PDA

View Full Version : Georga college cancels classes for day, due to protest over US Flag.



garhkal
04-25-2015, 05:53 AM
I saw this on the news at lunch (well on the ticker), then again on Fox's site..

http://news10.com/ap/georgia-university-cancels-classes-in-flap-over-flag-protest/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/24/georgia-university-cancels-classes-in-flap-over-flag-protest/

What say you all on this.
Was the school right to close up shop for the day?
Do you agree or disagree with burning/stomping on the flag being freedom of speech?

Stalwart
04-25-2015, 11:52 AM
Was the school right to close up shop for the day?

If the university administrators felt that the atmosphere / tension on campus was either presenting a danger to students or people living in the vicinity of the campus, or that the disruption would be sufficiently disrupting to classes then yes ... they made a good call.


Do you agree or disagree with burning/stomping on the flag being freedom of speech?

Do I agree that burning or walking on the flag is freedom of speech, yes ... it is a recognized form (by the Supreme Court) of symbolic speech.

Do I like it when I see people burning or walking on the flag, no ... but that is entirely the point, the freedom of speech is not meant to protect speech or expression that we like or is popular, but that which is not popular.

sandsjames
04-25-2015, 01:05 PM
I love the irony of former Playboy Model MTI being the one who stepped in with a group stomping on a flag because of the "disrespect".

Mjölnir
04-25-2015, 05:40 PM
I love the irony of former Playboy Model MTI being the one who stepped in with a group stomping on a flag because of the "disrespect".

And has posed with the flag draped over her, with the flag touching the ground. I guess it was okay when she was the subject of the photoshoot. But It did get her name back in the news.

Publicity much?

garhkal
04-25-2015, 09:09 PM
If the university administrators felt that the atmosphere / tension on campus was either presenting a danger to students or people living in the vicinity of the campus, or that the disruption would be sufficiently disrupting to classes then yes ... they made a good call.


Then why did they not feel the same way when students and others were out there, stomping on the flag? Or was it cause that group was small that it was not seen as disrupting?



Do I agree that burning or walking on the flag is freedom of speech, yes ... it is a recognized form (by the Supreme Court) of symbolic speech.

Do I like it when I see people burning or walking on the flag, no ... but that is entirely the point, the freedom of speech is not meant to protect speech or expression that we like or is popular, but that which is not popular.

That is one of the biggest issues i find fault with the SCOTUS. They made one big erroneous decision in allowing it imo.

Stalwart
04-25-2015, 09:58 PM
Then why did they not feel the same way when students and others were out there, stomping on the flag? Or was it cause that group was small that it was not seen as disrupting?

I could see where they may have expected a zoo on the day of the protest that classes were cancelled. The situation obviously ballooned beyond a local campus protest. Now, I don't understand how the students walking on the flag was protesting racism (the stated purpose of the protest) ... but it is their free speech.


That is one of the biggest issues i find fault with the SCOTUS. They made one big erroneous decision in allowing it imo.

I can understand that point. I won't go as far as to say the flag is just cloth. I do regard it as a symbol, one I have defended -- with violence. It represents freedom in very far flung corners of the world. The symbolism of the Marines (& a Corpsman) on Mt. Suribachi who raising the flag inspired millions in the U.S. during a pretty tenuous time in WWII. I carried a small folded flag with me in Iraq and Afghanistan to remind me of why I was there. At the same time, our nation is also founded on a set of ideals and the freedom of speech & expression are one of them; restricting that freedom ... even in the case of something I love I don't think is appropriate, how close do we get to restricting cartoons that offend us a la the Taliban? Doing so would make us closer to what I have fought (very literally) to keep us from becoming.

TJMAC77SP
04-25-2015, 11:14 PM
I could see where they may have expected a zoo on the day of the protest that classes were cancelled. The situation obviously ballooned beyond a local campus protest. Now, I don't understand how the students walking on the flag was protesting racism (the stated purpose of the protest) ... but it is their free speech.



I can understand that point. I won't go as far as to say the flag is just cloth. I do regard it as a symbol, one I have defended -- with violence. It represents freedom in very far flung corners of the world. The symbolism of the Marines (& a Corpsman) on Mt. Suribachi who raising the flag inspired millions in the U.S. during a pretty tenuous time in WWII. I carried a small folded flag with me in Iraq and Afghanistan to remind me of why I was there. At the same time, our nation is also founded on a set of ideals and the freedom of speech & expression are one of them; restricting that freedom ... even in the case of something I love I don't think is appropriate, how close do we get to restricting cartoons that offend us a la the Taliban? Doing so would make us closer to what I have fought (very literally) to keep us from becoming.

Good points Stal. There are times when the very freedoms we cherish (and defend) seem to work against us (or at least our beliefs). Despite this I can't say I relish any other alternative.

sandsjames
04-25-2015, 11:55 PM
Do you agree or disagree with burning/stomping on the flag being freedom of speech?Agree that it is and agree that it should be.

garhkal
04-26-2015, 10:11 PM
At the same time, our nation is also founded on a set of ideals and the freedom of speech & expression are one of them; restricting that freedom ... even in the case of something I love I don't think is appropriate, how close do we get to restricting cartoons that offend us a la the Taliban? Doing so would make us closer to what I have fought (very literally) to keep us from becoming.

But that is the thing though. I don't feel burning the flag of the country you are in, let alone are a citizen of IS free expression/speech, regardless of the SCOTUS's ruling.

Bos Mutus
04-27-2015, 07:21 PM
If the university administrators felt that the atmosphere / tension on campus was either presenting a danger to students or people living in the vicinity of the campus, or that the disruption would be sufficiently disrupting to classes then yes ... they made a good call.

Do I agree that burning or walking on the flag is freedom of speech, yes ... it is a recognized form (by the Supreme Court) of symbolic speech.

Do I like it when I see people burning or walking on the flag, no ... but that is entirely the point, the freedom of speech is not meant to protect speech or expression that we like or is popular, but that which is not popular.


