Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

reply to post by Garfee


No apologies are necessary, my friend. I am genuinely on your side in terms of marriage.

My thoughts on the "legality" of marrying without a license are this: You will indeed encounter resistance, and I have no faith what-so-ever in the priest class lawyer set.

You have the absolute and universal unalienable right to contract, and among these contracts is marriage. Of course, the only two people to really worry about in this contract of marriage would be you and your mate. It is more important that the two of you honor this contract, than anyone else.

I stress this point, because outside the two of you, the greatest concerns regarding others honoring the contract would be the courts, but let's be honest about that, the only reason to involve the courts would be to obtain a divorce, and to settle the disputes that may arise from divorce over property rights. It is my sincerest hope that no breach of contract takes place that would cause any need for divorce, but in the tragic event such a thing occurred, no court has the lawful authority to reject your claims of a contract dispute, simply because you opted out of a dubious licensing scheme.

In terms of "benefits", again you and your mate both have the absolute right to contract. A contract requires a meeting of the minds. This means that if you are not satisfied with a contract an employer is offering, you can make a counter offer that would be more to your liking. What I am saying is that you have the right to negotiate a contract that includes your mate regardless of the "sanction" of license. If that employer wants you bad enough, it is hard to imagine they would allow your offer of contract to be a deal breaker. Negotiation is an art form, and one worth perfecting. I have no doubt you have the capacity to negotiate a deal that is in yours, and your mates, best interest.

Finally, not knowing the legislative acts that proliferate in Australia, I have no idea if the government of Australia -seemingly tied to the Crown of England - has arrogantly and imprudently declared marriage between two men "illegal". If they have, then I would imagine the resistance will be greater, but David brought down Goliath with only a stone. Do not worry about the mystical incantations of the priest class lawyer set, with their humorous legalese. All law is natural and self evident. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of the law. Legislation can no more be law than the map can be the territory, or a word be the thing defined.

Let the law set you free, and stand tall against unlawful legislation. It can be a daunting, and sometimes even horrifying task to stand up to tyranny, but why call this movement "gay" if you cannot be happy? Be gay, be happy and be free. This is my sincerest wish for you, and everyone else...well, I want everyone to be gay, even if they are heterosexual, and by that I mean gay as in joyous and happy. Your sexual orientation makes no difference. Your enslavement is as tragic as any straight persons enslavement.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Commonwealth countries are not bound by the same laws as England anymore, in fact the United Kingdom allows civil partnerships which are specially desgined for same-sex couples only, effectively marriages with different terms. I think one of the only differences is same-sex partners can't inherit hereditary titles.

New Zealand also does, but called them civil unions.

As for the Australian government, they go as far as to deny same-sex couples a certificate of no impediment to marry, to those wishing to marry or have weddings outside of the country. Scroll to the bottom of the page to see.

So many laws and they're all bogus and half-assed, I really do see your point in creating one's own contract fulfilling all the normal legal aspects of a marriage and ommitting or including one's own.

Edit: Regarding the Certificate of no impediment to marriage, It seems to have changed in the last week following many having a spaz attack about what I mentioned. It did until recently specify same-sex partners as prohibited.

reply to post by Garfee

So many laws and they're all bogus and half-assed, I really do see your point in creating one's own contract fulfilling all the normal legal aspects of a marriage and ommitting or including one's own.

It is our destiny as humanity to be free. We will never truly be free as long as we keep acquiescing to bogus half assed legislative acts acting under color of law.

I have long argued that the greatest enemy to our own rights has been expedience. We think it practical to go along to get along, and we keep - as Thomas Jefferson would say - ourselves "disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" until one day we wake up and realize this expedience we thought so practical is hardly practical at all.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I missed your post in the thread.

But regarding the 14th Amendment being dubious, it's still an Amendment of the Constitution all the same. The 14th Amendments also has equal authority like the rest of the Amendments. So unless you're advocating that the Constitution should have Amendments stripped whenever a solid argument can be made to support a particular Amendment's removal, I don't really see how the 14th Amendment is any more or less equal to the other Amendments.

That kind of mindset can be dangerous. Although I'm not saying that you have that kind of mindset, but It'd be like putting forth the argument that America's forefathers couldn't conceive of the type of firearms that we have available today, and then using that logic as a reason for having the 2nd Amendment stripped. Especially when the US has a fully-functioning army that effectively replaces militias.

Also, the 9th Amendment only strengthens the 14th Amendment.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

But regarding the 14th Amendment being dubious, it's still an Amendment of the Constitution all the same. The 14th Amendments also has equal authority like the rest of the Amendments. So unless you're advocating that the Constitution should have Amendments stripped whenever a solid argument can be made to support a particular Amendment's removal, I don't really see how the 14th Amendment is any more or less equal to the other Amendments.

As to the "removal" of an Amendment, are you not aware of the Eighteenth Amendment was subsequently repealed by the Twenty First Amendment. There is no question that an Amendment can be repealed.

That kind of mindset can be dangerous. Although I'm not saying that you have that kind of mindset, but It'd be like putting forth the argument that America's forefathers couldn't conceive of the type of firearms that we have available today, and then using that logic as a reason for having the 2nd Amendment stripped. Especially when the US has a fully-functioning army that effectively replaces militias.

While I have been steadfast in this thread that the O.P. is being tyrannical in her application of what is "off topic", in all fairness to the O.P., a discussion regarding the 2nd Amendment would surely be off topic. Suffice it to say that you make this argument to suggest that if the 14th Amendment were repealed this would give cause for the repeal of other Amendments, including the Bill of Rights. Such a notion either ignores, or is ignorant of Constitutional law. In fairness to the O.P. such a discussion has no basis in this thread.

