10th Amendment

Originally posted by Eladar
So you like to quibble over words, that's nothing new.

I think it's important to stay with the terminology that Locke and the Framers used when discussing Rights. It avoids confusion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sure you could see it since you're a complete idiot.

Why are you sooooooooooo opposed to State laws banning discrimination against gays? I thought you were a big defender of "States Rights". Doesn't the Tenth Amendment mean that the States can pass laws regulating businesses inside that State and ban them from discriminating against certain groups if the State choses?

Are you familiar with the term "hoisted on your own petard"?

The same could be said of you. Why do you oppose states not allowing gays to marry and override them with SCOTUS?

Who rules who?

Apparently, gays have adequate power in both state government and the federal government. Shrug.

So again, how is it that someone can refuse to marry someone but not make them a cake? You can call me an idiot all day if it pleases you, after all, I"m not as enlightened as you, but I'm still awaiting a reply.

Originally posted by whodey
The same could be said of you. Why do you oppose states not allowing gays to marry and override them with SCOTUS?

Who rules who?

Apparently, gays have adequate power in both state government and the federal government. Shrug.

So again, how is it that someone can refuse to marry someone but not make them a cake? You can call me an idiot all day if it pleases you, after all, I"m not as enlightened as you, but I'm still awaiting a reply.

State laws must not violate the Rights of the People IMO but apparently not yours.

The People rule but they must rule using the principles of Lockean Natural Rights and all that entails. Socrates wouldn't have had to drink the hemlock here just because the majority voted for it (a simplification to be sure but I like the analogy).

A Church or religious organization can refuse to perform a marriage because of the principle of separation of Church and State. There is no principle of separation between Commerce and State; regulating such has always been a principle feature of free (and not so free) governments.

Originally posted by no1marauder
State laws must not violate the Rights of the People IMO but apparently not yours.

The People rule but they must rule using the principles of Lockean Natural Rights and all that entails. Socrates wouldn't have had to drink the hemlock here just because the majority voted for it (a simplification to be sure but I like the analogy).

A Church or reli ...[text shortened]... tate; regulating such has always been a principle feature of free (and not so free) governments.

Where does the Constitution say that all people have the right to get married?

How about the right to being respected?

Originally posted by no1marauder
State laws must not violate the Rights of the People IMO but apparently not yours.

The People rule but they must rule using the principles of Lockean Natural Rights and all that entails. Socrates wouldn't have had to drink the hemlock here just because the majority voted for it (a simplification to be sure but I like the analogy).

A Church or reli ...[text shortened]... tate; regulating such has always been a principle feature of free (and not so free) governments.

So people have the right to do what they want unless they charge money for a service?

Makes sense to me. 🙄

Originally posted by Eladar
Where does the Constitution say that all people have the right to get married?

How about the right to being respected?

It doesn't. It does say this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Originally posted by whodey
So people have the right to do what they want unless they charge money for a service?

Makes sense to me. 🙄

Are you saying that the States cannot regulate their internal commerce?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It doesn't.

I'm surprised you actually admitted that. Based on the fact that people do not have the right to be married, the Supreme Court's decision was not based on the Constitution.

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm surprised you actually admitted that. Based on the fact that people do not have the right to be married, the Supreme Court's decision was not based on the Constitution.

Maybe you should read the rest of the post.

The Constitution doesn't have to say you have a right in order for you to have it. According to the political philosophy of the Framers, if the Constitution had never been written, you'd still have all your Natural Rights.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you saying that the States cannot regulate their internal commerce?

No, SCOTUS said that, not me.

So what if there is a fee involved to marry two people? Would a church then be obligated to marry people?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Maybe you should read the rest of the post.

The Constitution doesn't have to say you have a right in order for you to have it. According to the political philosophy of the Framers, if the Constitution had never been written, you'd still have all your Natural Rights.

I read the rest of the post. It does not apply to the institution of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution.

If the courts want to give same sex couples legal rights, then create a new designation for such unions. I'd love to see that.

I thought we were supposed to be free from the combination of government and religion. As long as the government sanctions marriages we are not.

Originally posted by Eladar
I read the rest of the post. It does not apply to the institution of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution.

If the courts want to give same sex couples legal rights, then create a new designation for such unions. I'd love to see that.

I thought we were supposed to be free from the combination of government and religion. As long as the government sanctions marriages we are not.

Civil marriage is a government recognized contract, so your post is incorrect from the start.

Originally posted by whodey
No, SCOTUS said that, not me.

So what if there is a fee involved to marry two people? Would a church then be obligated to marry people?

They did? When?

I'm sure most churches do charge some kind of fee but they exempt anyway. Religions generally get preferred treatment in our system.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Civil marriage is a government recognized contract, so your post is incorrect from the start.

Civil marriages are performed by religious leaders and not civil servants.

That's not a combination of church and state?

When you get married in a church they do not give you the option of saying no to the civil aspect.

Originally posted by Eladar
Civil marriages are performed by religious leaders and not civil servants.

That's not a combination of church and state?

When you get married in a church they do not give you the option of saying no to the civil aspect.

Come now No1, why should a religious leader be given any public power?

Nothing that a religious leader does nor says should be totally ignored by the government. A religious leader should never be both a religious leader and a government official at the same time.