Agree that it is and agree that it should be.

I'm with you fellers....stomping on the flag is and should be protected as free speech.

The protestors are expressing their displeasure with the country and/or the government...exactly what the Freedom of Speech is supposed to protect.

TJMAC77SP
04-27-2015, 08:57 PM
I'm with you fellers....stomping on the flag is and should be protected as free speech.

The protestors are expressing their displeasure with the country and/or the government...exactly what the Freedom of Speech is supposed to protect.

A better and more appropriate reaction is to hold a counter-protest (thereby exercising the same freedom of speech). Much like the Patriot Riders and other used to do at GI funerals the WBC protested at.

sandsjames
04-27-2015, 09:50 PM
But that is the thing though. I don't feel burning the flag of the country you are in, let alone are a citizen of IS free expression/speech, regardless of the SCOTUS's ruling.

If it's not free expression/speech then what is it?

garhkal
04-27-2015, 10:08 PM
If it's not free expression/speech then what is it?

Showing disrespect to not just the country, but all who died to protect it imo.

TJMAC77SP
04-27-2015, 10:46 PM
Showing disrespect to not just the country, but all who died to protect it imo.

It is that AND protected speech.

Bos Mutus
04-27-2015, 11:28 PM
Showing disrespect to not just the country, but all who died to protect it imo.

There's no law against that!

sandsjames
04-28-2015, 02:25 AM
Showing disrespect to not just the country, but all who died to protect it imo.

And if we take away people's ability to do that then we serve no purpose.

Stalwart
04-28-2015, 02:50 AM
Showing disrespect to not just the country, but all who died to protect it imo.

And it is disrespectful, but still protected speech; in my opinion it should be. Let's say though that we outlaw disrespecting the flag, what else do we outlaw in the name of patriotism or national pride or 'Merica? We would have started down a slippery slope that I don't think we really want to start down.

As much as I may not like people walking on the flag, or burning it in protest ... dissent is important. When the government makes it illegal to express disfavor with the government we will have fallen into tyranny.

garhkal
04-28-2015, 07:51 AM
It is that AND protected speech.

Only cause the SCOTUS made imo a stupid ruling.

sandsjames
04-28-2015, 11:43 AM
Only cause the SCOTUS made imo a stupid ruling.

You should not be able to dissent against the SCOTUS. They are put in place through a process outlined in our Constitution. To argue publicly against their ruling is a disservice to the founding fathers and all of those people who died in the Revolutionary War fighting for the process that put the SCOTUS in place.

garhkal
04-28-2015, 10:45 PM
Since we the people though, have no say in who gets in or not into the SCOTUS, why shouldn't we have the capacity to Dissent against poor decisions they make.

TJMAC77SP
04-28-2015, 11:08 PM
Since we the people though, have no say in who gets in or not into the SCOTUS, why shouldn't we have the capacity to Dissent against poor decisions they make.

Of course you can and should dissent. That would be exercising your free speech.

In case you were wondering you are now in a logic trap.

Stalwart
04-29-2015, 02:29 PM
Since we the people though, have no say in who gets in or not into the SCOTUS, why shouldn't we have the capacity to Dissent against poor decisions they make.

'We the People' do have a say, we elect the individual who appoints the justices, we also elect the Senator that confirm the justices (which is actually different than the Constitution actually had it.)

Now I will say that I think that it is okay / acceptable to disagree with a ruling from the Supreme Court, even to passively dissent; but ... At the point that 'We the People' refuse to recognize or abide by the decisions made by the Court (under their Constitutional authority as the final arbiter of law) we have lost something.

On the issue of flag burning / dedication, it is an interesting subject:
-A Supeeme Court ruling in 1907 is the first time the Court ruled on the issue.
-EVERY case since then has determined that defacing the flag is a legitimate form of protected speech (this includes court makeups that have leaned left and right.)
-Congress passed a federal law not allowing flag desecration in the late 1960's -- a conservative Court ruled the law in violation the the First Amendment.
-A conservative Court again in 1989 ruled flag desecration at a violation of the First Amendment.

So if a majority of Americans thought that flag desecration should be illegal; should the Court rule based on popular opinion or on the law? If the answer to rule is on popular opinion, people on both sides of the political aisle I am sure will disagree with the results:

Abortion- public opinion would overrule conservatives
Flag burning- public opinion would overrule conservatives
Affordable Health Care Act- public opinion would overrule liberals
Same Sex Marriage- public opinion would overrule conservatives
Voter ID Laws- public opinion would overrule liberals

Now, the Constitutional way to change this would be to pass an amendment that makes defacing the flag illegal, the the Constituion would be on the side of those wanting the law changed. This has been tried and failed a couple of times.

garhkal
04-29-2015, 10:59 PM
'We the People' do have a say, we elect the individual who appoints the justices, we also elect the Senator that confirm the justices (which is actually different than the Constitution actually had it.)

Now I will say that I think that it is okay / acceptable to disagree with a ruling from the Supreme Court, even to passively dissent; but ... At the point that 'We the People' refuse to recognize or abide by the decisions made by the Court (under their Constitutional authority as the final arbiter of law) we have lost something.

Fare enough..



Abortion- public opinion would overrule conservatives
Flag burning- public opinion would overrule conservatives
Affordable Health Care Act- public opinion would overrule liberals
Same Sex Marriage- public opinion would overrule conservatives
Voter ID Laws- public opinion would overrule liberals

I can see the abortion issue being too close to call.
but why do you see public opinion on same sex marriage pushing the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Most polls i see still show a majority of US voters do NOT want it.

Stalwart
04-29-2015, 11:27 PM
Fare enough..



I can see the abortion issue being too close to call.
but why do you see public opinion on same sex marriage pushing the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Most polls i see still show a majority of US voters do NOT want it.

Most polling I have seen on same sex marriage shows (nationwide) those 'with an opinion" oppose it ... But about 45% of those polled show no opinion one way or the other; which would mean they would not care if it was passed.

Granted in Salt Lake City you will have a substantial population with one opinion, in San Francisco another.

