bankruptcy, laws allowing lawsuits for actions or against certain bodies, freedom of information, or any of the other dozens of “rights” Congress has established. Do all those violate the 10th Amendment? And, oddly enough, I didn’t hear you proclaim the DOMA act a violation of the 10th Amendment either.

@Shodan

The Supreme Court deals with rights delegated “under this Constitution”, the laws of the United States, and treaties, etc.

I read it, and I couldn’t find anything in there saying the courts can only deal with “rights delegated under the Constitution”. But it does say "ALL cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution (say, like the 9th Amendment), the laws of the US (say like DOMA). It also grants appeal rights.

@Shodan

Same sex marriage is not delegated as a right under the Constitution, is not encoded into any federal law, and is not part of any treaty. Therefore, it does not come under judicial review.

And, once again, a violation of the Constitution does, in fact, involve a right under the Constitution. Go figure.

@Shodan

Again, the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court may establish new rights.

“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.” Yes, it does.

@Shodan

Only enumerated rights, those rights arising “under this Constitution”, are subject to judicial review.

The Constitution specifically says otherwise: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I have no clue how you can “deny or disparage” a right any more than to deny that it is subject to judicial review.

@Shodan

Judicial review of enumerated rights does not include the right to establish unenumerated rights. The power to do that, therefore, belongs to the states, or the people.

Again accepting your outlandish premise that “establish unenumerated rights” is a power that needed enumeration itself, is, in fact, given to the Supreme Court.

@Shodan

Nothing, as long as one is clear that the California State Supreme Court has no right to establish SSM as a basic civil right any more than the US Supreme Court does.

Not following you. Are you saying that State Supreme Courts don’t have the power to establish civil rights? Why not. There is no 10th Amendment problem, and that is your argument against SCOTUS doing it. I’m just trying to point out the problem you have trying to cram a federalism amendment into a separation of powers issue.

[levdrakon]

@featherlou

They marry ketchups in restaurants, too.

Yet in California, ironically, it’s against state law for a bartender to marry two bottles of the same liquor.

[Hamlet]

@Shodan

Do you mean same-sex marriage? They haven’t done that. Do you mean marriage as defined between one man and one woman? They didn’t declare it, they recognized that it was a right already.

But it’s not enumerated. And unenumerated rights are, according to you, are not protected. I don’t see how you can have it the both ways.

[LilShieste]

@levdrakon

Yet in California, ironically, it’s against state law for a bartender to marry two bottles of the same liquor.

That’s better than marrying two bottles of different liquor. Ew, gross.

[Antinor01]

@Cisco

Many of them don’t. That’s why I addressed that in the OP.

I figured you probably had, but after how ever many hundreds of posts things are bound to be repeated.

I’m doing my best to be civil about this, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult. (not meaning you of course Cisco. You’ve been awesome)

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Aji_de_Gallina

It has never been my argument (at least in this thread) that SSM harms, I was just reposnding to the post where “harming others” was the standard of acceptability.
My main argument is simply same-sex couples cannot get married because marriage is a man-woman thing. That’s it, and the last 1000 years of western civilisation agree with me. I oppose it in the same sense that I would oppose a law saying that heptagons can be 8-sided on the second thursday of an odd-numbered month in a prime-numbered year. The harm, if any, would be negligible and I would stillopoose it simply because heptagons can never be 8-sided.

Right. Except marriage can be between same-sex couples. There is no physical law which prevents it. So that’s a weak-ass argument.

[Cisco]

<blushes> Thanks.

[Ogre]

Ah, bigots who wrap themselves in the cloak of traditionalism. Fundamentally frightened little people.

[outlierrn]

@Aji_de_Gallina

It is not that I don’t understand it, it is disagreement. You say that I shouldn’t oppose SSM becasue it does not do enough harm. “Enough harm” is your own standard, and even if it were universal the meaning of “Enough harm” tends to be difficult to assess the closer you get to the middle part of the kiss-your-baby-good-night/burn-your-kid-alive continuum.

