2SLGBTQQIA+

[Serryah]

Yep. The argument is over the "Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in pertinent part


One side of the debate is of the opinion that this means only that a state can deprive people of life/lib/property only by "due process," either a judicial proceeding or a law duly debated and passed. This is called "procedural due process."

The other side, called the "substantive due process" side argues that the "liberty" the state cannot deprive people of includes the liberty to marry whom they please, the liberty to use contraceptives, the liberty to have sex with whom they please, etc. The "procedural due process" side says that no such thing exists, states may do as they please as long as they follow the usual and Constitutional legislative or judicial requirements.

The argument in Loving v. Virginia was that it wasn't discriminatory: people of all races were equally forbidden to marry outside their races. Equal, right? (Interestingly, to the best of my knowledge, it was never used except against White/Black marriages.) Same thing with the contraception cases. They argued that the various laws against contraception were equal and non-discriminatory, and therefore within the state's discretion, so long as the proper procedures were followed.

Personally, I think it's all by the way. The Ninth Amendment states, in full, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It's the old "seas" argument. One side views the law, all of it, from the Constitution down to local traffic ordinances, as a "sea" of individual rights within which certain "islands" of government power are identified and limited, by due process. The other side views the law a "sea" of government power with which are "islands" of individual rights, only those expressed in the Constitution and limited thereby. This view was best expressed by rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who said "I find no right to privacy in the Constitution," and concluded that no right not laid out in the Constitution exists.

And who decides what rights the people have? Well, under Anglo-American-Canadian common law, going back to 1250 AD ("historical and traditional," right?) that power lies in the hands of judges. The right to be secure in your home was first enunciated by an English judge, not passed by Parliament or declared by the Crown. Considering that the U.S. and Canada basically took the judicial systems of England lock, stock, and barrel, it is only logical to conclude that whatever right a judge says you have, you have. The only way to change that is for a higher-level judge(s) to say otherwise, or for Congress or Parliament to pass a law limiting or eliminating the right.

So the Right is playing with fire here. If they're so hell-bent on eliminating rights properly found by the highest judges in the land, what prevents those same judges from eliminating the rights they love so much (mostly the rights to be an asshole and carry a gun)?

It's important to understand that all of this is merely a brake on government power, not a ban. "Both sides" have rights they hate and want to eliminate. All of this legislative and judicial folderol simply makes the governments slow down a little, and gives time for thought and debate before acting. By its very terms, the Constitution can be amended, including repealing parts of it (as we did with Prohibition), and the laws can be changed.

At the moment, the Right has the whip hand, because our government/legislative structure permits minority rule under the correct circumstances. For most of the 1955-2016 period, the Left held the whip hand.

So the big issue with Roe v. Wade was that while the courts decided it, it wasn't "Codified" into law, right?

Which of these other issues aren't 'codified' into law either? Interracial marriage, contraception, gay marriage?

Discussions I've seen over the past day or so is that the Affirmative Action idea is going to be dead. Will that add pressure (or just add to the fear) of the repeal of these other situations? I know AA is a sidestep from all this but I'm wondering how that decision may affect others.

(When it comes to AA I admittedly am split on it. I GET why it was put in place and I think sometimes it is still needed, but it's also a system that, IMO, still has issues. And then too there's the irony of some of those calling for it to be gotten rid of, are from families who don't have to worry about it because they pay to get their kids into schools either because they graduated themselves from it and donate big cash, or they outright make enough to send their kid.)

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So the big issue with Roe v. Wade was that while the courts decided it, it wasn't "Codified" into law, right?

No, the big issue is whether or not you, or anybody else, gets to dictate what a woman may or may not do with her body and health.

The rest is detail. I'm happy to explain it, but let's keep our eye on the puck here. If enough people want something bad enough, they can make it happen. As I said above, the whole Constitutional/legal framework, in reality, just slows down the process, hopefully enough to give people time to think it through.