Stalwart
04-29-2015, 11:32 PM
Fare enough..



I can see the abortion issue being too close to call.
but why do you see public opinion on same sex marriage pushing the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Most polls i see still show a majority of US voters do NOT want it.

Abortion is really tricky depending on how you phrase the ideation:

-Do you oppose abortion in all circumstances?
-Do you oppose abortion in the case of rape, incest, when carrying a child to term will kill the mother?
-Do you oppose late term abortion?

Bos Mutus
04-30-2015, 12:10 AM
I can see the abortion issue being too close to call.
but why do you see public opinion on same sex marriage pushing the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Most polls i see still show a majority of US voters do NOT want it.

Not really important...I think his point was to illustrate that the SCOTUS should not be pressured by public popularity, they should focus on the rule of law.

IOW, they should not answer to the 'will of the people' on each issue. Of course, if the will of people is strong enough, there are provisions to overturn any SCOTUS decision through legislation and/or consitutional amendment.

garhkal
04-30-2015, 05:12 AM
Most polling I have seen on same sex marriage shows (nationwide) those 'with an opinion" oppose it ... But about 45% of those polled show no opinion one way or the other; which would mean they would not care if it was passed.

Granted in Salt Lake City you will have a substantial population with one opinion, in San Francisco another.

And from what i note is a good chunk of those polls seem to be done online or by text messaging, which means they get more 30 and below voting in those polls who imo are more likely to be voting "No opinion one way or the other" or "for it" than if they went door to door getting the 30+ crowd's votes.


Abortion is really tricky depending on how you phrase the ideation:

-Do you oppose abortion in all circumstances?
-Do you oppose abortion in the case of rape, incest, when carrying a child to term will kill the mother?
-Do you oppose late term abortion?

That is true stal. Take me for instance..

Do i oppose all abortions - YES.
Do i oppose abortions in the case of rape/incest (or other sexual assaults) or when the mother's life is at risk if they brought the baby to term - no. I
DO i oppose late term abortions - what do you consider late term? IMO 5 months or less is ok.


Not really important...I think his point was to illustrate that the SCOTUS should not be pressured by public popularity, they should focus on the rule of law.

IOW, they should not answer to the 'will of the people' on each issue. Of course, if the will of people is strong enough, there are provisions to overturn any SCOTUS decision through legislation and/or consitutional amendment.

Fare enough... Then where is Marriage a constitutional right? Since there is no mandate in the constitution, how can saying Gay marriage is wrong, be denying LGBTs their constitutional right?

Bos Mutus
04-30-2015, 06:39 AM
Fare enough... Then where is Marriage a constitutional right? Since there is no mandate in the constitution, how can saying Gay marriage is wrong, be denying LGBTs their constitutional right?

Well, they haven't ruled yet, so we'll have to wait and see what their decision states...but I imagine it'll have something to do with equal protection under the law, privileges of citizenship, a liberty right maybe....

I haven't really read all the arguments...I'm a supporter of same-sex marriage, but not convinced it is a constitutional right...haven't gotten that much into it.

I think it's sort of come down to...since we as a society have endeavored to provide benefits to married couples, we must extend that "right" to everyone, not just heterosexual couples...we'll see. If we hadn't ever provided benefits for marriage, then it wouldn't be an issue...but since the govt. got into the business, it needs to treat everyone equally.

sandsjames
04-30-2015, 12:10 PM
Not really important...I think his point was to illustrate that the SCOTUS should not be pressured by public popularity, they should focus on the rule of law.

IOW, they should not answer to the 'will of the people' on each issue. Of course, if the will of people is strong enough, there are provisions to overturn any SCOTUS decision through legislation and/or consitutional amendment.

Judges are placed in position by politicians. Politicians are placed in position by the "will of the people". Unfortunately, this means we end up with either a liberal or conservative court. This can easily be seen by court rulings, in the majority of cases, reflecting the political views of the court and not the unbiased interpretation of the constitution.

And, also unfortunately, it's much easier for the courts to overturn what the people want then it is for the people to overturn what the SCOTUS wants.

sandsjames
04-30-2015, 12:12 PM
Well, they haven't ruled yet, so we'll have to wait and see what their decision states...but I imagine it'll have something to do with equal protection under the law, privileges of citizenship, a liberty right maybe....

I haven't really read all the arguments...I'm a supporter of same-sex marriage, but not convinced it is a constitutional right...haven't gotten that much into it.

I think it's sort of come down to...since we as a society have endeavored to provide benefits to married couples, we must extend that "right" to everyone, not just heterosexual couples...we'll see. If we hadn't ever provided benefits for marriage, then it wouldn't be an issue...but since the govt. got into the business, it needs to treat everyone equally.

Not a supporter of gay marriage, just not against it. Don't care. It has no impact on my life and I can't see how it has an impact on the lives of anyone else.

The only thing I don't support is when people who are against it are forced to somehow be involved in it.

garhkal
04-30-2015, 08:51 PM
I think it's sort of come down to...since we as a society have endeavored to provide benefits to married couples, we must extend that "right" to everyone, not just heterosexual couples...we'll see. If we hadn't ever provided benefits for marriage, then it wouldn't be an issue...but since the govt. got into the business, it needs to treat everyone equally.

Which imo is the biggest reason i fear it will be legalized. Cause of just that. Government has gotten their thumbs into Marriage for all sorts of reasons..

I just hope that if it IS legalized we then won't see the LGBT lobby go after churches to force them to perform same sex weddings, or worse.. get the Bible banned cause of all the areas in it where Gay unions are called out as being wrong, for being "Hate speech"..


Judges are placed in position by politicians. Politicians are placed in position by the "will of the people". Unfortunately, this means we end up with either a liberal or conservative court. This can easily be seen by court rulings, in the majority of cases, reflecting the political views of the court and not the unbiased interpretation of the constitution.

And, also unfortunately, it's much easier for the courts to overturn what the people want then it is for the people to overturn what the SCOTUS wants.

