Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy

"The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman if they so choose."

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.

Who could rule a Constitutioal Amendment Un-Constitutional?

The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any Official could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.

Would that be anything like how liquor contracts were once prohibited by Constitional Amendment?

The 18th was never challenged in the USSC, but it could have been, -- and probably would have, - except for its repeal.

We can amend anything we like and there is nothing anyone could do to overturn it except by amendment...

Sorry, but majority rule decrees repugnant to Constitutional principle would nullify & void the contract.

The Court certainly cannot...

If not, then the Constitutional contract would be useless & revolution would be authorized.

Thank you! You have performed well and true today. Cogent, sensible and informed. Good chance for anyone willing to leave behind preconceived agendas.

Service worthy of any Yeoman.

I can see you are running out of arguments as I smash your previous ones to little bits.

It is you who lose... the legend in your own mind...

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts...

Now I know you are full of crap... nice try...

Why should I care?

Well, you and your butt buddy are here defending the sodomite religion, aren't you?

How sad that the best you can come up with is a 'crap' retort.

Did you really go to Stanford?

Service worthy of any Yeoman.

At least that's what my discharge papers say for a former warrant officer...

I'm here defending our Constitution, while you titillate yourself with "butt buddy" remarks. Whatta clown.

How sad...

Want a hanky? I'll bet you're 'deeply saddened'...

I'm here defending our Constitution,..."

You'd do better learn to defend English first... at least you might be able to read it...

Typical. - You can't argue the issues, so you're commenting on my use/comprehension of english.

Sad display, sir.

Sad display, sir.

Need a hanky? I'll bet you are 'deeply saddened'...

States cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Same principle, - neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such powers.

You're whacked, of course they can, that is exactly what we elect legislators to do in a constituional republic, make law. You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old. If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.

You can argue that there should be no laws at all but to make silly statements like this is simply non productive.

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.

Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review by the oligarchs. Sorry.

Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.

It would seem that anything you doubt has a ailry good chance of happening.

Because it is a religious rite and therefore outside the bounds of state interference, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's life, liberty, or property. It does none of these things, no more than heterosexual marriage (i think ALL marriage should be outside of state control; no licenses, and so on).

Right, and the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?

BTW, marriage is NOT solely a religious rite in America. Marriage does not exclude those who are not rlgious, it is a non discriminatroy secualr institution well established in American jurisprudence as a fundamental right.

jwalsh07:

Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.

States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers.

You're whacked, of course they can, that is exactly what we elect legislators to do in a constituional republic, make law.

Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.

You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old.

Reasonable regulations. I agree.

If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.

Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.

The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.

Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry.

Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.

-- current jurisprudence considers marriage a "fundamantal right" which is why the government can't force your spouse to testify against you. So while government can regulate marriage any way they please they can not abridge the right to marry.

Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.

It would seem that anything you doubt has a ailry good chance of happening.

So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?

jwalsh slips up:

the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?

Fully informed impartial juries of our peers are the designated 'arbiters' in our Republic, walsh. -- Not the government, as you advocate.

Of course I won the argument, you didn't even attempt to put up a fight. You had no answers to even one of my questions. Pathetic.

" Well, you and your butt buddy are here defending the sodomite religion, aren't you?"

And you resort yet again to 5th grade ad hominem attacks.

In your profile you say,

"The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment..."

Other than your assertion that marriage is based on reproduction (that's purely your assertion), I agree with this statement.

"The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities. "

That is exactly what I have been saying throughout this entire thread. I do not believe that marriage should entail ANY special civil status in regards to taxes and so forth. As a strictly religious rite, it should not give someone a privileged position. It shouldn't be RESTRICTED either, in that the government has no legitimate authority to say what is or isn't a valid marriage, as long as the participants are of age to make contracts and are freely entering into the union. I don't care if it's a polygamous or monogamous marriage either. It's nobody's business but those entering into the union.

Then you say,

"The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault"

Again I agree with this. But then you lose it with,

"Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior."

Here you abdicate your ability to reason what is right and what is wrong without having to resort to a higher power. You commit treason against your own mind.

"Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does."

Which is it? Do women have power to control nature (in this case, their bodies) or not? At least TRY to be consistent.

"So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly. "

Substitute gay marriage, or gambling, or whatever you deem for reproductive rights and you get a position that is purely collectivist. Individuals according to you have no rights whatsoever, regardless of when you used the term earlier. Everything is the whim of the powerful, the will of the superman. There is no rational basis to your actions, just the whichever way your whim takes you. If you are powerful enough, you get to do what you want. If not, others tell you what to do. But there is no right, no wrong, only ephemeral feelings and drives. In other words, it is the same thing that drove both Communism and Fascism. Pure, naked, power lust.

"Right, and the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?"