Also, the 9th Amendment only strengthens the 14th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment is in regards to "the people". The Fourteenth Amendment is in regards to "citizens". There is a Grand Canyon of a difference between "people" and "citizens". This has more bearing and is much more germane to the topic of marriage...gay, or otherwise. "Citizens" are subjects of a government. The "people" are the holders of the original and inherent political power.

The danger lies in "citizens" claiming their privileges hold supremacy over the natural and unalienable rights of the "people".

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While I have been steadfast in this thread that the O.P. is being tyrannical in her application of what is "off topic", in all fairness to the O.P., a discussion regarding the 2nd Amendment would surely be off topic. Suffice it to say that you make this argument to suggest that if the 14th Amendment were repealed this would give cause for the repeal of other Amendments, including the Bill of Rights. Such a notion either ignores, or is ignorant of Constitutional law. In fairness to the O.P. such a discussion has no basis in this thread.

DO NOT Speak for me.

And absolutely you are off topic from what this thread is supposed to be about.

I have asked you to start your own thread in regards to the subject focus you keep insisting on posting here. I am not saying you are right or wrong on what seems important to you - - - but it is NOT the topic of this thread.

The 14th Amendment absolutely applies to what this thread is about. And yes - I am interested in the discussion along those lines.

reply to post by Annee

DO NOT Speak for me.

I AM NOT speaking for you! Your insufferable arrogance remains as odious as it has been for most of this thread. Your presumptions reveal nothing but childish nonsense. Grow up for crying out loud!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As to the "removal" of an Amendment, are you not aware of the Eighteenth Amendment was subsequently repealed by the Twenty First Amendment. There is no question that an Amendment can be repealed.

arbitrarygeneraiist wasn’t questioning if Amendments can be repealed, his point was that the 14th Amendment is presently in the Constitution despite anyone’s characterization of the Amendment.

His first two sentences make that point obvious: “But regarding the 14th Amendment being dubious, it’s still an Amendment of the Constitution all the same. The 14th Amendments also has equal authority like the rest of the Amendments.”

The 9th Amendment is in regards to "the people". The Fourteenth Amendment is in regards to "citizens" ... "Citizens" are subjects of a government. The "people" are the holders of the original and inherent political power.

‘People’ encompasses everyone, citizens and non-citizens. But only citizens can actually delegate political power to a representative, so your statements make little sense. The “holders of the original and inherent political power” aren’t even alive anymore.

reply to post by aptness

His first two sentences make that point obvious: “But regarding the 14th Amendment being dubious, it’s still an Amendment of the Constitution all the same. The 14th Amendments also has equal authority like the rest of the Amendments.”

It is the people who have authority. The Eighteenth Amendment was subsequently repealed because the people refused to acquiesce to that most imprudent act of legislation. The 18th Amendment was no more law than the 14th Amendment is.

People do not have to rely upon the 14th Amendment in order to obtain a redress of grievances, not even black people do. Some would argue the 14th Amendment was necessary because of the unfortunate Dred Scot ruling. However, the Dred Scot ruling was in error in claiming that the SCOTUS had no standing to hear Mr. Scot's grievance because he wasn't a citizen. No qualifications of citizenship were ever imposed upon the people who had been able to use the Supreme Court prior to the Dred Scot ruling, it was simply a stupid decision, more than likely a bit of priest class legalese used to justify a racist view.

No Amendment was required in order to handle the error of the Dred Scot ruling. Certainly and Amendment granting rights that all ready belonged to people was not at all required, and the very dubious legality and lawfulness of imposing citizenship upon people simple by virtue of their birth on American soil is a very real problem.

All people everywhere hold the original and inherent political power regardless of their stature. Citizenship is not a requirement in order to hold this power.

‘People’ encompasses everyone, citizens and non-citizens. But only citizens can actually delegate political power to a representative, so your statements make little sense. The “holders of the original and inherent political power” aren’t even alive anymore.

Do not mistake voting privileges with original political power. The ability to elect government officials is not what is meant by original political power:

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

jim.com...

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

www.azleg.gov.../const/2/2.htm

That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

alisondb.legislature.state.al.us...

All political power is inherent in the people and government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit; and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same, in such manner as they may think proper

ballotpedia.org...

Arkansas, Alabama, Arizona, California...state after state Constitution makes perfectly clear that the inherent political power belongs to the people. No qualification of citizenship is stated under these Declaration of Rights.

The 14th Amendment does not hold any authority to undermine this.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The 18th Amendment was no more law than the 14th Amendment is.

The difference is that the 14th Amendment has not been repealed. And that was arbitrarygeneraiist’s point.

Certainly and Amendment granting rights that all ready belonged to people was not at all required

This is, it seems to me, the crux of the disagreement between you and other members: you are talking about rights in the theoretical sense, while the other members are talking about rights in practical terms.

You say the 14th Amendment wasn’t necessary, well not in theory considering what the Constitution already said, but in practical terms it was required because many states infringed upon some people’s rights, including the natural rights you have mentioned frequently.

and the very dubious legality and lawfulness of imposing citizenship upon people simple by virtue of their birth on American soil is a very real problem.

There is nothing dubious about that. Pre-14th Amendment people were considered United States citizens once they were admitted as state citizens by the respective states. It makes little sense for something as crucial as determining who is a citizen of the United States to not be codified and the requirements be universal.

All people everywhere hold the original and inherent political power regardless of their stature. Citizenship is not a requirement in order to hold this power.

This is where I think most of your argument is a tangent. You are talking about rights and the ‘people’ in almost philosophical terms and most members are talking about a practical matter. You are also talking about the so called natural rights while we’re dealing with constitutional or legal rights.