Too true SJ.. Getting the "will of the SCOTUS" overturned cause they made (in the people's opinion) a wrong decision, is one of the hardest things around.


Not a supporter of gay marriage, just not against it. Don't care. It has no impact on my life and I can't see how it has an impact on the lives of anyone else.

The only thing I don't support is when people who are against it are forced to somehow be involved in it.

As for me. I neither support nor am against it. I am impartial. But like you i hate that it is ALREADY being used by the Left as a hammer of sorts, to push people to go against their religious beliefs and participate.
As some say elsewhere, its not about 'tolerating it' to the left/LGBT lobby, but about forcing everyone to accept and participate in it...
Or so it seems.

Stalwart
04-30-2015, 09:02 PM
Too true SJ.. Getting the "will of the SCOTUS" overturned cause they made (in the people's opinion) a wrong decision, is one of the hardest things around.

But what if the people's opinion is counter the Constitution? What takes prescedence?

sandsjames
04-30-2015, 09:31 PM
But what if the people's opinion is counter the Constitution? What takes prescedence?

Great question, and there's no good answer. Personally I believe that the people's opinion should take precedence, but that's because I believe more decisions should be made at the local/town/county level instead of the federal level. However, if that local/town government is advocating, say, slavery, then the SCOTUS has to step in to uphold rights. The problem is that SCOTUS has become very busy recently...not deciding rights...but deciding who's rights it's ok to infringe upon.

I've made it clear several times that I think the word "rights" is over (and mis)used. Since marriage is not a "right" the SCOTUS should play no part in making that decision.

I don't know if any of you watch "The Good Wife" but there was a great episode about this very thing a couple weeks back that, I thought, did an excellent job of arguing both sides.

Stalwart
04-30-2015, 09:53 PM
I've made it clear several times that I think the word "rights" is over (and mis)used. Since marriage is not a "right" the SCOTUS should play no part in making that decision.

Now, on that I will agree with you ... I will say that where marriage may need to be considered a 'right' is when taking into account the legal actions that come from being 'married' vice co-habitating (taxes, visitation in hospitals, recognition of the household, estate laws etc.) You could argue that a piece of paper (marriage license) doesn't make a couple more in love ... but that piece of paper does in many ways legitimize the relationship, at least in the eyes of the gov't.


I don't know if any of you watch "The Good Wife" but there was a great episode about this very thing a couple weeks back that, I thought, did an excellent job of arguing both sides.

Yeah, I saw that one ... uh ... with my wife. It did argue both sides well.

sandsjames
04-30-2015, 10:17 PM
Yeah, I saw that one ... uh ... with my wife. It did argue both sides well.Yeah, me too. I was busy drinking beer and building stuff and it was on in the background.

UncaRastus
05-01-2015, 02:52 PM
Stalwart,

You were ...uh...watching The Good Wife???

I watch Bull Riding instead. Yeah, get some!

OK, so I root for the bulls. Especially when Semper Fi is out there, tumble drying whoever is trying to ride him.

I watch Bull Riding if there is not an American flag to save from being stepped on.

;)

Bos Mutus
05-01-2015, 04:10 PM
Which imo is the biggest reason i fear it will be legalized. Cause of just that. Government has gotten their thumbs into Marriage for all sorts of reasons..

I just hope that if it IS legalized we then won't see the LGBT lobby go after churches to force them to perform same sex weddings, or worse..

I'm not in favor of forcing churches to perform any kind of weddings....even though inter-religion marriage is legal, there are many Catholic Priests will not marry a Catholic with a non-Catholic. I would say most Rabbis will not marry a Jew to a non-Jew...as far as I know, no one is trying to force them to do so. I would think it would be the same with same-sex marriage, though I'm sure there are some fringe folks out there who might try...I don't think it's the majority of people sho support same-sex marriage.


get the Bible banned cause of all the areas in it where Gay unions are called out as being wrong, for being "Hate speech"..

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Bos Mutus
05-01-2015, 04:27 PM
But what if the people's opinion is counter the Constitution? What takes prescedence?

The Consittution takes precedence...that's the whole point of having a Constitution.

sandsjames
05-01-2015, 04:31 PM
The Consittution takes precedence...that's the whole point of having a Constitution.But the people vote for the politicians who put the judges, who rule on the meaning of the constitution, in place. So ultimately, if our political system worked as intended, the people would take precedence.

Bos Mutus
05-01-2015, 04:49 PM
But the people vote for the politicians who put the judges, who rule on the meaning of the constitution, in place. So ultimately, if our political system worked as intended, the people would take precedence.

Ultimately, yes.

And of course, if the will of the people is strong...we can simply change to the Constitution....but it is purposely difficult to change because we don't want to run around changing our core principles with every new fad.

Although, what "Liberty" means today may not have been imagined 250 years ago...the principle of it still applies.

Liberty is, however, a somewhat broad term...so I really cringe when people say things like "there is no right to marry" in the Consittuion. No, but there is a right to Liberty...and that means you have the right to do certain things, many of which are explicity spelled out, but fall under a more broad Liberty right....among those, I think, would be the "right" to have a personal committed relationship (or not) of your own choosing...it doesn't get more personal than that...now, that doesn't mean the govt. has to recognize it, encourage it or do anything other than leave people alone

...but the legalization argument comes from once the govt. sought to encourage and reward marriages...then it should extend those benefits equally to all.

So, I think that's where we are at...I'm not 100% committed to the idea that the govt. has to recognize same-sex marriages in the same way though...it's my personal preference that they do, and I would vote for legalization of it...but, I'm not sure that they are Constitutionally bound to if what they sought to encourage with benefits was heterosexual coupling...not that we really needed the encouragement.

Incidentally, this is similar to how we ended up with a 'right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education"...no, there is no right to an education in the Consittution. But the right to obtain an education was considered equivalent to the right to own property...that your education is sort of, your property...or a means for you obtaining property...something like that.

