Pacifico
Kava Enthusiast
While straight people are just bent out of shape like usual. Pow... right in the kisser.
I Love Kava Friday Friday Thread: Freedom Friday!
- Thread starter Pacifico
- Start date
Bubba Bula
krunkadelic relic
We'll probably have to agree to disagree here, but lets look at the first clause "The enumeration in the Constitution". Here we see they are addressing the listing of rights in the Constitution for thats what an enumeration is: a listing. Next clause, "of certain rights". Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage addressed. In other words there is no enumeration in the Constitution that contains anything about marriage. Last clause "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". Since there is nothing in the constitution about the right to be married, then nothing in the Constitution could be construed to deny or disparage it since marriage isn't enumerated. What is enumerated is the power to the states and to the people, and that power got disparaged and denied by this ruling. In other words, the 10th amendment was enumerated, and it just got denied. You could argue what the court did was break the 9th amendment by ignoring the 10th amendment.
What the Constitution does acknowledge is the power of individual states to approve of gay marriage, and in the absence of any laws in a state pertaining to marriage, acknowledges the people of that state the right to marry anyone or anything they choose. (I'm not trying to be funny.) I maintain this should be a state issue, and if there are no laws in the state pertaining to marriage the people should be able to do whatever they want.
Pacifico
Kava Enthusiast
Right. States hold a great amount of independence but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be governed under any circumstance. If they weren't, they might as well be completely sovereign countries. (I dare them!) California has about 40 million people, which is more people than a lot of countries on the planet. It would be scary if the government couldn't step in and ultimately prevent discrimination in a state that has more people than all of Canada. Roe v. Wade was 1973. We haven't seen much tyranny since then. The only people that are concerned about this believe in talking snakes like Rick Perry, the same guy who prayed for rain and saw Texas engulfed in wildfires.
“I am disappointed the Supreme Court today chose to change the centuries old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench, and as president, I would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written.” - Rick Perry.
Blippy5
Certified Noble
If that's what you do with it, your using it wrong...
Pacifico
Kava Enthusiast
@Blippy5 - I am honestly confused about kava moods sometimes. At the kava bar I go to sometimes, a patron sat down next to me and ordered a certain strain because "he still had a lot of studying to do." I later asked the kavista about it and he said that a lot of people from campus come and get a bit kavalated before going back to study. I really want to start a breakdancing team called the Kava Krew. You will see the slowest slow-motion pop n' lock robotting ever.
Blippy5
Certified Noble
I think you may be mistaken. Practice makes perfect
Bubba Bula
krunkadelic relic
Yeah Rick Perry. Lets pick another issue. Weed. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything that gives the federal government power over weed (or any other substances for that matter). If someone were to propose that the federal drug laws were unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment, I'm guessing Rick Perry would go absolutely bonkers over it. See, both the left and right have their little issues. They'll ignore the unconstitutionality of their positions if their issues jive with their political ambitions.
Pacifico
Kava Enthusiast
I gayly agree with Verticity. My parents practiced for 25 years.I think you may be mistaken. Practice makes perfect
In France, the Land of Romance, they are largely ditching marriage altogether and making way for PACS which is basically civil union. Nobody cares though. I am straight but I like that fact that I can have a gay marriage if I want to. I have a couple of lesbian friends that I could fall for.
Bubba Bula
krunkadelic relic
Tell you what I like this civil discourse. Really good vibes here.
Pacifico
Kava Enthusiast
Weed is a good issue too. I don't use it but it's a hot topic... and a very very expensive one at a federal level. Apart from a lot of our "defense" spending, the war on drugs is a very expensive war with little to no results. At the federal level, the criminalization of marijuana has costed the federal government (you and I) billions of dollars. Two cities similar sized cities, San Fran and Amsterdam have been compared in some detailed studies. In San Fran, three times as many teenagers have tried MJ than those in Amsterdam where it is legal to possess and consume. It is a good topic for the government to look at, considering that something like booze that is terribly more dangeous is legal and taxed. It would be great for us if the goverment would step in and legalize it and tax it. They have been trying to beat it unsuccessfully for nearly a century so they might as well own it. When they do, cartels collapse, drug dealers have to find something else to do, THC levels are controlled, etc. There will be less prisoners for you and I to pay for too. This is a great place for the Supreme Court to step in, unless of course you/one believe/s that we could use the entire one hundred years of prohibition to make it work.
You are right about ambitions but it isn't always just political. Much respect if you could tell me that after all of the appeals were exhausted that in ten years, you would be opposed to the government banning same-sex marriage in all states. Lots of "proud Americans" that see the 10th amendment in the same way Rick Perry and I guess you do would be willing to look the other way and let it happen. That's not to say that you personally would/wouldn't do that but that's a sure bet in terms of many.
verticity
I'm interested in things
I'm pretty sure that's not in the Constitution.
States' Rights is a legitimate perspective, but not the only perspective. The problem with "States Rights" is that it can be, and has been, used to deny the rights of minorities within states.
Pacifico
Kava Enthusiast
That's not true. They know that they can save it instead of owe it.
tomkrat
Kava Enthusiast
don't tell me how to use my kava, it's freedom friday and if i wanna squeeze a bunch of moi through my knickers and then use those knickers to scrub my house, it's my right, nay, my duty as an amurrican to do so
Pacifico
Kava Enthusiast
Video please.
tomkrat
Kava Enthusiast
Bubba Bula
krunkadelic relic
Tell you what I like this civil discourse. Really good vibes here.
Ha ha for the children.
Blippy5
Certified Noble
This is not that kind of forum