Meta Reign
I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
taxes = theft because you're not being provided any services
Taxes are theft because I don't voluntarily pay them. I'm literally being robbed for them.
Anti-gay libertarians...
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
Taxes are theft because I don't voluntarily pay them. I'm literally being robbed for them.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Meta Reign
I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Through an indirect consumption tax on certain goods, ideally.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
meta didn't answer the question...
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Because marriage was never legally defined as being restricted to a man and a woman in the Constitution, and state votes on gay marriage are in contradiction with the Equal Protection Clause, and some would argue the Due Process Clause as well, of the 14th amendment based on legal precedent. We're not supposed to vote on rights. Most libertarians claim to be strict constitutionalists.
And I'm sure that you have a strong medical and psychological basis for your diagnosis of homosexuality as a "psycho-sexual disorder," as you are a man that is obviously very learned on these matters (obvious sarcasm).
But as I said in the op, let's leave personal feelings aside. I'm not even talking legality here, just basic ethics. Should your or anyone else's personal disgust or animus toward "fakkits" have any relevance at all when it comes to here gay people should be treated and judged?
Different strains of libertarian philosophy are mostly rooted in a recognition of natural rights and the unimpeded will to freedom. You might be more of a consequential libertarian (belief that private property rights pragmatically lead to a better outcome for society) than a deontological one (belief in natural inherent rights), but it's still shows points to large blindspot to take a stance of "I hate fakkits" when their sexual orientation isn't hurting anyone while championing individual rights and freedom.
But the government is involved. So do laws like prop 8 and DOMA violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, Mr. self-proclaimed "constitutional conservative"?
Those two things are in contradiction if you let your social views supersede your political philosophy.
OG Talk
Archived
The term "anti-gay" seems kind of vague and doesn't really mean anything...
Well , getting married isn't actually protected under the equal protection clause. You can make that case, sure if you're a lawyer.. but in reality- issues such as these, are and should be, left up to the states. That 'true' understanding of the Constitution and law, will only allow for a few states to legalizing marriage... which eventually prevents gays from having the right to marry in most states. The reason that becomes an issue i,s because the majority of actual voters (not the maj of Americans) aren't going to vote to redefine the traditional definition of marriage in more than a hand full of far left states.
The Due process clause you mention only allows you to fukk any human man or woman, no animals and no children. It also allows you to live in same sex relationships and do gay sh1t together as a couple. Even get married. BUT that marriage just wont be recognized by that states- once again denying gays even more of the rights, that married people receive.
I'm like fukk it about the issue... However, I can clearly see that the benefits and rights they seek are from the federal government-- Like Taxes, death, immigration, bankruptcy, n other sh1t... and the constitution can't guarantee them benefits from a right that is decided on my the states. States are soviegn and can make their own laws.. .they can also decided to go with decisions that benefit their sovereign state and make the society stronger. Most state law determines that a family with men/women children (and a community of those) are the most beneficial to advance our society.
ntm we will never ever never have an exec branch liberal enough to by pass history and legislation and the constitution and get rid of all these barriers - to include the defense of marriage act. Bill clinton sign off on the sh1t, not bush or some other neocon. The Justice department and every GOP politician will stop any repeal or point in it's tracks. The best hope is to leave marriage alone and increase the rights of civil unions. Plus the day that the Pres. can override the Supreme Court decisions on these issue is the day we are in big trouble.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
No, laws like prop 8 are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and you're wrong about marriage not being protected under it. You saying it should be left up to the states is not an opinion with any legal basis, just your personal opinion.
The Equal Protection Clause states that "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Loving vs. Virginia case, which struck down gay interracial marriage bans, ruled that barring marriage on the basis of race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, and it defined marriage as a civil right. Earl Warren's opinion...
And prop 8 was struck down by the District Court of Northern California and the 9th District Court of Appeals on the same legal basis.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the Due Process Clause wasn't intended to have anything to do with fukking anybody. The Due Process Clause states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The Due Process Clause has been used to strike legal attempts to deny people the right to use contraceptives and strike down sodomy laws, and even abortion. But the logic is the state cannot deny anybody rights unless it can prove that there is a "compelling state interest" in doing so.
Prop 8 has been struck down in concordance with both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.
lol, all this 'striking down' and no legal marriage for gays recognized by the federal government. The Due process is exactly as you state - so it's like I said... gives the people the right to live their lives the way they please as long as they aren't taking away someones rights. People are allowed to marry in anyway they like. Gay people can get married in every state. The Due process clause does not guarantee that those marriages will be recognized by the federal government or any state gov... so the things you're speaking of are irrelevant.
The equal protection cause affords people equal Protection... not equal marriage benefits. Gays have equal protection and additional protection under other discrimination laws. Loving v. Virginia is about people not discriminating the basic right of marriage based on color. In 1967 it was unanimously understood that the marriage they referred to was between a man and woman, and the meaning was clearly understood by every single person involved with the case. You can't discriminate based on sex, ethnicity, or color. That case not only didn't strike down gay marriage bans, it didn't address it.
California Prop 8 .. addresses STATE constitutions. .. and so does anything else you can mention - Which is my point. Family laws have traditionally been left to state regulation. If a State recognizes your marriage then you qualify for federal recognition and benefits. If we want a big brother approach, I guess we can ask the fed government to dictate family issues to the States, and take away state rights - but then that would clearly set the precedence that anything we consider a state issue can easily be decided on by the fed gov - AKA complete fukkkery. Which is why Obama and damn near every other Democrat agrees with nearly 100% of GOP party members in that States alone should solve these issues.
Gay rights supports are left speaking about "Earl Warren's opinion..." when in reality Warren said the word "race" and "racial" about 5 trillion times when speaking on equal protection.... I doubt he would believe it, if someone told him that his opinions would be used in a fakkit marriage debate in the future. It's pretty damn clear that Warren was addressing race only... and it's pretty clear that gay rights supporters have no constitutional argument. Of course, another thing self-inflicting wound of gay rights movements is attempting to attach itself to the balls of black rights movements.
Look at all the straws you yourself are forced to pull upon.... Trust me, if there was a case.. then it would have been made and decided on in the favor of homomarriage by now.
If marriage really is just a civil issue.. then fight to increase the scope of civil unions. I know asking for us to be real for a sec is pointless.... but to be real gay people want validation for a lifestyle. And fridge group or any group that has a lifestyle that abnormal naturally seeks that. So they challenge the meaning of marriage, as understood for 20K years. If it was about rights and only rights then civil union rallies would be popping up all over the place to increase the fed benefits of those.
Also, let's note that religious organizations hold marriage ceremonies, but religion didn't create marriage and religion isn't what's keeping it between a man and a women. The religious groups that are at blame for being anti homomarriage haven't even been around for a fraction of the time that the man-woman marriage practice has been around. It's about society and human's have deemed marriage is better this way. To be fair about 'you can't help who you love' we have civil unions. Marriage is one of the few things that most cultures on Earth have agreed on for all of history. today due to "evolving morals" there still is only like 20 nations out of 190+ that recognize the change in definition... and that is all recent