Um, maybe the people entering into the contracts? :)

"BTW, marriage is NOT solely a religious rite in America. Marriage does not exclude those who are not rlgious, it is a non discriminatroy secualr institution well established in American jurisprudence as a fundamental right."

I have been arguing that it shouldn't be a matter of civil law at all. A better word than *religious* would be that marriage (or unions, whatever you want to call them) are personal rites. It should be completely between the people entering into it. If they wish to get sanction from a particular religion for their union, that is their choice. If they don't desire any sanction from any religious group, that is also their choice. The government should not be involved in any way; that includes in granting them special privileges because they get married, like tax exemptions.

That way, if two gay men get married with the blessing of a religious group, or if they choose to just say vows to themselves with some friends over to witness, that would be their choice. Nobody else would be forced to acknowledge their union as valid if they didn't want to. There would be no civil benefits to getting married, for heterosexual or homosexual marriage (monogamous or polygamous). No tax breaks; nothing.

Here you abdicate your ability to reason what is right and what is wrong...

I don't make moral judgements, right and wrong are your esoteric hobgoblins, your idolatries of personal conceit...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

If you are powerful enough, you get to do what you want.

This is the only logical truth you have uttered. Life is brutish and short, isn't it?

Oh, and by the way, even your false analogy (false cause, non-causa) by invoking the term "Fascism" is innaccurate. The National Socialists weren't Fascists. Another Leftist trick exposed by Ayn Rand, the art of the smear (or schmear if you know what I refer to).

"I don't make moral judgements, right and wrong are your esoteric hobgoblins, your idolatries of personal conceit... "

Yes you do. You made the moral judgment that homosexual sex is perverted. "Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy." There is no way to gain from biology the conclusion that homosexual sex is perverted (wrong). Biological facts only show that homosexual sex will not result in propagation. It does not say that propagation is the only legitimate use for sexual acts. The fact you have come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong and needs to be prohibited is because your feelings told you so. It is irrational. You have nothing rational to guide you.

"Oh, and by the way, even your false analogy (false cause, non-causa) by invoking the term "Fascism" is innaccurate. The National Socialists weren't Fascists. Another Leftist trick exposed by Ayn Rand, the art of the smear (or schmear if you know what I refer to)."

Your are the one who is smearing. You are smearing the ideas of Ayn Rand. I NEVER said you were a Nazi. I said your ideas were consistent with both communism and fascism, That they are, they are statist and collectivist to the core.

I know the works of Ayn Rand, and unlike you, I understand what she wrote. In the chapter of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" called 'Extremism, or the Art of The Smear', she said that fascism was falsely being defined as the opposite of communism. It was being said that capitalism's advocates were *fascist*. She showed how fascism and communism both were collectivist. The real dichotomy was between collectivism (fascism and communism being just variants of the same principle) and capitalism.

I said to you, in regards to your philosophy,

"In other words, it is the same thing that drove both Communism and Fascism. Pure, naked, power lust."

I didn't say you were a Nazi. I know the Nazis were mostly socialist. You invented an imaginary attack against you as a way of evading the topic. I was calling you a collectivist, because you said in regard to the powers of government,

"So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong...Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly. "

There is no such entity as society. There are only individuals. Society can evaluate nothing because there is no such thing as society, only individuals.
Fascists call for private ownership of property, but leave the control of that property in the state. Communism advocates both the ownership and the control of property in the state. There is essentially no difference; the idea of *owning* property and not being able to control it is an oxymoron.

The most basic axiom of private ownership is the idea that we own ourselves. All other property rights flow from that. According to you, we don't own ourselves, because you say the state has the right to control what we can or can't do even when it does not affect someone else's rights. That is frankly closer to fascist than communist, but the distinction is not important. Both systems deny the right to private property.

Your philosophy is might makes right. Ayn Rand despised people like you. You stand for everything she fought against, especially the notion that there can be no rational morality. She passionately argued for a rational morality, and the need for such a morality. I quote from "The Virtue Of Selfishness",

"Is the concept of value, of "good or evil" an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality-- or is it based on a metaphysical fact, an an unalterable condition of man's existence?"

She argues that it was indeed based on a metaphysical fact of our existence, namely that which is required for a man's survival. She said,

"Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival- not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life...The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics- the standard by one judges what is good or evil- is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival; qua man... The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals... by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction, the destruction of their victims. As evidence I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship."

Or she could have been talking about you. You believe, "If you are powerful enough, you get to do what you want." You have said in your profile, "The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law", yet you don't believe in any rights at all, except the right of the strong to crush the weak. You speak of the individual but you only mean yourself; everybody else is just a mean to your ends.

You have been incessantly talking about *idolatries* of this and that. You have no problem with idolatry. You just can't stand the fact that YOU aren't the object of worship.

You represent everything that is against the idea of the individual and of capitalism.