Tennessee denying citizens right to happiness?

[Ravi]

“I went into Cookeville for my new Social Security card using my marriage certificate, and they said I should have it in four days to two weeks,” Tennessee resident Neil Stovall, who wants to become Neil Irby after his marriage to Harry Irby, told the Tennesean. “But what about the name on my driver’s license? My concealed handgun carry permit? To me, they’re denying me my constitutional right to happiness. The state government seems to have a problem with it when no one else does.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tennessee-denying-gay-spouses-driver-s-license-name-changes

[Chris]

Tennessee denying citizens right to happiness?

There is no right to happiness.

[Agravan]

There's a right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is guaranteed to no one.

[Ravi]

Regardless. Are they denying her the right the pursuit of happiness?

[Chris]

There's a right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is guaranteed to no one.

Happiness couldn't be guaranteed for each person's happiness is subjective and different. --Except to progressives who seek to make everyone equal with posited law.

[Chris]

Regardless. Are they denying her the right the pursuit of happiness?



"they said I should have it in four days to two weeks"


There's no denial. Big government bureaucracy is slow, the bigger the slower.

[Ravi]

Maybe someone that could actually comprehend the article could comment.

[BB-35]

Regardless. Are they denying her the right the pursuit of happiness?

'Her'?...I thought the story was about two men who wanted to get a civil union on

[Chris]

Maybe someone that could actually comprehend the article could comment.



Did you do this just so you could insult those who have commented?


As BB points out it seems you didn't read the article. It's not about a "her" but about a gay man who wants to marry another man and change his name and has to wait for the request to be processed.

[BB-35]

Regardless. Are they denying her the right the pursuit of happiness?

The constituion doesn't mention the right of the right of 'the pursuit of happiness'

[Ravi]

'Her'?...I thought the story was about two men who wanted to get a civil union on

LOL! I went by the picture. The person in question isn't being allowed to have the correct name on a driver's license or gun permit.

[Ravi]

The constituion doesn't mention the right of the right of 'the pursuit of happiness'

Okay, you don't think the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right. That's fine.

[Chris]

Okay, you don't think the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right. That's fine.

He said happiness is not a right, as you stated in your title, but pursuit of it is.

[Ravi]

He said happiness is not a right, as you stated in your title, but pursuit of it is.

The poster I responded to didn't post this?


The constituion doesn't mention the right of the right of 'the pursuit of happiness'

[Chris]

"The constituion doesn't mention the right of [happiness but] the right of 'the pursuit of happiness'"

That knowing BB and the truth of the statement, we have the right to pursue happiness, not as your title suggests, the right to happiness.


Hey, if you screwed up the title, just ask a mod to fix it.

[Codename Section]

Happiness is caused by a chemical reaction within the brain to stimuli. It's nonsensical to say therefore you have a right to it. Only a right to pursue it, ie those actions that could potentially create it.

As a libertarian I think the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. The problem with gay marriage is that the government acts as though it can and should regulate "marriage".

[BB-35]

Okay, you don't think the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right. That's fine.

I never said that....everyone has the right to pursue happiness,BUT it's not the governments job to make it happen.

[Ravi]

Happiness is caused by a chemical reaction within the brain to stimuli. It's nonsensical to say therefore you have a right to it. Only a right to pursue it, ie those actions that could potentially create it.

As a libertarian I think the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. The problem with gay marriage is that the government acts as though it can and should regulate "marriage".

You also do not believe that we have the right to pursue happiness?

[Ravi]

I never said that....everyone has the right to pursue happiness,BUT it's not the governments job to make it happen.

Que? The government's job is not to protect rights?

[patrickt]

Of course not. Happiness is a choice. If this person chooses to be unhappy over a four-day to two week wait, so be it. Now, is there a point to this thread other than Marie's mistaken belief in a constitutional right to happiness or in a constitutional pursuit of happiness. At best, it's a constitutional hope for happiness much as it hopes for forming a more perfect union, insuring domestic tranquility, or securing the blessings of liberty.

Anyone who has ever been married knows they cannot possibly make someone else happy. Stated unhappiness is simply a tool to manipulate the incredibly stupid.

So, in answer to the question, if it was a serious question, no, the State of Tennessee is not denying happiness by having a 4-day to two-week wait. Now, go forth and be happy.

[BB-35]

Que? The government's job is not to protect rights?

so make up your mind,is the right the 'pursuit of happiness' or 'to be happy'?

[Codename Section]

You also do not believe that we have the right to pursue happiness?

What? I said you have no right to happiness. You have every right to pursue it, and if you got government out of individual rights like marriage there would be no problem pursuing it. Gays could marry, straights could marry, polygamists could marry, etc.

Government was never to be so big that it controlled personal decisions about family.

[Ravi]

so make up your mind,is the right the 'pursuit of happiness' or 'to be happy'?
Pursuit of happiness.

Do you believe we have a right to the pursuit of happiness?
Do you believe part of the government's duty is to protect rights?
Do you believe if someone marries they have a right to use their chosen name on documents the government forces them to have?

[Codename Section]

Pursuit of happiness.

Do you believe we have a right to the pursuit of happiness?
Do you believe part of the government's duty is to protect rights?
Do you believe if someone marries they have a right to use their chosen name on documents the government forces them to have?

We have the natural right to pursue happiness.

It is not the duty of the government to protect those rights, but to stay out of the way so we may continue to assert those rights naturally.

We have the right to rename ourselves Bugs Bunny if we want and the government has no right to prevent it.

[Ravi]

We have the natural right to pursue happiness.

It is not the duty of the government to protect those rights, but to stay out of the way so we may continue to assert those rights naturally.

We have the right to rename ourselves Bugs Bunny if we want and the government has no right to prevent it.Okay, I can agree with that. I think this couple should sue the state.

[Chris]

Pursuit of happiness.

Do you believe we have a right to the pursuit of happiness?
Do you believe part of the government's duty is to protect rights?
Do you believe if someone marries they have a right to use their chosen name on documents the government forces them to have?



Do you believe we have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

I think everyone in this thread has argued pursuit of happiness is a right. What most have argued against is happiness as a right.



Do you believe if someone marries they have a right to use their chosen name on documents the government forces them to have?

The OP states they can do this, the state is processing the change, it will take time is all. There is no denial of any right here.



Do you believe part of the government's duty is to protect rights?

I would argue it is government's only legitimate duty, to protect rights. That is laid out clearly in the Declaration:


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Codename Section]

Okay, I can agree with that. I think this couple should sue the state.

I think this couple should vote libertarian and see consistency applied to individual freedoms for all. :D

[Ravi]

I think this couple should vote libertarian and see consistency applied to individual freedoms for all. :D

Thanks for the laugh!

[Ravi]

I think everyone in this thread has argued pursuit of happiness is a right. What most have argued against is happiness as a right.




The OP states they can do this, the state is processing the change, it will take time is all. There is no denial of any right here.




I would argue it is government's only legitimate duty, to protect rights. That is laid out clearly in the Declaration:

I see you still haven't read the article.

[BB-35]

Pursuit of happiness.

Do you believe we have a right to the pursuit of happiness?
Do you believe part of the government's duty is to protect rights?
Do you believe if someone marries they have a right to use their chosen name on documents the government forces them to have?

Already answered,for the most part,in post#17

[jillian]

LOL! I went by the picture. The person in question isn't being allowed to have the correct name on a driver's license or gun permit.

he's making the wrong claim, imo. it's not that he's being denied the right to pursue happiness. he's being denied equal protection under the law because he isn't being treated the way a heterosexual married person would be.

[jillian]

We have the natural right to pursue happiness.

It is not the duty of the government to protect those rights, but to stay out of the way so we may continue to assert those rights naturally.

We have the right to rename ourselves Bugs Bunny if we want and the government has no right to prevent it.

i agree with you in part. where we disagree is that absent governmental protection there is, effectively, no right.

[Ravi]

he's making the wrong claim, imo. it's not that he's being denied the right to pursue happiness. he's being denied equal protection under the law because he isn't being treated the way a heterosexual married person would be.Good point.

[jillian]

Good point.

thanks. :)

[Agravan]

he's making the wrong claim, imo. it's not that he's being denied the right to pursue happiness. he's being denied equal protection under the law because he isn't being treated the way a heterosexual married person would be.So hetero couples can walk in and walk out the same day with new documents from Social Security or CCW permits?

[Chris]

i agree with you in part. where we disagree is that absent governmental protection there is, effectively, no right.

How can you say in one breath there is a right and there is not a right? What is it that government either does or does not protect but rights? The injustice, if there is any, in in not protecting existing rights. It is rights that give government the power to protect them.

[Ravi]

So hetero couples can walk in and walk out the same day with new documents from Social Security or CCW permits?
sigh. Their beef is that the STATE will not let the guy use his chosen name on his driver's license or gun permit.

Why do the righties keep ignoring that???

[Agravan]

So go get it changed. It's not that difficult.

[Chris]

sigh. Their beef is that the STATE will not let the guy use his chosen name on his driver's license or gun permit.

Why do the righties keep ignoring that???