The way you are discussing things obviously no one needs license to get married. But in practical terms, unless the government recognizes you as being legally married, you’re not.

I appreciate and understand where you’re coming from, but besides, in my opinion, most of your argument being slightly off-topic, it also contributes nothing or very little to address the real and practical issue of certain classes of people being denied of having their marriage legally recognized.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxAs to the "removal" of an Amendment, are you not aware of the Eighteenth Amendment was subsequently repealed by the Twenty First Amendment. There is no question that an Amendment can be repealed.

Right. Amendments can be repealed or amended, but I was directly questioning whether or not you were advocating for the 14th Amendment to be repealed, not whether or not it can be. Otherwise I question the relevancy of stating that the 14th Amendment is dubious since it is just as valid as the other Amendments.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxWhile I have been steadfast in this thread that the O.P. is being tyrannical in her application of what is "off topic", in all fairness to the O.P., a discussion regarding the 2nd Amendment would surely be off topic.

It would only be off-topic if I tried to intentionally derail the thread and make this a topic solely about the 2nd Amendment, which you know I was not even remotely trying to do. So I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was trying to go off-topic. Maybe you misunderstood the example? I was using the 2nd Amendment as an example, not as a standalone subject to debate.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxSuffice it to say that you make this argument to suggest that if the 14th Amendment were repealed this would give cause for the repeal of other Amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

That's precisely what my post stated. I made that exact argument. And it would give cause for the repeal of other Amendments, including the 2nd Amendment, since the 14th Amendment is a Constitutional Amendment just like the others.

Calling something into question, like stating that the 14th Amendment is dubious (which perhaps implies that it should be repealed), gives leeway for other Amendments to be questioned and gives leeway for other Amendments to be repealed if a solid argument can be made against said Amendment. The Amendments can be amended or repealed, but it doesn't mean that they should be amended or repealed.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxSuch a notion either ignores, or is ignorant of Constitutional law.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with Constitutional law, since the 14th Amendment is a part of the Constitution and therefore is used in Constitutional law, same as the 2nd Amendment, and all of the other Amendments in the Constitution for that matter. I mean, that's what Constitutional law is about, isn't it? The Constitution and the things surrounding it. So I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that what I said ignored Constitutional law.

The 14th Amendment is essential to Constitutional law as it is an important part of the constitutional foundation of the United States.

So calling into question the 14th Amendment's validity ignores how it is an integral part to Constitutional law. If the 14th Amendment is questioned and is repealed, it would effectively tear down a hefty chunk of American Constitutional law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxIn fairness to the O.P. such a discussion has no basis in this thread.

It has a lot of basis in this thread, especially when it's put into context, which it was. I was directly questioning your implication behind claiming that the 14th Amendment is dubious, since doing so directly affects the outcome of same-sex marriage.

That's extremely pertinent, if you ask me.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe 9th Amendment is in regards to "the people". The Fourteenth Amendment is in regards to "citizens".

The people and the citizens are the same. The citizens and the people are the same. The people are the citizens, the citizens are the people. They are intimately related. Both Amendments more or less address the same crowd, unless you're advocating the removal of jurisdiction and unity in the US. In which case the US wouldn't be the United States, it would just be land without borders, laws, or governance.

It'd be a land of outlaws, gangs, and anarchy. And as romantic and fascinating as that might sound, the reality of such an existence would be horrible. Thus... government, law enforcement, and the military are practical and necessary elements needed to maintain a nation's sovereignty. The social contract that is between people and government is necessary in order to create a safe society. It's practical.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThere is a Grand Canyon of a difference between "people" and "citizens".

Not as vast as your making it appear. The difference is actually very marginal when you put it into a practical context that some form of governance and enforcement is necessary for a civil society to exist. This is where the necessary and practical social contract between people and government comes into play.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis has more bearing and is much more germane to the topic of marriage...gay, or otherwise.

Not really.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux"Citizens" are subjects of a government. The "people" are the holders of the original and inherent political power.

The people have rights. The citizens have rights as well as equal protection and access to those rights and privileges. The citizenry is actually a more superior form to that of the people, since the people do not have protection outside of themselves, so without governance and enforcement, how would the people have their rights protected? Answer: they become citizens, so that they may be granted both rights and equal protection to those rights, in addition to being granted the equal protection to those rights and to privileges.

The government is meant to serve the people, the citizenry. So the people, the citizens, and the government really are one in the same, since one cannot function in a practical society without the others. The United State's government is a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The removal of the government would essentially strip down the very foundation that is meant to enforce laws, enforce the Constitution, etc. Granted, the government has become excessively bloated, powerful, and arrogant, which is very, very dangerous. But that in itself is a different discussion altogether.

So the citizens are not the subjects of the government. It is more accurate to say that the government is the subject of the people who allow themselves to be citizens because they realize how practical and necessary a governing body is for a society that needs their rights to be enforced and protected.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe danger lies in "citizens" claiming their privileges hold supremacy over the natural and unalienable rights of the "people".

But without some type of defense, enforcement, or governance that gives authority to the natural and unalienable rights, people don't necessary have to abide by those rights. A citizen-government relationship codifies these intangible concepts, these so-called natural and unalienable rights and makes them recognized in an official capacity. Otherwise the so-called natural and unalienable rights are just valueless, intangible concepts that can be done away with on a whim since there isn't anything protecting them other than a few people who want to stand by them... but those few people are effectively creating their own government in the first place. The US government was established for a reason.

Congratulations! New York.

I hope it has a positive effect on California.

reply to post by aptness

The difference is that the 14th Amendment has not been repealed. And that was arbitrarygeneraiist’s point.

The 18th Amendment was repealed because the people refused to accept its validity. The 14th Amendment stands because too many people ascribe validity to it, and that is my point.