The narrower issue here is whether abortion is covered by "privacy" or "personal autonomy," and who gets to decide? The states or the Fed? Our answers have always been a compromise (Roe v. Wade was a compromise), and the rootin' tootin' Real Murkans ain't in a compromising mood just now.

Cuz Jee-zuss!

Which of these other issues aren't 'codified' into law either? Interracial marriage, contraception, gay marriage?

None of them are codified, except to be forbidden by various state laws. Which were nullified by the relevant Supreme Court cases. Most of 'em are still on the books. They just can't be enforced.

As far as AA goes, decisions are all over the map. The key questions are "is compensatory discrimination ever legal/proper?" and "if yes, at what point do you stop?"

As an "oppressed" minority myself, my opinion is you can't make up for past discrimination, and the best way to prevent future discrimination is to require rigid, absolute equality, and to make discrimination a crime, not a civil matter.

 

[petros]

There is equality. Killing the unborn is equally thwarted.

 

[The_Foxer]

precedent doesn't matter anymore

Wow. The lies people will tell themselves to justify their bigotry.

 

[petros]

No shit.

 

[The_Foxer]

No, the big issue is whether or not you, or anybody else, gets to dictate what a woman may or may not do with her body and health.

Sigh. No, the biggest and really ONLY issue with roe vs wade was whether or not Abortion was protected under the constitution.

The original ruling said it was but gave a very weak reason, the current ruling says it is not and spelled out why specifically. As we know it's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the constitution so it has to fall into one of the categories mentioned by the amendments. And the latest ruling says it does not.

So NEITHER really actually address abortion or who gets to dictate anything. It's simply a question of whether or not it's protected under the constitution.

Further - now that the states are individually discussing it it's STILL not a question of who gets to dictate what. It's a simple question of whether or not the fetus is a human being with the normal rights of a human being attached. If so - then the mother (nor anyone else) has no right to murder it any more than she's have the right to murder a toddler except in cases where the pregnancy is reasonably likely to endanger her life. If not, then there's no issue and it's no different than wart removal. But the challenge is in answering that question.

It's the inability of people to understand these basic concepts and tendancy to insist that somehow 'precedent doesnt' matter' instead like a deranged parrot that prevents reasonable discourse that might resolve these issues. Lets not forget that if a reasonable agreement could be reached then that could very well be enshrined in the constitution as an amendment. But noooooo - much better to lie to oneself and run around claiming the sky is falling rather than address the issues.

 

[petros]

Its pretty damn simple.

Something decriminalized doesn't become a Right.

 

[Taxslave2]

They barely mentioned that a black girl ran for leadership In fact The first time she ran all the media can talk about is how exciting it was that Kamala Harris in the US was a black girl that was getting involved in politics. There was Zero talk of how a black girl in Canada was running 4 leader of the conservative party.

There are a number of gays serving with the conservatives at the moment but you will never hear about it.

BC Liberals had an openly gay MLA in the 90s. NAme isn't coming to me right now. he was also Mayor of whistler at one time.

 

[Taxslave2]

Yep. The argument is over the "Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in pertinent part


One side of the debate is of the opinion that this means only that a state can deprive people of life/lib/property only by "due process," either a judicial proceeding or a law duly debated and passed. This is called "procedural due process."

The other side, called the "substantive due process" side argues that the "liberty" the state cannot deprive people of includes the liberty to marry whom they please, the liberty to use contraceptives, the liberty to have sex with whom they please, etc. The "procedural due process" side says that no such thing exists, states may do as they please as long as they follow the usual and Constitutional legislative or judicial requirements.

The argument in Loving v. Virginia was that it wasn't discriminatory: people of all races were equally forbidden to marry outside their races. Equal, right? (Interestingly, to the best of my knowledge, it was never used except against White/Black marriages.) Same thing with the contraception cases. They argued that the various laws against contraception were equal and non-discriminatory, and therefore within the state's discretion, so long as the proper procedures were followed.