Because there's no statement to that effect by the state, only this guy's beef. Find us such a statement by the state and I'll agree they are not protecting their rights, though it has little to do with pursuit of happiness.

If it is true then it should go to court where the DOMA decision set precedent.



I'll also go so far as to say, as another did above, government needs to get out of the marriage business.

[Mainecoons]

From the OP:


Tennessee residents married in one of the 13 states or Washington D.C. where gay marriage is legal are turned away from state driver’s license stations when they try to obtain licenses with their married names, according to the Tennessean. Gay marriage is banned both in state statute and by a majority vote in the Tennessee constitution.“I went into Cookeville for my new Social Security card using my marriage certificate, and they said I should have it in four days to two weeks,” Tennessee resident Neil Stovall, who wants to become Neil Irby after his marriage to Harry Irby, told the Tennesean. “But what about the name on my driver’s license? My concealed handgun carry permit? To me, they’re denying me my constitutional right to happiness. The state government seems to have a problem with it when no one else does.”

Where does it say that Mr. Irby actually was turned down when he applied to change his DL or gun permit?

The Tennessean claims this to be the case but where is the actual refusal of this particular person at the DL office?

BTW, the gun permit is Federal too. Why is it lumped with the state issued DL?

Do you believe everything the liberal press tells you Marie? Never mind, I think I know the answer, eyup! :grin:

[Chris]

Had someone done some research, one might have found, as Paul Harvey might say, the rest of the story.

One part is this:


He’s helping to gather potential plaintiffs against the state over this issue and others. He’s also hearing reports of friendly license center employees accepting same-sex marriage certificates — stories couples don’t want to share publicly for fear their new licenses will be called back.

“The system we have is untenable because couples are changing all kinds of other federal documents and being given inconsistent guidance in Tennessee,” Sanders said.

“The short-term fix is for couples to go to court to get a name change. And the longer-term fix is for us to go to court and challenge the marriage amendment, which is what we’re doing.”

Thus it seems it's not so much the state but some clerks.


And for the bigger picture, what we have is merely a transition from DOMA days to post-DOMA days:


When gay husbands and wives show up at Tennessee driver’s license stations with marriage certificates and freshly minted Social Security cards in their married names, they’re turned away — with a quote from the state constitution and an admonition to come back with a court order.

It’s one more example of a swiftly changing social landscape prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June that overturned Defense of Marriage Act provisions. That ruling opened the door to several federal recognitions for same-sex married couples and for conflicts with state law — disputes the state will have to defend in court, supporters of same-sex marriage vow. Attorneys have been recruiting potential couples for a lawsuit since the DOMA ruling.

There are two potential legal arguments, said Steven Mulroy, a University of Memphis law professor specializing in civil liberties. One is that the Tennessee ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause — state laws can’t discriminate. The other is that it violates the constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which says states must respect the judgment of other states.


@ TN license offices deny name changes to same-sex couples (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130921/NEWS21/309210064/TN-license-offices-deny-name-changes-same-sex-couples?nclick_check=1)


Note that this was the source of the talkingpointsmemo so it really required only a wee bit of research.

[Ravi]

From the OP:



Where does it say that Mr. Irby actually was turned down when he applied to change his DL or gun permit?

The Tennessean claims this to be the case but where is the actual refusal of this particular person at the DL office?

BTW, the gun permit is Federal too. Why is it lumped with the state issued DL?

Do you believe everything the liberal press tells you Marie? Never mind, I think I know the answer, eyup! :grin:[/FONT][/COLOR]

the liberal media my ass. You can pretend that it isn't true. and btw, CCWs are issued by the state.

[Agravan]

the liberal media my ass. You can pretend that it isn't true. and btw, CCWs are issued by the state.
Gay marriage isn't recognized in Tennessee. If they don't like it, they can move to a state that accepts gay marriage.

[Chris]

A wee bit more research, i.e., a google search, reveals Gay couples turned away at marriage license offices in three Tenn. counties (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/08/gay-couples-turned-away-at-marriage-license-offices-in-three-tenn-counties/): "Same-sex couples in at least three Tennessee counties applied for marriage licenses on Wednesday in a project coordinated by the Tennessee Equality Project."

3. Count, 1, 2, 3. 3.

[Ravi]

Gay marriage isn't recognized in Tennessee. If they don't like it, they can move to a state that accepts gay marriage.

:rolleyes: And if you don't like Obamacare you can move to Somalia.

[Ravi]

A wee bit more research, i.e., a google search, reveals Gay couples turned away at marriage license offices in three Tenn. counties (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/08/gay-couples-turned-away-at-marriage-license-offices-in-three-tenn-counties/): "Same-sex couples in at least three Tennessee counties applied for marriage licenses on Wednesday in a project coordinated by the Tennessee Equality Project."

3. Count, 1, 2, 3. 3.
Only three! Then there is no reason whatsoever to be concerned that people in Tennessee are being denied rights.

[pjohns]

“I went into Cookeville for my new Social Security card using my marriage certificate, and they said I should have it in four days to two weeks,” Tennessee resident Neil Stovall, who wants to become Neil Irby after his marriage to Harry Irby, told the Tennesean. “But what about the name on my driver’s license? My concealed handgun carry permit? To me, they’re denying me my constitutional right to happiness. The state government seems to have a problem with it when no one else does.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tennessee-denying-gay-spouses-driver-s-license-name-changes

From the article in the link provided in the OP:


Married same-sex couples who live in Tennessee, where gay marriage is banned under the state constitution, are being denied name changes on their driver's licenses, the Tennessean (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130921/NEWS21/309210064/TN-license-offices-deny-name-changes-same-sex-couples) reported Saturday.

Tennessee residents married in one of the 13 states or Washington D.C. where gay marriage is legal are turned away from state driver’s license stations when they try to obtain licenses with their married names, according to the Tennessean. Gay marriage is banned both in state statute and by a majority vote in the Tennessee constitution.

It would appear that you have a problem with both the state statute and the Tennessee state constitution; and that you would prefer to disregard these altogether, on the (apparent) assumption that, since their enforcement may result in the unhappiness of this gay couple, this must trump all other considerations...

[AmazonTania]

:rolleyes: And if you don't like Obamacare you can move to Somalia.

Or one can just not participate by paying the penalty (which is cheaper than paying a premium), get sick, enroll in a health premium and have the insurance company cover the bill after the fact.

Other than that, I fail to see what Obamacare has to do with what anyone has said or the topic in general...

[Chris]

Only three! Then there is no reason whatsoever to be concerned that people in Tennessee are being denied rights.

Didn't say that, marie.

The point is this. Tennessee Equality Project went out across the state and found a few cases related to driver's licenses and a few related to marriage licenses. All these cases involved individual office clerks who were interpreting the laws are they understood it, in other cases not. So it's not a matter of TN recognizing rights.

The other point is this, in all cases, legal cases are being put together to take it to court where it will be heard and the DOMA decision will have already set precedence.

It's not an outrage and it is being handled through the court as it should.

[Chris]

From the article in the link provided in the OP:



It would appear that you have a problem with both the state statute and the Tennessee state constitution; and that you would prefer to disregard these altogether, on the (apparent) assumption that, since their enforcement may result in the unhappiness of this gay couple, this must trump all other considerations...



As it turns out the problem lies with a few government office clerks.

[nic34]

Or one can just not participate by paying the penalty (which is cheaper than paying a premium), get sick, enroll in a health premium and have the insurance company cover the bill after the fact.


... or you can just skip all that and buy the insurance offered on the Health Insurance Marketplace.....

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-health-insurance-marketplace/

[AmazonTania]

... or you can just skip all that and buy the insurance offered on the Health Insurance Marketplace.....

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-health-insurance-marketplace/

Why would I do that? We don't want, nor need health insurance. Thats what many Americans have already decided. We'll just get it in we are sick. And thanks to the new Health Care law, that's much easier for us to do.

[Agravan]

:rolleyes: And if you don't like Obamacare you can move to Somalia.

I'm an American. I'll stay right where I am.

[Ravi]

I'm an American. I'll stay right where I am.
But you don't wish to allow a Tennesseen to remain where he is?

[Agravan]

A wee bit more research, i.e., a google search, reveals Gay couples turned away at marriage license offices in three Tenn. counties (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/08/gay-couples-turned-away-at-marriage-license-offices-in-three-tenn-counties/): "Same-sex couples in at least three Tennessee counties applied for marriage licenses on Wednesday in a project coordinated by the Tennessee Equality Project."

3. Count, 1, 2, 3. 3.

Even more gay militancy. "Accept our lifestyle or we'll FORCE you to accept it."

[Agravan]

But you don't wish to allow a Tennesseen to remain where he is?
He's welcome to stay where he is, but if the state does not recognize gay marriage, then they should go to a state that does. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

[Ravi]

He's welcome to stay where he is, but if the state does not recognize gay marriage, then they should go to a state that does. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
I understand your hypocrisy perfectly. Just wanted you to get it out there on record.

[Mainecoons]

But Marie, didn't you also tell someone who doesn't like ObamaCare to leave if they don't?

Are you admitting you're a hypocrite too?

[Ravi]

But Marie, didn't you also tell someone who doesn't like ObamaCare to leave if they don't?