Civil rights have become the sacred cow of Americans. In India cows can do whatever they please, whenever and wherever, but people do not enjoy the same regard. In America civil rights are shoved down peoples throats as if it some sacred cow. It does not, however, mean that people are bound by the 14th Amendment in anyway. People do not have to use the 14th Amendment when asserting their rights, and all too often it is demonstrably a mistake to do so.

Civil rights are legal rights which are granted to people by governments. What can be granted by governments legally, can legally be taken away. Not one of the Amendments within the Bill of Rights is a legal right granted to the people.

This has been, and remains my point.

This is, it seems to me, the crux of the disagreement between you and other members: you are talking about rights in the theoretical sense, while the other members are talking about rights in practical terms.

Quite the contrary, I am talking about rights in the practical sense, and those, such as you, are the ones talking about rights in the theoretical sense. A granted right by government is a theoretical right. A natural right is a practical right in possession of all people at all times. It should be obvious that "marriage licenses" are impractical. If they were not, this thread wouldn't even exist. Some might argue that marriage itself is impractical, but in terms of the practicability of marriage, no licensing scheme is required.

You say the 14th Amendment wasn’t necessary, well not in theory considering what the Constitution already said, but in practical terms it was required because many states infringed upon some people’s rights, including the natural rights you have mentioned frequently.

The 13th Amendment was necessary because undeniably certain people were having their unalienable and natural rights infringed upon. The 14th Amendment is not even superfluous, it is artful language. Where
the 13th Amendment prohibited slavery, the 14th Amendment endeavors to make slaves of us all. There is no practicality to that!

More importantly, and because you keep attempting to distinguish your argument as practical and mine as theoretical, it becomes necessary to take note of your language quoted above. You state "not in theory
considering what the Constitution already said..." What the Constitution all ready said is a matter of practicality not theory. Subsequent interpretations of what the Constitution said prior to the
14th Amendment could be theoretical, and perhaps not at all practical.

It is this Orwellian doublespeak that is most disturbing, where theory is practical, and practicality is theory.

This is where I think most of your argument is a tangent. You are talking about rights and the ‘people’ in almost philosophical terms and most members are talking about a practical matter. You are also talking about the so called natural rights while we’re dealing with constitutional or legal rights.

Again, quite the contrary, it is you and others who are engaging in a philosophical view towards law, while I remain practical about it. As a matter of practicality, people were getting married long before the establishment of the United States of America, and long before England formed 13 colonies. This is the practical reality about marriage. It's presumed "legality" is not a matter of practicality, it is a philosophical ideology. License, as a legal definition, is the grant or permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. No Constitution within the United States grants government the legal, or lawful authority to declare marriage "illegal". The only reason to obtain a marriage license would be because it was "illegal" to get married.

Marriage is not only "legal", it is lawful.

In terms of these "so called" natural rights versus "Constitutional rights", this has been my point about the 14th Amendment all along. The "so called" Constitutional rights within the Bill of Rights are not legal rights at all, and are, as is made clear by the Ninth Amendment, natural rights. You cannot find any language written in the Bill of Rights to support your contention that "Constitutional rights" are "legal rights". The 14th Amendment, on the other hand, deals with "legal rights". The 14th Amendment cannot by virtue of itself erase the natural existence of the natural rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Such a thing would be unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment has no lawful, or Constitutional authority to diminish natural rights.

The way you are discussing things obviously no one needs license to get married. But in practical terms, unless the government recognizes you as being legally married, you’re not.

In practical terms, once again you are mistaken. No person needs a government sanction in order to enter into a marriage contract with another person, and in the United States no court can reject a contract dispute simply because a license was not obtained beforehand.

Legislatures do endeavor to make it appear as if such an arrangement requires legislative approval. Indeed, consider what the National Conference of State Legislatures has to say regarding common law marriage:

To be defined as a common-law marriage within the states that allow it, the two people must: agree that they are married, live together, and present themselves as husband and wife. Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

Before modern domestic relations statutes, couples became married by a variety of means that developed from custom. These became the elements of a "common-law marriage," or a marriage that arose through the couple's conduct, instead of through a ceremony. In many ways, the theory of common-law marriage is one of estoppel - meaning that couples who have told the world they are married should not be allowed to claim they aren't when in a dispute between themselves.

All of this is moot until the validity of a marriage is challenged in court. Given that, and dealing with merely the practical, if two people contract to marry without obtaining any license, what practical scenario would arise where the validity of this marriage is challenged in court?

The answer, of course, lies in divorce, and particularly regarding property rights. The issue of "common law" marriage is a non issue until the validity of the marriage is challenged in court. In terms of "common law" if a dispute of property or some other such obligation is brought to court regarding an unlicensed marriage, those states that recognize "common law" marriage will turn to common law decisions applicable to the case to find a resolution. This is how common law works.

In terms of "legality" it has become necessary now to look at case law regarding the issue. Consider the matter of Meister v Moore:

As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory, because marriage is a thing of common right, because it is the policy of the state to encourage it, and because, as has sometimes been said, any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law.

(Emphasis added)

First we should define what "directory" means in this regard. Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition provides:

Directory - A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed.

The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that all this prattling on about "sanctioned marriage" and "legal marriage" has no force of law. Do you need common right defined for you? It is settled by the courts that government has no lawful authority to regulate, or interfere with the marriage of two people.

Meister v Moore has never been overturned and remains controlling law regarding state interference or regulation of marriage.

Of course, one would have to know this case law even exists in order to rely upon it. In this thread no such reliance on actual case law is desired and instead passionate arguments are made in favor of state interference and regulation of marriage while simultaneously lamenting that this regulation and interference doesn't "allow" gay marriage. It is simply absurd.

