Ron Paul Gay Marriage Rulling Was A DEFEAT to The Constitution and Victory For BIG Government.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by DivineVictoryX, Jun 28, 2015.

  1. #1 DivineVictoryX, Jun 28, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2015
    Justin Amash's comments on Supreme Court marriage decision
    Throughout history, different cultures have defined marriage according to their own customs and practices. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists do not share identical views on marriage. In fact, significant differences regarding marriage exist even within Christianity.
    What makes marriage traditional is not its adherence to a universal definition but rather that it is defined by personal faith, not by government. For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution.
    Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation.
    Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.
    To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage-and the corresponding legal benefits that attach-as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.
    Justin Amash ✔@justinamash
    Government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in wh6
    UPDATE!!!
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Nas1g7sAA&feature=youtu.be
    There we go. Ron Paul Giving his take on it.
    Seriously everyone's celebrating Big Government. The Government shouldn't be doing this. Again Why Is the NDAA not ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

     
  2. ""Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.""

    These Christians keep missing the point...1) there are benefits to being legally married that have nothing to do with religion 2) it is none of their business who gets married and 3) their churches will not be forced to perform or respect gay marriage.

    This is not a Christian nation and citizens should not be held to one religious standard, especially when that standard is not conducive or respectful of the different types of people who pay taxes in this country.
     
  3. Not getting involved IS being very involved.


    Get it?

     
  4. The government has a legitimate interest in encouraging people to get married.




     
  5. To think that government is necessary to give legitimacy to a marriage is laughable.


    "Government"? -- you mean that institution that exists to coerce, plunder, destroy and kill? That institution that murdered upwards of 200 million people in the 20th century alone, excluding those killed in its wars?


    That institution whose employees are incentivized to lie, obfuscate, extort, mishandle, and become corrupt? Some of these same people vote themselves raises and very cushy benefits, all of which are taken by force from US taxpayers. Marriage needs the blessing of THESE people? [​IMG]



    As I recall, government only got involved in marriage after the "Civil" War in order to prevent blacks from marrying whites.

     
  6. Honestly can you just stop posting shit if you're not going to discuss it or add anything. Especially when there is already a thread you could of posted this in. I'm getting sick of seeing threads started by you. I know this sounds like a personal attack but seriously you need to start posting things in relevant threads instead of constantly starting new ones.
     
  7. Divine, you have posted 57 out of the last 119 posts or about 47%. If you could cut down a little bit it would be appreciated.
     
  8. [​IMG]


     
  9. definition of spamming

    -yuri
     
  10. #10 DivineVictoryX, Jun 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2015
    You and others here are missing the REAL argument, and that is regarding the 1st Amendment and states rights. The Supreme Court cannot create or change law by their ruling, period. Only the legislative branch, Congress, can do that. But Congress cannot make any law that violates freedom of religion. (1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law...."). This is the argument that the lawyers should have brought before SCOTUS regarding same sex marriage. The states and the people can choose to ignore SCOTUS by law. (See the 9th and 10th amendments.)
    Instead, Rick Snyder says "We'll uphold the SCOTUS ruling"? Thr statement that government cannot violate the equal rights of individuals will not stand because already governors and legislators such as Snyder are saying they will uphold the ruling of SCOTUS instead of doing the right thing and ignoring SCOTUS. The people of Michigan voted to ban same sex marriage. The people of the state of Michigan have spoken. What about the rights of the people of the state of Michigan? SCOTUS cannot void the laws of the state of Michigan and they certainly cannot rule against freedom of religion! I agree licensing marriage is wrong. A license is simply taking away a right, then selling it back to the people at a price. HOWEVER, there is still the issue of RIGHTS TO THE STATE!And what of freedom of religion? A small minority has created "mob rule". A small minority is now going to FORCE their beliefs on us.
    The problem is, most of the people of the United States have been dumbed down. They do NOT understand their rights or the law. It's time people start educating themselves on the laws established by the base law of the Constitution.Others should do the same. It's not complicated. All you have to do is read. James Madison believed in writing the laws so that the average person could read and understand them. Therefore, the argument is simple.Geez
     
  11. but not you

    Your awake. More awake than anyone!

    -yuri
     
  12. Divine: The reality of today is that government does whatever it thinks it can get away with, as long as the masses don't take to the streets.


    The Supreme Court is statist by nature, and will generally uphold any law that empowers the state.


    The Constitution is completely irrelevant. It is quoted by politicians when it suits their agenda and ignored when it doesn't.



    Once you accept that this is the way it is, you will feel much better.

     
  13. I'm just saying in general. The People here on this forum are awake.
     
  14. Being awake is exhausting.
     
  15. I like to consider myself awake but I absolutely prefer a good deep sleep.
     
  16. #16 Carne Seca, Jun 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2015
    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Coming from a Judge who sentence a married interracial couple to a year in jail or leave the state they lived in for 25 years. They came back 5 years later to visit relatives and were arrested. This led to Loving vs Virginia in which the SCOTUS ruled the state bans on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Interracial marriage was also considered wrong based on religious beliefs.