Then...since the govt. endeavored to provide free education to it's citizens...it was ruled that having done so, the govt. is now bound to extend that benefit to all under its jurisdiction equally due to Equal Protection of the Laws.

I see this as a similar argument. Govt wants to encourage/provide some benefit...great, but they don't get to use it to achieve social engineering.

sandsjames
05-01-2015, 05:04 PM
Ultimately, yes.

And of course, if the will of the people is strong...we can simply change to the Constitution....but it is purposely difficult to change because we don't want to run around changing our core principles with every new fad.

Although, what "Liberty" means today may not have been imagined 250 years ago...the principle of it still applies.

Liberty is, however, a somewhat broad term...so I really cringe when people say things like "there is no right to marry" in the Consittuion. No, but there is a right to Liberty...and that means you have the right to do certain things, many of which are explicity spelled out, but fall under a more broad Liberty right....among those, I think, would be the "right" to have a personal committed relationship (or not) of your own choosing...it doesn't get more personal than that...now, that doesn't mean the govt. has to recognize it, encourage it or do anything other than leave people alone

...but the legalization argument comes from once the govt. sought to encourage and reward marriages...then it should extend those benefits equally to all.

So, I think that's where we are at...I'm not 100% committed to the idea that the govt. has to recognize same-sex marriages in the same way though...it's my personal preference that they do, and I would vote for legalization of it...but, I'm not sure that they are Constitutionally bound to if what they sought to encourage with benefits was heterosexual coupling...not that we really needed the encouragement.

Incidentally, this is similar to how we ended up with a 'right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education"...no, there is no right to an education in the Consittution. But the right to obtain and education was considered equivalent to the right to own property...that your education is sort of, your property.

Then...since the govt. endeavored to provide free education to it's citizens...it was ruled that having done so, the govt. is now bound to extend that benefit to all under its jurisdiction equally due to Equal Protection of the Laws.

I see this as a similar argument. Govt wants to encourage/provide some benefit...great, but they don't get to use it to achieve social engineering.

I am 100% committed to the idea that the govt. shouldn't recognize any marriage. They should be indifferent. And there should be no govt. related benefits, financially or otherwise, given to married couples.

garhkal
05-01-2015, 09:55 PM
But what if the people's opinion is counter the Constitution? What takes precedence?

Great question, and there's no good answer..

Exactly. Its just like out in CA when the vast majority of the people in the state voted to say NO to gay marriage it got overturned in court. The will of the people there was overturned, in favor of the minority.
Do you let the "mob/majority rule, or the minority" It sucks for someone either way.

That said, i do prefer that it should be the Majority rule, since that is how we vote in judges, politicians etc. If it works there, why not for laws too?


I'm not in favor of forcing churches to perform any kind of weddings....even though inter-religion marriage is legal, there are many Catholic Priests will not marry a Catholic with a non-Catholic. I would say most Rabbis will not marry a Jew to a non-Jew...as far as I know, no one is trying to force them to do so. I would think it would be the same with same-sex marriage, though I'm sure there are some fringe folks out there who might try...I don't think it's the majority of people sho support same-sex marriage.


While i am Agnostic, i used to be Catholic (roman catholic to be precise) and i did know some priests who refused to marry a couple when one was of another faith. So i have no issue there. BUT i do see it potentially being an issue if and when LGBT marriages are put down as a right/equality, that the LGBT lobby might then push for priests/churches to be forced to recognize and marry them, just like they already have done for bakeries/florists.



I don't think you have anything to worry about.

How not? Did not the court in Colorado say a gay bakery was within their rights to refuse to bake a cake for a straight guy cause he wanted bible quotes on it, as they were "Anti gay" cause they offended him/were against HIS principles?
So that right there shows that there is a precedent that bible quotes which are anti-gay and therefore offensive can be removed/banned..



The Constitution takes precedence...that's the whole point of having a Constitution.But the people vote for the politicians who put the judges, who rule on the meaning of the constitution, in place. So ultimately, if our political system worked as intended, the people would take precedence.

And since we also have the right to push for changes to the constitution (amendments).. ultimately we should be right..


I am 100% committed to the idea that the govt. shouldn't recognize any marriage. They should be indifferent. And there should be no govt. related benefits, financially or otherwise, given to married couples.

Same here. No tax breaks for being married, etc..

Bos Mutus
05-01-2015, 10:12 PM
I am 100% committed to the idea that the govt. shouldn't recognize any marriage. They should be indifferent. And there should be no govt. related benefits, financially or otherwise, given to married couples.

I think that sounds like a good idea on the surface, but at some level, I don't see any way around it...

For example,

I do think it's a good thing, that if you, a citizen, marry a foreigner, it's easier to get your spouse here as an immigrant than maybe just a random person who is applying for immigration status.

But, in order to do that, the govt. has to be recognize the marriage, legitimate or otherwise...either that or it's "sorry, your spouse can wait like everybody else (i.e. you might as well move to Bolivia because she's not eligible for immigration for 25+ years), or maybe everyone just gets to pick one foreigner to invite to the country.

When a person dies, I think it's good that the law generally assumes assets go to the spouse, unless otherwise specified...but in order to do that, the law has to recognize what a spouse is.

Anyway...other thngs like that. I am with you on the financial benefits and stuff, but I do think there are situatins that the govt. sort of has to or should recognize something different about a spouse vs. a person I'm fond of.

Bos Mutus
05-01-2015, 10:22 PM
Exactly. Its just like out in CA when the vast majority of the people in the state voted to say NO to gay marriage it got overturned in court. The will of the people there was overturned, in favor of the minority.
Do you let the "mob/majority rule, or the minority" It sucks for someone either way.

That said, i do prefer that it should be the Majority rule, since that is how we vote in judges, politicians etc. If it works there, why not for laws too?

Well...for the most part laws can be made...the courts only "overturn" them when they violate higher-level laws, such as the greater principles of the Constitution, incl. State Consittutions, as applicable.

So..even if the majorit of people voted to relegalize slavery...the courts can say "no, that violates a higher principle or law.