Personally, I think it's all by the way. The Ninth Amendment states, in full, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It's the old "seas" argument. One side views the law, all of it, from the Constitution down to local traffic ordinances, as a "sea" of individual rights within which certain "islands" of government power are identified and limited, by due process. The other side views the law a "sea" of government power with which are "islands" of individual rights, only those expressed in the Constitution and limited thereby. This view was best expressed by rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who said "I find no right to privacy in the Constitution," and concluded that no right not laid out in the Constitution exists.

And who decides what rights the people have? Well, under Anglo-American-Canadian common law, going back to 1250 AD ("historical and traditional," right?) that power lies in the hands of judges. The right to be secure in your home was first enunciated by an English judge, not passed by Parliament or declared by the Crown. Considering that the U.S. and Canada basically took the judicial systems of England lock, stock, and barrel, it is only logical to conclude that whatever right a judge says you have, you have. The only way to change that is for a higher-level judge(s) to say otherwise, or for Congress or Parliament to pass a law limiting or eliminating the right.

So the Right is playing with fire here. If they're so hell-bent on eliminating rights properly found by the highest judges in the land, what prevents those same judges from eliminating the rights they love so much (mostly the rights to be an asshole and carry a gun)?

It's important to understand that all of this is merely a brake on government power, not a ban. "Both sides" have rights they hate and want to eliminate. All of this legislative and judicial folderol simply makes the governments slow down a little, and gives time for thought and debate before acting. By its very terms, the Constitution can be amended, including repealing parts of it (as we did with Prohibition), and the laws can be changed.

At the moment, the Right has the whip hand, because our government/legislative structure permits minority rule under the correct circumstances. For most of the 1955-2016 period, the Left held the whip hand.

I see big problems for this, since there is only one race involved. THe human race.

 

[Taxslave2]

There is equality. Killing the unborn is equally thwarted.

Killing unborn is an oxymoron. Something that isn't yet born cannot be killed.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I see big problems for this, since there is only one race involved. THe human race.

That would be great if we didn't have the concept of "race" written into the Constitution.

Are you denying that the United States and its constituent states engaged in legal, mandatory, official separation of people by "race?" Is that what you're going with?

 

[The_Foxer]

So the Right is playing with fire here. If they're so hell-bent on eliminating rights properly found by the highest judges in the land, what prevents those same judges from eliminating the rights they love so much (mostly the rights to be an asshole and carry a gun

Honestly your understanding of the law wouldn't be sufficient to fight a parking ticket, never mind this stuff.

there's zero 'playing with fire' here. The dems have frequently decided to stack the courts and have things ruled their way in the past. Arguably the first roe vs wade was a bit of a case of that. Remember that Hillary Clinton in the debates on public tv stated she intended to find judges for the supreme court that specifically would overthrow gun rights. She made no secret of it. So saying "What's stopping them" is rediculous - nothing, other than they don't have enough judges right now and when they do they will.

So presumably the best strategy for republicans right now is to change so many things that the Dems when they do have control of the Supreme Court again will have a bunch of things to fix before they ever get around to taking away more peoples rights

 

[Serryah]

No, the big issue is whether or not you, or anybody else, gets to dictate what a woman may or may not do with her body and health.

Well, yeah, I guess in a nut shell that is the whole issue. But I was referring to the reversal of it and that it was able to be done because it wasn't an actual 'law'?; sorry, didn't explain myself there.

The rest is detail. I'm happy to explain it, but let's keep our eye on the puck here. If enough people want something bad enough, they can make it happen. As I said above, the whole Constitutional/legal framework, in reality, just slows down the process, hopefully enough to give people time to think it through.

Good point really. I guess a real world example would be enough people WANT Roe to continue to be available, so that's one of the big pushers for many this election. Will it decide any, who knows. But it has motivated people so...

