| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 May 2004 01:27:07 PM |
| Object: |
Strickland lying again |
Note the dates:
From: Dave Thompson (dav13795@wdmdx1.com)
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 2004-02-18 12:18:43 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Driving is a privilege that we bestow on certain members of society. Those
members must meet certain tests before we extend to them the privilege of
driving.
The only problem with your argument is that the requirements for a drivers
license are rational ones to insure the safety of drivers. The state has an
interest in insuring that our roads are safe. There are no arbitrary
requirements, such as you need to be a heterosexual, or white, or a male,
to
get a license to drive. All the requirements can be defended.
To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
incredibly arbitrary. The state has no reasonable interest in making that
requirement on two consenting adults. Why is that a requirement for
marraige? Because it might offend the religious sensibilities of some
people who are not even party to the relationship. The government has no
interest or even a right or power to tell two consenting adults that they
can't marry because of their color, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If the
churches don't want gays to marry, then they don't have to marry them.
otherwise they have no right to impose their beliefs on others through
government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.education,
misc.education, alt.atheism
Date: 2004-02-19 09:48:13 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|But, isn't opposition to gay marriage a social opposition instead of a
:|government prohibition? Can't society make demands separate from government?
:|
:|Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
FALSE JEFFY
YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK AGAIN
The USSC has said that marriage is a fundamental right.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. I (1967) Also see .
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S.
190 (1888).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Strickland (beerman@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Amendment does not support bias
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.society.liberalism
Date: 2004-02-27 13:13:15 PST
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I support the Defense of Marriage, but I wonder if it is true that the
Amendment proposed is "exclusionary", and is the first such amendment to
specifically exclude people from the privileges of marriage. Marriage, after
all is not a right, it is a privilege.
"In The Darkness" <north@onecall.net> wrote
Not according to court rulings.
[Jeff Strickland]
I am sorry, but I do not understand. The amendment that has been proposed
is most certainly "exclusionary". It will affirm the definition of marriage
as being between a man and a woman. This language is exclusionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
us.talk.constitution,us.talk.headline-news,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal,alt.law-enforcement
Subject: Re: Gay marriage before California high court
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:23:35 -0700
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Marriage, like driving, is not a right. It is a privilege that is granted.
:|We use the term "marriage rights", but rights do not require a permit,
:|privileges do. We do not regulate rights, we regulate privileges.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
26 May 2004 02:57:27 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dbo9b0p5a0c5snj9svn6vt9k078jberi7a@4ax.com...
Note the dates:
From: Dave Thompson (dav13795@wdmdx1.com)
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 2004-02-18 12:18:43 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
Driving is a privilege that we bestow on certain members of society.
Those
members must meet certain tests before we extend to them the privilege
of
driving.
The only problem with your argument is that the requirements for a drivers
license are rational ones to insure the safety of drivers. The state has
an
interest in insuring that our roads are safe. There are no arbitrary
requirements, such as you need to be a heterosexual, or white, or a male,
to
get a license to drive. All the requirements can be defended.
Well, since sex and driving are normally not activities that occur at the
same time, it makes sense that the requirements might be different. That is,
there is no need to have driving restrictions based upon the sex, or the
lack of it. Marriage often times does involve sex, not always, but it can be
assumed that most people have sex when they get married, and continue to
have sex long after marriage. So, the sex of a person that is applying for a
marriage license has long been something the state felt compelled to ask
about.
The state does have a compelling public health interest in the participants
of marriage, which is why they might demand a blood test, for example. So,
you assertion that the state can defend the public safety interest in one
arena, but not in the other is just plain stupid.
To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
incredibly arbitrary. The state has no reasonable interest in making that
requirement on two consenting adults. Why is that a requirement for
marraige? Because it might offend the religious sensibilities of some
people who are not even party to the relationship. The government has no
interest or even a right or power to tell two consenting adults that they
can't marry because of their color, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If the
churches don't want gays to marry, then they don't have to marry them.
otherwise they have no right to impose their beliefs on others through
government.
It very well might be arbitrary. It isn't my rule though, it is just one of
the rules that I have grown to accept as a rational one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
27 May 2004 11:39:05 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Well, since sex and driving are normally not activities that occur at the
:|same time,
Nice try at dodging jeffy But I am not going to let you get away with it.
I'm not interested in your opinion about marriage and driving.
You are trying to compare apples and aircraft carriers
Not to mention create a smoke screen to draw attention away from you being
caught red handed
Here was the issue son, since you seem to have missed it
You are lying
I showed that in Feb of this year you made the following comment:
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Driving is a privilege that we bestow on certain members of society. Those
members must meet certain tests before we extend to them the privilege of
driving.
That comment was challenged and CORRECTED as the following shows:
Note the dates:
From: Dave Thompson (dav13795@wdmdx1.com)
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 2004-02-18 12:18:43 PST
The only problem with your argument is that the requirements for a drivers
license are rational ones to insure the safety of drivers. The state has an
interest in insuring that our roads are safe. There are no arbitrary
requirements, such as you need to be a heterosexual, or white, or a male,
to
get a license to drive. All the requirements can be defended.
To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
incredibly arbitrary. The state has no reasonable interest in making that
requirement on two consenting adults. Why is that a requirement for
marraige? Because it might offend the religious sensibilities of some
people who are not even party to the relationship. The government has no
interest or even a right or power to tell two consenting adults that they
can't marry because of their color, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If the
churches don't want gays to marry, then they don't have to marry them.
otherwise they have no right to impose their beliefs on others through
government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.education,
misc.education, alt.atheism
Date: 2004-02-19 09:48:13 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|But, isn't opposition to gay marriage a social opposition instead of a
:|government prohibition? Can't society make demands separate from government?
:|
:|Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
FALSE JEFFY
YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK AGAIN
The USSC has said that marriage is a fundamental right.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. I (1967) Also see .
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S.
190 (1888).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Strickland (beerman@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Amendment does not support bias
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.society.liberalism
Date: 2004-02-27 13:13:15 PST
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I support the Defense of Marriage, but I wonder if it is true that the
Amendment proposed is "exclusionary", and is the first such amendment to
specifically exclude people from the privileges of marriage. Marriage, after
all is not a right, it is a privilege.
"In The Darkness" <north@onecall.net> wrote
Not according to court rulings.
[Jeff Strickland]
I am sorry, but I do not understand. The amendment that has been proposed
is most certainly "exclusionary". It will affirm the definition of marriage
as being between a man and a woman. This language is exclusionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You then turned around and made the following comments
on May 26, 3004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
us.talk.constitution,us.talk.headline-news,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal,alt.law-enforcement
Subject: Re: Gay marriage before California high court
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:23:35 -0700
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Marriage, like driving, is not a right. It is a privilege that is granted.
:|We use the term "marriage rights", but rights do not require a permit,
:|privileges do. We do not regulate rights, we regulate privileges.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
and I called you on it again
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
us.talk.constitution,us.talk.headline-news,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal,alt.law-enforcement
Subject: Re: Gay marriage before California high court
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:23:35 -0700
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Marriage, like driving, is not a right. It is a privilege that is granted.
:|We use the term "marriage rights", but rights do not require a permit,
:|privileges do. We do not regulate rights, we regulate privileges.
And you are full of *****.
You have been told this before
Now if you ever repeat the above again you will prove to all that you are a
liar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without
due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of
another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the
basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That STUPID is the issue and why I began this tread with the title I gave
it.
You made a false statement in Feb you were corrected not with opinion but
facts. You wait approx. 3 months or so and say the exact same thing again
showing how stupid you really are or that you truly are a liar.
You are either a liar or you are totally incapable of learning a fact and
changing your mind as a result of the lea
It is one think to say something that is incorrect. Everyonr has probably
done that at some time or another. You do it everytime you post
However it is a horse of a different color to say somethign incorrect be
shown that it was incorect with actual data, facts, etc and trun around a
few days later, weeks later or months later and repeat the original comment
again.
That shows stupidity or intent to deceive, to misrepresent by lying.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
26 May 2004 03:43:36 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, since sex and driving are normally not activities that occur at the
same time, it makes sense that the requirements might be different. That is,
there is no need to have driving restrictions based upon the sex, or the
lack of it. Marriage often times does involve sex, not always, but it can be
assumed that most people have sex when they get married, and continue to
have sex long after marriage. So, the sex of a person that is applying for a
marriage license has long been something the state felt compelled to ask
about.
Why?
Most people eat when they are married, but the state does ask for a
digestive system test when people get married. Why not? Because it
is none of the state's business.
The state does have a compelling public health interest in the participants
of marriage, which is why they might demand a blood test, for example. So,
you assertion that the state can defend the public safety interest in one
arena, but not in the other is just plain stupid.
It isn't necessarily about "public health"
Are blood tests still required before marriage?
A handful of states still require blood tests for couples planning to
marry. Most do not. (See State Marriage License and Blood Test
Requirements.) Premarital blood tests check both partners for
venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose
the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or
Tay-Sachs disease. You will not be tested for HIV, but in some
states, the person who tests you will provide you with information
about HIV and AIDS. In most states, blood tests can be waived for
people over 50 and for other reasons, including pregnancy or
sterility.
If either partner tests positive for a venereal disease, what happens
depends on the state where you are marrying. Some states may refuse
to issue you a marriage license. Other states may allow you to marry
as long as you both know that the disease is present.
In other words, it may be about making sure the prospective spouse is
informed.
It very well might be arbitrary. It isn't my rule though, it is just one of
the rules that I have grown to accept as a rational one.
But since you are fundamentally irrational, that which you consider
rational probably isn't.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
27 May 2004 12:49:51 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:...
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted (marriage as a "right")...
It very well might be arbitrary. It isn't my rule though, it is just one of
the rules that I have grown to accept as a rational one.
But since you are fundamentally irrational, that which you consider
rational probably isn't.
MK. When courts expand the definition of "marriage", they impose new
taxes to the extent that State (government, generally) mandated
marriage benefits cover new people. Perhaps the custom of marriage
evolved to surround children with a supportive environment, responding
to an informal cost/benefit analysis. Marriage is primarily an
--obligation-- imposed on men who undertake to have sex regularly with
some woman. Society makes a big deal marriage in order to embarass men
who skip. When, in the interest of equality, courts mandate spousal
benefits which violate the principle of freedom of contract or the
principle of equal pay for equal work, such as employees' spouses'
health care coverage, they impose taxes with no regard for the
cost/benefit analysis of social gains from improved child care which
motivated the policy in the first place. With homosexual marriage, a
new group which is far less likely to have children and is far more at
risk of an expensive medical condition becomes eligible for benefits.
Courts are not the proper venue for consideration of social costs and
benefits, as participation in court proceedings is limited. The Hawaii
"same-sex marriage" lawsuit, Baer et. al. versus Miike, is an example.
Ninia Baer listed as a cause for the suit access to her partner's
medical plan. Her lawsuit was against the State Department of Health
Director. Her partner's employer's insurance company was not a party
to the suit. Your legislature is the proper venue for
consideration of costs and benefits.
MK. Three of my friends died of AIDS. I shared for a year the rent on
a house with a male friend who prefers males for sexual purposes. I am
not homophobic. My argument makes no use of the term "God". "God", as
I understand the term from observation of others' usage, means
approximately "I don't know why, but it sure is amazing". If a witch
doctor, expressing centuries of tradition, says that the Spirit of the
Willow Tree eases pain, are we supprised to find that willow bark
contains the precursor of aspirin? If a farmer, summarizing centuries
of experience, says that it is pleasing to the gods to plant millet
after the first rains following the Travelers' Moon, who are we to
argue? "I don't know why, but it sure is amazing" how often "God"
serves to restrain arrogant authorities in their depradations on
ordinary people.
MK. On 2004-04-12, Bob LeChevalier wrote:...
"It is the status quo. The status quo trumps all arguments",...
....but I never supposed that Bob LeChevalier was systematic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
27 May 2004 02:01:35 PM |
|
|
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
MK. When courts expand the definition of "marriage", they impose new
taxes to the extent that State (government, generally) mandated
marriage benefits cover new people. Perhaps the custom of marriage
evolved to surround children with a supportive environment, responding
to an informal cost/benefit analysis.
This is Alberto's argument, though he states it somewhat differently.
Marriage is primarily an
--obligation-- imposed on men who undertake to have sex regularly with
some woman. Society makes a big deal marriage in order to embarass men
who skip.
That may have been the theory at some point, but it simply is not
reality today.
When, in the interest of equality, courts mandate spousal
benefits which violate the principle of freedom of contract or the
principle of equal pay for equal work, such as employees' spouses'
health care coverage, they impose taxes with no regard for the
cost/benefit analysis of social gains from improved child care which
motivated the policy in the first place.
So? Most of the world doesn't see life in terms of economic analysis.
The people who passed the laws said "people need this, they want this,
they voted for me to give them this", so they did.
With homosexual marriage, a new group which is far less likely to have children
Dividing people into groups for determination of benefits is
discrimination. Sometimes discrimination can be legal.
and is far more at risk of an expensive medical condition
You obviously mean AIDS, and they aren't. 1) Statistically, female
gays are apparently less at risk than any other group. 2) Statistics
are skewed on the basis of past behavior, and on discriminatory
lumping. There is no evidence that a married gay person would be
more likely than a married straight person to have sex outside of
marriage, and thus if they don't have AIDS when they get married, they
aren't at any higher risk than anyone else. 3) in some other parts of
the world, heterosexual sex is the primary source of AIDS, so the
statistical claim is at best regional 4) The group that is most likely
to get AIDS are injected-drug abusers. We do not remove the right of
marriage as part of the penalties for an injected drug conviction
(which is a matter of choice, and therefore legal discrimination), so
why do we remove the right of marriage based on sexual orientation
(which is not a matter of choice)?
becomes eligible for benefits.
Courts are not the proper venue for consideration of social costs and
benefits, as participation in court proceedings is limited.
That argument is flawed, since the courts can and regularly do decide
to impose the letter of the law wrt IDEA special education law, which
in theory could require that the state spend its entire education
budget on special ed kids, who are the only ones entitled to a free
and appropriate public education regardless of how much "appropriate"
costs.
The Hawaii
"same-sex marriage" lawsuit, Baer et. al. versus Miike, is an example.
Ninia Baer listed as a cause for the suit access to her partner's
medical plan. Her lawsuit was against the State Department of Health
Director. Her partner's employer's insurance company was not a party
to the suit. Your legislature is the proper venue for
consideration of costs and benefits.
When the legislature decides in an unconstitutional manner, it is no
longer up to the legislature.
MK. On 2004-04-12, Bob LeChevalier wrote:...
"It is the status quo. The status quo trumps all arguments",...
...but I never supposed that Bob LeChevalier was systematic.
The status quo is most certainly NOT systematic. It is not even
self-consistent.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
26 May 2004 02:45:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Note the dates:
From: Dave Thompson (dav13795@wdmdx1.com)
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 2004-02-18 12:18:43 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Driving is a privilege that we bestow on certain members of society. Those
members must meet certain tests before we extend to them the privilege of
driving.
The only problem with your argument is that the requirements for a drivers
license are rational ones to insure the safety of drivers. The state has an
interest in insuring that our roads are safe. There are no arbitrary
requirements, such as you need to be a heterosexual, or white, or a male,
to get a license to drive. All the requirements can be defended.
I'm surprised that you let this go by.
Loving vs Virginia 388 US 1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process
of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
happiness by free men.
^^^^^^^^^
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so
directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens
of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment
requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom
to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the
individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Substitute "sexual preference" for "race" and the argument works just
as well.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell Keller" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
26 May 2004 02:58:32 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:nns9b01qsp6djvgir05vengnuhun45tg1n@4ax.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Note the dates:
From: Dave Thompson (dav13795@wdmdx1.com)
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 2004-02-18 12:18:43 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
Driving is a privilege that we bestow on certain members of society.
Those
members must meet certain tests before we extend to them the privilege
of
driving.
The only problem with your argument is that the requirements for a
drivers
license are rational ones to insure the safety of drivers. The state has
an
interest in insuring that our roads are safe. There are no arbitrary
requirements, such as you need to be a heterosexual, or white, or a male,
to get a license to drive. All the requirements can be defended.
I'm surprised that you let this go by.
Loving vs Virginia 388 US 1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process
of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
happiness by free men.
^^^^^^^^^
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so
directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens
of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment
requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom
to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the
individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Substitute "sexual preference" for "race" and the argument works just
as well.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
And Substitute number of partners and you've got polygamy. That hasn't
stopped the government federal or state from banning that. Gender or number
of partners should not be limited but the living constitution dosn't care it
just enforces -the will of the masses- even when over freedom or over common
sense. The constitution is dead document not a living one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
27 May 2004 11:22:18 AM |
|
|
"Russell Keller" <524design@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|And Substitute number of partners and you've got polygamy.
While polygamy has been offered as examples of what will be next, along
with a person and their pet, or a person and their pet rock or etc., etc.,
etc., there are considerable differences between polygamy and
male -female marriage, or same - sex marriage
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
27 May 2004 11:18:35 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|>Note the dates:
:|>From: Dave Thompson (dav13795@wdmdx1.com)
:|>Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
:|>marriage
:|>Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
:|>alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality
:|>Date: 2004-02-18 12:18:43 PST
:|>
:|>"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:|>> Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
:|>> Driving is a privilege that we bestow on certain members of society. Those
:|>> members must meet certain tests before we extend to them the privilege of
:|>> driving.
:|>
:|>The only problem with your argument is that the requirements for a drivers
:|>license are rational ones to insure the safety of drivers. The state has an
:|>interest in insuring that our roads are safe. There are no arbitrary
:|>requirements, such as you need to be a heterosexual, or white, or a male,
:|>to get a license to drive. All the requirements can be defended.
:|
:|I'm surprised that you let this go by.
:|Loving vs Virginia 388 US 1
:|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
:|>These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process
:|> of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
:|> Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
:| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:|> the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
:| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:|> happiness by free men.
:| ^^^^^^^^^
:|>Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
:|
:|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:|> very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541
:| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:|> (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this
:| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:|> fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
:|> classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so
:|> directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
:|> Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens
:|> of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment
:|> requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
:|> invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom
:|> to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the
:|> individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
:|
:|Substitute "sexual preference" for "race" and the argument works just
:|as well.
:|
I didn't let that go by. It's there. See below: It's the second example,
however, what I did do was forget to finish it off at the end, so I will do
that now:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.christian.religion.presbyterian
Subject: Strickland lying again
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:27:07 -0400
Note the dates:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Thompson (dav13795@wdmdx1.com)
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 2004-02-18 12:18:43 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Driving is a privilege that we bestow on certain members of society. Those
members must meet certain tests before we extend to them the privilege of
driving.
The only problem with your argument is that the requirements for a drivers
license are rational ones to insure the safety of drivers. The state has an
interest in insuring that our roads are safe. There are no arbitrary
requirements, such as you need to be a heterosexual, or white, or a male,
to get a license to drive. All the requirements can be defended.
To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
incredibly arbitrary. The state has no reasonable interest in making that
requirement on two consenting adults. Why is that a requirement for
marraige? Because it might offend the religious sensibilities of some
people who are not even party to the relationship. The government has no
interest or even a right or power to tell two consenting adults that they
can't marry because of their color, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If the
churches don't want gays to marry, then they don't have to marry them.
otherwise they have no right to impose their beliefs on others through
government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Subject: Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay
marriage
Newsgroups: talk.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.education,
misc.education, alt.atheism
Date: 2004-02-19 09:48:13 PST
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|But, isn't opposition to gay marriage a social opposition instead of a
:|government prohibition? Can't society make demands separate from government?
:|
:|Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
FALSE JEFFY
YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK AGAIN
The USSC has said that marriage is a fundamental right.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. I (1967) Also see .
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S.
190 (1888).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Strickland (beerman@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Amendment does not support bias
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.society.liberalism
Date: 2004-02-27 13:13:15 PST
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I support the Defense of Marriage, but I wonder if it is true that the
Amendment proposed is "exclusionary", and is the first such amendment to
specifically exclude people from the privileges of marriage. Marriage, after
all is not a right, it is a privilege.
"In The Darkness" <north@onecall.net> wrote
Not according to court rulings.
[Jeff Strickland]
I am sorry, but I do not understand. The amendment that has been proposed
is most certainly "exclusionary". It will affirm the definition of marriage
as being between a man and a woman. This language is exclusionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
us.talk.constitution,us.talk.headline-news,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal,alt.law-enforcement
Subject: Re: Gay marriage before California high court
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:23:35 -0700
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Marriage, like driving, is not a right. It is a privilege that is granted.
:|We use the term "marriage rights", but rights do not require a permit,
:|privileges do. We do not regulate rights, we regulate privileges.
[I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THIS IN MY ORIGINAL, HOWEVER THE LOVING CASE IS
MENTIONED BY ME, ABOVE TO JEFFY, IN MY FEB REPLY TO HIS POSTING]
And you are full of *****.
You have been told this before
Now if you ever repeat the above again you will prove to all that you are a
liar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without
due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of
another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the
basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OrionCA" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
26 May 2004 09:56:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:27:07 -0400, wrote:
To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
incredibly arbitrary.
So are most things required by the government. Look in the dictionary
under "arbitrary" and it should say something about "government".
The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
yet to hear back on that.
--
Randi Rhodes, Air America radio host, suggesting
President Bush's assassination to a caller:
R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
a blast] ... Works for me."
TITLE 18 Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for
conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any
post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing
any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to
inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United
States, the President-elect, the Vice President or
other officer next in the order of succession to
the office of President of the United States, or
the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
President-elect, Vice President or other officer next
in the order of succession to the office of President,
or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
27 May 2004 12:22:28 PM |
|
|
OrionCA <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote:
:|On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:27:07 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>
:|>To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
:|>incredibly arbitrary.
:|
:|So are most things required by the government. Look in the dictionary
:|under "arbitrary" and it should say something about "government".
:|
:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|yet to hear back on that.
YOu have that somewhat incorrect.
if you are going to apply compelling interest it apples against the state,
the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
something, not the other way around.
What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil
contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
marriage?
If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
answered as follows
Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
It would move on step closer to living up to this
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed,
and this
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without
due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of
another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the
basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Strickland lying again |
27 May 2004 07:12:01 AM |
|
|
OrionCA <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote:
The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
yet to hear back on that.
You gave the answer:
stable family units are seen as a benefit to society
That would be true even if the stable family unit is two men or two
women, with or without their children (since in some cases gays can
have children).
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