While i am Agnostic, i used to be Catholic (roman catholic to be precise) and i did know some priests who refused to marry a couple when one was of another faith. So i have no issue there. BUT i do see it potentially being an issue if and when LGBT marriages are put down as a right/equality, that the LGBT lobby might then push for priests/churches to be forced to recognize and marry them, just like they already have done for bakeries/florists.

I don't think so...the separation of Church and State goes both ways. Churches shouldn't be overly involved in the govt. and the govt. shouldn't be overly involved in churches.

There is no separation of Bakeries and State...and the issue there is that they are trading in the public square...which the govt. has a responsibility and right to regulate.


How not? Did not the court in Colorado say a gay bakery was within their rights to refuse to bake a cake for a straight guy cause he wanted bible quotes on it, as they were "Anti gay" cause they offended him/were against HIS principles?
So that right there shows that there is a precedent that bible quotes which are anti-gay and therefore offensive can be removed/banned..

I just don't think the banning of the bible is something we really need to fear...not gonna happen.

Now, if I wanted to put up a billboard about men with donkey penises, spurting out semen like a horse...then I might expect some push back, even though it's a biblically accurate depiction.

garhkal
05-02-2015, 09:21 PM
I think that sounds like a good idea on the surface, but at some level, I don't see any way around it...

For example,

I do think it's a good thing, that if you, a citizen, marry a foreigner, it's easier to get your spouse here as an immigrant than maybe just a random person who is applying for immigration status.

But, in order to do that, the govt. has to be recognize the marriage, legitimate or otherwise...either that or it's "sorry, your spouse can wait like everybody else (i.e. you might as well move to Bolivia because she's not eligible for immigration for 25+ years), or maybe everyone just gets to pick one foreigner to invite to the country.

When a person dies, I think it's good that the law generally assumes assets go to the spouse, unless otherwise specified...but in order to do that, the law has to recognize what a spouse is.


Good point Bos. I agree, that there has to be some sort of official govt recognition for marriages otherwise those without wills would lose out if one dies (the state would get the money etc if spousal laws didn't exist) and on immigration/green cards..
BUT as we have seen, there are many who game the system by falsely marring someone just to GET them the green card etc..

Stalwart
05-02-2015, 09:57 PM
BUT as we have seen, there are many who game the system by falsely marring someone just to GET them the green card etc..

Or to get BAH ...

garhkal
05-03-2015, 05:04 AM
Or to get BAH ...

Very true. And imo it is a big pity the mil doesn't go after those fraudsters harder than they do.

sandsjames
05-03-2015, 05:56 PM
Don't understand why getting married should help with immigration. Let the person get the green card first, then they can get married. That would get rid of all of the marriage for green card fraud. Everyone should have to fulfill the same requirements to get legal residency, IMO.

garhkal
05-03-2015, 09:16 PM
IRC it was initially put in place to assist service men who married someone while overseas.

sandsjames
05-03-2015, 10:23 PM
IRC it was initially put in place to assist service men who married someone while overseas.

I realize what's in place right now but make people come here legally first, then they can get married if they choose. Should be no benefit, military or not, when it comes to immigration. Everyone should have to meet the same requirements, single or not.

Bos Mutus
05-04-2015, 05:07 PM
Don't understand why getting married should help with immigration. Let the person get the green card first, then they can get married. That would get rid of all of the marriage for green card fraud.

So, punish everyone because some people commit fraud?


Everyone should have to fulfill the same requirements to get legal residency, IMO.

I don't agree. I think allowing U.S. citizens to fasttrack in family members is a good thing. Depending on where the family is from, simply immigrating legally is a near impossiblity. While I don't have a lot of empathy for the regular ol' person out there just trying ot immigrate...if someone has a spouse, I have no problem allowing them to bring them over easier.

garhkal
05-04-2015, 06:39 PM
So, punish everyone because some people commit fraud?



I don't agree. I think allowing U.S. citizens to fasttrack in family members is a good thing. Depending on where the family is from, simply immigrating legally is a near impossiblity. While I don't have a lot of empathy for the regular ol' person out there just trying ot immigrate...if someone has a spouse, I have no problem allowing them to bring them over easier.

And that is part of the issue we are having with all the illegals here. They get an Anchor baby, then once they get amnesty they bring in the rest of their family.

sandsjames
05-04-2015, 07:07 PM
So, punish everyone because some people commit fraud? It's not punishing anyone. It's making everyone comply with the same regulations.




I don't agree. I think allowing U.S. citizens to fasttrack in family members is a good thing. Depending on where the family is from, simply immigrating legally is a near impossiblity. While I don't have a lot of empathy for the regular ol' person out there just trying ot immigrate...if someone has a spouse, I have no problem allowing them to bring them over easier. It would weed out those who just want a ticket into the country.

As I've said, my issue isn't with immigration or marriage. It's with there being benefits given by the government to one or the other based what our government determines is a valid marriage.

Immigration is one thing. Then there is singe/married tax rates, deductions based on number of dependents, etc. Without these things there wouldn't be an argument as to what's "legal" marriage and what's not.

What I can't comprehend is how people will claim that marriage is between the people involved, yet they want the government involved as well.

If I want my stuff to go to someone when I die, I can easily write a will. If we have a joint account then the joint account holders get what's left, whether spouses or not. There are just to many easy, legal ways to handle these "marital protections" without government involvement.

Bos Mutus
05-04-2015, 07:43 PM
It's not punishing anyone. It's making everyone comply with the same regulations.

It would weed out those who just want a ticket into the country.

As I've said, my issue isn't with immigration or marriage. It's with there being benefits given by the government to one or the other based what our government determines is a valid marriage.

Immigration is one thing. Then there is singe/married tax rates, deductions based on number of dependents, etc. Without these things there wouldn't be an argument as to what's "legal" marriage and what's not.

What I can't comprehend is how people will claim that marriage is between the people involved, yet they want the government involved as well.