The narrower issue here is whether abortion is covered by "privacy" or "personal autonomy," and who gets to decide? The states or the Fed? Our answers have always been a compromise (Roe v. Wade was a compromise), and the rootin' tootin' Real Murkans ain't in a compromising mood just now.

Cuz Jee-zuss!

LOL - true that.

The thing is, it shouldn't be EITHER the state or fed who decide, but the woman themselves. But then, giving women decisions makes them uppity, dang nabbit! Can't have them women thinkin' an thinkin' they can maybe make CHOICES 'bout their lives.

None of them are codified, except to be forbidden by various state laws. Which were nullified by the relevant Supreme Court cases. Most of 'em are still on the books. They just can't be enforced.

Ah, thanks for explaining that.

As far as AA goes, decisions are all over the map. The key questions are "is compensatory discrimination ever legal/proper?" and "if yes, at what point do you stop?"

Completely agree there too.

As an "oppressed" minority myself, my opinion is you can't make up for past discrimination, and the best way to prevent future discrimination is to require rigid, absolute equality, and to make discrimination a crime, not a civil matter.

Amen.

Part of my issues with AA is if you have two people with exact issues - poor, can't afford college, had great scores though in high school, would be a perfect student - but one is white and the other is "X" (black, native, latino, etc), is "X" getting in over a white kid because of actual reasons, or because of a 'guilt' thing? If the former, what are the reasons? If the latter then how is that honestly helping anyone, including the "X" outside of just getting into the school (which is great but...). I know it's likely just a 'me' thing, but getting something because of 'guilt' doesn't sit right.

Swinging back to discrimination in general, I don't see that happening sadly, because humans suck. For some, discrimination is a right as much as guns are and being 'free' to be an absolute fucking asshole to people, least seems to me, gets thrown into the "freedom" and "free speech" thing so often there's no way it'll be seen as anything but a 'civil' matter. Course I could be way off on that

 

[petros]

Killing unborn is an oxymoron. Something that isn't yet born cannot be killed.

Ummmmm. Fuck no!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Part of my issues with AA is if you have two people with exact issues - poor, can't afford college, had great scores though in high school, would be a perfect student - but one is white and the other is "X" (black, native, latino, etc), is "X" getting in over a white kid because of actual reasons, or because of a 'guilt' thing? If the former, what are the reasons? If the latter then how is that honestly helping anyone, including the "X" outside of just getting into the school (which is great but...). I know it's likely just a 'me' thing, but getting something because of 'guilt' doesn't sit right.

Swinging back to discrimination in general, I don't see that happening sadly, because humans suck. For some, discrimination is a right as much as guns are and being 'free' to be an absolute fucking asshole to people, least seems to me, gets thrown into the "freedom" and "free speech" thing so often there's no way it'll be seen as anything but a 'civil' matter. Course I could be way off on that

Yep, or as I put it sometimes, AA is based on the notion that Will Smith's or LeBron James's or Barack Obama's kids are oppressed and deserving of compensatory privilege, and the Coal Miner's Daughter or foreclosed farmer's son is privileged and not deserving of compensatory privilege.

As to the civil/criminal thing, I have two reasons for wanting it to be criminal. The first is philosophical: we make the most damaging and reprehensible behavior crimes, and discrimination in employment, education, housing, transportation, and places of public accommodation certainly count as "reprehensible."

The second is more realistic: if we made discrimination a crime, prosecuting it would be on the government's dime, not the probably-quite-strained resources of somebody who's just been refused a job. And virtually every crime is also a civil tort. We could make it both.

 

[Serryah]

Yep, or as I put it sometimes, AA is based on the notion that Will Smith's or LeBron James's or Barack Obama's kids are oppressed and deserving of compensatory privilege, and the Coal Miner's Daughter or foreclosed farmer's son is privileged and not deserving of compensatory privilege.