Are you admitting you're a hypocrite too?Sarcasm flew over your head?

[Mainecoons]

Ah, that was you.

OK, one is a hypocrite to suggest that someone who wants to gay marriage should go to a state that supports it but that someone who wants their medicine free of ObamaCare should leave the country if they don't like it.

That sure sounds like you, yep.

[Ravi]

Ah, that was you.

OK, one is a hypocrite to suggest that someone who wants to gay marriage should go to a state that supports it but that someone who wants their medicine free of ObamaCare should leave the country if they don't like it.

That sure sounds like you, yep.

Still flying over your head, I see. You must know by now that I think that people who flee their country in a snit for silly reasons instead of staying and fighting are cowards.

[Mainecoons]

Yes but the question here is whether one is only a hypocrite if they disagree with Marie's point of view?

It would seem so.

We definitely know that among the other freedoms you would like to destroy is the freedom to live where one chooses, yep.

[Agravan]

I understand your hypocrisy perfectly. Just wanted you to get it out there on record.
Please point out my hypocrisy..

[Ravi]

:rolleyes: Never mind. I see now that you are irony challenged.

[Ravi]

Please point out my hypocrisy..

You're perfectly willing to tell a citizen to leave his state instead of correct an injustice but won't apply the same standard to yourself.

[Agravan]

You're perfectly willing to tell a citizen to leave his state instead of correct an injustice but won't apply the same standard to yourself.

What injustice?7

[Cigar]

What injustice?7

The Blind Injustice ... oh wait ... you can't see it. :laugh:

[Agravan]

The Blind Injustice ... oh wait ... you can't see it. :laugh:
Wait, Tennessee law does not recognize gay marriage.
You, Marie, et al, think it's unjust and should be changed.
We don't support obamacare.
You tell us "It's the LAW!!, Live with it!"
Really, Cigar? You don't see your own hypocrisy staring you in the face?

Again, I ask, What injustice is being done?

[Codename Section]

Moving to another state within a country is not moving to another country. Part of why the framers created a federalist system that they did is so that people can self-manage within states or move to another state more suitable.

I personally have zero problem with gay marriage and I would vote 100% to have no state or the federal government be allowed to define marriage for individuals. Be that as it may I'm not sure that you can hand over the power of marriage to the state and then be angry when the way it's conceived or voted on goes against what you want. By allowing the government to define "marriage" in the first place you just gave them/it the power to say "this is what marriage looks like".

It's better to remove that power from the government altogether.

[Cigar]

Wait, Tennessee law does not recognize gay marriage.
You, Marie, et al, think it's unjust and should be changed.
We don't support obamacare.
You tell us "It's the LAW!!, Live with it!"
Really, Cigar? You don't see your own hypocrisy staring you in the face?

Again, I ask, What injustice is being done?

Let's start with discriminating against anyone with the handle of "Agravan" and let's see if you find it unjust? :wink:

[Agravan]

Let's start with discriminating against anyone with the handle of "Agravan" and let's see if you find it unjust? :wink:

Knock yourself out, Bubba. Besides, what does that have to do with the thread?
Are you out of talking points or are you just waiting for your handlers to tell you how to respond?

[Cigar]

Moving to another state within a country is not moving to another country. Part of why the framers created a federalist system that they did is so that people can self-manage within states or move to another state more suitable.

I personally have zero problem with gay marriage and I would vote 100% to have no state or the federal government be allowed to define marriage for individuals. Be that as it may I'm not sure that you can hand over the power of marriage to the state and then be angry when the way it's conceived or voted on goes against what you want. By allowing the government to define "marriage" in the first place you just gave them/it the power to say "this is what marriage looks like".

It's better to remove that power from the government altogether.

I don't ... I was quite a ways north of Alpharetta once ... and I could swear I was hearing Banjos from another planet ... :laugh:

[Agravan]

I don't ... I was quite a ways north of Alpharetta once ... and I could swear I was hearing Banjos for another planet ... :laugh:
Did you forget your meds this morning, or just take too many? You're making even less sense than usual.

[Codename Section]

If someplace discriminated against me, I would stick my middle finger up, say "fuck you" and take my money and talents elsewhere and reward people who didn't discriminate with my money and support.

[Agravan]

If someplace discriminated against me, I would stick my middle finger up, say "fuck you" and take my money and talents elsewhere and reward people who didn't discriminate with my money and support.
You mean you would not throw a tantrum and FORCE them to help you??

[Chris]

Even more gay militancy. "Accept our lifestyle or we'll FORCE you to accept it."

In this case I do have to agree, this was a concerted effort to push an agenda.

[Chris]

If someplace discriminated against me, I would stick my middle finger up, say "fuck you" and take my money and talents elsewhere and reward people who didn't discriminate with my money and support.



IOW, vote with your feet and pocketbook.

I think that was agravan's point about moving.

Though that would require a rebirth of federalism.

[zelmo1234]

Regardless. Are they denying her the right the pursuit of happiness?

No he is free to pursue his happiness in a state that allows his marriage? is he not?

[Chris]

No he is free to pursue his happiness in a state that allows his marriage? is he not?



But that is possible only under a federalist system, not a federal one.

[Ravi]

Wait, Tennessee law does not recognize gay marriage.
You, Marie, et al, think it's unjust and should be changed.
We don't support obamacare.
You tell us "It's the LAW!!, Live with it!"
Really, Cigar? You don't see your own hypocrisy staring you in the face?

Again, I ask, What injustice is being done?
Any injustice will do. This is just more hypocrisy on your part, deciding what qualifies as an injustice to someone.

[Ravi]

Did you forget your meds this morning, or just take too many? You're making even less sense than usual.I got in trouble for saying that to someone.

[Ravi]

If someplace discriminated against me, I would stick my middle finger up, say "fuck you" and take my money and talents elsewhere and reward people who didn't discriminate with my money and support.
What if you were a native of the state and it was part of your identity? Why must one move to another part of the country to enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

[zelmo1234]

So maybe someone should sit this person down and tell him Fruit Cup Cowboy up, it is the law in this state?

So if you really want to live that way you are not going to be able to live here?

[Ravi]

No he is free to pursue his happiness in a state that allows his marriage? is he not?
Why should he have to incur that hardship?

[Ravi]

So maybe someone should sit this person down and tell him Fruit Cup Cowboy up, it is the law in this state?

So if you really want to live that way you are not going to be able to live here?Live that way? You mean like being able to have the same name on your SS card and your driver's license and your CCW permit?

[jillian]

I got in trouble for saying that to someone.

me too

[zelmo1234]

Why should he have to incur that hardship?

Why should he be able to go against he will of other people? Tn voted and does not recognize Gay marriage, so if he really wants this he is going to have to move, otherwise is he not effecting the happiness of the majority of the state?

Why should they have to change their mind because of him?

[Ravi]

me too

I want to be clear that the person I made that comment to wasn't the person that reported me. I asked her. :)

[GrassrootsConservative]

Regardless. Are they denying her the right the pursuit of happiness?

Post 4 and already she's in reverse.

[jillian]

I want to be clear that the person I made that comment to wasn't the person that reported me. I asked her. :)

that doesn't surprise me.

[zelmo1234]

Live that way? You mean like being able to have the same name on your SS card and your driver's license and your CCW permit?

I think that he does have the same name on all of those, he just wants a different name on those?

So can he have the same name on them,, why yes, yes he can, can he have the name he wants on them, Yes , but he has to move!

[Ravi]

Why should he be able to go against he will of other people? Tn voted and does not recognize Gay marriage, so if he really wants this he is going to have to move, otherwise is he not effecting the happiness of the majority of the state?

Why should they have to change their mind because of him?
Maybe you haven't kept up with the news, Zel. The federal government recognizes marriage for the purpose of federal law. Why would a state be able to disallow someone from using their real name on a driver's license or CCW? A state cannot deny a right that the federal government grants. It is in the constitution.

But aside from that, why would you support this bit of discrimination?

[Ravi]

Post 4 and already she's in reverse.I see that none of you noticed the question mark in my title. Par for the course.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Maybe you haven't kept up with the news, Zel. The federal government recognizes marriage for the purpose of federal law. Why would a state be able to disallow someone from using their real name on a driver's license or CCW? A state cannot deny a right that the federal government grants. It is in the constitution.

But aside from that, why would you support this bit of discrimination?

It's not discrimination.

Discrimination needs to be unjustified. Look something up if you don't know what it means.

/Edit: Here you go, it would have been as simple as a google search:


dis·crim·i·na·tion
disˌkriməˈnāSHən/
noun


1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

[Ravi]

I think that he does have the same name on all of those, he just wants a different name on those?

So can he have the same name on them,, why yes, yes he can, can he have the name he wants on them, Yes , but he has to move!Why does he have to move?

[Ravi]

It's not discrimination.

Discrimination needs to be unjustified. Look something up if you don't know what it means.
Detail how this bit of discrimination is justified.

[zelmo1234]

Maybe you haven't kept up with the news, Zel. The federal government recognizes marriage for the purpose of federal law. Why would a state be able to disallow someone from using their real name on a driver's license or CCW? A state cannot deny a right that the federal government grants. It is in the constitution.