If I want my stuff to go to someone when I die, I can easily write a will. If we have a joint account then the joint account holders get what's left, whether spouses or not. There are just to many easy, legal ways to handle these "marital protections" without government involvement.

I would agree there are some things the govt. does not need to be involved with in marriage. (tax breaks)

I think there are other areas where they have to...immigration and death being just two examples. You can disagree with the immigration part, that's fine...and yes, instead of having a law on death beneficiaries, everyone could have their own will, then if you die without one, it's your own fault...but the only to suffer would be those left...anyone, that's fine...as I said, theese were just examples and I'm sure I can go and come up with more and for each one you could find another way to deal with that issue other than law...because, as you said, you are 100% committed t othe idea that the govt. doesn't need to be involved in marriage.

I mean, I could bring up how a spouse is not compelled to testify against a spouse in criminal proceedings, much like your own right to not self-incriminate, your spouse doesn't have to incriminate you either, your girlfriend does...because the law recognizes the sanctity and privacy of that marital relationship...

...or next of kin for notifications, medical decisions, when to pull the plug etc....yes, all of that could be covered in a legal contract before you get sick or something...but, the law is there for the cases that don't have it.

Last I checked, there are over 1,000 federal laws that have something to do with spouses

sandsjames
05-04-2015, 08:08 PM
I mean, I could bring up how a spouse is not compelled to testify against a spouse in criminal proceedings, much like your own right to not self-incriminate, your spouse doesn't have to incriminate you either, your girlfriend does...because the law recognizes the sanctity and privacy of that marital relationship... What's funny about this is it's another reason to make laws less harsh on married people. I suppose there's no such thing as the sanctity of a relationship that's not marriage.


...or next of kin for notifications, medical decisions, when to pull the plug etc....yes, all of that could be covered in a legal contract before you get sick or something...but, the law is there for the cases that don't have it. Right...a wife in a miserable marriage can decide to pull the plug or not but a girlfriend in a loving relationship doesn't have that option. More fairness.


Last I checked, there are over 1,000 federal laws that have something to do with spousesOver 1000 too many.

There are also laws that hurt married people and help single people, so it's definitely a 2 way street. Doesn't have to be that way.

Bos Mutus
05-04-2015, 08:44 PM
What's funny about this is it's another reason to make laws less harsh on married people. I suppose there's no such thing as the sanctity of a relationship that's not marriage.

Not sure what you want here...that the law can not compel anyone to testify against anyone? Or that wives should be foreced to testify against their husbands? Or that it doesn't matter which way it goes, so long as you get to stick to your point?


Right...a wife in a miserable marriage can decide to pull the plug or not but a girlfriend in a loving relationship doesn't have that option. More fairness.

Yes, that sounds fair to me.
I don't think we want courts to have to figure out who some guy is most recently dating or not....or whether or not the relationship is loving enough.


Over 1000 too many.

There are also laws that hurt married people and help single people, so it's definitely a 2 way street. Doesn't have to be that way.

I don't agree....I mean that it doesn't have to be that way. We could cut out some, maybe most of them, I just don't see the law getting completely away from it...

sandsjames
05-04-2015, 09:12 PM
Not sure what you want here...that the law can not compel anyone to testify against anyone? Or that wives should be foreced to testify against their husbands? Or that it doesn't matter which way it goes, so long as you get to stick to your point? My point is that if my wife kills someone and I see her do it, I should have to testify. I don't see why I shouldn't have to.

And, let's be honest. 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway. Not a whole lot of "sanctity" out there.



Yes, that sounds fair to me.
I don't think we want courts to have to figure out who some guy is most recently dating or not....or whether or not the relationship is loving enough. Right, but it's ok for them to decide that, since our supreme leaders recognize the couple as a legal couple that they can allow it to happen. How is that possibly "fair"?




I don't agree....I mean that it doesn't have to be that way. We could cut out some, maybe most of them, I just don't see the law getting completely away from it...I don't see the law getting away from it, either. Just saying that they should.

Why, in your opinion, do you think it's best for the government to determine who should be recognized as married and who shouldn't?

Bos Mutus
05-04-2015, 09:39 PM
My point is that if my wife kills someone and I see her do it, I should have to testify. I don't see why I shouldn't have to.

...okay, I'm not going to go look up all 1,000 instances until we find one we both agree on.


Right, but it's ok for them to decide that, since our supreme leaders recognize the couple as a legal couple that they can allow it to happen. How is that possibly "fair"?

"Supreme Leaders" don't allow anything to happen...you marry whoever you want to marry. The point is just in recognizing that a marriage is special and makes the two into a family...


I don't see the law getting away from it, either. Just saying that they should.

Why, in your opinion, do you think it's best for the government to determine who should be recognized as married and who shouldn't?

Well, the who, not so much...but in recognizing that one person took another person and purposely and intentionally created a marriage...a family unit with that person...I don't think that the law recognizing the intention behind such an action is a bad things.

garhkal
05-04-2015, 10:28 PM
My point is that if my wife kills someone and I see her do it, I should have to testify. I don't see why I shouldn't have to.


Exactly. I have never understood that.
If a priest can be forced to violate the sanctity of confessions if he suspects a crime has been done, or a doctor, in violating patient-doc privelage, why should husbands-wives not also be required to break it??

sandsjames
05-04-2015, 10:33 PM
"Supreme Leaders" don't allow anything to happen...you marry whoever you want to marry. The point is just in recognizing that a marriage is special and makes the two into a family... Exactly, that is the point. For me, my wife, my family to recognize that we are a family, and that is special. For someone to want or need the government to recognize them as a family makes it a pretty pathetic family with some serious issues.




Well, the who, not so much...but in recognizing that one person took another person and purposely and intentionally created a marriage...a family unit with that person...I don't think that the law recognizing the intention behind such an action is a bad things.Plenty of couples live together, have children, raise families, and are not married, yet they do everything that a married couple does. What about the intentions behind that? The intentions are to have a family. They, in my opinion, are equal to a couple that the government recognizes as married, yet because they didn't get the license and certificate, issued by the government, they don't count as married, until a certain amount of time makes them "common law" (if that even still exists). So it's not about the intentions. It's not about building a family. It's about getting government approval.

