Arkansas Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 7 months ago to News
120 comments | Share | Flag

The ruling is expected to be appealed Arkansas' Supreme Court.

I wonder, how many more of these cases do we have to have before the Supreme Court just gets tired of it and passes a nationwide ruling?
SOURCE URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arkansas-judge-strikes-gay-marriage-ban-23663030


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
    This is all a specious situation. Marriage is not a federal matter, period. Remove it from all federal level matters - DOMA was unconstitutional as there is no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. Remove all benefits from the tax code. Leave this to the individual states, where if it is not explicitly identified, then it should be left to the people. If people want to enter contractual relationships, let them do so - M/F, M/M, F/F, M/FF, MMM, etc. etc, etc. Let contract law deal with it.

    Hiraghm - while I do agree that the natural relationship is at least one male and at least one female to foster pro-creation, that is less of a need in our modern, non-agrarian society. For economic growth we do need population growth, but without economic security, that is not going to happen of its own. We will only grow via immigration - with peoples looking to make a better life here than they could in their native land. Thus, we need to revamp our immigration system - no, not let in illegals, but change the levels of permissible immigrants of all abilities.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years, 7 months ago
      Very much agree!

      Like you thought lines:
      Economic growth requires population growth. Interesting hypothesis, what do you base it on?
      Immigration (not procreation) is the means to achieve it. I like the immigration approach, since I believe (don't know) that there are way too many people in the world, and no checks on human population. Immigration got us all kinds of growth before. The problem might be the potential stress on the welfare system, if the drivers from Ellis Island on aren't there this time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
        The US economy is driven at about 2/3 by consumer spending. This is also affected by spending by age - with the greatest spending occurring by people in their 40's (due to having children, having reached a level of competency in their work field where they get larger pay increases relative to fixed expenditures, thus allowing for more discretionary spending and upgrades to things like housing, cars, and acquisition of things like boats and motorcycles).

        If the overall population stalls, then there will be less spending, thus less growth. After WWII we had an explosion of birth (the baby boom). The economy of the '70's was as much a function of the decline in births during the depression and WWII as it was the oil shock. Likewise the economic boom of the 90's was as much a function of the baby boomers reaching their 40's as it was any governmental policy (no, it wasn't Clinton economic policy, nor the R budget compromises of the later '90's, although those things helped).

        We are in a slump because us BBers have passed our peak spending and our children are still a decade away from their peak spending. We will remain in this stagnant economy until the mid '20's. It is too late to break this cycle with immigration, as spending is not merely a function of age, but of peak productivity. Those that haven't gained the skills and capabilities to be worth increased pay won't get it. Merely picking fruits and vegetables won't garner the increases in wages that will sustain increased spending. Had we allowed immigration of those in their early 20's and provided them small business loans back in the '90's, those immigrants would now be bolstering the economy - having bridged the gap between the BBers and their children. As it is, we've basically only "allowed" in those with low skills and little possibility for economic growth. This has been shortsighted and economically stupid.

        I'm not sure how you come up with there being too many people on the earth. If you gave every human being 100 sq ft of living space, you could fit every man/woman/child currently living into the state of Texas. There's plenty of room. There are also plenty of resources, although not well distributed and managed due to gov't interference.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment deleted.
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
            Not true. About 2/3 of all spending is related to consumer spending - including the B2B transactions that occur in order to satisfy consumer goods demand.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment deleted.
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                I don't know where you get your "information" but it is wrong.

                "Consumer Spending By JLP | April 15, 2010 Consumer spending has always been an important part of our nation’s GDP. In fact, consumer spending currently makes up about 70% of the GDP. That’s a lot."

                http://allfinancialmatters.com/2010/04/1...

