You are correct here. I did not articulate my comparison very well. But it does not take much to see where I was going with it. Using your logic of worst-case scenario, people would be shooting their AAA and driving their tanks all over public place shooting their large caliber guns. Clearly, this is not the case.




This case was decided in 1967, but this is irrelevant since no other case has overturned it.



Actually, it did. As stated in the aforementioned post, legally, in the United States marriage was defined as two persons of the same race joining into a union. Since there were anti-miscegenation laws on the books in many states, this was indeed the legal definition of marriage.



I really don't feel like giving a ninth grade civics lesson here. I would have assumed you knew that when the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that it applied to all 50 states. I am not sure what "it" you are referring to. If the "it" is anti-miscegenation laws, it applies to all 50 states. If the "it" you are referring to gay marriage, that is irrelevant because we are discussing the U.S. Supreme Court, not any state Supreme Court.



First, this is very difficult to read because of your poor syntax. Please have the common courtesy to proof read your posts so that they make sense. I should also mention you have no argument against mine here.



I am assuming you are being facetious here. This can't be a serious argument as to why legalizing gay marriage would lead to bestiality? Can it?

I'll indulge you anyways. I own pets and have been around animals all my life. You fail to mention how any of this would equate to two consenting adults. Sure animals can show signs of wanting intimate behavior. My dog who is a male humps legs all the time. So what? This does not equate to two consenting adults. For one thing, is there a legal definition of what constitutes an adult animal? No. Argument over.


Here, I should also mention you fail to come up with any argument against points (2) and (3).



Please elaborate on this.



This is not a new term. I used it in the context of differentiating between whites and blacks. I will still use it. You need to get over yourself.




What don't you understand about laws that are passed that violate the constitution are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It doesn't matter if 51% or 99% of the populace voted something into law if it violates the constitution. The only course of action they would have is to amend the United States constitution. Come on, this basic high school level civics here.



One word: the constitution! The fact is we do not live in a simple majority rule governance system--and for good reason. People would be able to vote in whatever laws they wanted without paying attention to minority rights. That is why the constitution was specifically designed to protect minority rights in a majority rule setting.

I think this is fuzzy logic. If we use your logic, why should something like owning guns be legal? Certainly the constitution spells out a right to bear arms, but what's next? My neighbor might want a tank, or my other neighbor might want a battle ship. Yes, this is just as absurd as your argument.

A few reasons why beastiality would not be accepted: (1) it does not take place within the context of two consenting adults; (2) the courts have the ability to regulate obscenity; (3)history--if we look at previous supreme cout cases, especially with ones dealing with homosexuality and marriage, we don't see giant watershed moments where new rights are granted to a wide segment of the population. Indeed, if this was the case we would not be having this conversation in the first place. Let's take your logic here and apply to the real world. For a long time many states had laws restricting the marriage between whites and blacks (i.e. it was illegal to have interracial marriage). Using your logic, allowing two groups that were traditionally never allowed to marry would pave the way for a whole host of minorities to marry or openly practice their "deviance." But it's 40 years later and none of these things have happened!

Rather, what actually happens is that each group has to struggle to have their own cases. The gay marriage case is the supreme example of this. If someone wanted to practice beastiality in the open, they would have to have this same exact fight and because of the aformentioned reasons, they would not get very far.

As far a "vote by the majority"; this is indeed the case, but not even the majority can vote in laws that are unconstitutional.





Except that it's not. In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival..."



But now you are saying it is a right. If it is a right, according to the constitution that right cannot be taked away without due process and ALL citizens have equal protection under the laws.



Let's use your logic again and apply it to the real world. Many years ago by all definitions, African Americans were not citizens. They did not have the same rights as whites and were treated less than humans. Now, using your logic, African Americans should never have the same rights as whites because, for as long as there has been a written history, it was socially and culturally acceptable to deprive certain humans of certain rights.

But something happened, right? Culture changes. People become more tolerant and are more willing to change social definitions of what is and what is not acceptable.




One rational explanation without using the constitution would be that, as long as no one else can show substantial harm as a result of an action, to consenting adults ought to be allowed to do as they please. Nevertheless, this argument does not need to be made because we are a nation of laws. Whether or not the populace knows what is in the constitution is irrelevent. Ignorance is no excuse; if you break a law that you did not know was a law, you are still guilty.




Not really. All that says is that some people do not care if they get married or not.

The funniest part about this post is that you actually believe it!

The funniest part about this post is that you actually believe it!

I think that one of the reasons that Obama has been so visible in the early days of his presidency is that he is attempting to instill a sense of transparency within his administration. The lack of transparency in the previous administration, I think, was a serious disconcerting fact for a lot of people. During his campaign the current president ran on becoming more transparent. I think we are seeing the materialization of that campaign promise.

Nevertheless, the more disturbing fact for me is that people seemed to be more worried about which douchebag who is intentionally starving themselves in some remote place is going to “survive” while the country is facing the roughest economic times it has seen in almost 100 years.