Bos Mutus
05-04-2015, 11:44 PM
Exactly, that is the point. For me, my wife, my family to recognize that we are a family, and that is special. For someone to want or need the government to recognize them as a family makes it a pretty pathetic family with some serious issues.

So, mine is a pathetic family with serious issues if we filed joint income taxes?

Did the govt. pay for your wife to PCS with you? If you didn't want the govt. to recognize that she is your family, you didn't have to put her on your orders, you know. Or would doing so make you a pathetic family with serious issues, so you actually paid for her PCS's out of pocket?

Ridiculous overstatement...like I said..we can go through all the 1,000 things that the govt. does with families and marriages and you could dismiss each one, many with a more convoluted answers simply because you don't want to admit the govt. sometimes needs to know who is married and who isn't...


Plenty of couples live together, have children, raise families, and are not married, yet they do everything that a married couple does.

They can't get joint PCS orders together.
They can't get Tricare, I don't think...though many private insurance companies recognize co-habitants as a spouse-type relationship
They can get property division, but it's often much more messy than in a marriage because of the clear rules in a marriage.
They have a difficult time getting property inheritance absent a will
They can't get Survivor Benefits or Social Security benefits from the other


What about the intentions behind that? The intentions are to have a family. They, in my opinion, are equal to a couple that the government recognizes as married, yet because they didn't get the license and certificate, issued by the government, they don't count as married, until a certain amount of time makes them "common law" (if that even still exists). So it's not about the intentions. It's not about building a family. It's about getting government approval.

Yes, I think there still are common law marriages.

But, you want to the government to try and figure our your intentions afteward rather than having clear lines on marriage...

It's not that the govt is trying to control or approve your marriage...most of these laws just make complicated legal entanglements a bit easier to figure out for all involved. If the surgeon working on you isn't sure who he can share information with...at least he might have some protection knowing you have a spouse...

...I'm not even sure if the rules on all of that...again, just examples...I don't really want to list all of them.

For most of these laws...they are for when there is an absense of anything else...so if you don't like them, you can contract with your wife for something different, then your private contract takes precendence.


So, for now on...when an Airman gets orders he can just write on there how many people he wants to take with him and it'll be all cool.

sandsjames
05-05-2015, 11:58 AM
So, mine is a pathetic family with serious issues if we filed joint income taxes? That's not what I'm saying. I also filed joint. I took advantage of the laws the way they are. Does that mean it's a fair law? Not at all. There are many current laws I take advantage of that I think should be gone. And the "pathetic" is those that don't think their marriage is complete unless the government says it's ok.

My point is this. If the government were to turn around and say "We no longer take part in anything marriage related" I would not feel as if my wife and I were no longer married. Nothing would change between us.


Did the govt. pay for your wife to PCS with you? If you didn't want the govt. to recognize that she is your family, you didn't have to put her on your orders, you know. Or would doing so make you a pathetic family with serious issues, so you actually paid for her PCS's out of pocket?Yep...they sure did...and I took advantage of it.

You know, there are people who aren't in the military who actually have to pay for their families to move with them if they get a new job? It's amazing. Even if they decide to move overseas, they have to pay to ship their own stuff, and still support their family. I took advantage of it, as would anyone.

Speaking of PCS moves, I know plenty of single guys (divorced) with houses full of furniture, but they don't get to ship as much stuff, for free, as the married guy.


Ridiculous overstatement...like I said..we can go through all the 1,000 things that the govt. does with families and marriages and you could dismiss each one, many with a more convoluted answers simply because you don't want to admit the govt. sometimes needs to know who is married and who isn't... They NEED to know? LOL. Wow. talk about ridiculous overstatements.




They can't get joint PCS orders together.
They can't get Tricare, I don't think...though many private insurance companies recognize co-habitants as a spouse-type relationship
They can get property division, but it's often much more messy than in a marriage because of the clear rules in a marriage.
They have a difficult time getting property inheritance absent a will
They can't get Survivor Benefits or Social Security benefits from the other Exactly my point. They live as if they are married, they care about each other as if they are married. Yet, simply by getting the OK from Uncle Sam the married people have all those advantages you just mentioned.




Yes, I think there still are common law marriages.

But, you want to the government to try and figure our your intentions afteward rather than having clear lines on marriage...[ NO...I don't want the government to try to figure out my intentions at all.


It's not that the govt is trying to control or approve your marriage...most of these laws just make complicated legal entanglements a bit easier to figure out for all involved. If the surgeon working on you isn't sure who he can share information with...at least he might have some protection knowing you have a spouse... The doctor should share information with who I have in writing that he can share information with. And that's already the case in many places anyway. When I fill out medical forms I can't put down who information can be shared with. I can't put down names of people who are not my spouse. So even if my marriage wasn't recognized, I am still able to put down, in writing, who can be told what.




For most of these laws...they are for when there is an absense of anything else...so if you don't like them, you can contract with your wife for something different, then your private contract takes precendence. Yep, so there's no need for the "By law" rules for marriage.



So, for now on...when an Airman gets orders he can just write on there how many people he wants to take with him and it'll be all cool.No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the married guy wants to take someone with him, he could pay for it like the single guy would have to. There are already plenty of married people who have to do that, anyway, when the government decides they are not going to command sponsor the spouse.

garhkal
05-05-2015, 07:56 PM
That's not what I'm saying. I also filed joint. I took advantage of the laws the way they are. Does that mean it's a fair law? Not at all. There are many current laws I take advantage of that I think should be gone. And the "pathetic" is those that don't think their marriage is complete unless the government says it's ok.

My point is this. If the government were to turn around and say "We no longer take part in anything marriage related" I would not feel as if my wife and I were no longer married. Nothing would change between us.

I wish more people were like you. Admitting that they play the game and use every loop hole out there to their advantage, but also willing to say those loopholes need to go!