                I don't have time to continue to educate you, as you clearly don't seem to want to become knowledgeable about the economy. Read the link and some other articles on economics before you come here to display your ignorance again.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
          this is confusing cause/effect. Economists attempt to measure economic output through spending. But spending is consumption not production. as a result, people have suggested the economy is made up of 2/3 consumer spending-this is has led to the absurd Keynsian notion that encouraging consumer spending increases the economy. This is a major Rush Limbaugh pushed concept as well. This has proven wrong-by many such experiments such as increasing food stamps, tax rebates, cash for clunkers-it is analogous to the broken window fallacy. We are in a slump due to socialist driven policies. period.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 7 months ago
            K, isn't it the leftists who claim that food stamps & cash for clunkers spur the economy forward? and Reagan did it with reduced taxes with the reins held relatively tight on federal spending? I believe that Rush submits a Reagan argument, lamenting the heavy excessive spending by the feds & saying that it must subside. -- j
            p.s. it's sickening that "the world" [e.g. the Pope] is beginning to call for Wealth Redistribution, not just income redistribution ... and we all know, here, that all the wealth in the world couldn't fix these fascist and socialist policies -- just look at Haiti !!!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
              Reagan said give people the power to produce. That is very different from a consumption argument. For example, currently in Venezuela, people can purchase-there are no goods. The ability to consume is universal-if you are alive, you will consume. at what rates, well that's dependent on lots of factors. The ability to produce is the crux....
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
        IT is true that increases in population is at least somewhat helpful in increasing per capita income due the ability to specialize etc. If the population density is too small, it does inhibit economic growth. Other factors are so much larger.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
          It is more than "somewhat," and is well demonstrated with economic spending related to age/productivity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment deleted.
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
              Ignorant statement. Increased farm workers does not lead to greater productivity, thus no increase in the available funds to spend on increases in consumer goods. Merely subsistence goods. Only technology leads to greater productivity.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
                Disagree. A larger population base does lead to specialization. See Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". The reason is because with the higher population come a higher variety of demands and the specialization (either technological or skill-based) that allows one person to serve the similar needs of more people than they could without specialization. That means that the specialized individual can earn a higher return on investment. There is no doubt that technology simplifies and facilitates the process of specialization, but it is people that lead to technology - not the other way 'round.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                  Nope. Look at what happens in your community during changes in the economic cycle. When things are good, you will see businesses that specialize to smaller and smaller slices of activity. When economic downturns occur you see businesses broaden their activity. This has nothing to do with how many people or businesses there are, rather it is a matter of survival. With plenty, everyone gets an adequate amount from a smaller slice. With little, it takes a much larger slice to get the same amount.

                  You can find huge farms and small farms each employing itinerant workers. Neither the large nor the small has specialized workers, they just pick whatever it is that needs to be picked.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
                    You misunderstand basic economics. If you look at the businesses that suffer during an economic downturn, it is primarily those who serve luxury or needs higher on the pyramid according to Maslow's hierarchy. Basic goods such as food and gas are the last to take it in the shorts, while luxury goods are the first. It has everything to do with which market you specialize in. I would also keep in mind that the baseline is the ability to serve basic needs - not luxury goods. When an economy contracts - just like the body when it gets cold - blood flow concentrates on the core and the extremities suffer. Business is in no form different.

                    Your farming example is a poor one to illustrate any point other than scale, as they are doing the same jobs - you're comparing the same specialists in the same market segment. If you were to compare a mechanical harvester against harvesting by hand, THAT would be an example of specialization.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                      Actually, a worker on a mechanical harvester is an example of the use of technology. An example of specialization for a farm laborer would be one who only picks tomatoes or strawberries.

                      As for luxury items, you are mistaken here. They are rarely ever affected by a downturn in the economy, as the rich are the only ones who have the means of purchasing more than subsistence. Those who serve the uber rich (the artists, the bankers, the jewelers, etc.) feel less of an impact than those providing mass market goods in a downturn. In fact, the goods that you cite (food and gas) are some of the first goods that are affected in a downturn.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
                        Yes, the uber rich are less affected by a temporary market downturn. Their reserves allow them to weather temporary fluctuations, there is no doubt. For the middle and lower classes who have substantially lower reserves, they are affected to a greater degree, and so are the businesses whom they serve.

                        The problem with your argument is that you fail to take into account an economic measure known as elasticity. Elasticity is a measure of the change in demand for a given product or service relative to a price change. A purely elastic good's price responds immediately and commensurately with the increase or decrease in demand: increase in demand leads to increase in price and vice-versa. Consumer electronics are an example of an elastic good. Luxury products such as automobiles are an outstanding example of an elastic good.

                        Inelastic goods are priced mostly based on supply, as the demand for such is relatively stable, such as fuel and food. Every economics textbook I own uses gasoline as the quintessential example of an inelastic good because there is relatively constant demand regardless of the price of the good. It takes a pretty substantial price increase to force us to decrease our consumption of fuel. Fuel has doubled in price in the past 10 years, yet consumption has remained on a pretty consistent upward trajectory. http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_...