So let me get this straight. A few days ago you make a post extolling the California Supreme Court for restricting the rights of a certain group. Now you make a post that condemns states for, according to this article, doing exactly what you were applauding California for doing. The blatant methodological oversights and the normative nature of the study on the whole notwithstanding, that fact alone, my friend, makes you one giant hypocrite.

If this is scaring you I bet you are glad you weren't alive for WW II, WW I, the Civil War, The Hundred Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, The Crusades, the Peloponnesian wars and all the "minor" skirmishes in between.


Ohh if history is any indicator, I think that some empty rhetoric by some whack job in North Korea is relatively minor.

What you wrote was the basics of federalism. Each state is independent within its own sphere. Collectively, these states form the United States of America where the federal government is independent in its own sphere. Of course this is a simplified version of it.

In real life you add in local governments which are creations of state governments but they also have that interplay with the federal government through Block Grants, emergency assistance and other aids. Some have also been arguing that there is a fourth face of federalism that resulted of Nixon's new federalism and the devolution that occured under the Reagan and Bush administrations. This fourth face would be private organizations that local governments contract out with as a result of cuts in aid. There have been massive amounts of emperical studies done to assess whether or not contracting out is beneficial for citizens but I suppose I am starting to ramble.

Let's toast to federalism!

Not at all! Your answer was exactly right!

Each state has a constitution because states are independent within their own sphere of jurisdiction. While our country was in its infancy, there was a major debate as to whether have a strong centralized government, a government that had a loose confederation of states (see the articles of confederation) one that had different layers to facilitate participation (i.e. a federalists system of governance). A major debate occurred and I am sure you are at least somewhat familiar with the federalist paper penned by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and to a lesser extent John Jay).

It turned out that there were many problems associated with a loose confederation of states with a weak national government. The ability to provide national defense and a unified currency for example (both of which had major implications for our young country) were things that a loose confederation could not provide.

On the other hand, the founding father had serious concerns with a strong centralized government. After all, had just fought a war with Britain so that we would not be ruled under their monarchy.

So the federalists argued for a "marble cake" form of governance--federalism. As I am sure you know, the federalists won this debate and this is the type of governance that we have now.

With a federal form of governance in mind, the constitution was written to give powers to both the states and the federal government. For instance the 10th amendment reserves powers that are not given to the federal government and are not prohibited by the states to the states. Accordingly, states will set up their own constitutions to enumerate their powers.

The constitution is a beautiful document.

I agree with most of your post. While the gay rights movement will appeal it remains to be seen whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case. They decide which cases they hear, it they have been avoiding the gay marriage issue.

Thanks for bumping all of that info in response to eljay. I can see that this debate has been going on for a while here. It always seems amazing to me that within the scientific community there is relatively little debate surrounding the question as to whether or not evolution occurs. Certainly there is debate within the context of evolution as to how it manifests itself, but I think most scientists agree that this is the best theory to explain the facts. Evolution seems to come into question most from people who do not have an intimiate knowledge of the theory.

MEAT IS MURDER!!!




Delicious, delicious murder...

Again, a normative argument without paying any attention to the legal issues at stake here.

Personally, I like mine with a side order of free angioplastes!

But seriously, I have an obsession with pancakes. I have never been to a fast food place that serves decent pancakes.

Except that this argument does nothing to address the substantial 4th and 14th amendment issues at stake here. Let's be serious. The only arguments that the anti-gay folks have are normative ones. They do nothing to address the legal arguments posited by the pro gay rights folks.

Perhaps the voters should not be given a choice in the first place as a result of the constitutional issues at stake here. Let me put it this way: Say voters in vermont feel that owning a gun interferes with their ability to raise their kids safely. Recently, in this hypothetical situation, there have been numerous kids shot and killed as a result of gun violence. Accordingly, an interest group in vermont gets the signatures needed to secure an initiative to be on the ballot in the November election. At this election the voters vote to completely ban guns from their state. But wait! this new law would never hit the books because it conflicts with the U.S. constitution--it violates the 2nd amendment to the consitution.

The issue is no different with gay marriage. The voters voted on a law that blatently violates the 4th and 14th amendments to the constitution. It is that simple.



I don't follow the logic here. If I am unserstanding you correctly, you are saying that it is OK to deny rights to certain US citizens because they are gay? Congratulations, you just set the United States back 200 years. The 'separate but equal' doctrine was knocked down over 50 years ago. See Plessy v Fergeson, Brown v Board of education etc.

The way i see it, this is a legal issue, not a normative one. We are a nation of rights and laws, and in this case these rights and laws are not being applied to everyone equally.

These types of days are best solved by a glass of aged irish whiskey on the rocks...and by "a glass" I mean 6 or 7...

By the same logic then, should divorce be legal?

Paranoia indeed!

Again, I think a quote from Bill Maher is cogent & comical:

I think this demonstrates the sad state republicans are currently in.

"Here are the big issues for normal people: the war, the economy, the environment, mending fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law.

And here's the list of Republican obsessions since President Obama took office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy...Do these sound like the concerns of a healthy, vibrant political party?"

Bill Maher