Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Congress passes the Sodom and Gomorrah act

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    Here was his exact words (with a little bit of extra context):

    Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.

    For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.


    This is found on page 3 of his concurrence (page 119 overall).

    So technically speaking he says they should "reconsider" those. However, as Thomas dissented in Lawrence and Obergefell, and has given no indication that he has changed his mind since, it's fairly likely that he would want to overturn them.


    I would assume that any amendment is assumed to override any previous contradicting part of an amendment or part of the Constitution even if it doesn't say so explicitly. For example, the 17th Amendment (making Senators be re-elected by popular vote rather than state legislatures) completely overrides several paragraphs of Article I Section 3 (talking about the original way Senators were chosen). But it doesn't explicitly say "this portion is removed", it just gives something that overrides some of it. I know the 21st Amendment explicitly repeals the 18th Amendment, but that is a case where it legitimately repeals it all, rather than merely adjusting a section as other amendments have done, such as the 17th, hence its statement of repealing it in order to be clear it was all going away.

    In regards to 14 and 10, though... I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here as being the contradiction, as the fourteenth amendment wasn't being discussed. The only thing I can see offhand that would seem at all as a contradiction is the Fourteenth Amendment putting some limits on state law that weren't there before ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") However, I don't see this as any contradiction between it and the tenth ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") because the 10th Amendment says that powers not given by the Constitution to the federal government or denied to the states are powers the states have. not given to the federal government or denied to the states are given to the states. Therefore, the 14th Amendment is perfectly compatible, as it simply adjusts the list of things states are prohibited from doing, no more violating the 10th Amendment than amendments like the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) did.
    That portion of the 14th has been a joke for decades. Ever since federal agencies began seizing money and property without even charging individuals, and not returning them. I remember reading about one case where the person had to keep submitting the same forms over and over to regain seized property - and I don't think he ever got it back. I will vote for any candidate from any party who vows to put the reins on these stormtroopers.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

      Even without the federal law, the Constitution would enforce the recognition of legal marriages from one state in all states. You're complaining about a redundant federal law. It's basically for show.
      Nope. You suggest that Article IV should be read as saying, essentially, that if something is legal in one state, then it should be accepted as legal in all states, except it doesn't work that way. For instance, in my state, it's legal to carry a firearm without any special licensing, but it would not be legal for me to go to another state that requires licensing and walk around with a gun in my pocket. For that matter, weapon licenses are generally not honored across state lines. Neither, for the most part, are law and medical licenses, and many other certifications. Or how about drugs? Certain narcotics are currently legal in Colorado, but that doesn't make them legal in other states. And none of this is unconstitutional, so why should homosexual civil unions be any different?
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

        Nope. You suggest that Article IV should be read as saying, essentially, that if something is legal in one state, then it should be accepted as legal in all states, except it doesn't work that way. For instance, in my state, it's legal to carry a firearm without any special licensing, but it would not be legal for me to go to another state that requires licensing and walk around with a gun in my pocket. For that matter, weapon licenses are generally not honored across state lines. Neither, for the most part, are law and medical licenses, and many other certifications. Or how about drugs? Certain narcotics are currently legal in Colorado, but that doesn't make them legal in other states. And none of this is unconstitutional, so why should homosexual civil unions be any different?
        None of those are legal proceedings. By your logic a straight civil union wouldn't be honored across state lines. Civil unions, divorces, restraining orders, child support, judgements, etc all carry across state lines.
        P1) If , then I win.

        P2)

        C) I win.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

          No. It's there so that what happened with Roe does not so easily happen. Currently the protection of gay marriage comes from state laws (and not all states have it) and from the Obergefell SCOTUS case. If the current justices overturn that decision like they did with Roe, then no federal protection is in place. Hence this law.
          I'm surprised no one has challenged it to set the precedent, but gay civil unions are not legally distinct from straight civil unions. If a straight civil union carries over from states, logically a gay civil union would as well.
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

            That portion of the 14th has been a joke for decades. Ever since federal agencies began seizing money and property without even charging individuals, and not returning them. I remember reading about one case where the person had to keep submitting the same forms over and over to regain seized property - and I don't think he ever got it back. I will vote for any candidate from any party who vows to put the reins on these stormtroopers.
            In 2014, the value of assets seized was create than that of assets illegally stolen,
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