                        The same can be seen with food, whose prices have similarly gone up, as with this example of milk: http://nypost.com/2014/03/17/milk-prices... This despite the government subsidies being given to milk producers to artificially keep prices low. As a derivative, check out cheese prices, as they are the highest they've been in decades. Bacon prices are over $6/lb, and beef prices are up as well even though supply is only slightly down (demand hasn't substantially changed).

                        I work in the food service industry and see billions of dollars in transactions. If what you were saying was true, there would be a lower demand given the economy and prices would be stable in areas of falling supply and falling in areas of excess supply. That simply is not the case, and all one has to do is look at their grocery bills over the past 10 years as further proof. (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost) Have you been out to eat lately? It's pretty hard to go to a restaurant for <$25 a couple - before drinks and tip.

                        I highly recommend that you reassess your premises and their sources.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                          Gasoline is inelastic only in the very short term (and even then, it has elastic properties) and in the very long term. If gas prices jump during the week, I'm unlikely to make much of a change if I believe that they will come back down shortly (say there was a refinery fire or a tanker train accident). But then look at how peoples attitudes change when gas prices are expected to stay high (or have stayed high) for a long while, they stop taking long trips or find ways to car pool or take the bus. In the very long term, it becomes inelastic again as people make other compromises to other items in their budget.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
                          "Actually, a worker on a mechanical harvester is an example of the use of technology. An example of specialization for a farm laborer would be one who only picks tomatoes or strawberries."

                          You misunderstand the concept of labor differentiation, then. Differentiation is based on HOW you do the job - such as utilizing technology or machines - not what job you are doing. It doesn't matter whether you are picking strawberries or carrots - if you are doing it by hand, you are not differentiated at all from another laborer using their hands. Differentiation is a matter of process control, not inputs or outputs.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                          The problem with your analysis is that it is based on a rational economic model. We are living in an irrational economy. There is way more money being created. That money is not going to the consumers equally, if it were, we'd have a good amount of inflation.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
                            You are correct in pointing out that our economy is a mess. And contrary to what you assert - economies are entirely rational. I think what you meant to say was that the market manipulations (via government policy) prevent the market from acting in a rational manner, and I agree. This can not last forever, however. It is like an earthquake building up pressure along a fault line - they are trying to prevent the slippage from happening and actually creating a much worse disaster when it does go! Even the Federal Reserve Board has admitted as much when they admitted that Quantitative Easing could not be used as an indefinite solution to the problem of too much debt.

                            Our economy is a mess because we are using fiat currency which can be (and is being) manipulated by the Federal Reserve and the politicians. They are propping up the banking industry and their own deficit spending. The only reason the money hasn't made it into the economy in general is two reasons I can see: one: it is fake money that only the Fed can use, and they are using it to buy up US debt, therefore the majority never makes it into the general money supply - it sits as an asset on the balance sheets of the Fed! Second, banks and businesses alike are hoarding cash because there is no investment vehicle right now which presents a favorable risk for return - especially in the long-term markets - and the interest rate is so low right now that there is literally zero (and sometimes even a net loss) in in short-term investments. Businesses aren't even investing in capital (property, plants, equipment) or people either because of the general volatility introduced by the aggregate of all these policies and the additional taxes and wage uncertainty (minimum wages + insurance) are such wildcards that the only hedge against these risks is to stockpile funds.

                            The general result is that in order for businesses to return to business as usual, the whole environment for business has to stabilize - money printing must stop to stabilize currency value. Debt must stop accruing - especially given the inevitable rise in interest rates. Capital costs can not be made subject to the whims of central planners - ie Obamacare must go.

                            Barring those, I am afraid that it is only a matter of time before the faultline slips and reminds us that we can not neglect the laws of nature - whether economic or natural without reaping the consequences. And the consequences keep building at an alarming pace.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                              Fiat currency is in and of itself not the problem. If the money supply had been maintained at a rational rate of growth, there would be no problem. It is the political manipulations (or manipulations to support political objectives - which ever way you want to look at it) that have caused the issue.