I appreciate and understand where you’re coming from, but besides, in my opinion, most of your argument being slightly off-topic, it also contributes nothing or very little to address the real and practical issue of certain classes of people being denied of having their marriage legally recognized.

I sincerely doubt you understand or appreciate where I am coming from. I have steadfastly argued that all people have the natural right to marry without any interference or regulation from government. This argument has steadfastly been berated as being "off topic" and "irrelevant", or "philosophical" or "theoretical", and as a matter of practicality I have just now supplied those who care to consider, very real and practical case law that can reasonably, soundly and irrefutably be used to support the validity of a marriage without a license.

I am being berated as I am in this thread not because people (with the exception of the noble Garfee) actually want gay marriage, but because they want special privileges at the expense of natural rights.

never understood why these queers like to butt # each other

Originally posted by BladeofTroy
never understood why these queers like to butt # each other

I wonder if that's because you're heterosexual you idiot.

Good.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe 18th Amendment was repealed because the people refused to accept its validity. The 14th Amendment stands because too many people ascribe validity to it, and that is my point.

The 14th Amendment is a Constitutional Amendment. And despite it's so-called dubious nature, it filled the required conditions to become an Amendment. It has officially been recognized as an Amendment and has been used in supreme court cases and other legal matters for over a century. It is as valid as all of the other Amendments. And that was my point, which you didn't seem to want to accept or acknowledge.

However, the 14th Amendment is open to being scrutinized and repealed or amended just like all of the other Constitutional Amendments are. I think that was part of your point, which I acknowledged and accepted. And I made the claim that if someone can pose a worthwhile and meaningful argument for why the 14th Amendment, or the 2nd Amendment, or any other of the Amendments should be repealed or amended, these Amendments can be repealed or amended. But when people start questioning the Constitution on that kind of level, validity and authority surrounding the entire thing is not only being questioned, but is being lessened as well.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


The danger is here all ready and it is here because of the 14th Amendment. It is the 14th Amendment that gave rise to the sacred cow of "civil rights" being placed above unalienable natural rights. Regardless of how long it has been accepted as "valid" it does not change its inherent unconstitutionality. Congress does not have the authority to grant rights that all ready exist, many of them enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This is my argument.

The difference between the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment in regards to this debate between you and I is that the 2nd Amendment is not granting any right(s). Nor is it imposing any thing upon the people. It is a prohibition - in fact - of the federal government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Your specious argument regarding the 2nd Amendment compared to my argument of the 14th Amendment is just a deflection.

If any legislation, including Amendments, causes injury to a person, then that person who has had injury caused to them has not just a right to challenge the legislation, they have a lawful obligation.

Consider this ruling by the 11th Circuit of Appeals regarding the right to sleep outdoors for example:

"Homeless persons are not a suspect class, nor is sleeping out-of-doors a fundamental right. See D'Aguanno v. Gallagher, 50 F.3d 877, 879 n. 2 (11th Cir.1995) (homeless not a suspect class); Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242, 1269 n. 36 (3rd Cir.1992) (same); Davison v. City of Tucson, 924 F.Supp. 989, 993 (D.Ariz.1996) (same); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344, 355 (N.D.Tex.1994) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.1995); Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843, 859 (N.D.Ca.1994) (declining to be the first court to recognize fundamental right to sleep), dismissed, 87 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir.1996); State of Hawaii v. Sturch, 82 Hawai'i 269, 921 P.2d 1170, 1176 (App.1996) (noting that there is "no authority supporting a specific constitutional right to sleep in a public place" unless it is expressive conduct within the ambit of the First Amendment or is protected by other fundamental rights). But see Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1578 (S.D.Fla.1992) (indicating in dicta that homeless might constitute a suspect class), remanded for limited purposes, 40 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir.1994), and directed to undertake settlement discussions, 76 F.3d 1154 (1996). Consequently, rational basis review is appropriate."

Joel v City of Orlando 232 F.3d 1353

Here we have a court of appeals erroneously declaring that sleeping outdoors is not a fundamental right. Never mind the fact that such a determination flies in the face of rational thought and logic which tells us that people were sleeping out doors long before the United States existed, long before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found any Constitutional authority, and even before any government existed. Let's just look at their so called "legal reasoning" which is that there is no specific authority declaring sleeping outdoors as a right.

This brand of legal reasoning stems from the "civil rights" mindset, not from the natural unalienable rights mindset and regardless of what philosophical ideology one subscribes to, in terms of specific authority, the 11th Circuit is bound by the Ninth Amendment, as well as the Florida Constitution which echoes the Ninth Amendment in their Declaration right, both Constitutions making clear that any rights not enumerated may not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people.

This means that the 11th Cir. was not only in error, they acted criminally. It is my argument that this criminality exists in a large part because the 14th Amendment has been allowed to stand, and it should be struck down and government held accountable for their injurious legislation and rulings that violate the rights of the people.

No right to sleep out doors...please.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe danger is here all ready and it is here because of the 14th Amendment. It is the 14th Amendment that gave rise to the sacred cow of "civil rights" being placed above unalienable natural rights.

I disagree with you on that. The 14th Amendment isn't really placing something above the other, it's a matter of establishing some type of peaceful balance amongst a very diverse population in a society that in history has been known for discriminating and committing acts of violence against people because of their differences. The 14th Amendment acts to prevent that type of discrimination and violence, and I would say it's existence is more than justifiable. Or do you disagree that the North should have won the Civil War? And do you agree that slavery should still exist and that women should be seen as inferior to men? Which I doubt you do, because I realize that you have to know the history surrounding the Civil War and the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was put in place for a reason.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxRegardless of how long it has been accepted as "valid" it does not change its inherent unconstitutionality

Could you elaborate on that? It was ratified in the same way that the other Amendments were ratified, despite the apparent coercive methods that are said to have been employed to get it ratified. While the Southern states had to vote in favor of the 14th Amendment before they could be re-enter the union, such a thing isn't unheard of in societies that try to maintain peace and stability after a time of war when one side beats the other and try to create documents and treaties that are meant to unite rather than divide.