As to the civil/criminal thing, I have two reasons for wanting it to be criminal. The first is philosophical: we make the most damaging and reprehensible behavior crimes, and discrimination in employment, education, housing, transportation, and places of public accommodation certainly count as "reprehensible."

The second is more realistic: if we made discrimination a crime, prosecuting it would be on the government's dime, not the probably-quite-strained resources of somebody who's just been refused a job. And virtually every crime is also a civil tort. We could make it both.

So I was watching a discussion about AA, and it came up that it is not just about race, but gender too, because if not for AA, a lot of women would not have been able to go to schools and be where they are today. To be honest, I never thought of AA also covering women so I wonder if that's something that's overlooked when people discuss it. Like AA is mostly focused on race when I hear about it.

And from what I heard, the guy who is bringing this issue up before SCOTUS tried first with women, but that got shot down, so now he's going through Asian Americans to fight against it.

Problematic as AA may be and fixing it needs to be done, the people pushing for it to vanish are almost proving that it needs to stick around.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So I was watching a discussion about AA, and it came up that it is not just about race, but gender too, because if not for AA, a lot of women would not have been able to go to schools and be where they are today. To be honest, I never thought of AA also covering women so I wonder if that's something that's overlooked when people discuss it. Like AA is mostly focused on race when I hear about it.

And from what I heard, the guy who is bringing this issue up before SCOTUS tried first with women, but that got shot down, so now he's going through Asian Americans to fight against it.

Problematic as AA may be and fixing it needs to be done, the people pushing for it to vanish are almost proving that it needs to stick around.

Some places do, indeed do AA for women. AA generally is kind of an odd thing, because it's mostly done by private actors (the big exception being state universities). You usually only hear about it when it's a state university or some whiny White guy taking his self-pity way too far.

 

[spaminator]

Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico are married
Author of the articleenette Wilford
Publishing date:Nov 02, 2022 • 17 hours ago • 1 minute read • 14 Comments
Models and newlyweds Fabiola Valentin, left, and Mariana Varela.
Models and newlyweds Fabiola Valentin, left, and Mariana Varela. PHOTO BY FABIOLA VALENTIN /Instagram
Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico revealed they recently got married in a secret ceremony.



Argentina’s Mariana Varela and Puerto Rico’s Fabiola Valentin first met in 2020 while competing at the Miss Grand International pageant.


Varela and Valentin took to Instagram to share the news about their nuptials.

“After deciding to keep our relationship private, we opened the doors to them on a special day. 28/10/22,” the couple wrote in Spanish, according to the translation.



The post was a video montage of their relationship, featuring images and clips from their engagement, of their matching diamond rings, and happy moments by the beach.

A final image of the couple show them on the steps of a courthouse.

Varela and Valentin received a lot of love for their post, including fellow models from the pageant.

“Congratulations beautiful! God bless your union and long live love!!!!” wrote Miss Venezuela Valentina Figuera.


Varela wrote on her Instagram Stories: “Thanks for all the love! We are very happy and blessed. I wish you the love you are giving us is multiplied! Endless thanks.”

The two have never confirmed their relationship, but appeared to have hinted at their closeness.


“A summer with you,” Valentin posted on a photo of her and Varela in August.

And in January, she posted a montage with plenty of images on the beach to mark a reunion the pair shared.



Valentin posted: “Life brought us together again! It was a long wait, but the great moments we get to create will always be greater,” she wrote, adding, “How blessed I am to have a being in my life like you @marianajvarela. I LOVE YOU”

Fabiola Valentín 🌙 on Instagram: "¡La vida nos unió nuevamente! 🇦🇷🇵🇷 Fue larga la espera, pero los grandes momentos que nos toca crear siempre serán más grandes. Que triste es tener un hasta luego nuevamente, pero que bendecida estoy por tener un se

12K likes, 134 comments - fabiolavalentinpr on January 7, 2022: "¡La vida nos unió nuevamente! 🇦🇷🇵🇷 Fue larga la espera, pero los grandes momentos q..."

