Gay Marriage

[Ms Tree]

What rights are granted in the COTUS?

 

[PHXConx]

What rights are granted in the COTUS?

if there are no rights granted in cotus then what right is being violated in not allowing gay marriage?

 

[Ms Tree]

The 14th says all laws must treat everyone equally.  The ban against marriage equality violates that inalienable right.
 
In other words, the 14th limits the ability of government to pass laws restricting the rights of one group and not others.

 

[PHXConx]

The 14th says all laws must treat everyone equally.  The ban against marriage equality violates that inalienable right.
 
In other words, the 14th limits the ability of government to pass laws restricting the rights of one group and not others.

 
 
what inalienable right?  and you are confusing the constitution with the declaration of independence jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the constitution 
 
and the word you are looking for (the one jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence was unalienable not inalienable )
 
on one hand you say that the cotus doesnt grant rights, then you say not granting gay marriage is against an inalienable right that you say that the cotus doesnt grant...
 
im just trying to see how you want to have your cake and eat it too.. its like someone took over your AF account for a minute..   i mean have you read the bill of rights do you know their purpose?  

 

[Ms Tree]

The inalienable right to live ones life without government interference.
 
The COTUS does not grant rights (you still have not pointed out where it does).  The 14th restricts the ability of government to pass laws that treat people/groups differently.
 
I did not say anything about 'granting gay marriage'.  I said the govt cannot pass laws denying rights to certain people. 

 

[SparrowHawk]

The COTUS in many ways assumes that you have the right to your  Life Liberty & Property as well as the right to defend them. These fundamental rights are not conferred upon you by any man or government. You are born with them. Only man through unjust laws can take them from your as a man only has those rights which he can defend. (2nd Ammentment)
 
Tin side of the fundamental right to life and liberty confers upon you the right to live as you choose.
 
The appropriate role of government is to presever those rights.

 

[Ms Tree]

Try convincing PHX of that.  He seems to be under the impression that the COTUS grants rights.

 

[PHXConx]

The inalienable right to live ones life without government interference.
 
first of all like i said before cotus doesnt have the word inalienable or unalienable in them, it is  not tied to the declaration of independence in any way..   
 
The COTUS does not grant rights (you still have not pointed out where it does).  The 14th restricts the ability of government to pass laws that treat people/groups differently.
 
you say it doesnt, but then say it does im trying to understand your point.. you pointed to jefferson's words written in a writ of grievances to the King, as to how the writers (not jefferson) felt about the rights inputted into the Constitution..  Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being written, he had nothing to do with it..  
 
the constitution enumerates the rights you have... lets go back to the original question i asked and you keep misconstruing shall we?
 
 

 
 

so the rights contained in the constitution arent granted to people?  are you batty?

 
 
the problem is, is you cant read... the problem  is you misconstrue what i said from the get go, and continue to do so... 
 
 
I did not say anything about 'granting gay marriage'.  I said the govt cannot pass laws denying rights to certain people. 

they cant? what about prisoners? what about felons?  what about people in the military???(who by law do not have the same rights as civilians (and rightfully so)  
 
if what you say is true then explain the necessity the founders had for the 9th amendment?  if the rights were unalienable(or your inalienable its funny you say that he wrote it in previous versions is your arugment that jefferson didnt mean unalienable because he wrote inalienable in previous versions? seriously?) then what was the necessity of the 9th amendment?  wouldnt it have been obvious and the necessity of the 9th amendment moot?  even the founders who wrote the bill of rights knew that nothing counts unless its in writing... which was the point of the entire bill of rights in the first place.... 
 
im a proponent for gay marriage you know this, ive written in favor of it in this very thread, but gay marriage bans are not violations of the 14th amendment 
 
a straight man can not marry another man either... this would only be a violation if a straight man was given the ability to marry a man...  straight people are just as restricted as gay people...  neither can marry a member of the same sex...  so there are no rights being violated...  equal protection is not being violated... 
 
gay people are not being told they cant marry someone of the opposite sex.. if they were it would be a violation of equal protection rights of the 14th amendment..  
 
its funny hearing an atheist argue that rights are granted not by the constitution but by a creator... im agnostic sweetheart trying to get me into the creator argument is really pointless another reason why you are a giant hypocrite.  

 

[PHXConx]

Try convincing PHX of that.  He seems to be under the impression that the COTUS grants rights.

you really need to learn to read what is written not what you think is being said... 

 

[Ms Tree]

so the rights contained in the constitution arent granted to people?  are you batty?

So what rights are in the COTUS?

 

[PHXConx]

So what rights are in the COTUS?

so you dont think that cotus enumerates rights?  it says so in the document
 
you have read the 1st 2nd 4th 6th 7th 9th  amendments right
 
THEY  AND THE OTHER 4 AMENDMENTS THAT DONT SAY SPECIFICALLY RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE ARE OR PLAINLY "RIGHT" ARE    COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS  BILL OF RIGHTS  FFS 
 
But according to tree there is no rights enumerated in the COTUS, none at all,, thats why the 9th amendment is a moot point if there were no rights enumerated in the COTUS, why is it there??? you still havent answered that question... still waiting 

 

[Ms Tree]

Let's start with the 1st one.
 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 

 
 
I see where it says Congress may not pass any law prohibiting the rights of people.  Nothing in the first grants any right.  The COTUS assumes that people have natural rights or inalienable rights.  
 
Can you please point out where the COTUS where it grants the right to speech? 
 
Perhaps this site will explain it better.  The COTUS protects peoples rights from the government, it does not grant rights.  It is a significant difference.
 
Not sure why you are latched on to the DoI.  The idea of inalienable rights extends beyond just the DoI.  It is fundamental in how the COTUS was formed and it's purpose.
 
As for same sex marriage, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.  It has to do with same sex marriage.  Whether a straight wants to marry a straight is irrelevant.  
 
I guess you can argue the 14th point with all the judges that have ruled that it does violate the 14th.  
 
People who want to marry someone of the same gender are being told that they may not enter in to a contract that other people are allowed to enter into.  That is seen by the courts as a violation of the 14th.  I'm willing to bet that when the SCOTUS rules on this and finally invalidates all the bans on same sex marriage that the 14th will be the primary reason in their decision.
 
Who said anything about a creator?  I know I never did.  I said that people have natural/inalienable rights.  Talk about reading problems.

 

[delldude]

never say never....
 
 
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html
 
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie
The officers got the wrong man, but charged him anyway—with getting his blood on their uniforms. How the Ferguson PD ran the town where Michael Brown was gunned down.
 

 
Did the blacks in Ferguson burn the town down then too?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Well, the SCOTUS decided to send a message by not deciding.

It was interesting doing some research and hearing the talking points of some after this event.

I will just say this:

Loving v. Virginia

 

[Ms Tree]

I think that the SCOTUS knows which way they have to rule and I'm willing to bet they just don't want to do it.  I think they are going to wait for enough states to legalize marriage equality and then just rule to to allow it using the rational that reversing the decisions would disrupt the lives of all the couples that have taken advantage of the reversals.
 
The political benefit is this keeps the issue alive politically which is helping divide the republicans.
 
The bad part of course is that is denies equality to a segment of society.