But really what does your argument for natural and unalienable rights matter when they exist in a theoretical capacity? If you don't recognize the government or national sovereignty, which some of the substance of your past posts appear to indicate, then this entire debate is meaningless because the natural rights are meaningless. Nothing is enforcing or recognizing them on a practical level.

As it stands, the 14th Amendment is valid despite how you think it's unconstitutional. But what does any of that matter if there isn't a united society with sovereignty that recognizes and enforces the validity of the Constitution?

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxCongress does not have the authority to grant rights that all ready exist, many of them enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This is my argument

What does authority matter if there isn't an establishment of authority in place? Your argument was also seemingly against government and against societies that have a governing body. So I have to question the practicality of natural rights and the Constitution if there isn't a way to enforce its authority or to enforce the recognition of the document in general. What would the Bill of Rights matter in that instance? What do theoretical rights matter without sovereignty and the ability to recognize these rights and enforce them in any official capacity?

And therein lies the practicality of governance, enforcement, and the 14th Amendment within American society. This is my argument.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe difference between the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment in regards to this debate between you and I is that the 2nd Amendment is not granting any right(s). Nor is it imposing any thing upon the people. It is a prohibition - in fact - of the federal government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms

The 2nd Amendment basically acknowledges the right to bear arms, and states that the government cannot infringe upon the person's rights to do so. In that regard it is granting the person the right to not have the government infringe upon their personal freedom to bear arms.

But an argument can be made to have the 2nd Amendment repealed or amended, which would allow the government to infringe upon a person's right to bear arms. And in some instances it already has been with gun laws and whatnot that are already in place. Advocates who support the 2nd Amendment as well as the right to bear arms like to talk a big game in how more stringent gun laws are infringing upon their right to bear arms, while people who are against the 2nd Amendment talk about how our forefathers might not have been able to conceive of the type of deadly munitions that are available in modern times. And this is a prime example of what happens when a reasonable argument is made that serves the purpose of decreasing the validity and authority of a Constitutional Amendment.

In that regard, you are going against the Constitution by implying that the 14th Amendment should not be recognized as valid and should be repealed because you are putting forth a reasonable argument against it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYour specious argument regarding the 2nd Amendment compared to my argument of the 14th Amendment is just a deflection

No it isn't. A deflection isn't something that directly addresses an issue. My argument directly explained how taking validity away from the Constitution can be dangerous, and how trying to question a Constitutional Amendment is tantamount to questioning the entire Constitution and undermining its authority.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxIf any legislation, including Amendments, causes injury to a person, then that person who has had injury caused to them has not just a right to challenge the legislation, they have a lawful obligation

What does law matter without governance or sovereignty? I'm not sure if you support the idea of having things like legislation and Amendments challenged on a legal scale or if you are against it. But if you support it, then that acts contrary to your argument against government intervention.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxJoel v City of Orlando 232 F.3d 1353

Here we have a court of appeals erroneously declaring that sleeping outdoors is not a fundamental right. Never mind the fact that such a determination flies in the face of rational thought and logic which tells us that people were sleeping out doors long before the United States existed, long before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found any Constitutional authority, and even before any government existed. Let's just look at their so called "legal reasoning" which is that there is no specific authority declaring sleeping outdoors as a right

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it has little to do with the 14th Amendment. Is it a fundamental Constitutional right for people to sleep outdoors? But again, what does the Constitution even matter if it isn't officially meant to be recognized?

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis brand of legal reasoning stems from the "civil rights" mindset

I think that's just your mindset trying to biasly associate this particular ruling to Civil Rights in order to try and demonize Civil Rights, an attempt at equality, and the 14th Amendment. I read the excerpt you quoted, and I didn't see anything tangentially related to civil rights in that case whatsoever. In fact, if anything the 14th Amendment works in favor of homeless people sleeping outdoors if a reasonable argument can be made to support sleeping outdoors. Because the 14th Amendment tells you that if one person can legally sleep outdoors, then ALL people can legally sleep outdoors. I don't see how the 14th Amendment is bad in that case, as it prevents the law from discriminating against people when it comes to things of a legal nature.

Would you be opposed to legal reasoning that it is somehow okay for police to abuse African-Americans and Hispanics because of their skin color?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeauxnot from the natural unalienable rights mindset and regardless of what philosophical ideology one subscribes to, in terms of specific authority, the 11th Circuit is bound by the Ninth Amendment, as well as the Florida Constitution which echoes the Ninth Amendment in their Declaration right, both Constitutions making clear that any rights not enumerated may not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people.

That's all well and good, but what's it matter if these things are not officially recognized or enforced?

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis means that the 11th Cir. was not only in error, they acted criminally. It is my argument that this criminality exists in a large part because the 14th Amendment has been allowed to stand, and it should be struck down and government held accountable for their injurious legislation and rulings that violate the rights of the people.

I'm a little confused, you're in favor of the idea of governance, the legal system, and Constitution when they benefit you, but you're against the idea of these things when they benefit someone else? The 14th Amendment can be shot down. Then again the 2nd Amendment and other Amendments can be shot down if a person puts forth a reasonable argument about why they should be struck down.