But aside from that, why would you support this bit of discrimination?

Actually I think that so far the Court has said that they can, and are not forced to recognize this demand.

Marie he is trying to force his lifestyle on others, nothing more and nothing less, if he was really that concerned about it, he would move, but he is not.

That is not asking for tolerance it is demanding acceptance. The people of TN have voted and it is the law in the state of his residence. He has a choice, but to demand that all must support his lifestyle is not going to happen!

[jillian]

How can you say in one breath there is a right and there is not a right? What is it that government either does or does not protect but rights? The injustice, if there is any, in in not protecting existing rights. It is rights that give government the power to protect them.

different rights.

read....

[GrassrootsConservative]

Detail how this bit of discrimination is justified.

Justified by the religious beliefs of the people who voted to not allow it.

He's free to go to deadweight California the land of good feelings and morality-corrupting sex to marry whomever he wants.

[zelmo1234]

Why does he have to move?

Because the law where he lives does not allow him to change his name as it does not recognize gay marriage?

So if he want s to change his name he needs to live where that is allowed, and the people have voted in his favor.

His demands do not supersede the will of the people of TN

[jillian]

So go get it changed. It's not that difficult.

there's nothing to change. the law requires equal treatment.

[Ravi]

Actually I think that so far the Court has said that they can, and are not forced to recognize this demand.

Marie he is trying to force his lifestyle on others, nothing more and nothing less, if he was really that concerned about it, he would move, but he is not.

That is not asking for tolerance it is demanding acceptance. The people of TN have voted and it is the law in the state of his residence. He has a choice, but to demand that all must support his lifestyle is not going to happen!

How is getting your driver's license in your legal name forcing one's lifestyle on others?

[zelmo1234]

there's nothing to change. the law requires equal treatment.

at the federal government level? Thus far has not been mandated to the states that will take a court decission

[jillian]

How is getting your driver's license in your legal name forcing one's lifestyle on others?

this ought to be good. lol

[Ravi]

Justified by the religious beliefs of the people who voted to not allow it.

He's free to go to deadweight California the land of good feelings and morality-corrupting sex to marry whomever he wants.

Okay, cool. You believe in the tyranny of the majority. Our constitution was written to prevent that. It was also written to ensure that religion didn't rule the law.

[Codename Section]

Why does he have to move?

Didn't you say he didn't like the laws where he lives? He doesn't have to move but he doesn't like those laws. People who want to smoke pot shouldn't have to move to Colorado. People in NY who want an AR-15 with a 100 round capabilities shouldn't have to move either.

Unfortunately, we live in a non-libertarian society where the government infringed on individual freedoms that way. So if you don't like it, you have to move somewhere that people think like you or be an outlaw.

[zelmo1234]

How is getting your driver's license in your legal name forcing one's lifestyle on others?

In TN they do not recognize his marriage, his legal name is his given name, not his married name, so he already has his license in his legal name in TN

He needs to live somewher3e else if he wants his dreams to come true?

[jillian]

Justified by the religious beliefs of the people who voted to not allow it.

He's free to go to deadweight California the land of good feelings and morality-corrupting sex to marry whomever he wants.

your religious beliefs are irrelevant. thank G-d we have a first amendment to make sure of that.

the constitution doesn't allow some religious extremist at the state level to deny individual federal rights.

feel free to go live in a theocracy. this isn't one.

[Codename Section]

Okay, cool. You believe in the tyranny of the majority. Our constitution was written to prevent that. It was also written to ensure that religion didn't rule the law.

It was written to prevent that, but tell the people in NY or DC who want the right to bear arms uninfringed. The government doesn't care about the Constitution or individual freedoms.

[jillian]

at the federal government level? Thus far has not been mandated to the states that will take a court decission

it will be.... which is the point of why the person in the o/p is complaining. i look forward to his lawsuit.

[Codename Section]

your religious beliefs are irrelevant. thank G-d we have a first amendment to make sure of that.

the constitution doesn't allow some religious extremist at the state level to deny individual federal rights.

feel free to go live in a theocracy. this isn't one.

Marriage, having babies, drinking milk, eating a raw egg--none of these are rights the federal government can or should bestow. That gives the government too much power, in fact, it hands over your entire existence to the whim of government.

[zelmo1234]

it will be.... which is the point of why the person in the o/p is complaining. i look forward to his lawsuit.

You may very well be right. but until that time he is in a pickle or in his case maybe on a pickle :)

[Agravan]

Why does he have to move?He doesn't. The choice is his.

[Agravan]

Detail how this bit of discrimination is justified.It's not discrimination.

[Agravan]

Because the law where he lives does not allow him to change his name as it does not recognize gay marriage?

So if he want s to change his name he needs to live where that is allowed, and the people have voted in his favor.

His demands do not supersede the will of the people of TN

He can always go to the courthouse and change his name to whatever he wants it to be.

[Agravan]

there's nothing to change. the law requires equal treatment.

He is getting equal treatment. You're asking for special treatment. His marriage is not recognized by the state of Tennessee. No exceptions.

[Agravan]

your religious beliefs are irrelevant. thank G-d we have a first amendment to make sure of that.

the constitution doesn't allow some religious extremist at the state level to deny individual federal rights.

feel free to go live in a theocracy. this isn't one.

You're right, it's not a theocracy so why do you insist on calling it one?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Okay, cool. You believe in the tyranny of the majority. Our constitution was written to prevent that. It was also written to ensure that religion didn't rule the law.

Keep sticking words in my mouth, that's going to win you this debate for sure.

:laugh:

In reality, it actually probably will get you much further than any of your other DOA arguments.

[Ravi]

Didn't you say he didn't like the laws where he lives? He doesn't have to move but he doesn't like those laws. People who want to smoke pot shouldn't have to move to Colorado. People in NY who want an AR-15 with a 100 round capabilities shouldn't have to move either.

Unfortunately, we live in a non-libertarian society where the government infringed on individual freedoms that way. So if you don't like it, you have to move somewhere that people think like you or be an outlaw.

You make some good points. But being "allowed" to have your name on a driver's license isn't a reason one should have to move for.

[Mainecoons]

No, we believe in states' right. If a state's people don't want to sanction something as unnatural as gay marriage, it is their right. And those who want to practice said activities have the right to move to a state that does. It is rather like moving from a state that taxes the holy crap out of you, like all the liberal ones do, and moving to a state that doesn't.

You get to vote with your feet in America. No matter how much you'd like it otherwise, Marie, we still have our freedom of movement.

[Ravi]

In TN they do not recognize his marriage, his legal name is his given name, not his married name, so he already has his license in his legal name in TN

He needs to live somewher3e else if he wants his dreams to come true?
Ah, so this is just a way for Tennessee to punish him. Got it.

[Codename Section]

You make some good points. But being "allowed" to have your name on a driver's license isn't a reason one should have to move for.

But you don't have to be married to change your name on your driver's license or change your name period. They are not denying him a name change.

[Mainecoons]

Oh, yes, I'm sure they're sitting around down at the state house right now trying to figure out how to punish the poor dear fellow.

Sometimes, you crack me up. Other times, you appear cracked up. Like now.

:grin:

[Ravi]

It was written to prevent that, but tell the people in NY or DC who want the right to bear arms uninfringed. The government doesn't care about the Constitution or individual freedoms.
Allowing anyone free access to AR15s and the like is somewhat different. After all, someone's name doesn't have the ability to threaten someone in the same way as walking around with automatic weapons. For that matter, why can't I own nuclear arms???

[Ravi]

He can always go to the courthouse and change his name to whatever he wants it to be.

So he should pay the government a fee for a privilege that others get for free? Awesome.

[Ravi]

But you don't have to be married to change your name on your driver's license or change your name period. They are not denying him a name change.
No, but you have to pay. People that change their name because of marriage don't have to pay court costs.

[Codename Section]

Allowing anyone free access to AR15s and the like is somewhat different.

Nope. Not only are guns a guaranteed right that the government is illegally infringing upon with their laws, but 250 million guns in the US and less than 13,000 shootings each year shows that guns are less of a problem than automobiles.




After all, someone's name doesn't have the ability to threaten someone in the same way as walking around with automatic weapons.

How does an automatic weapon "threaten" someone unless the shooter is pointing it at them and this happens less to less than 1% of the population each year? Cars can run up on sidewalks, do you avoid sidewalks?

I think he should be able to change his name to Bugs Bunny, as I've said. I think all people should be allowed to live freely as they wish uninfringed by the morals, fears, and philosophy of others. People should only be infringed upon by government when they have taken physical action against another human.

In other words, if it were my libertarian land he and his husband could get married while holding AR 15s and then smoke a bowl at the reception.




For that matter, why can't I own nuclear arms???

Because you don't have the money to buy them or a lair to keep them in.

[GrassrootsConservative]

No, but you have to pay. People that change their name because of marriage don't have to pay court costs.

Well good. He'll pay court costs which has more taxes.

A good Liberal would be doing backflips at this idea.

[Codename Section]

No, but you have to pay. People that change their name because of marriage don't have to pay court costs.