instagram.com

MARIANA VARELA on Instagram: "Un verano contigo 🌙"

48K likes, 1,198 comments - marianajvarela on August 7, 2022: "Un verano contigo 🌙"

instagram.com

Fabiola Valentín 🌙 on Instagram: "Después de decidir mantener en privacidad nuestra relación, les abrimos las puertas en un día especial. 28/10/22 ❤️💍✨"

440K likes, 14K comments - fabiolavalentinpr on October 29, 2022: "Después de decidir mantener en privacidad nuestra relación, les abrimos las puertas en un día ..."

instagram.com

Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico are married

Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico revealed they recently got married in a secret ceremony.

torontosun.com

 

[spaminator]

Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico are married
Author of the articleenette Wilford
Publishing date:Nov 02, 2022 • 17 hours ago • 1 minute read • 14 Comments
Models and newlyweds Fabiola Valentin, left, and Mariana Varela.
Models and newlyweds Fabiola Valentin, left, and Mariana Varela. PHOTO BY FABIOLA VALENTIN /Instagram
Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico revealed they recently got married in a secret ceremony.



Argentina’s Mariana Varela and Puerto Rico’s Fabiola Valentin first met in 2020 while competing at the Miss Grand International pageant.


Varela and Valentin took to Instagram to share the news about their nuptials.

“After deciding to keep our relationship private, we opened the doors to them on a special day. 28/10/22,” the couple wrote in Spanish, according to the translation.



The post was a video montage of their relationship, featuring images and clips from their engagement, of their matching diamond rings, and happy moments by the beach.

A final image of the couple show them on the steps of a courthouse.

Varela and Valentin received a lot of love for their post, including fellow models from the pageant.

“Congratulations beautiful! God bless your union and long live love!!!!” wrote Miss Venezuela Valentina Figuera.


Varela wrote on her Instagram Stories: “Thanks for all the love! We are very happy and blessed. I wish you the love you are giving us is multiplied! Endless thanks.”

The two have never confirmed their relationship, but appeared to have hinted at their closeness.


“A summer with you,” Valentin posted on a photo of her and Varela in August.

And in January, she posted a montage with plenty of images on the beach to mark a reunion the pair shared.



Valentin posted: “Life brought us together again! It was a long wait, but the great moments we get to create will always be greater,” she wrote, adding, “How blessed I am to have a being in my life like you @marianajvarela. I LOVE YOU”


View attachment 16295

Fabiola Valentín 🌙 on Instagram: "¡La vida nos unió nuevamente! 🇦🇷🇵🇷 Fue larga la espera, pero los grandes momentos que nos toca crear siempre serán más grandes. Que triste es tener un hasta luego nuevamente, pero que bendecida estoy por tener un se

12K likes, 134 comments - fabiolavalentinpr on January 7, 2022: "¡La vida nos unió nuevamente! 🇦🇷🇵🇷 Fue larga la espera, pero los grandes momentos q..."

instagram.com

MARIANA VARELA on Instagram: "Un verano contigo 🌙"

48K likes, 1,198 comments - marianajvarela on August 7, 2022: "Un verano contigo 🌙"

instagram.com

Fabiola Valentín 🌙 on Instagram: "Después de decidir mantener en privacidad nuestra relación, les abrimos las puertas en un día especial. 28/10/22 ❤️💍✨"

440K likes, 14K comments - fabiolavalentinpr on October 29, 2022: "Después de decidir mantener en privacidad nuestra relación, les abrimos las puertas en un día ..."

instagram.com

Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico are married

Beauty queens Miss Argentina and Miss Puerto Rico revealed they recently got married in a secret ceremony.

torontosun.com

wonder if anyone has ever cum between them?

 

[The_Foxer]

wonder if anyone has ever cum between them?

BAD! (spritzes him with water) That's a BAD Spaminator! Bad! (spritz spritz!)