I'm not sure about you, but I know that some people enjoy not being considered three-fifths of a person... which is the type of legal reasoning that the 14th Amendment protects against.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

I disagree with you on that. The 14th Amendment isn't really placing something above the other, it's a matter of establishing some type of peaceful balance amongst a very diverse population in a society that in history has been known for discriminating and committing acts of violence against people because of their differences.

The 14th Amendment most certainly doesn't do what you claim it is doing. No act of legislation is going to "establish some type of peaceful balance amongst a very diverse population in a society that in history has been known for discriminating and committing acts of violence against people because of their differences." It is beyond naive to believe the 14th Amendment accomplished this, and shows a profound ignorance of history. Why was there this so called "Civil Rights" movement if the 14th Amendment accomplished all you claim it did?

The 14th Amendment acts to prevent that type of discrimination and violence, and I would say it's existence is more than justifiable.

Either you are speaking language, or language is speaking you. When you are speaking language you control your thoughts and use language to facilitate communication of those thoughts, when language is speaking you your thoughts become the effect of the language that controls you. Take the above quote as an example of language speaking you.

No act of legislation acts, they are acts in that they indicate something that has been done, but once done they do not act. The 14th Amendment is merely words, and words are not the thing defined. You can no more drive the word automobile than the 14th Amendment can act to prevent.

Further, regardless of the vast propaganda asserting otherwise, it is demonstrably so that legislative acts do not prevent the thing they purport to prevent. Not that statutes prohibiting murder purport to prevent murder, but statutes prohibiting murder do indeed exist, and so does murder, in spite of these statutes. The so called "war on drugs" is a clear and demonstrable example of legislation that does purport to prevent and yet has instead accomplished the exact opposite.

Or do you disagree that the North should have won the Civil War?

Relying upon fallacy will not help you at all. Are you under the belief that people must necessarily agree that the 14th Amendment did all you claim it did or they are advocates of slavery? The biggest problem with this gross example of affirming the consequent is that it was the 13th Amendment that was necessary to stop the unlawful violation of peoples rights, in this circumstance, slavery, not the 14th Amendment.

Since you obviously intend to entrench yourself in your dogma, and since you clearly intend to use tactics such as the one above, let me make this perfectly clear.

The argument that the Civil War was not about slavery and was about states rights is nothing but disingenuous revisionism. If the Southern States truly wanted to fight a war over states rights, they were smart enough to know that ending slavery was a foregone conclusion, otherwise the contention that the war was over states rights would never hold any legal validity.

Slavery never should have been accepted as a valid form of economy, and both the North and the South - in terms of the 13 colonies which ultimately became the United States - were guilty of this unforgivable act. The crime existed prior to the establishment of the United States, and the crime continued after that establishment and just because there were "free states" doesn't excuse the fact that slavery was tolerated. There is no doubt that the 13th Amendment was necessary to correct this criminal behavior. Slavery was seen as "legal" and the correction necessary was to make it "illegal".

However, those who enslaved had their unalienable and natural rights grossly violated. The had rights. Self evidently so.

Let us discuss, for a moment, this thing called self evidence, and while were at it let's also discuss an earlier argument you made in support of the 14th Amendment, which was that it has stood unchanged for more than 100 years. You clearly hope to give credence to that Amendment simply because of its long standing in American jurisprudence. Prior to Galileo's advocacy of a heliocentric universe, it was not so self evident that the Earth moved around the sun, and not the other way around. Indeed, language such as "sunrise" and "sunset" indicates the perception that it is the sun that is moving and not the Earth. However, Galileo came to his determinations based upon study through telescopes. The telescopes made it self evident.

As self evident as it was, and remains, the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial, demanded he recant what was self evident and it took the Church 500 years to finally vindicate Galileo...long after the conventional wisdom had accepted a heliocentric universe as correct. Of course, unless you, or I, are using telescopes to look at this heliocentric universe, it is not so self evident, but if we are relying on telescopic tools, it becomes clearly self evident. As self evident as it is, the Catholic Church took longer to "repeal" their own geocentric dogma than the 14th Amendment has existed. So, just because the 14th Amendment has experienced some longevity with authority declaring it valid, this does not necessarily make it so, and particularly because the 14th Amendment tends to contradict what is self evident, and so do you arguments.

Where you speciously claimed that my argument against the 14th Amendment was akin to arguing that - in terms of the 2nd Amendment - the Framers did not anticipate the technological advances in weaponry, I suggest your argument that the 14th Amendment was necessary to "prevent that type of discrimination and violence" is akin to saying that black people didn't have rights until white people gave them rights. I am arguing that all people, everywhere, at all times, with or without government have rights. So, you can hopelessly attempt to frame me as the bad guy here, but I am not the one who consciously put on the black hat. I consciously put on the white hat, and you, seeing this, decided to argue.

Could you elaborate on that? It was ratified in the same way that the other Amendments were ratified, despite the apparent coercive methods that are said to have been employed to get it ratified.

Are you inviting me to take up the ratification argument regarding the 14th Amendment? Why would I need to rely upon this argument, I am asserting the Amendment is unconstitutional regardless of its ratification status. It matters not whether the Amendment was properly ratified or not, it is unconstitutional because it grants rights that people all ready have. Congress has no Constitutional authority to declare unalienable rights legal rights, and they certainly do not have the authority to declare black people do not have the same rights as white people. This is, and by your own cautious admission, the effect of the 14th Amendment. It is an arrogant and altogether unseemly position.

But really what does your argument for natural and unalienable rights matter when they exist in a theoretical capacity?

There is nothing theoretical about natural unalienable rights, but since you are asserting the argument, why not attempt to prove it? Explain to everyone how there is no right to life in practical terms, it is only a theory created by humanity, and as such those who aggregate power get to grant this right to life to each person. Good luck with that one.