                              Look at bitcoin. It is also a fiat currency. I don't believe that it is beyond manipulation, but those who created it and support it do. It supposedly has a mechanism that will only allow a slow increase and that it is limited. If those are true, then it will be able to function as a stable store of wealth for those who accept it. As would any like item.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
            spending is not production, it is consumption. "Eat Your seedcorn!"
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
              See my other comment. When you spend, you consume, which requires production. No, it's not a perfect measure, but it's adequate enough.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                you're not listening to the seed corn argument. consumption does not cause production. Production precedes consumption in all cases. are you a Keynsian? I did not think so...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                  No, no Keynesian here. How do you figure that consumption doesn't cause production? All rational economic theory shows that it does. Of course, there needs to be resources to allow consumption, thus you have to have increasing wealth, which only occurs with increasing efficiency of production. Thus, as people become more productive, they are worth more and get paid more. With more pay, there is generally more consumption (although depending on the interest rate, there may be more savings, but that has rarely been the case). The more consumption causes an imbalance in the supply, which results in more production - either from the same suppliers at a higher price, or with more producers which drives the prices back down. Too much supply drives the price down, making the profitability of the items less desirable, and tending to decrease supply.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment deleted.
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                      You just used the argument to prove my point. 'nuff said. Higher productivity is worth more, and leads to higher wages. Thanks for proving me right.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                    if consumption leads production, then everyone would be infinitely wealthy because there is an infinite desire for goods and services. Rearden had plenty of wealth for his basic needs, he did not produce Rearden Metal because someone demanded it, he produced it because he wanted to create something. according to your theory O. Boyle could have also been the producer/creator. everyone has needs, that does not equate with those willing to produce. this is keynsian nonsense. President Obama is looking for advisers just like you
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                      You haven't read my posts very carefully. There must be an increase in productivity which leads to an increase in wages. Then, with increased discretionary funds, increased consumption occurs. But the increased productivity is neither consumption nor production based. It is technology based. But demand (supported by increases in disposable income) will always drive supply.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
                        my point is still valid. This idea that 2/3 of the economy is driven by consumer spending is confusing cause with effect.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
                          What do you think is confusing?

                          There is never perfect production/consumption responses. There will always be instances of over-production (in which case prices will be reduced or the business falters), and other instances of over-consumption (also known as under-production) in which cases prices will rise and/or other producers will enter the market to make up for the increased demand.

                          Look at it this way - your kids decide to start up a lemon aid stand. You had previously procured the ingredients as just a normal expenditure (sunk costs). They make the pitcher and set up a card table. Still no increase in economic activity has occurred. Only when the first customer approaches the stand and asks for a lemon-aid and pays for it, is there any economic activity. After a few customers, they need to replenish their pitcher, but you are out of ingredients, so you all go to purchase more. This is new activity, not sunk costs, so counts in the economic cycle. As they get more productive (let's say they figure out how to get more flavoring from the lemons, somehow, so now they have lower costs per pitcher. Their innovation now provides them the ability to not only buy more ingredients, but to purchase some gum in addition. So, an increase in consumer spending has occurred - now the grocer has had increased economic activity, again fueled by consumption which was made possible by increased efficiency brought about by increased technology/innovation.

                          That's the only way the system works. If you tried to run it by first pushing production, it doesn't work. Let's say that you had no existing raw materials, so you have to go procure them. Now you've only moved the cycle of economic activity upstream to you being the consumer of the grocer, which then starts the cycle anew. Production is a response to consumption, not the other way around.

                          Take another example - a farmer. This farm is totally self-sustaining neither purchasing nor selling. The farmer can produce as much as possible over his own consumption needs but no economic activity ensues despite how much he produces. Only when a consumer comes and actually purchases something does economic activity occur. You might say that the farmer must produce more than he needs in the first place for him to be able to sell some. That is not accurate - nor is it logical. It takes resources to produce (time, energy, etc.). Unless there is an expectation of sales, there will not be additional production. In most cases, the first purchase occurs as a deficit to the producer.

                          Think of your own book. You might think that you produced it prior to any consumption, but you did so with an expectation of consumption. You might be wrong, but the activity started with the expectation of consumption.