So? Woop de doo. He can still do it. As I said, it's not fair that people can't smoke pot in Florida without being arrested but people in Colorado can, but that's how it is.

You don't need your name on the driver's license to exist. I barely know where mine is. He won't die if his name can't change on it. I have a friend who's been married for years and never changed hers because she didn't want the extra trip to the DMV.

Somehow I think he'll pull through.

[Ravi]

Nope. Not only are guns a guaranteed right that the government is illegally infringing upon with their laws, but 250 million guns in the US and less than 13,000 shootings each year shows that guns are less of a problem than automobiles.



How does an automatic weapon "threaten" someone unless the shooter is pointing it at them and this happens less to less than 1% of the population each year? Cars can run up on sidewalks, do you avoid sidewalks?

I think he should be able to change his name to Bugs Bunny, as I've said. I think all people should be allowed to live freely as they wish uninfringed by the morals, fears, and philosophy of others. People should only be infringed upon by government when they have taken physical action against another human.

In other words, if it were my libertarian land he and his husband could get married while holding AR 15s and then smoke a bowl at the reception.



Because you don't have the money to buy them or a lair to keep them in.
No, that's not the reason.

[Ravi]

So? Woop de doo. He can still do it. As I said, it's not fair that people can't smoke pot in Florida without being arrested but people in Colorado can, but that's how it is.

You don't need your name on the driver's license to exist. I barely know where mine is. He won't die if his name can't change on it. I have a friend who's been married for years and never changed hers because she didn't want the extra trip to the DMV.

Somehow I think he'll pull through.

Thanks for clarifying that you agree with special treatment if one pays for it.

[Codename Section]

No, that's not the reason.

Sure it is. I trust you with them more than Obama. He's got assassination lists and uses them!

[Dr. Who]

Did you forget your meds this morning, or just take too many? You're making even less sense than usual.

Violation of rule number 1 - no personal attacks

[Dr. Who]

Please remain on topic

[Agravan]

Allowing anyone free access to AR15s and the like is somewhat different. After all, someone's name doesn't have the ability to threaten someone in the same way as walking around with automatic weapons. For that matter, why can't I own nuclear arms???
An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.

[Agravan]

So he should pay the government a fee for a privilege that others get for free? Awesome.
Did he not know that gay marriage was not recognized in TN? I'll bet he did, but he's trying to force them to change the law that the majority of voters voted for in order to accommodate his lifestyle.

[Mister D]

Nope. Not only are guns a guaranteed right that the government is illegally infringing upon with their laws, but 250 million guns in the US and less than 13,000 shootings each year shows that guns are less of a problem than automobiles.


We do not have a gun problem. We have a cultural problem in communities of color. Gun violence, particularly homicide, occurs overwhelming in communities of color. Of course this causes a great deal of ideological confusion for progressives so they waste their time worrying aout white yahoos with AR-15s.

[Codename Section]

Thanks for clarifying that you agree with special treatment if one pays for it.

I didn't clarify that. I said he shouldn't worry about a driver's license name or picture. Some people worry about the last name on it when they should be more insulted that REAL ID makes everyone look like they took a mug shot.

I can't remember the last time I even looked at mine. Most people don't even ask to see them anymore unless they were caught speeding and in that case I'd prefer they had the wrong name.

[AmazonTania]

No, that's not the reason.

Yeah, that is actually the reason. There is no law (that I know of) which prohibits the possession of nuclear arms in the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/831

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832

And the reason why you don't have a nuclear arm because it's not tactically efficient to own one.

[zelmo1234]

Ah, so this is just a way for Tennessee to punish him. Got it.

Punish him???? he is very free to do anything he wants.

As someone said, he could change his name because he wants to and not give the reason for marriage

But you want to punish all those that live in TN that voted for marriage to be between one man and one women, Don't they count for anything?

And he could move and have every dream that he wants to come true. He wants special treatment, and I really don't like people that demand that I accept there lifestyle.

Under the second amendment I have a right to keep and bare arms, but if I wanted to carry and live in NYC or DC I would not be able to would I???

He has every right to be gay, but the people of the state decided that they did not want to recognize his status as being married, So he know that going in did he not??? And if so why the hell is he so special?

[zelmo1234]

Allowing anyone free access to AR15s and the like is somewhat different. After all, someone's name doesn't have the ability to threaten someone in the same way as walking around with automatic weapons. For that matter, why can't I own nuclear arms???

First an AR 15 is not an automatic weapon, and Second the constitution mentions it by name.

I don't recall the amendment that says, you have the right to be a fruit cup and have all of your beliefs forced on other?

[zelmo1234]

So he should pay the government a fee for a privilege that others get for free? Awesome.

So if I carry my side arm in the city of DC I should be let go because carrying it in MI cities is legal? Right?

If he thought that TN honored gay marriage and they were promoting that they did and he went in and said I want to change my name and they refused just him? Then he would have a case.

He is likely a trouble maker and wants his 15 min of fame more than his name change. He has the right to move and have his dream come true. If he is not willing to go through that then I question his commitment to his mate

[zelmo1234]

No, but you have to pay. People that change their name because of marriage don't have to pay court costs.

No they have to pay for a marriage license , he got off Scott free on that did he not?

[Codename Section]

Half the illegals don't have their real names on Driver's Licenses either. What's the big deal and why would this make him "happy"? James Bond would be nice to have on mine. That would make me happy.

[roadmaster]

We knew this was going to happen when the first state recognized gay marriage. TN voted no and now they are trying to push the states that voted this way. This couple knew this beforehand. Even married couples have to wait now that are men and women. When my niece married it took almost two weeks for her name to be changed, you just can't walk up anymore and show a marriage certificate and yes she had to pay for a new card, including a new DL in the state of SC. I don't see where they are discriminating at all to these two men. Not only that if you move in SC you have to pay to change the address. But these two men will not be recognized as married but can change their name like everyone else with a fee. Maybe it's different up north but not here.

[jillian]

Ah, so this is just a way for Tennessee to punish him. Got it.
Apparently, the radical religious right thinks federal laws requiring equal treatment under the law don't apply to them.

[jillian]

We knew this was going to happen when the first state recognized gay marriage. TN voted no and now they are trying to push the states that voted this way. This couple knew this beforehand. Even married couples have to wait now that are men and women. When my niece married it took almost two weeks for her name to be changed, you just can't walk up anymore and show a marriage certificate and yes she had to pay for a new card, including a new DL in the state of SC. I don't see where they are discriminating at all to these two men. Not only that if you move in SC you have to pay to change the address. But these two men will not be recognized as married but can change their name like everyone else with a fee. Maybe it's different up north but not here.
Yeah, first they forced you to desegregate. Then they made you let black people vote. Now they're going to make you not victimize gays.

Cool. The system works.

[patrickt]

Did I miss something or was this fruitcakes "happiness" being delayed by 4 days to two weeks?

I wonder if he were already registered to vote if this name change would allow him to register and vote again.

The federal government is denying me my right to happiness by requiring me to get health insurance. Oh, woe is me. Can we have a huge pity party, dears?

[roadmaster]

Did I miss something or was this fruitcakes "happiness" being delayed by 4 days to two weeks?

I wonder if he were already registered to vote if this name change would allow him to register and vote again.

No you didn't miss anything, the same goes with other couples. The south is slow at everything and you will pay for just about everything. They have even put a limit if you loose your SS card. 3 times and they may not let you get another.:grin:

[zelmo1234]

Apparently, the radical religious right thinks federal laws requiring equal treatment under the law don't apply to them.

can you state the court case that says states must recognize same sex marriage?

The federal order specifically states the federal level?

I actually hope that id does go through, it will set president, on rights, and that will translate into second amendment rights and cities like Chicago and DC and NYC will have to recognize other states and federal rights

[patrickt]

So, if Jillian's husband went in to get his name change to Jillian's Dog so people would understand, you think he'd have to wait four days to two weeks, too?

[Chris]

Did I miss something or was this fruitcakes "happiness" being delayed by 4 days to two weeks?

I wonder if he were already registered to vote if this name change would allow him to register and vote again.

The federal government is denying me my right to happiness by requiring me to get health insurance. Oh, woe is me. Can we have a huge pity party, dears?



Worse, this is about a few bureaucratic clerks' interpretation of law. The Tennessee Equality Project sent people out to test responses. A few claimed denial of changing driver's license name. Others said they had no trouble. Here, I posted this at least 10 pages ago, but it gets buried by agenda. This is the source for the misrepresenting talkingpoints: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130921/NEWS21/309210064/License-offices-deny-same-sex-name-changes

[Ravi]

An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.

What is your point?

[Ravi]

I didn't clarify that. I said he shouldn't worry about a driver's license name or picture. Some people worry about the last name on it when they should be more insulted that REAL ID makes everyone look like they took a mug shot.

I can't remember the last time I even looked at mine. Most people don't even ask to see them anymore unless they were caught speeding and in that case I'd prefer they had the wrong name.
I don't know where you live, but in my state you can't renew your driver's license if you have different names on different ids.

[roadmaster]

So, if Jillian's husband went in to get his name change to Jillian's Dog so people would understand, you think he'd have to wait four days to two weeks, too? In the south yes. And that two week could be longer. They will run you from building after building in the south to end up at the same place. Love the south but patience is a virtue.