              I'm surprised no one has challenged it to set the precedent,
              Challenged what? The law isn't even signed yet.

              but gay civil unions are not legally distinct from straight civil unions. If a straight civil union carries over from states, logically a gay civil union would as well.
              We're talking about marriages, not civil unions.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                We're talking about marriages, not civil unions.
                Marriage is a sacrament, as far as the State is concerned, it's a civil union. As far as the State is concerned, it's a domestic relationship contract and even includes torts like cheating. Before no-fault divorces, there was tortious interference, ie the person with whom the spouse was cheating on the partner.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                  Challenged what? The law isn't even signed yet.
                  The transference of gay civil unions across state lines before the law.
                  P1) If , then I win.

                  P2)

                  C) I win.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                    Marriage is a sacrament, as far as the State is concerned, it's a civil union. As far as the State is concerned, it's a domestic relationship contract and even includes torts like cheating. Before no-fault divorces, there was tortious interference, ie the person with whom the spouse was cheating on the partner.
                    Nope. As far as the state is concerned, it's a marriage. Civil unions were a thing being pushed in the 00s for gay people that had some similarities to legal marriage but lacked a number of privileges married couples received.

                    Whether you like it or not religiously, marriage is the term in our government. There is currently no law in the US that allows civil unions - all were repealed in the last decade.
                    Last edited by Gondwanaland; 12-10-2022, 04:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      The transference of gay civil unions across state lines before the law.
                      Why would they challenge something that ended years ago (the last civil union law that existed in US states was Wisconsin's which was repealed in 2018 - the other states repealed theirs much earlier)? Gay civil unions are not marriages, and not relevant to the discussion, as the law in question deals with the latter, not the former.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                        Nope. As far as the state is concerned, it's a marriage. Civil unions were a thing being pushed in the 00s for gay people that had some similarities to legal marriage but lacked a number of privileges married couples received.

                        Whether you like it or not religiously, marriage is the term in our government..
                        It's only a "marriage" insomuch of religious heritage. There's no legal difference between a getting married through a nuptial mass or going to a clerk. The certificate/licence is the civil aspect that matters. People are free to get religiously married but not have the union to have civil merit. It's a civil union by another name.
                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                          It's only a "marriage" insomuch of religious heritage. There's no legal difference between a getting married through a nuptial mass or going to a clerk. The certificate/licence is the civil aspect that matters. People are free to get religiously married but not have the union to have civil merit. It's a civil union by another name.
                          It is a marriage. A civil union is a legally different thing and is no longer extant. If you want to call it legal/civil marriage vs religious marriage, that would make sense as both exist (indeed you can marry religiously without ever legally marrying, technically - and vice versa).

                          But calling it something it legally is not (aka civil union) just makes you look clueless. Civil unions were never equal to marriages legally, thus why there was the push for gay marriage.

                          The law being discussed in the OP has NOTHING to do with civil unions. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                            It is a marriage. A civil union is a legally different thing and is no longer extant. If you want to call it legal vs religious marriage, that would make sense. But calling it something it legally is not just makes you look clueless. Civil unions were never equal to marriages legally, thus why there was the push for gay marriage.

                            The law being discussed in the OP has NOTHING to do with civil unions. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
                            A gay "marriage" is not legally different than a straight "marriage". Do you prefer that? If a straight "marriage" is able to be transferred from state to state, then logically a gay "marriage" would similarly be transferred from state to state. The fact a state does not recognise gay "marriage" does not negate the legality of the "marriage" in the state in which it was entered.
                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                              A gay "marriage" is not legally different than a straight "marriage". Do you prefer that? If a straight "marriage" is able to be transferred from state to state, then logically a gay "marriage" would similarly be transferred from state to state. The fact a state does not recognise gay "marriage" does not negate the legality of the "marriage" in the state in which it was entered.
                              That's at least accurate, despite the retarded scare quotes.


                              Civil union is not an extant thing in this country.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                                That's at least accurate, despite the retarded scare quotes.


                                Civil union is not an extant thing in this country.
                                The quotes were not scare quotes, merely a concession of the term "civil union". I consider regular marriage include the non-religious civil union of two persons in such that it creates a civilly recognised and protected domestic relationship contract which also includes aspect like tax status and other civil considerations.
                                P1) If , then I win.

                                P2)

                                C) I win.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X