                          You seem to be mixing up level of consumption with consumption as the driving force of an economy. People may have unlimited levels of desired consumption, but they do not have unlimited assets to satisfy that desire. As I've said innumerable times, with increased efficiency comes increased income which leads to increased consumption (or savings, which fuels other producers).
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
        population does not need to be "controlled." We can easily slip back into the Malthusian Trap if you'd like...
        I also tend to disagree that economic growth requires population growth. In fact, there are studies that show, changes to economic growth increases, lead to population decreases. For example, professional couples waiting longer to start a family or choose not to have a family in advancing their careers. The Malthusian Trap leads to increses in population because of starvation/disease rates. The more children you have, the chances increase you have someone to take care of you in old age, more hands to work for the family. That, of course, is part of the trap. This is separate from a religious doctrine encouraging large families for the success of the religion. See Brazil and Spain and huge child homeless/orphan populations
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
          You're getting your cause/effect mixed up. Yes, as an economy grows, that often leads to delays in birth. But that is a consequence of the affluence, not a cause for the economic growth. It ultimately has a negative effect when those parents reduce their spending, and before the children reach peak spending.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 7 months ago
      But Robbie, the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under law. Same sex couples simply want the same thing heterosexual couples want. When they get married they want it to be the same, accepted in other states the same way, etc.

      Another example is that one is qualified in all states if one has driving privileges in one.

      I'd also like to see that if a permit to carry is issued in one jurisdiction it is good all across America.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
        But the laws have to have a basis in powers enumerated in the constitution. Marriage isn't one of those powers. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment clearly is.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          The issue here is not about a law, it's about a right, which means it falls under The Ninth Amendment:

          "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
            To show just how ignorant you are - your cited statement itself says that this is not a federal "right" that is dictated by the constitution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 7 months ago
          You seem to have overlooked: "The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage. "

          Note the word "also."

          That's from: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
        Yes, just try to concealed carry with your permit from your local state in Chicago, NYC, or Wash DC and see how much credit your local CC permit is given.

        I'll say it again, Marriage is not a federal issue. It should be eliminated from all federal policies and regulations. It is at most a state issue, and if not specifically enumerated by a state constitution, then it is an issue of the people and should be dealt with via contract law - period.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Rights are always a federal issue. If a state is violating the rights of its citizens, the federal government needs to get involved.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 7 months ago
          Robbie, there is a big difference between what I would like to see and what I will do.

          I won't "try" to carry outside my issuing jurisdiction except in those places where there is a reciprocal agreement in place.

          But, although I appreciate your insistence upon State's rights we do need some standardization from Federal government or there will be chaos. The best example is gun control.

          However, in marriage specifically, as a mobile society someone married in MA should not have to get another contract when they move to another state.

          That's why the Federal Government needs some power. Also states should not be able to set salaries, or any other part of contracts with government employees, including military. Again, chaos.

          Driving is another example. If I want to go to Chicago I don't need to take a driving test in Chicago just do visit. They accept my home state license.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
          I'll say it again...

          ALL CC LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

          Unlike the 1st Amendment, the 2nd is an absolute:

          "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - 2ND

          "Congress shall make no law respecting..." 1ST

          The 1st explicit restricts Congress, the 2nd restricts EVERYBODY.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Notperfect 10 years, 7 months ago
    Not long because it was prophesied. Read Genesis 19 whole chapter about Sodom and Gomorrah. In the end times it will be as in the times of Noah. God promised not to flood the earth again, but the next time it would rain down fire from heaven as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. I realize some will disagree because of their own reasons. I can except that. The day will come and judgement will come. The main thing is I will not be standing alongside anyone on that day as all will stand by themselves to give their own account. Federal law should not trump the law of individuals. Used to many years ago you did not have to even get a license to marry. More trampling on of the American individual.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starguy 10 years, 7 months ago
    Why is it the government's business, anyway?

    Assuming we are talking about consenting adults, I might add.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
      It's not. But so many want it to be. Both the straights and the gays. But neither is correct. This is not a fed gov't issue.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
        It *shouldn't* be a gov't issue, but there are so many people who, in order to worship at the altar of "equality" are trying to legislate absurdity... insanity.

        If we could rely on SCOTUS, legislature and executive to throw the religion of equality in the toilet where it belongs, and use rational, sane, reason, there would be no issue, period.

        Unfortunately, because we can't rely on that, we have this battle on our hands.

        It's the left who made it a federal issue, for the purpose of destroying American culture.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
        Rights are always a federal issue.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
          Not so. Only those enumerated in the Constitution. Please take a constitution course (and read some history - any history).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
            You might want to read the Constitution....