Why not explain how the infant who cries only has this right because the Framers of the Bill of Rights gave this infant the right to cry. Good luck with that one.

Or better yet, why not explain to us how it was that a Congress of roses was required before the rose could derive the right to keep and bear thorns. Explain to us how a decree from a king was necessary before the porcupine could derive the right to keep and bear needles, and tell us all about how it was necessary for the skunk to gain permission from the state before he could spew his stink. Good luck with that...

If you don't recognize the government or national sovereignty, which some of the substance of your past posts appear to indicate, then this entire debate is meaningless because the natural rights are meaningless.

If you don't recognize that your are so hopelessly lost in this debate that you now must rely on strawman arguments in order to keep insisting you are correct, then this entire debate is meaningless because if natural rights were, as you say, "meaningless" then couldn't you reasonably and cogently argue how so instead of rely upon a series of fallacious arguments?

Nothing is enforcing or recognizing them on a practical level.

A right is not a right because it is enforceable. The mute has the right to speech, the cripple has the right to walk and the murdered have the right to life. Would you enforce speech on the mute? Would you enforce walking on the cripple? Would you enforce reanimation upon the murdered? Conversely, would you deny, without any enumeration or "enforcing" clause, the mute the right to find ways to speech? Would you deny, without any enumeration or "enforcing" clause, the cripple the right to find ways to walk? Would you deny, without any enumeration, or "enforcing" clause, the living the right to defend themselves against murder?

As it stands, the 14th Amendment is valid despite how you think it's unconstitutional.

Uh-huh, and 500 years ago the Pope said the same thing about a geocentric universe. It didn't make the geocentric universe valid then, and your heavy reliance upon fallacy here hardly supports your contention that the 14th Amendment is valid.

But what does any of that matter if there isn't a united society with sovereignty that recognizes and enforces the validity of the Constitution?

What precisely is your point, here? Do you possibly recognize the strawman hidden in this, and so you obfuscate attempting to hide your fallacy?

What does authority matter if there isn't an establishment of authority in place?

Lawfully speaking it is We the People who, at all times, are that established authority. Legally speaking the Preamble to the federal Constitution and every single state constitution make it perfectly clear that is the people who hold the inherent political power and that all political power flows directly from the people. This is natural law, and as matter of legality it is Constitutional law. Care to argue it is not?

Your argument was also seemingly against government and against societies that have a governing body.

In spite of your careful choice of words such as "seemingly" your helpless desperation is clear. Stop with the strawman arguments. If your cause is so just, then why lie?

So I have to question the practicality of natural rights and the Constitution if there isn't a way to enforce its authority or to enforce the recognition of the document in general.

You do not have to, you only want to do so. I care not why you are so adamantly against natural unalienable rights, only that you are. You offer up this argument while pretending that the 14th Amendment enforced racial harmony. It is, of course, a pretense made clear by the very real history that includes such figures as Dr. Martin Luther King. Or, would you care to amend your argument and suggest that the "enforceability" of an Amendment takes time, but be patient and in time it will be enforced? You pretend the "enforceability" of drug prohibition laws actually prevent drug use. You pretend the "enforceability" of prohibition of prostitution prevents prostitution. You pretend, and you pretend, and you pretend, and still you expect us to take you seriously when you speak of practicability.

You pretend that I am "anti government" and say this because I am on record as being anti tyranny. Think about my friend, you hope to take my strong arguments against tyranny and declare me anti government. Just what the hell does this say about you?

What would the Bill of Rights matter in that instance? What do theoretical rights matter without sovereignty and the ability to recognize these rights and enforce them in any official capacity?

Every individual is a sovereign unto themselves. Go ahead and take that argument up, but if you do, then retract the silly question above. If you cannot acknowledge that all people are sovereign then your question is just disingenuous political posturing.

And therein lies the practicality of governance, enforcement, and the 14th Amendment within American society. This is my argument.

Tyranny is unconstitutional, and why you would be so proud of arguing in favor of tyranny is beyond me.

The 2nd Amendment basically acknowledges the right to bear arms, and states that the government cannot infringe upon the person's rights to do so. In that regard it is granting the person the right to not have the government infringe upon their personal freedom to bear arms.

And yet more evidence of your pro tyranny stance. The 2nd Amendment is a prohibition on government not a grant to the people. The whole damn Constitution is a grant mixed with express prohibitions, and that grant is not the government granting the people rights, it is the people granting government limited power for a limited time. This is expressly so.

But an argument can be made to have the 2nd Amendment repealed or amended, which would allow the government to infringe upon a person's right to bear arms.

No valid argument of sound legal reasoning can be made, and repealing it would certainly be unlawful. The 2nd Amendment does not cause injury to any individual. The 14th Amendment does. This is the difference.

It is getting late, and I have much work to do, and while you have made volumes of specious arguments, sifting through each and every one of them, particularly the repetitive (ad nauseum) disingenuous question of sovereignty, is taking up far too much time. I will, however, point out that when I showed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals clear and undeniable criminality this was your response:

That's all well and good, but what's it matter if these things are not officially recognized or enforced?

This say's it all. I just pointed out how the Ninth Amendment was not being officially recognized or enforced, and you ask this question as if it doesn't matter but what, that it does in terms of the 14th Amendment.

You feign confusion about my advocacy of government not because you are confused, but because you believe such pretensions will disguise your inability to effectively argue.

I am soundly on record as being a staunch advocate of marriage as a fundamental right belonging to all people. That is what the topic of this thread is about, in spite of what the O.P. claims. I say gay people, and straight people alike have the unalienable and natural right to marry and need no license in order to validate that. You hope to deflect this issue and frame me as "anti-government" but only the fools will buy your product. I care not what fools buy, I speak to the wise.