[jillian]

So, if Jillian's husband went in to get his name change to Jillian's Dog so people would understand, you think he'd have to wait four days to two weeks, too?

understand what? don't ascribe your unhealthy relationships to me.

[jillian]

Did I miss something or was this fruitcakes "happiness" being delayed by 4 days to two weeks?

I wonder if he were already registered to vote if this name change would allow him to register and vote again.

The federal government is denying me my right to happiness by requiring me to get health insurance. Oh, woe is me. Can we have a huge pity party, dears?

i think the conversation pretty much ends at "fruitcakes".

you apparently feel threatened by gays. i'd say that's your problem. it isn't theirs.

[Ravi]

Did I miss something or was this fruitcakes "happiness" being delayed by 4 days to two weeks?

I wonder if he were already registered to vote if this name change would allow him to register and vote again.

The federal government is denying me my right to happiness by requiring me to get health insurance. Oh, woe is me. Can we have a huge pity party, dears?Yes, you missed something. But thanks for using the word fruitcake to express your bigotry.

[jillian]

Punish him???? he is very free to do anything he wants.

As someone said, he could change his name because he wants to and not give the reason for marriage

But you want to punish all those that live in TN that voted for marriage to be between one man and one women, Don't they count for anything?

And he could move and have every dream that he wants to come true. He wants special treatment, and I really don't like people that demand that I accept there lifestyle.

Under the second amendment I have a right to keep and bare arms, but if I wanted to carry and live in NYC or DC I would not be able to would I???

He has every right to be gay, but the people of the state decided that they did not want to recognize his status as being married, So he know that going in did he not??? And if so why the hell is he so special?

and yet loving v virginia says marriage is a fundamental right.

i'm pretty sure at some point no one is gong to care what your state approves of... same as happened with jim crow and segregation.

[roadmaster]

I don't know where you live, but in my state you can't renew your driver's license if you have different names on different ids. You can here but it takes a while. They mail you out your new drivers license now, which can take some time. You have to carry a piece of paper around and hope it comes in. They take the old one.

[jillian]

Marriage, having babies, drinking milk, eating a raw egg--none of these are rights the federal government can or should bestow. That gives the government too much power, in fact, it hands over your entire existence to the whim of government.

marriage is a fundamental right.

i'll direct your attention to Loving v Virginia

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

as for having babies... i'm pretty sure that if we looked at the forced sterilization cases, we'd find out that government can't interfere with someone's right to choose to have a child.

same as roe v wade says government can't interfere with a woman's right to choose not to have a child until the governmental interest outweighs that of the individual.

[roadmaster]

Oh and the gun permit, forget it coming to some southern states. You have to reapply and meet the sheriff which can take weeks and have two people sign that you are sane. :laugh: They may want to move.

[AmazonTania]

marriage is a fundamental right.

i'll direct your attention to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

as for having babies... i'm pretty sure that if we looked at the forced sterilization cases, we'd find out that government can't interfere with someone's right to choose to have a child.

same as roe v wade says government can't interfere with a woman's right to choose not to have a child until the governmental interest outweighs that of the individual.

Perhaps you can be more specific and present the passage we're supposed to be read.

Or are you trying to avoid reading your own sources once more...

[Chris]

marriage is a fundamental right.

i'll direct your attention to Loving v Virginia

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

as for having babies... i'm pretty sure that if we looked at the forced sterilization cases, we'd find out that government can't interfere with someone's right to choose to have a child.

same as roe v wade says government can't interfere with a woman's right to choose not to have a child until the governmental interest outweighs that of the individual.



Marrige is not a right. Rights are not created by government, rights created government. No amount of legal positivism will change that.

[jillian]

Perhaps you can be more specific and present the passage we're supposed to be read.

Or are you trying to avoid reading your own sources once more...

was the link too difficult for you to open?

or do you not understand that constitutional law is composed of the constitution and a body of caselaw?

[jillian]

Marrige is not a right. Rights are not created by government, rights created government. No amount of legal positivism will change that.

okie dokie smokey...

our supreme court disagrees with you. i'll go with them over a pretend libertarian who thinks law exists in the air.

thanks.

btw, they didn't create the fundamental right of marriage. that was already a given.

they just acknowledged it.

does that make you feel better?

[AmazonTania]

was the link too difficult for you to open?

or do you not understand that constitutional law is composed of the constitution and a body of caselaw?

How about showing that by quoting a portion of the case brief?

[jillian]

How about showing that by quoting a portion of the case brief?

why? is reading difficult for you?

and it's not the "brief" you want. a brief is written by both sides in support of their position.

what you want is the majority decision (not the dissent).

hope that helps.

[AmazonTania]

why? is reading difficult for you?

Because presenting accurate data isn't your strong suit, that's why.

[zelmo1234]

i think the conversation pretty much ends at "fruitcakes".

you apparently feel threatened by gays. i'd say that's your problem. it isn't theirs.

He may be a little more like I am, I have decided that Gay people are just fine with me, but if they want special treatment weather they are gay or straight, they get the name Fruit cup!

I think it is time that people realize that tolerance means that you disagree? And demanding acceptance is intolerant by nature

[Chris]

okie dokie smokey...

our supreme court disagrees with you. i'll go with them over a pretend libertarian who thinks law exists in the air.

thanks.

btw, they didn't create the fundamental right of marriage. that was already a given.

they just acknowledged it.

does that make you feel better?



You don't justify you legal positivist position by again arguing legal positivism, that's circular, and probably made your head spin.

[jillian]

You don't justify you legal positivist position by again arguing legal positivism, that's circular, and probably made your head spin.

you mean the law isn't the law?

okay...

sorry, chrissie... i don't waste my time on nonsense.

tell me did you "take care of" us yet?

[Chris]

He may be a little more like I am, I have decided that Gay people are just fine with me, but if they want special treatment weather they are gay or straight, they get the name Fruit cup!

I think it is time that people realize that tolerance means that you disagree? And demanding acceptance is intolerant by nature

He is and has said so many a time but that doesn't stop some from, what should we call it? Reverse projection? Where if you disagree with me then you must think the opposite or reverse of me, and so you project that reverse position. Earlier, in some thread, someone said it was the liberal take it or leave it, your with me or against me thinking. And, heck, what matter if the accusation is true, it will force defending oneself and deflect from discussion.

[jillian]

He may be a little more like I am, I have decided that Gay people are just fine with me, but if they want special treatment weather they are gay or straight, they get the name Fruit cup!

I think it is time that people realize that tolerance means that you disagree? And demanding acceptance is intolerant by nature

how is it special treatment for them to have the same rights you do?

you want them to be treated differently. there is no basis for that other than misplaced religious zealotry.

[zelmo1234]

how is it special treatment for them to have the same rights you do?

you want them to be treated differently. there is no basis for that other than misplaced religious zealotry.

You know they don't want the same rights, they want to assault marriage, people have voted in TN that Marriage is between one man and one women. I would bet if they introduced a civil union law in TN it would pass with flying colors, and they would have the very same rights as a married couple.

So I am not against them having the same rights, but marriage is in fact a religious covenant and in those religions homosexuality is a sin, no better or worse than any other sin but still sin.

So it is an assault on religion, which is protected in the constitution as well.

This young man knew the law, and wanted to get it changed, in the court of public opinion he knows that he does not have a chance, so he wants the courts to do it for him. So "Fruit Cup"

[pjohns]

Why must one move to another part of the country to enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

One would be wise, I believe, to settle in a state whose basic codes (as enshrined in its laws) are congenial to one's own views and interests.

But the left seems to prefer mere attitudinizing over constitutional doctrine (except to whatever extent it may be able to use some very vague phrase in the Constitution to suit its agenda)...

[roadmaster]

how is it special treatment for them to have the same rights you do?

you want them to be treated differently. there is no basis for that other than misplaced religious zealotry.
We already get what you are saying but it's still not recognized in TN and in many southern states. You can't force a state or preacher to fulfill your dreams. Do you also expect a preacher to be forced to marry a gay couple because he marries others? You can't force people to do what you want. End of story, if the state loses the preachers won't. They don't care if the tax exempt is forced, they won't bend.

[jillian]

You know they don't want the same rights, they want to assault marriage, people have voted in TN that Marriage is between one man and one women. I would bet if they introduced a civil union law in TN it would pass with flying colors, and they would have the very same rights as a married couple.

So I am not against them having the same rights, but marriage is in fact a religious covenant and in those religions homosexuality is a sin, no better or worse than any other sin but still sin.

So it is an assault on religion, which is protected in the constitution as well.

This young man knew the law, and wanted to get it changed, in the court of public opinion he knows that he does not have a chance, so he wants the courts to do it for him. So "Fruit Cup"

the vote in tennessee doesn't trump constitutional rights.

that's the whole point of the constitution.

the term "assault" on marriage is an extremist religious objection.

again, there is no justification for denying marriage equality but for religious extremism.

and, once more, with feeling... this isn't a theocracy and rights can't be denied at the whim of state extremists...

has the court ruled yet that marriage equality is a guaranteed right. not really, they skirted around it.

but they will.