            Either rights are never a federal issue...
            Or all rights are a federal issue.

            Read the 9th Amendment, the one everyone skips over in order to rush to the 10th and trade 1 tyranny for 50 tyrannies.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
            No, rights are always a federal issue. Yes, all of them. Always. The Ninth Amendment specifically says so.

            The passage about limiting federal powers to those specifically enumerated is exactly that: a limitation on powers. It is NOT a limitation on which rights the federal government is allowed to review, and to interpret it that way is to distort the meaning and intention of the Constitution, and thereby allow tyranny to reign at the state level.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
              9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

              So, they are retained by the people. They are not conferred by the federal government. Therefore, they are not a federal issue.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 7 months ago
    why do so many have a concern about who one lets touch their private parts?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 7 months ago
      Well... Kids need to be protected.

      But for consenting adults I can only think that those who are trying to control others are somehow perverted. Why should anyone care what consenting adults do behind closed doors? I think voyeurism is kinda sick.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
        If they would keep it behind closed door, no one would care.

        If they didn't insist everyone has to agree that abnormal sexual attractions and activities were normal and healthy, nobody would care.

        Here, let me share an Ayn Rand quote with you:
        "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

        Ayn Rand

        Saying "why do so many have a concern about who one lets touch their private parts?" is the equivalent of taking the middle. It's not saying that sexual deviancy is just as valid and good as sexual normalcy, and it's not saying that sexual deviancy is... deviancy. It's saying, "you shouldn't care about what you can't see".
        Or, alternatively, "Everyone should live like a Bugblatter beast of Traal, or *they're* the ones with the problem."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 7 months ago
    Once more an example of time and energy wasted on a non-issue. As Robbie illustrates the problem could and should be solved and chucked aside so the real issues can be dealt with.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Non-issue? Funny how the only ones saying that are the people it doesn't affect...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 7 months ago
        Maphesdus:
        By a non-issue, I mean that it is not the province of the Feds or for that matter even the states. Marriages can be performed by those qualified to do so. If it is not recognized by the gov(s) that can be rectified with a will or other legal documents. Gay marriage is neither a life or death, nor an economic situation. If legislators want to use their time wisely, they should focus on those more imperative issues. Let's leave marriage, gay or otherwise up to the two people involved and the business of governing to those elected to do just that and that only.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Actually, there are many, many legal issues attached to marriage which cannot be solved with a simple will or other legal documentation, at least under our current system.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
          No.

          In the words of Jean Luc Picard: The line must be drawn HERE.

          There is no such thing as "gay marriage"... or otherwise. It is an oxymoron.

          I will not leave it up to the two people involved. Because the next step will be to involve 3 or 4 or 5 people, and after that animals or computers or ideas or anything else to destroy the institution of marriage and turn the nation into a Humpty Dumpty country where, like the Party in "1984", the cultural powers that be can redefine any aspect of society almost at will to suit whatever purpose they choose... or no purpose beyond the raw power to do so.

          Marriage MEANS something. It saddens me that people whose philosophy is based on reason are so ready to equivocate with absurdity. But then, AR was guilty of the same type of errors.


          "We had a form of social contract that we called 'marriage,' but it wasn't the same thing as marriage was in the old days. There was no love. There used to be a crime called 'adultery,' but even the word had gone out of use on the Earth I knew. Instead, it was considered antisocial for a woman to refuse to give herself to other men; to do so might indicate that she thought herself superior or thought her husband to be superior to other men. The same thing applied to men in their relationships with women other than their wives. Marriage was a social contract that could be made or broken at the whim of the individual. It served no purpose because it meant nothing, neither party gained anything by the contract that they couldn't have had without it. But a wedding was an excuse for a gala party at which the couple were the center of attention. So the contract was entered into lightly for the sake of a gay time for a while, then broken again so that the game could be played with someone else—the game of Musical Bedrooms." - from The Highest Treason by Eric Frank Russel... a narrative by the greatest and most self-sacrificing hero ever conceived in literature.

          http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24302/243...
          http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24302?ms...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
        Societal change affects everyone. It is a completely false argument to say that change to the fundamental structure and nature of society doesn't affect everyone.

        The question is more one of how any change to society gets effected and who has a say in the process. To that end, I'm with Robbie - because the Federal Government has no enumerated power to regulate marriage, it should keep its hands off - including the Federal Court system.