I surely understand that John and Peter’s being married does me no direct evident harm (it may be difficult to observe if it does). I also understand understand that countries that have legalized SSM have not become post-apocalyptic wastelands; however is this because SSM is harmless? Is it because even if harmful there aren’t that many SSMs? Is it because the damage will be felt later? (SSM as a legal reality exists in the western world for less than 50 years).

If you don’t like smoking don’t go to places were well-informed adults smoke.

Then you don’t understand. It is not a personal standard of enough harm, or a universal standard of enough harm. Or a spectrum of harm.

It is enough harm to justify discriminating against gays. This is a far more quantifiable break even point.

Discriminating against a minority in this country is not to be done lightly, there must be a compelling need, and I continue to invite you to present one.

[Shodan]

@Hamlet

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. The power to “establish rights” (accepting for a moment your ridiculous assumption that “establishing rights” is a specific power that needs enumeration) is part of the judicial power, specifically granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

Good - then all that is necessary is where you cut and paste the part where the Constitution specifically assigns the role of defining new rights to the Supreme Court. Please note the word “specifically”. Also keep in mind that judicial review refers to cases “arising under the Constitution”. It does not refer to cases of rights not defined in the Constitution.

I think it will focus the discussion if we leave it there for now. We need a specific clause of the Constitution, which assigns the right of creating new rights which are not in the Constitution, to the Supreme Court. Judicial review isn’t it, as already explained.

I read it, and I couldn’t find anything in there saying the courts can only deal with “rights delegated under the Constitution”. But it does say "ALL cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution (say, like the 9th Amendment), the laws of the US (say like DOMA).

You might want to read a little more closely. Note the phrase “under the Constitution”. This is generally understood to mean, “under the Constitution” rather than “not under the Constitution”.

Again accepting your outlandish premise that “establish unenumerated rights” is a power that needed enumeration itself, is, in fact, given to the Supreme Court.

Please cite the clause in the Constitution where it says that. Please do not trouble yourself to cite a clause in the Constitution where it says something else. We need the clause which mentions unenumerated rights, not rights enumerated under the Constitution.

[Ogre]

When a bigot can’t be convinced of the inhumanity of his position, he falls back on legal arguments.

[Shodan]

Actually, I started off that way.

[Hamlet]

@Shodan

Good - then all that is necessary is where you cut and paste the part where the Constitution specifically assigns the role of defining new rights to the Supreme Court. Please note the word “specifically”.

What, are you suddenly going to recognize it after three times? THE JUDICIAL POWER. That includes the power to judge the constitutionality of the laws to see if they violate rights (even unenumerated ones). It has for over 200 years. If it helps, think of it like the power of the President to wiretap, to take immediate defensive military actions without Congressional approval, to detain enemy combatants, or any of the plethora of inherent powers that are not “specifically” enumerated in the Constitution either. Now, finally, maybe it will sink in.

@Shodan

Also keep in mind that judicial review refers to cases “arising under the Constitution”. It does not refer to cases of rights not defined in the Constitution.

So now the 9th Amendment, the due process clause, privileges and immunities, and equal protection aren’t in your Constitution? Well, that does explain a lot about your views.

@Shodan

I think it will focus the discussion if we leave it there for now. We need a specific clause of the Constitution, which assigns the right of creating new rights which are not in the Constitution, to the Supreme Court. Judicial review isn’t it, as already explained.

Not as “already explained”. More accurately as, “already ignored”, “already unrefuted”, or “already dismissed without reason”.

@Shodan

You might want to read a little more closely. Note the phrase “under the Constitution”. This is generally understood to mean, “under the Constitution” rather than “not under the Constitution”.

And, again, you’re working under a Constitution that apparently doesn’t include the 9th Amendment, the due process clause, privileges and immunities, and equal protection.

@Shodan

Please cite the clause in the Constitution where it says that. Please do not trouble yourself to cite a clause in the Constitution where it says something else. We need the clause which mentions unenumerated rights, not rights enumerated under the Constitution.