[pjohns]

A state cannot deny a right that the federal government grants. It is in the constitution.

(1) I would strongly disagree with the premise that the federal government is empowered to "grant" any rights. Recognize natural rights, yes. And even recognize those rights acquired through the social contract. But "grant" rights? Uh, no...

(2) I remain a very strong supporter of the nineteenth-century doctrine of nullification; according to which, states may, indeed, nullify federal statutes.

The left will surely note that the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) cedes to the federal government supremacy whenever there is a conflict between the US Constitution and various state constitutions and laws.

But since the left (rather obviously, I think) has no regard for the Tenth Amendment, I see no reason why the rest of us should fetishize the so-called "Supremacy Clause"...

[pjohns]

You believe in the tyranny of the majority.

Although the above quote was actually directed toward someone else, I feel prompted to reply.

In short, I strongly oppose all tyranny--including the tyranny of the minority...

[jillian]

Although the above quote was actually directed toward someone else, I feel prompted to reply.

In short, I strongly oppose all tyranny--including the tyranny of the minority...

how is the minority tyrannical?

the job of the judiciary is to stand between the majority and their efforts to victimize any minority group. the thing is, if a group were popular, it wouldn't need protection.

[Chris]

how is the minority tyrannical?

the job of the judiciary is to stand between the majority and their efforts to victimize any minority group. the thing is, if a group were popular, it wouldn't need protection.



Unelected men in black robes legislating from the bench comes to mind.

[Codename Section]

how is the minority tyrannical?

the job of the judiciary is to stand between the majority and their efforts to victimize any minority group. the thing is, if a group were popular, it wouldn't need protection.

That's actually not the job of the judiciary. It is to adjudicate disputes. Only progressives think its the job of the judiciary because they can't get a majority to agree on forcing people to agree on social concerns.

If you would drop the whole idea of the government even involving itself in social issues it can neither rob people of rights or give people extra rights.

[Chris]

you mean the law isn't the law?

okay...

sorry, chrissie... i don't waste my time on nonsense.

tell me did you "take care of" us yet?



No, not at all what I mean. What I mean is the law does not justify itself. That is the snake-tail-swallowing problem with your legal positivism.

[Dr. Who]

You know they don't want the same rights, they want to assault marriage, people have voted in TN that Marriage is between one man and one women. I would bet if they introduced a civil union law in TN it would pass with flying colors, and they would have the very same rights as a married couple.

So I am not against them having the same rights, but marriage is in fact a religious covenant and in those religions homosexuality is a sin, no better or worse than any other sin but still sin.

So it is an assault on religion, which is protected in the constitution as well.

This young man knew the law, and wanted to get it changed, in the court of public opinion he knows that he does not have a chance, so he wants the courts to do it for him. So "Fruit Cup"

The word marriage has more than one meaning, only one ostensibly religious and at that it is a translation. How can religion own the word or concept?

[zelmo1234]

The word marriage has more than one meaning, only one ostensibly religious and at that it is a translation. How can religion own the word or concept?

I can't think of a situation where marriage does not have a religious background! I know that we have something in the works among our happy little band of churches that will once again separate what the GLBT community is trying to tear apart and co-op for itself.

You see we have these terrible shootings, we have children hooking up and want them to have access to the morning after pill without parental consent, kids are doing drugs and joining gangs, all in search of something that the family once filled

I believe that progressives have succeeded in making the family unit a joke and now they are reaping the rewards of their efforts. The assault on marriage is just one more step. For those that see no issue with Gay marriage, they see no issues with a lot of things that make the family unit weaker, Because they needed to tear down that unit to get their political agenda passed.

It is just the way it is, and it will likely end in a war, hopefully of ideas, but likely sprinkled with more of the same violence that we see raising it's ugly head around the world

[zelmo1234]

So lets say that the churches get together? and create a Covenant Marriage contract. And encourage their members not to file their marriage with the state. But use a legal will to get the rights of property, and visitation in hospitals. AND THEY REFUSE TO MARRY GAY PEOPLE.


By dong this in 2 generations the only people that will actually be married in the states eyes. are the GLBT community. Robbing the state of hundreds of thousands in marriage license fees and the federal government hundreds of billions that they collet in the marriage penalty tax

Meaning that heterosexual couples will be married in the eyes of God, and homosexuals will be married in the eyes of the state

Want to bet that they will pitch a fit still?

[Ravi]

Although the above quote was actually directed toward someone else, I feel prompted to reply.

In short, I strongly oppose all tyranny--including the tyranny of the minority...And yet here you are in this thread supporting the tyranny of the majority.

[Ravi]

So lets say that the churches get together? and create a Covenant Marriage contract. And encourage their members not to file their marriage with the state. But use a legal will to get the rights of property, and visitation in hospitals. AND THEY REFUSE TO MARRY GAY PEOPLE.


By dong this in 2 generations the only people that will actually be married in the states eyes. are the GLBT community. Robbing the state of hundreds of thousands in marriage license fees and the federal government hundreds of billions that they collet in the marriage penalty tax

Meaning that heterosexual couples will be married in the eyes of God, and homosexuals will be married in the eyes of the state

Want to bet that they will pitch a fit still?

What if a church wants to marry gay couples? You would support the state preventing them from doing so, wouldn't you?

[Chris]

Although the above quote was actually directed toward someone else, I feel prompted to reply.

In short, I strongly oppose all tyranny--including the tyranny of the minority...


And yet here you are in this thread supporting the tyranny of the majority.

And yet he just said " I strongly oppose all tyranny". So why do you comment in a way that is obviously wrong?

[jillian]

Unelected men in black robes legislating from the bench comes to mind.

you can hate it all you want... but that's the way our judiciary is set up.

and what comes to mind for me are those people who (theoretically, unlike legislators... and the people who vote for them... )actually know something about the constitution.

or you can continue to advocate ignoring our governmental system because you hate it. feel free, once again, to take my recommendation to familiarize yourself with common law legal systems.

i'll recommend, again, that you read marbury v madison for a background in judicial review.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZS.html

and after you've read it, it would be interesting to hear what you believe the point of the judiciary is if not to make sure that the other branches of government don't act unconstitutionally.

the electorate sure isn't capable of it and will vote to violate minority rights every time.

now awaiting response talking about "legal positivism"....

[Chris]

you can hate it all you want... but that's the way our judiciary is set up.

and what comes to mind for me are those people who (theoretically, unlike legislators... and the people who vote for them... )actually know something about the constitution.

or you can continue to advocate ignoring our governmental system because you hate it. feel free, once again, to take my recommendation to familiarize yourself with common law legal systems.

i'll recommend, again, that you read marbury v madison for a background in judicial review.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZS.html

and after you've read it, it would be interesting to hear what you believe the point of the judiciary is if not to make sure that the other branches of government don't act unconstitutionally.

the electorate sure isn't capable of it and will vote to violate minority rights every time.

now awaiting response talking about "legal positivism"....



I don't hate, please stop making things like that up.

Legislating was not what the judiciary was set up to do.

Marbury v Madison established judicial review not legislative powers.

Legal positivism is circular, you cannot justify law with law.

[zelmo1234]

What if a church wants to marry gay couples? You would support the state preventing them from doing so, wouldn't you?

Absolutely not, if a church choses to do so that would be up to them.

This is about starving the government of money! and giving people that believe that a marriage is between one man and one women a different path. And if a church decides that they want to Marry that gay couple so be it that is their decision and between them and god

By taking the majority of people off the government marriage penalty tax it is about starving the beast that is forcing it's version of morality on the public

[Ravi]

Absolutely not, if a church choses to do so that would be up to them.

This is about starving the government of money! and giving people that believe that a marriage is between one man and one women a different path. And if a church decides that they want to Marry that gay couple so be it that is their decision and between them and god

By taking the majority of people off the government marriage penalty tax it is about starving the beast that is forcing it's version of morality on the public

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You posted something to the effect that only heterosexuals would be allowed to marry in church. That would be unconstitutional.

[patrickt]

This thread was pitiful to start with since it was a nitwit who was being denied happiness for four days to two weeks and another nitwit who thought that was a constitutional violation.

How sad. Liberals are rooted in hatred and force and can't get past it.

[Mainecoons]

It is unconstitutional for a church or religion to decline to "marry" homosexuals?

I don't suppose you'd care to prove that statement, would you?

Not that I think you have the brain power to do so but give it a go.

[zelmo1234]

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You posted something to the effect that only heterosexuals would be allowed to marry in church. That would be unconstitutional.

Actually the state has no business telling the church what they can and can't do, but telling a church that they can't marry who they want would be unconstitutional!

No I have been in contact with a new and growing group of business people that feel the only way to control governmental power it to starve it of funding

[Paperback Writer]

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You posted something to the effect that only heterosexuals would be allowed to marry in church. That would be unconstitutional.

Wot? How in the world is it unconstitutional for only heterosexuals to be married in church? You could have the church of dogs and cats that marry only dogs and cats and that would be just fine.

[Ravi]

It is unconstitutional for a church or religion to decline to "marry" homosexuals?