        Yes, I understand that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to arbitrate disputes between the states, but that is not what it has been doing. The Federal Courts have been assuming a responsibility to rule on a matter where they themselves have no jurisdiction - not to mention invalidating the duly passed laws of an individual state.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          The Federal government has an enumerated power to decide whether or not a state government is violating the individual rights of its citizens, and to override the decision of the state government if it is doing so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
            The federal government does not have the power to decide what constitutes a right - rights are explicitly enumerated as Amendments. If it is NOT explicitly enumerated as a right, the Tenth Amendment specifically reserves the right for all such matters to be defined by the States until such time as another Amendment is added enumerating a specific right and designating the Federal Government as the arbiter of such.

            This was the great debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over Federalism and it is the primary reason why the Constitution initially deferred to the States. Over the passage of time, the Federal Government has usurped the powers once exercised by the States by misapplication of either the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause, but these usurpations are not justified by the Constitution itself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
              Actually, I misstated things. Rights are RECOGNIZED and protected from encroachment by the Federal Government via Amendments. They are rights regardless. The Amendments prohibit the Federal Government from infringing - they in no way grant power to determine rights to the Federal Government.

              All that aside, a contract is not a right.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
    So your strategy to destroy American society is a war of attrition...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Destroy American society? What could be more American than equal rights under the law?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
        There's nothing inherently American in embracing absurdity.

        If you really want equal rights under the law, then recognize marriage between humans and animals, and humans and inanimate objects. No argument you can make against these can't also be made against homosexual "marriage". The specious argument that inanimate objects don't have rights, animals don't have rights, and neither can consent is irrelevant, because a single (or multiple, come to think of it) humans ARE involved and they DO have "equal rights"; you can't justify denying their "equal rights" just because creatures or objects which *don't* have equal rights can't give consent. Their consent isn't needed.

        Suppose one is sexually attracted to goats. If one is put in the hospital, one's goat/lover cannot come visit him/her, because right now s/he's not allowed to marry his goat/lover. Who are homosexuals to judge one's love of one's goat/lover as somehow less deserving of acceptance and recognition than their own love of their partners in anal spelunking?

        The flaw in your premise is the suggestion that people with abnormal sexual appetites constitute a separate race and/or sex. They don't. A person suffering from homosexuality can marry now, today. They have equal rights.

        What they don't have is legal pandering to their abnormality.

        You know this, but you're going to continue to sing this one off-key note until the grownups get so tired of it they give in, and let you destroy American society to satiate your perversity.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Actually, there is an argument I can make against those other things that can't be made against same-sex marriage, which is that sexual orientation is controlled by biology, and can only be naturally directed at other human beings. Therefore, it is not a violation of anyone's rights to forbid a marriage between a man and a rock, because it is not possible for biology to instill such an attraction in a person, while it IS possible for biology to make a person attracted to members of the same sex.

          I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your nonsense strawman arguments.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
            " and can only be naturally directed at other human beings.*of the opposite sex*"

            There, FIFY.

            sexual attraction to members of the same sex is no more natural than sexual attraction to rocks.

            Biology does make mistakes, but rational people don't insist that they are not mistakes. Lactose Intolerance, allergies, cleft palates, sickle-cell anemia, these are caused by biology, but they are not "natural".

            With apologies to khalling, she may not want to read on...

            You simply cannot fathom... penis -&gt; vagina in order to make babies. The function is to make babies; if a person is sterile, there is something WRONG with him, just as if a person is attracted to something other than a mature member of the opposite sex. The solution is NOT to convince him that he's fertile, but to repair what's broken.
            If a man is impotent, the solution is to address the cause of his impotence, if possible, not to convince him that his middle finger is the same as a penis.

            Sexual desire and romantic feelings do not exist so we can have fun, get high on endorphins, or argue on the internet. They exist to promote... not ensure... the perpetuation of the species.

            There is no reconciliation between that mandate and abnormal sexual desires or romantic feelings.

            No one is saying you *can't* put your penis wherever you like (provided any other humans involved are willing and cooperative). All most of us require is that you cease demanding that we equate your messed up attractions, however they are derived, with the natural, necessary, mating behavior of men and women.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
              " and can only be naturally directed at other human beings.*of the opposite sex*"

              There, FIFY.