For the 3rd time, the 9th Amendment specifically “mentions unenumerated rights” and says they are not to be “denied or disparaged”. Which, as I’ve pointed out and you’ve ignored, not providing “judicial review” is inescapably “denying or disparaging”.

I can already see how this is going exactly like every other time I debate you. You snip apart my posts (your last post), ignore the parts you don’t like (federalism v. separation of powers, THE JUDICIAL POWER and what it entails, the deny and disparage in the 9th Amendment), refuse to respond to my questions (can Congress “establish rights”? Can State Courts “establish rights” since there is no 10th Amendment issue), and simply repeat the same things over and over and over and over (your desperate reliance on "specifically in the Constitution). And, every time an issue comes up like this again, it’s the same fucking thing. At least you’re consistent in your piss poor ability to debate.

[Shodan]

@Hamlet

What, are you suddenly going to recognize it after three times? THE JUDICIAL POWER. That includes the power to judge the constitutionality of the laws to see if they violate rights (even unenumerated ones). It has for over 200 years. If it helps, think of it like the power of the President to wiretap, to take immediate defensive military actions without Congressional approval, to detain enemy combatants, or any of the plethora of inherent powers that are not “specifically” enumerated in the Constitution either. Now, finally, maybe it will sink in.

So, when you said “specifically”, you didn’t mean it.

Not as “already explained”. More accurately as, “already ignored”, “already unrefuted”, or “already dismissed without reason”.

You made a claim, which we have now seen was false. There is no clause specifically assigning the power to define new rights to the Supreme Court, and you were lying when you said it did.

For the 3rd time, the 9th Amendment specifically “mentions unenumerated rights” and says they are not to be “denied or disparaged”.

Oh, I see - you are now alleging that the Ninth Amendment is the source of some rights, and that this is the case because the Supreme Court said it was.

Good, another specific claim on your part. Unfortunately, it is just as big a falsehood as your other.

“The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.” - Doe v. Bolton

“The Declaration of Independence…is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” - Troxel v. Granville

So that’s wrong too, even by your standards.

Would you like to make some more claims that are demonstrably false, or can we take it for granted that you have nothing worthwhile to add?

[Sinaijon]

What I don’t get with all the semantic wrangling bullshit, is why the pro SSM marriage people don’t just put a list of actual rights/benefits up for a proposition, instead of couching it all under ‘marriage’.

Yes/No Inheritance
Yes/No SSN survivor benefits
Yes/No Tax Status
Yes/No Visitation Rights

and whatever else.

[wring]

@Sinaijon

What I don’t get with all the semantic wrangling bullshit, is why the pro SSM marriage people don’t just put a list of actual rights/benefits up for a proposition, instead of couching it all under ‘marriage’.

Yes/No Inheritance
Yes/No SSN survivor benefits
Yes/No Tax Status
Yes/No Visitation Rights

and whatever else.

Well, 'cause there’s this handy dandy word that encompasses all of 'em w/o enumerating each one so that facisty idiots can decide for you if you should have inheritance, survivor benefits and visitation rights. It’s just so much more efficient to call it ‘marriage’.

[Hamlet]

@Shodan

So, when you said “specifically”, you didn’t mean it. You made a claim, which we have now seen was false. There is no clause specifically assigning the power to define new rights to the Supreme Court, and you were lying when you said it did.

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.

Look, despite your best efforts to prove otherwise, you are not a complete fucking idiot. And I know that I’m not. 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? 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. And it does nothing to disprove the other things I’ve pointed out that you continue to ignore (like the analogy to inherent powers of the President).

@Shodan

Oh, I see - you are now alleging that the Ninth Amendment is the source of some rights, and that this is the case because the Supreme Court said it was.

That is not what I’m alleging. Had you actually engaged in debate by answering my questions and responding to my arguments, you wouldn’t have to be wrong so often.

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.

@Shodan

Would you like to make some more claims that are demonstrably false, or can we take it for granted that you have nothing worthwhile to add?

I’m sure you get hard thinking that you’ve made a point or engaged in honest debate, but once again, you’ve only got yourself to jerk off with.

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?

Guess which option I’m betting on.