Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Many folks here were NOT objecting to the liberty issue, but to the federalism issue. Which other folks sidestepped because they liked this particular result.

Also the test of liberty is NOT in endorsing a practice that is trending popular, but extending the same liberty to a group/person whose practices you find disagreeable, but which is nevertheless a natural right. The law of unintended consequences being what it is, we should prepare for all sorts of surprises down the road.

But recognizing those possibilities undercuts the objective at hand. All discussions of the repercussions of decisions made today must be quashed.

 

[Denny347]

Because there is a presumption at law. Lots of adults aren't capable of genuine consent.

The VAST majority are however. Who knows what the future holds but that is no reason to fear change.

 

[Denny347]

But recognizing those possibilities undercuts the objective at hand. All discussion must be quashed.

Nah, lots of things are possible. They may not be probable, but possible. Hell, anything is possible.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nah, lots of things are possible. They may not be probable, but possible. Hell, anything is possible.

This is true. We'll see.

 

[lj98]

Many folks here were NOT objecting to the liberty issue, but to the federalism issue. Which other folks sidestepped because they liked this particular result.

Just out of curiosity, is anything the federal government does automatically labelled as wrong or evil? I don't think anyone sidestepped the concept of "federalism." Rather, many on here accepted the role of the judiciary in deciding issues of constitutionality, even at the expense of state law.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Just out of curiosity, is anything the federal government does automatically labelled as wrong or evil? I don't think anyone sidestepped the concept of "federalism." Rather, many on here accepted the role of the judiciary in deciding issues of constitutionality, even at the expense Constitutional fidelity.

FIFY

 

[jbombelli]

How many of those crying "federalism" and states' rights today celebrated the federal judiciary striking down Illinois' ban on carrying handguns?

 

[jdmack79]

How many of those crying "federalism" and states' rights today celebrated the federal judiciary striking down Illinois' ban on carrying handguns?

QFT. It's convenient how they are so selective in their concern.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How many of those crying "federalism" and states' rights today celebrated the federal judiciary striking down Illinois' ban on carrying handguns?​

Carrying handguns is the raison d'etre of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gay marriage was never mentioned at the time of the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gay marriage was pulled from the air, it is simply an example of a want becoming a need becoming a "right".

 

[jamil]

If that day comes then we can have that conversation then. Attempting to equate homosexuality and marriage equality to pedophilia is disingenuous, at best and just stupid at the other end, as you well know.

I think it's a fair question since the "normalcy" of gayness is rooted from being born that way. Some studies suggest that pedophiles might be born that way. The difference is that essentially no one is forcing anyone to be gay. They can be gay without harming others. Pedophiles force themselves on what we view as innocence.

My point is, if morality is the basis of law, then the law will naturally change with morality. I can fear a potential future where a moral culture regards pedophilia as normal as homosexuality. Why wouldn't it? But if laws are based on protecting individual rights and punishes only those who cause harm, rather than enforcing moral standards, that's a more objective standard, which shouldn't change with the whim of pop culture. Pedophilia should never be made legal.

 

[indiucky]

Carrying handguns is the raison d'etre of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gay marriage was never mentioned at the time of the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gay marriage was pulled from the air, it is simply an example of a want becoming a need becoming a "right".

And sanity rears it's head with a side of logic and historical context....

 

[cobber]

How many of those crying "federalism" and states' rights today celebrated the federal judiciary striking down Illinois' ban on carrying handguns?

Illinois suit on federal question, ie 2d A. to US Constitution.

Indiana case was State law matter relating to marriage.

And that is what federalism is all about. Federal question v. State question.

The VAST majority are however. Who knows what the future holds but that is no reason to fear change.

Were that true we wouldn't need contract law, tort law, IP law, etc.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think it's a fair question since the "normalcy" of gayness is rooted from being born that way. Some studies suggest that pedophiles might be born that way. The difference is that essentially no one is forcing anyone to be gay. They can be gay without harming others. Pedophiles force themselves on what we view as innocence.

My point is, if morality is the basis of law, then the law will naturally change with morality. I can fear a potential future where a moral culture regards pedophilia as normal as homosexuality. Why wouldn't it? But if laws are based on protecting individual rights and punishes only those who cause harm, rather than enforcing moral standards, that's a more objective standard, which shouldn't change with the whim of pop culture. Pedophilia should never be made legal.

"Causing harm" is a term that is as pliable as morality. What we may view today as being harmful to a person may not be viewed by future people.

 

[gstanley102]

The stage is already set for all sorts of conversations to take place in the future. Once you start dismantling cultural norms, you don't get to pick and choose, based on your preference, which ones shall remain intact (i.e., those that resonate with your personal tastes).

To suggest that someone disagreeing with you on this is either disingenuous or stupid shows the same closed-mindedness you are accusing others of displaying. And we all "know" X, Y and Z. Until we learn something else is actually the case.

It's not a matter of "if" but of "when" something you find very disagreeable will become the subject of a social movement for acceptance. Prepare then to be labelled disingenuous, stupid, a hater or a relic.

This is exactly what people should be concerned with.

Do we really want an amoral secular government?

 

[hornadylnl]

This is exactly what people should be concerned with.

Do we really want an amoral secular government?

I want a moral and religious people but a government big enough to force Christian morals on its people is big enough to to force any religious morals on its people. I don't want Washington telling me I must face Mecca 5 times a day.

 

[mrjarrell]

Just out of curiosity, is anything the federal government does automatically labelled as wrong or evil? I don't think anyone sidestepped the concept of "federalism." Rather, many on here accepted the role of the judiciary in deciding issues of constitutionality, even at the expense of state law.

The 14th Amendment is evil, unless it's used to justify a winning ruling on gun Rights.

 

[jamil]

"Causing harm" is a term that is as pliable as morality. What we may view today as being harmful to a person may not be viewed by future people.

It depends. Defining "harm" should be objective. But political people wanting to sell an idea, "harm" can be made to mean anything. But certainly harm can be defined more objectively than morality can. Morality is as individual as thought itself. Even among a given religion people don't agree on the morals. If they did there wouldn't be so many brands.

I think people should be free to exercise their morality within the limits of a set of laws that protect everyone's rights and liberty and punishes harm. I think you should have the right not to support gay marriage if you don't want to. I don't think you have the right to prevent them from marrying as long as you're not required to support it in any way.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I want a moral and religious people but a government big enough to force Christian morals on its people is big enough to to force any religious morals on its people. I don't want Washington telling me I must face Mecca 5 times a day.

And with the current interpretation of the 14th amendment, it has the power to force anything on the people now whether it be religiously based or secular; whether it's somebody's view of morality or anther's view of fairness or what harm is.

 

[lj98]

The 14th Amendment is evil, unless it's used to justify a winning ruling on gun Rights

Yes, that is the vibe I am getting.

This entire suit was predicated upon the constitutionality of laws preventing individuals from entering into social (and legal) contracts with other consenting adults (that is the key phrase here, so we can dismiss pedophilia arguments unless you simply want to try to equate the two).

Carrying handguns is the raison d'etre of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gay marriage was never mentioned at the time of the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gay marriage was pulled from the air, it is simply an example of a want becoming a need becoming a "right".

I don't even know what to say to this except that the passage of the 14th Amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with the carrying of firearms. The "right" in this case is of two adults entering into a binding contract. A right that certainly existed, and was recognized, for much of this nation's existence.

 

[Redhorse]

I agree as well. But what role does the government play in reversing it?

What role does the government have in fixing most problems? Every time something goes on, it's magically the government's job to fix it. A prime example of this is political correctness.