              Biology does make mistakes, but rational people don't insist that they are not mistakes. Lactose Intolerance, allergies, cleft palates, sickle-cell anemia, these are caused by biology, but they are not "natural".
              ---
              Actually no, you didn't fix it for me, you just denied scientific evidence. Sexual orientation is controlled by biology, which means it must be subject to mutation and deviation, just like every other aspect of biology.

              As for all those other things, actually yes, I would say they are all natural, as well. Abnormal, sure, but not unnatural. There is absolutely nothing "unnatural" about genetic mutations. In fact, nothing could be more natural. Mutation is the fundamental key to evolution. Without it, life could not exist. Just because a particular character trait is uncommon, that doesn't make it unnatural. That which is uncommon is every bit as much a product of nature as that which is common. The common and the uncommon are both controlled by nature, and are both derived from it.

              "I don't really have a word for 'unnatural.' I say, 'if nature permits it, it is natural. If nature doesn't permit it, you can't do it.' You may not be familiar with the fact that nature allows that, but the fact of your unfamiliarity doesn't make it unnatural."
              ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
                "Actually no, you didn't fix it for me, you just denied scientific evidence. Sexual orientation is controlled by biology, which means it must be subject to mutation and deviation, just like every other aspect of biology.
                "

                IT DOESN'T MATTER!

                Your genitalia don't exist for you to have fun. That's where it always breaks down. The genitalia of mammalian species exists, was designed for or evolved for... has the function of, reproduction. Sexual attraction doesn't exist so you can get high on endorphins, it exists to MAKE BABIES. It's not that homosexuality is EXTREMELY uncommon, it's that it misapplies the purpose of sex. Again, Google "Pica".
                People with Pica are uncommon. That's not the issue with Pica. The issue with Pica is that it is unnatural.

                Ask Bucky to explain Article 2 section 1 clause 5 of the Constitution. He'll get that wrong, too, if that's his opinion of "natural".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 7 months ago
          We've covered this several times before, but apparently your memory is very short: "If you really want equal rights under the law, then recognize marriage between humans and animals, and humans and inanimate objects."

          Neither animals nor inanimate objects can give informed consent in the marriage issue.

          Why do you continue to pose such false arguments?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
            It's not a false argument. *I* am not an animal or inanimate object, therefore *I* still have *MY* rights!

            To refuse to allow *me* to marry creatures or objects of *my* choice denies *me* MY RIGHTS. As they are animals and objects, THEIR CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED.

            You keep coming to this conclusion because you keep insisting upon viewing marriage as a type of contract. It isn't. Marriage existed long before contract law, and the mating instinct behind marriage exists in all mammalian species. Wolves mate for life, and a contract has nothing to do with it.

            I dunno why I'm typing in caps. It's not that you're blind, it's that you refuse to think.

            Part of my disgust with your side of the argument is that I took Anthro 101. I saw chimpanzee society. I do NOT want to degenerate to that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 7 months ago
      I've asked you before, Hiraghm...

      What difference is it in your life if a same sex couple marries in America?

      Why is it any of your business to impose your beliefs upon another in this issue?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
        A same sex couple CAN marry in America; they just each have to marry a member of the opposite sex, or it's not marriage.

        Because marriage, the life long mating of a man and a woman, is a vital institution in society. It predates civilization as we know it.

        And you want to redefine it as, "A contract to fuck for awhile" (I'm sorry khalling but when these idiots get me disgusted like this I want to use language as ugly as their ideas).

        First, I *can't* impose my beliefs on anyone, I can only argue in favor of them. if I *could* impose my beliefs on this matter on people, I'd make Hitler look like Mother Theresa. Oh, I wouldn't slaughter homosexuals; I'd slaughter any idiot who thinks equality is more important than civilization.

        Let me throw it back at you, maybe you can find an answer for me...

        What difference is it in your life if a human/animal couple marries in America? What difference is it in your life if a human/umbrella couple marries in America? What difference is it in *your* life if an adult/child couple marries in America?
        The concept of gay marriage is just as absurd as these concepts... and your side of the argument are trying to force me to belief it isn't!

        I don't want to be forced to accept absurdities in public or face persecution like Donald Sterling has. THAT is one difference it makes. I'm not the one forcing my beliefs on another... the mass of unthinking, ignorant idiots are forcing their "beliefs"... in reality, "feelings"... on me. And I'm fighting back. With reason.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo