Biden 'absolutely comfortable' with same-sex marriage

FaFoxy wrote:

No, it obviously wasn't and isn't.

Yes it was. It is currently irrelevant due to the 19th Amendment.

What relevance do you propose this has to the topic at hand?

Far Away wrote:

<quoted text>
Natural law was the overwhelming driver in framing the constitution and early amendments. Mid-20th and now 21st Century buffoonery of the rabid left, progressive, socialists have twisted the constitution and its amendments for repurposing the liberties therein.

Oh, you mean like the "natural law" of owning slaves, only white male property owners being able to vote, racial discrimination, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, etc, etc. THAT natural law?

The constitution was written by men with a good idea, but they were still a product of their times. They understood the concept of freedom & equality, but their own limitations prevented them from bringing that concept to fruition.

Interpretation of the constitution changes as society changes.

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
You said: "Jurisdictions that did not allow women the right to vote were in violation of the 14th Amendment," NO, THEY WEREN'T ! THAT'S MY POINT !
While the 14th Amendment wsa ratified in 1868, and some women, depending on the state, DID have teh right to vote in the 19th century, states that forbid women from voting were STILL NOT vioolating the 14th Amendment.
And which was the first state to give women the right to vote ?

Women have always had the right to vote; that right was simply being unconstitutionally denied by the states.

That they choose to pass the 19th amendment rather than achieve equality through the courts was a strategical choice, not a necessity. Whether it would have taken longer going the judicial route we'll never know, but is there ANY doubt in your mind that lacking the 19th amendment the SCOTUS today wouldn't rule women have a constitutional right to vote?

That's where we're at with marriage equality. We could attempt to pass a constitutional amendment granting same-sex couples the right to marry, or we can go state-by-state and use the courts to obtain our right to marry which has been unconstitutionally denied us.

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
The only way that women got the right to vote nationally was thru a federal amendment, which the STATES must ratify. The federal government, did not, and COULD NOT, give women teh right to vote.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

But the SCOTUS most definitely could have, just like marriage for same-sex couples.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Women have always had the right to vote; that right was simply being unconstitutionally denied by the states.
That they choose to pass the 19th amendment rather than achieve equality through the courts was a strategical choice, not a necessity. Whether it would have taken longer going the judicial route we'll never know, but is there ANY doubt in your mind that lacking the 19th amendment the SCOTUS today wouldn't rule women have a constitutional right to vote?
That's where we're at with marriage equality. We could attempt to pass a constitutional amendment granting same-sex couples the right to marry, or we can go state-by-state and use the courts to obtain our right to marry which has been unconstitutionally denied us.

You have no idea what you're talking about. STATES have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to establish voting requirments. Try studying some Constitutional Law some time.

And there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE".

FaFoxy wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about. STATES have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to establish voting requirments. Try studying some Constitutional Law some time.
And there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE".

no states don't have the exclusive right to establish voting requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendm...

The 15th amendment to the US constitution prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amend... \

The 19th amendment gives women the right to vote.

Since every US state has to abide by the US Constitution that means it can prohibit ANYONE from voting. Checkmate bigot.

FaFoxy wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about. STATES have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to establish voting requirments. Try studying some Constitutional Law some time.
And there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE".

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, you mean like the "natural law" of owning slaves, only white male property owners being able to vote, racial discrimination, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, etc, etc. THAT natural law?
The constitution was written by men with a good idea, but they were still a product of their times. They understood the concept of freedom & equality, but their own limitations prevented them from bringing that concept to fruition.
Interpretation of the constitution changes as society changes.

Slavery was never "natural law", dumb-ass, and was a stumbling block for many in writing a constitution. That's why slavery opposition participants in the Philadelphia Convention changed it from the "pursuit of life, liberty and property" to "life, liberty and happiness". That was the first effort to disavow persons as property.

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no idea what you're talking about. STATES have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to establish voting requirments. Try studying some Constitutional Law some time.
And there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE".

But those state voting requirements can't violate the US constitution.

Could a state ban jews from voting?
Could a state ban left-handed people from voting?
Could a state ban gay people from voting?

There IS a federal constitutional right to vote, which is why every amendment related to voting begins with the words - "THE RIGHT TO VOTE......". If there were no federal right to vote, then the voting amendments would simply say- "Women have the right to vote", or "Blacks have the right to vote", or "Anyone 18 & older has the right to vote". Instead they all begin with- "The RIGHT to vote shall not be denied......"

That said, obviously rights CAN be restricted as long as those restrictions can be constitutionally justified.

Using your logic, then there can be no federal constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, since you yourself have argued states have the exclusive right to regulate marriage.

Rights don't have to be specifically mentioned in the US constitution in order for them to exist- see 9th amendment.

Far Away wrote:

<quoted text>
Slavery was never "natural law", dumb-ass, and was a stumbling block for many in writing a constitution. That's why slavery opposition participants in the Philadelphia Convention changed it from the "pursuit of life, liberty and property" to "life, liberty and happiness". That was the first effort to disavow persons as property.

Slavery in some form or another has been around for millenia. Many proponents of slavery used the argument that is was only natural for superior races to use inferior races as slaves.

I find the same "natural law" arguments being used against same-sex rights just as ridiculous.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
But the SCOTUS most definitely could have, just like marriage for same-sex couples.

This is the ultimate admission of abject failure by Team Obama. They will do or say anything to shift the focus from 15 Trillion DEBT, 8% plus unemployement, Gitmo, Afganistan etc.......nice try but it won't play with adult voters.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Slavery in some form or another has been around for millenia. Many proponents of slavery used the argument that is was only natural for superior races to use inferior races as slaves.
I find the same "natural law" arguments being used against same-sex rights just as ridiculous.

Conflation and not true. Because someone proclaims slavery to be natural never made it true. Natural law is freedom; natural law is man and woman.

ODUMBA's a BUMMER

Far Away wrote:

<quoted text>
Conflation and not true. Because someone proclaims slavery to be natural never made it true. Natural law is freedom; natural law is man and woman.

And just because some moron proclaims man/woman marriage as natural law doesn't make it true either.

At least you know you're in the same company as the racist & other bigots of the past.

FaFoxy wrote:

ODUMBA's a BUMMER

What's the matter pedoFrank, couldn't refute the fact that voting IS a federal constitutional right so you just go back to your old one-liners?

The is NO federal constitutional RIGHT to vote. People have been, and in many cases still are, prohibited from voting by state law, on the basis of many differnt things which can and does vary from state to state.

For instance, I'm from New York, and the U.S Constitution was ratified and went into effect in 1789. The City Of New York (just the island of Manhattan at the time) was the nation's capital. And George Washington was elected the first POTUS as we all know (I hope). HOWEVER, NOT A SINGLE NEW YORKER was elegible to vote for POTUS in New York at athat time, and NO New Yorker was able to do so. Now IF there was, or is, a "federal constitutional right to vote" as so many of you contend (incorrectly), the fact that NO New Yorker ws able to vote for teh first POTUS would not have occurred.

Furthermore, for about 40 years or so, nearly ALL states REQUIRED that a voter own AT LEAST 40acres of land in order to be eligible to vote. How many residents of New York, Boston, or Philadelphia do you think owned that much land at that time ? Those who did not own the minimum required amount of land were barred from voting.

Now considering the federal constitutional amendments regarding voting, a state may bar ANYONE for ANY REASON for voting WITH THE SPECIFIC LIMITED EXCEPTIONS being those mentioned in those U.S. Constitutional Amendments. So if a state wanted to prohibit by law say, blue-eyed people from voting, or left-handed people from voting, they COULD DO THAT and it WOULD NOT violate the U.S. Constituion.

Don't believe me ? Look it up in a law book or consult someone well-versed in the law, such as an attorney, a judge, a voting rights group, etc.

THERE IS NO FEDERL CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" ! NONE ! NADA ! ZILCH !

FaFoxy wrote:

The is NO federal constitutional RIGHT to vote. People have been, and in many cases still are, prohibited from voting by state law, on the basis of many differnt things which can and does vary from state to state.
For instance, I'm from New York, and the U.S Constitution was ratified and went into effect in 1789. The City Of New York (just the island of Manhattan at the time) was the nation's capital. And George Washington was elected the first POTUS as we all know (I hope). HOWEVER, NOT A SINGLE NEW YORKER was elegible to vote for POTUS in New York at athat time, and NO New Yorker was able to do so. Now IF there was, or is, a "federal constitutional right to vote" as so many of you contend (incorrectly), the fact that NO New Yorker ws able to vote for teh first POTUS would not have occurred.
Furthermore, for about 40 years or so, nearly ALL states REQUIRED that a voter own AT LEAST 40acres of land in order to be eligible to vote. How many residents of New York, Boston, or Philadelphia do you think owned that much land at that time ? Those who did not own the minimum required amount of land were barred from voting.
Now considering the federal constitutional amendments regarding voting, a state may bar ANYONE for ANY REASON for voting WITH THE SPECIFIC LIMITED EXCEPTIONS being those mentioned in those U.S. Constitutional Amendments. So if a state wanted to prohibit by law say, blue-eyed people from voting, or left-handed people from voting, they COULD DO THAT and it WOULD NOT violate the U.S. Constituion.
Don't believe me ? Look it up in a law book or consult someone well-versed in the law, such as an attorney, a judge, a voting rights group, etc.
THERE IS NO FEDERL CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" ! NONE ! NADA ! ZILCH !

Then why do some amendments mention that the right to vote can't be abrogated for gender or race?(paraphrase except for the "right to vote " part.)

FaFoxy wrote:

The is NO federal constitutional RIGHT to vote. People have been, and in many cases still are, prohibited from voting by state law, on the basis of many differnt things which can and does vary from state to state.
For instance, I'm from New York, and the U.S Constitution was ratified and went into effect in 1789. The City Of New York (just the island of Manhattan at the time) was the nation's capital. And George Washington was elected the first POTUS as we all know (I hope). HOWEVER, NOT A SINGLE NEW YORKER was elegible to vote for POTUS in New York at athat time, and NO New Yorker was able to do so. Now IF there was, or is, a "federal constitutional right to vote" as so many of you contend (incorrectly), the fact that NO New Yorker ws able to vote for teh first POTUS would not have occurred.
Furthermore, for about 40 years or so, nearly ALL states REQUIRED that a voter own AT LEAST 40acres of land in order to be eligible to vote. How many residents of New York, Boston, or Philadelphia do you think owned that much land at that time ? Those who did not own the minimum required amount of land were barred from voting.
Now considering the federal constitutional amendments regarding voting, a state may bar ANYONE for ANY REASON for voting WITH THE SPECIFIC LIMITED EXCEPTIONS being those mentioned in those U.S. Constitutional Amendments. So if a state wanted to prohibit by law say, blue-eyed people from voting, or left-handed people from voting, they COULD DO THAT and it WOULD NOT violate the U.S. Constituion.
Don't believe me ? Look it up in a law book or consult someone well-versed in the law, such as an attorney, a judge, a voting rights group, etc.
THERE IS NO FEDERL CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE" ! NONE ! NADA ! ZILCH !

Yep, you're stupid.

Just because a right can be restricted by the states doesn't mean it's not a right. As long as it can be justified and is applied in an equitable manner then rights can often be restricted.

ALL rights can and have been restricted by either the federal government or the individual states at one time. NONE are absolute.

Every amendment dealing with voting begins- "The RIGHT of citizens of the United States to vote..." That very phrase indicates there IS a right to vote, and then goes on to list who can't have this right restricted.

Btw, I'd love to see you justify restricting left-handed people from voting in front of your beloved Scalia. He'd eat you for lunch and crap you out along with the 10 pizzas he had for breakfast.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Then why do some amendments mention that the right to vote can't be abrogated for gender or race?(paraphrase except for the "right to vote " part.)

You really have NO understandiing of U.S. Constitutional Law.(I do).

PRIOR TO those amendments, a state COULD, and many (but not all) DID prohibit voting on the basis of race or gender. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, a state could NOT bar someone from voting based on race (EXCEPT Native Americans), but could do so on many other basises, such as land ownership, competency in English writing, or any number of other things. And some states DID do these things to prevent black American MALES from voting.

The same can be said for women, until the 19th Amendment was passed. That is why you had the situation where SOME women could vote, AND HOLD POLITICAL OFFICES in some states, while at the same time, other women in other states could not do so.

As I said, there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE". It does NOT, and has NEVER existed. Don't like that ? Then put an amendment into the U.S. Constitution saying that there is a "RIGHT TO VOTE". I seriously DOUBT that you would be successful.

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
You really have NO understandiing of U.S. Constitutional Law.(I do).
PRIOR TO those amendments, a state COULD, and many (but not all) DID prohibit voting on the basis of race or gender. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, a state could NOT bar someone from voting based on race (EXCEPT Native Americans), but could do so on many other basises, such as land ownership, competency in English writing, or any number of other things. And some states DID do these things to prevent black American MALES from voting.
The same can be said for women, until the 19th Amendment was passed. That is why you had the situation where SOME women could vote, AND HOLD POLITICAL OFFICES in some states, while at the same time, other women in other states could not do so.
As I said, there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE". It does NOT, and has NEVER existed. Don't like that ? Then put an amendment into the U.S. Constitution saying that there is a "RIGHT TO VOTE". I seriously DOUBT that you would be successful.

There is no need to amend the constitution for a right which already exists, which is why we're not trying to amend to constitution to allow gays to marry. We already have that right, but like voting it is being unconstitutionally restricted in many states.

You're the type of idiot the draters of the constitution put the 9th amendment in for. They just knew some jackass would come along and insist that unless a right is specifically mentioned in the constitution, it doesn't exist.

Go read the 9th amendment before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.