I don't suppose you'd care to prove that statement, would you?

Not that I think you have the brain power to do so but give it a go.No, that isn't what I said. It would be unconstitutional for a state to dictate whom a church could marry.

[Ravi]

Actually the state has no business telling the church what they can and can't do, but telling a church that they can't marry who they want would be unconstitutional!

No I have been in contact with a new and growing group of business people that feel the only way to control governmental power it to starve it of funding

Well, good luck with that.

[Chris]

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You posted something to the effect that only heterosexuals would be allowed to marry in church. That would be unconstitutional.

Actually, no it wouldn't. The Constitution enumerates powers and prohibitions for the federal government, some of which have been incorporated to apply to state governments. In short, it controls government, not private organizations. Churches can and should be able to marry whoever they please.

[Chris]

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You posted something to the effect that only heterosexuals would be allowed to marry in church. That would be unconstitutional.


No, that isn't what I said. It would be unconstitutional for a state to dictate whom a church could marry.

So now you say the opposite? At how many revolutions per minute does your head spin?

[zelmo1234]

Actually, no it wouldn't. The Constitution enumerates powers and prohibitions for the federal government, some of which have been incorporated to apply to state governments. In short, it controls government, not private organizations. Churches can and should be able to marry whoever they please.

OK guys that is what Marie is trying to say.

I have to be on her side here, If a church wants to marry the GLBT community, you can't force them not to!

This is her point!

[Ravi]

So now you say the opposite? At how many revolutions per minute does your head spin?

I'm kind of amazed that Zelmo is the only one that understood my comment to Zelmo. I'm beginning to think the rest of you are merely attempting to bait me.

[zelmo1234]

So now you say the opposite? At how many revolutions per minute does your head spin?

No she has not switched, she pointed out something that I said that was wrong.

[Chris]

Wot? How in the world is it unconstitutional for only heterosexuals to be married in church? You could have the church of dogs and cats that marry only dogs and cats and that would be just fine.



Or Catholic churches that marry only Catholics! My dad had to covert from Lutheran to Catholic to marry my mom. I think I'll give them a call and tell them that's unconstitutional.

[Chris]

I'm kind of amazed that Zelmo is the only one that understood my comment to Zelmo. I'm beginning to think the rest of you are merely attempting to bait me.

We're trying to understand you. If those statements don't contradict each other, then please just explain what you meant.

[Chris]

No she has not switched, she pointed out something that I said that was wrong.



Explain, please.

[Ravi]

Read the thread for comprehension, dude. It really isn't all that difficult.

[zelmo1234]

Explain, please.

You are taking her question for me to clarify my position to mean that Churches that decided to not marry the homosexual community would be breaking the constitution.

after my answer you will see that she agreed with me that it would only be unconstitutional if the government tried to prevent churches that wished to marry the homosexual community were prevented from doing so!

Because he first post was a question and not a statement, you are getting confused

[zelmo1234]

Read the thread for comprehension, dude. It really isn't all that difficult.

Ok kid I got your back on this one, but it is your statements like this and others that are just designed to piss people off that have them confused.

So if you have more constructive statements in the future, they will give you the benefit of the doubt

[Ravi]

Ok kid I got your back on this one, but it is your statements like this and others that are just designed to piss people off that have them confused.

So if you have more constructive statements in the future, they will give you the benefit of the doubt
Sweetie, how many times have you and others commented on my intelligence just today? People that live in glass houses.....

[jillian]

Sweetie, how many times have you and others commented on my intelligence just today? People that live in glass houses.....

they suddenly get very thin-skinned when what they do comes back to them.

[Chris]

You are taking her question for me to clarify my position to mean that Churches that decided to not marry the homosexual community would be breaking the constitution.

after my answer you will see that she agreed with me that it would only be unconstitutional if the government tried to prevent churches that wished to marry the homosexual community were prevented from doing so!

Because he first post was a question and not a statement, you are getting confused



Thanks, but now I'm more confused, apparently.

Here's the statement I cited:


Okay, but that isn't what you said. You posted something to the effect that only heterosexuals would be allowed to marry in church. That would be unconstitutional.

There is no question there. Yes, she is paraphrasing your statement. Then she states unequivocally that for a church to do that would be unconstitutional.

Her next statement indeed contradicts that:


No, that isn't what I said. It would be unconstitutional for a state to dictate whom a church could marry.

Here she states unequivocally that for the state to dictate that would be unconstitutional.

Those are opposing statements to me. I disagree with the first and agree with the last.

[Ravi]

:rolleyes:

[Mainecoons]

Poor thing is so confused she thinks forcing churches to marry people is constitutional before it isn't?

OK

:rofl:

[zelmo1234]

Sweetie, how many times have you and others commented on my intelligence just today? People that live in glass houses.....

That is what I was trying to say, If you were to attempt to have a more constructive conversation, like this one? I think people would give you the benefit of the doubt

[zelmo1234]

Poor thing is so confused she thinks forcing churches to marry people is constitutional before it isn't?

OK

:rofl:

No she actually is not confused, she thought I was confused and asked for clarification?

She was actually engaging in constructive conversation, we should encourage that behavior, should we not!

[Ravi]

That is what I was trying to say, If you were to attempt to have a more constructive conversation, like this one? I think people would give you the benefit of the doubt
Not getting your point. You are criticizing my posting style while posting little snide comments here and there about me. I make every attempt to be polite to people that are polite to me. Anyway, it was an interesting discussion and I'm glad you were able to see that forcing churches NOT to marry homosexuals would be unconstitutional.

[zelmo1234]

Thanks, but now I'm more confused, apparently.

Here's the statement I cited:



There is no question there. Yes, she is paraphrasing your statement. Then she states unequivocally that for a church to do that would be unconstitutional.

Her next statement indeed contradicts that:



Here she states unequivocally that for the state to dictate that would be unconstitutional.

Those are opposing statements to me. I disagree with the first and agree with the last.

You are one post too few, you don't have her question, I totally understand what she is trying to say, I do not get why you all are having trouble with it!

[zelmo1234]

Not getting your point. You are criticizing my posting style while posting little snide comments here and there about me. I make every attempt to be polite to people that are polite to me. Anyway, it was an interesting discussion and I'm glad you were able to see that forcing churches NOT to marry homosexuals would be unconstitutional.

That is the problem with typing, sometimes our words come off wrong and un intended.

I will take you at your word and view your posts in the context of you trying to be polite, And apologize for my snide remarks, If you truly did not mean for your posts to be ??? well a little bit bitchy, if you will, then I was wrong in my comments.

[Ravi]

Fair enough.

[pjohns]

And yet here you are in this thread supporting the tyranny of the majority.

It is your contention (being passed off, apparently, as if it were self-evident fact) that the wishes of the majority of Tennesseans--in addition to the wording of the Tennessee state constitution--amounts to "tyranny"...

[Chris]

You are one post too few, you don't have her question, I totally understand what she is trying to say, I do not get why you all are having trouble with it!

I guess because I'm missing that question. It's OK, I'll take your word for it I got it wrong, she's not contradicting herself.

[Agravan]

Not getting your point. You are criticizing my posting style while posting little snide comments here and there about me. I make every attempt to be polite to people that are polite to me. Anyway, it was an interesting discussion and I'm glad you were able to see that forcing churches NOT to marry homosexuals would be unconstitutional.That depends on who is doing the forcing. The state? Yes, unconstitutional. The congregation? Nothing to do with the Constitution so constitutionality does not apply. Perfectly legal.

[patrickt]

Okay, but that isn't what you said. You posted something to the effect that only heterosexuals would be allowed to marry in church. That would be unconstitutional.

I realize the Glorious Leader is attacking churches and thinks he has a right to rule them but he doesn't. In fact, we do have the pesky little point about church and government in our Constitution. It's probably not in the liberal constitution, though. If a church doesn't wish to marry old men marrying young women that's their business even if it's age discrimination. If a church doesn't want to marry anyone who isn't a member of their church, that's their business even if it's discrimination based on religion. If a church doesn't want to marry gays that's their business, too.

I realize that churches, like private business, is doomed in LibWorld.

[Ravi]

That depends on who is doing the forcing. The state? Yes, unconstitutional. The congregation? Nothing to do with the Constitution so constitutionality does not apply. Perfectly legal.Yep. Zel's original post made it sound like the state could force the churches to not perform marriages. He clarified and really, that should have been the end of it. But some people....

[Ravi]

I realize the Glorious Leader is attacking churches and thinks he has a right to rule them but he doesn't. In fact, we do have the pesky little point about church and government in our Constitution. It's probably not in the liberal constitution, though. If a church doesn't wish to marry old men marrying young women that's their business even if it's age discrimination. If a church doesn't want to marry anyone who isn't a member of their church, that's their business even if it's discrimination based on religion. If a church doesn't want to marry gays that's their business, too.

I realize that churches, like private business, is doomed in LibWorld.

I've got to say it. This thread and you all's either willful or ignorant confirmation bias has been a hoot.

[Chris]

Yep. Zel's original post made it sound like the state could force the churches to not perform marriages. He clarified and really, that should have been the end of it. But some people....



Agree, zelmo clarified it for you.