    Bible examples were used to justify and defend the institution of slavery and even claimed to be a divine right of Christianity. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to discriminate and infringe on the rights of others. We are a nation that has struggled with the definition of equality from its inception. We are not a Christian nation with Christian sharia laws. Christianity has forced itself into our laws for far too long. Separation of church and state was the intent of our founding fathers and it's time we started weeding out these discriminatory religious laws. Religion belongs in church. If your church is against LGBTQ marriage then that church doesn't have to marry LGBTQ's. Plain and simple.


    No one is forcing anything on anyone. We're just getting equal treatment under the law that is guaranteed by the Constitution. The SCOTUS simply upheld that guarantee.
     
  17. #17 NorseMythology, Jun 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2015
    The government has no business is marriage. The argument is often that nonlegally married couples dont get the benefits of legally married couples. Instead of attacking the root of the problem, the argument has been constantly framed as a benefits issue. Legally married people get insurance benefits, taxes credits, etc. Which incentivizes 'government sanctioned' marriages. When, in my opinion, the argument should be that no one receives special treatment, married or unmarried, parents or not.
     
  18. Wrong. The government issues marriage licenses and official documents, not the church.
     
  19. " The Supreme Court cannot create or change law by their ruling, period."
    This statement is blatantly just false. You are lying, not just misleading with this statement. The Supreme Court was created to protect minority groups against tyranny rule when they created legislation that unfairly targeted a minority group. In this case lawmakers were unfairly targeting homosexuals and not offering them the same benefits as heterosexuals. If you're gonna try to defend your argument using the constitution then maybe you should know what the fuck you are talking about instead of blindly relaying your propaganda.

    No one is violating freedom of religion. No church organization is going to be forced to marry gay people the same way no church has been forced in the last 40 years to marry interracial or divorced couples after the Supreme Court ruled bans on both types of marriage illegal. Is it really that big of a deal to not be able to discriminate against gay people. Religion doesn't give you the right to shit on a minority group. If you open a business to the public then you must be willing to serve all of the public, not just the parts you like.

    SCOTUS can void the laws of Michigan as we have seen historically over and over and over again because that is their point. They are there to protect minority groups from the whims of the populace as our founders intended. Arguing otherwise would just be arguing against history and fact. Please just stop posting if you have no idea what you are talking about. The simple fact as much as you want to pretend otherwise is that federal law supersedes state and the Supreme Court decides what is legal and illegal for the government to do ultimately unless the people explicitly amend the constitution. To claim that they can't strike down state law shows how truly ignorant you are and how you are willing to stick to your ideological nonsense in the face of cold hard facts.

    "A small minority has created "mob rule". A small minority is now going to FORCE their beliefs on us." This statement inherently contradicts itself and is wrong which is hilarious. Mob rule is by definition when a large mass of people blindly take control of a situation and assert themselves into control. Mob rule by definition requires a majority of a given people or at the very least usually a pretty big plurality and can't be a small group. Besides that the statement is just fear mongering. Of course the ruling forces beliefs onto people as it should.

    In the case of Loving vs Virginia I think pretty much everyone would be cool with the outcome of forcing people to believe interracial marriage should be legal. Protecting the civil rights of interracial couples was constitutionally the correct decision under the fourteenth amendment pretty much by any sane persons standards these days. Answer this direct question please and don't give me some weird straw man. Do you believe the Loving vs Virginia decision was right or wrong? Please explain to me how it's a stretch to say that the fourteenth amendment which essentially says all men and women are created equal that two consenting adults should be able to get married regardless of class, race, and now sex and receive access to important government benefits like power of attorney, the ability to visit in hospitals, and other powerful tax incentives. Do you recognize that homosexual people are equal to heterosexual people and deserve equal access to government benefits as heterosexual individuals based on the fourteenth amendment? Once again answer the question directly.

    "The problem is, most of the people of the United States have been dumbed down. They do NOT understand their rights or the law. It's time people start educating themselves on the laws established by the base law of the Constitution.Others should do the same. It's not complicated. All you have to do is read. James Madison believed in writing the laws so that the average person could read and understand them. Therefore, the argument is simple.Geez"

    I couldn't agree with this part anymore. It's sad how some ignorant people will talk about constitutional law as if they are some scholar and then show that they have a very remedial second grade level of understanding to fit their own ideological underpinnings (I'm talking about you in case you missed it). You are so wrong about constitutional law that it really is sad. I feel sad that there are people like yourselves who boil complex issues into silly talking points that aren't based in reality or actual historical decisions. Keep enjoying living in your fantasy land. I'll keep pointing how silly and completely out of touch with reality your thoughts are.

    TL;DR you are just plain wrong and misleading in pretty much every one of your assertions and statements.
     
  20. The government has a very good reason to be involved in marriage. Doing taxes would be a nightmare if marriage didn't exist. In addition there are several things that marriage being in the states hands is for the better. By having a marriage license you guarantee the ability to visit that person in the hospital, share paternal rights of an adopted child, and power of attorney which are all extremely important things to guarantee for individuals and the one person they love most. Pretending that these problems wouldn't exist or would be better solved any other way is silly. Please stop with this stupid argument that anti government people love to parade around. Please name me one real issue that has arisen from state licensing marriages? Cue the government has no right or need to be involved and we should leave it to the private sector talk.
     

Share This Page