32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[JakeStarkey]

Vigi, your dream world is fantasy: it is not going to happen.

 

[Vigilante]

Vigi, your dream world is fantasy: it is not going to happen.

Flakey, your lack of anything remotely resembling complex thought is astounding!

 

[SixFoot]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

When one state doesn't recognize legal documents issued by another state, the federal government needs to get involved

What happens when a legally married gay soldier stationed in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage has issues related to state services or medical coverage?

Military Posts are federal lands and have all the services Military personnel and their spouses require. After your first enlistment, you start to get options available to get the duty station of your choice depending on the career path you've chosen. In any case, the Military isn't here to serve its Soldiers and spouses. Soldiers are here to support the Military. The Military (a federal entity) will uphold federal law.

ETA: Just so you know, I'm not here to do anything but give my opinions on the topics I participate in. Don't hate me for being different.

 

[Silhouette]

...I'm simply speaking from an old fashioned (Constitutional) point of view. The federal government has provisions for married couples in their tax code. According to the Constitution, they have to recognize marriage, be it a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment demands equal treatment in such a matter.

HOWEVER, the federal government (the Judicial Branch included) has no right to tell States that they cannot dictate what constitutes a legal marriage, as per the 10th Amendment.

Your fervent reply leads me to believe we both agree that gay marriage is just that - gay. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. I will most certainly support the Constitution as it is plainly written, though.

The argument I believe the LGBT cult is putting out there is "once we get legal rights to marry in one state, all states must allow gay marriage because the fed does [in that one state that allowed it]".

And that's why I brought up the 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire and Windsor 2013 referring to that specific example as "marriages vary from state to state". Just because the feds recognize 13 year olds as married from New Hampshire does not mean they recognize that any 13 year olds in the whole of the US may marry. Nor must other states mandate 13 year olds marrying just because those "rights" [they're actually priveleges] were given to 13 year olds in New Hampshire.

The privelege of marriage is granted in the separate states according to their discreet communities. The only exception to that rule of "unquestioned authority" in jurisdiction is if a marriage is denied based upon race. That would be the reference to Loving v Virginia in Windsor 2013.

They didn't say Loving applied. They only said "if something like Loving applies" [paraphrased]. But the authors at the end of it all said gay marriage was as of its writing only allowed "in some states". So that was their declaration at that time that Loving did not apply. Not at least as of the ink drying on Windsor in June 2013. And so, that is the Law until further notice...

Too bad lower court judges are overruling that Law from underneath [a practice that is forbidden by Law]; knowing full well what was said in Windsor.

 

[SixFoot]

...I'm simply speaking from an old fashioned (Constitutional) point of view. The federal government has provisions for married couples in their tax code. According to the Constitution, they have to recognize marriage, be it a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment demands equal treatment in such a matter.

HOWEVER, the federal government (the Judicial Branch included) has no right to tell States that they cannot dictate what constitutes a legal marriage, as per the 10th Amendment.

Your fervent reply leads me to believe we both agree that gay marriage is just that - gay. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. I will most certainly support the Constitution as it is plainly written, though.

The argument I believe the LGBT cult is putting out there is "once we get legal rights to marry in one state, all states must allow gay marriage because the fed does [in that one state that allowed it]".

And that's why I brought up the 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire and Windsor 2013 referring to that specific example as "marriages vary from state to state". Just because the feds recognize 13 year olds as married from New Hampshire does not mean they recognize that any 13 year olds in the whole of the US may marry. Nor must other states mandate 13 year olds marrying just because those "rights" [they're actually priveleges] were given to 13 year olds in New Hampshire.

The privelege of marriage is granted in the separate states according to their discreet communities. The only exception to that rule of "unquestioned authority" in jurisdiction is if a marriage is denied based upon race. That would be the reference to Loving v Virginia in Windsor 2013.

They didn't say Loving applied. They only said "if something like Loving applies" [paraphrased]. But the authors at the end of it all said gay marriage was as of its writing only allowed "in some states". So that was their declaration at that time that Loving did not apply. Not at least as of the ink drying on Windsor in June 2013. And so, that is the Law until further notice...

Too bad lower court judges are overruling that Law from underneath [a practice that is forbidden by Law]; knowing full well what was said in Windsor.

Since the definition of marriage is a power reserved for "the State and its People, respectively", I hope you're right, and you bring up and excellent point with regards to New Hampshire. In the meantime, we will also have to accept that the federal government must recognize all forms of marriage defined by the various States, per the 14th Amendment.

Neither side can have their cake and eat it too, if everyone could agree to follow the Constitution - the foundation behind the phrase, "Law of the Land".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The argument I believe the hetero-fascist cult is following is that a state has the right to regulate marriage without reference to the Constitution.

That nonsense will be thrown by the end of June next year.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage - ABC News

yeah so 32 states on Thursday want Scotus to just settle the matter once and for all. Given the recent ruling for WI and IL we kinda already know where this will go if Scotus ever decides to deal with this. Watch them punt back to the lower courts.

That the Court desperately doesn't want to hear one of, or a combination of, these cases is clear.


But the justices may have no choice, as it can be argued that Article III compels the High Court to resolve such issues per the states' request.

 

[Seawytch]

The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The right to homosexual marriage, or marriage, period, is ambiguous and determined solely in interpretation of various amendments.

And yet commit a felony and you will lose your right to bear arms and in most states, your right to vote...but you cannot lose your right to marry even if you are a serial killer on death row.

Turner v. Safley

 

[Seawytch]

My brother is a constitutional lawyer. We always have a good laugh when we talk about queers and their aping of the word "rights". But maybe you can show me the particular section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that singles out queers and their "right" to queer "marriage"? I'm waiting.

It is a right to marry. There is no gay marriage, there is only marriage. The right to marry has been affirmed by the SCOTUS on at least three occasions. Loving v Texas, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

Now, in order to keep the right to marry from a group of people, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. You can't, which is why marriage equality opponents are getting their asses kicked in court.

 

[Seawytch]

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

And yet they did dictate...way back in 1964. Is that the debauchery you're referring to, Loving v Virginia?

 

[rightwinger]

And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.

My brother is a constitutional lawyer. We always have a good laugh when we talk about queers and their aping of the word "rights". But maybe you can show me the particular section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that singles out queers and their "right" to queer "marriage"? I'm waiting.

For a so called constitutional lawyer, you brother is a fucking moron

 

[Seawytch]

That the Court desperately doesn't want to hear one of, or a combination of, these cases is clear.


But the justices may have no choice, as it can be argued that Article III compels the High Court to resolve such issues per the states' request.

The Supreme's punting on Prop 8 only put of the inevitable for a short time. The SCOTUS is going to have to take up one or more of these cases. For the delicious irony, I hope it's Virginia.

 

[SixFoot]

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

And yet they did dictate...way back in 1964. Is that the debauchery you're referring to, Loving v Virginia?

Not even close, no.

 

[Seawytch]

I see on Al Jazeera today that queers in New York City successfully sued for participation in the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade. This is a parade dedicated to a Catholic saint and to Irish cultural heritage of which I am 1/2 a part.

Do queers want to don their Kelley green, kick back a beer or two, and join in refrains of cultural ditties? No, queers want to carry street-wide banners extolling the faux virtues of queer "marriage" , of child molestation the very second they can legally get their hands on kids, and of unsafe sex practices that have queers spreading STD's at a rate 17 times that of any other demographic.

In short, they don't give a fuck about the St. Patrick's Day Parade. It represents nothing more to queers than another social convention they want to shit all over. The more I see of queer militancy in the West, the more I understand why the Muslim world keeps all those crane booms so busy.

Successfully sued? Are you sure you heard that news report correctly?

The organizers of the New York City St. Patrick’s Day parade said on Wednesday that they were lifting a ban on openly gay groups marching under their own banner, bringing to a close more than two decades of bitter protests and controversy that thrust an annual celebration into the national gay rights debate.

The decision is a striking reflection of the evolution of gay rights in the city and in American society, and is a measure of changing attitudes in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Gay Groups to March in St. Patrick’s Day Parade as a Ban Falls​

Oh, and I am a gay Irish American whose great grandfather came from Ireland to America. I take great pride in my Irish heritage although I'm not a fan of St Patrick himself, I do like to celebrate being Irish. There ARE gay Catholics though...something Pope Frankie realizes.

 

[Seawytch]

Not even close, no.

How is it not close? You said that the Feds had no business ruling on marriage and yet they did, in 1964 the SCOTUS ruled that marriage could not be denied blacks and whites that wanted to marry each other, flying in the face of your 10th Amendment argument. The SCOTUS ruled against public opinion and against "states rights" didn't they?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Well hey, history's most infamous queer, Adolph Hitler, was "married" way before the war, wasn't he? To Rudolph Hess, in Landesberg prison, whom their fellow Nazi inmates dubbed "Mrs. Hitler" or "Frau Hitler". Hitler and his 300,000 SA officer corps of militant queers. Lots of them were "married"...to one another. Or wait a minute, what am I talking about? They were Germany's most debauched legion of pederasts. They were "married" to little boys, a never ending stream of whom were dragged in and out of Berlin's SA barracks complex. It got so disgusting that hundreds of complaints were filed with Berlin's police by civilian witnesses. But I don't want to get present company sexually aroused with all this queer "marriage" history. You can read about it yourself in any of Peter Padfield's three biographies of Heinrich Himmler, especially the 1991 edition:

Amazon.com peter padfield himmler

 

[SixFoot]

Not even close, no.

How is it not close? You said that the Feds had no business ruling on marriage and yet they did, in 1964 the SCOTUS ruled that marriage could not be denied blacks and whites that wanted to marry each other, flying in the face of your 10th Amendment argument. The SCOTUS ruled against public opinion and against "states rights" didn't they?

You asked me a question: "Is that the debauchery you're referring to, Loving v Virginia?"

I said no, it was not what I was referring to.

There's really no point in asking a question if you're going to argue with the answer.

This is a thread about gay marriage and I applaud you for reciting the Loving case without injecting race into the issue. Please continue to keep the two separate. Now, since it has been mentioned, a little background:

I have my own opinions on the matter; namely, that X skin color can't marry Y skin color because they are different shades is a retarded thing to do. When a man and a woman love each other (as things were meant to be - a man and a woman), there is no legal standing to deny them what comes perfectly natural as a human being (love).

Gay people on the other hand, are not born gay (there is no factual evidence to the contrary either, only theories). If anyone can ever prove to me that people are in fact born gay (beyond a shadow of a doubt), I am willing to make changes to my opinions. But until then, gay marriage is nothing more than a manufactured thing and per the 10th and 14th Amendments, the States have every right to define it as they see fit and the federal government has every obligation to support every State's decision, be it for or against gay marriage.

You probably won't find very many Conservatives who view gay marriage this way,

 

[bodecea]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

When one state doesn't recognize legal documents issued by another state, the federal government needs to get involved

What happens when a legally married gay soldier stationed in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage has issues related to state services or medical coverage?

Military Posts are federal lands and have all the services Military personnel and their spouses require. After your first enlistment, you start to get options available to get the duty station of your choice depending on the career path you've chosen. In any case, the Military isn't here to serve its Soldiers and spouses. Soldiers are here to support the Military. The Military (a federal entity) will uphold federal law.

ETA: Just so you know, I'm not here to do anything but give my opinions on the topics I participate in. Don't hate me for being different.

We always called it "The needs of the Navy come first."

 

[Seawytch]

Well hey, history's most infamous queer, Adolph Hitler, was "married" way before the war, wasn't he? To Rudolph Hess, in Landesberg prison, whom their fellow Nazi inmates dubbed "Mrs. Hitler" or "Frau Hitler". Hitler and his 300,000 SA officer corps of militant queers. Lots of them were "married"...to one another. Or wait a minute, what am I talking about? They were Germany's most debauched legion of pederasts. They were "married" to little boys, a never ending stream of whom were dragged in and out of Berlin's SA barracks complex. It got so disgusting that hundreds of complaints were filed with Berlin's police by civilian witnesses. But I don't want to get present company sexually aroused with all this queer "marriage" history. You can read about yourself in any of Peter Padfield's three biographies of Heinrich Himmler, especially the 1991 edition:

Amazon.com peter padfield himmler

Poe’s Corollary
It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won’t mistake for a parody.

 

[SixFoot]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

When one state doesn't recognize legal documents issued by another state, the federal government needs to get involved

What happens when a legally married gay soldier stationed in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage has issues related to state services or medical coverage?

Military Posts are federal lands and have all the services Military personnel and their spouses require. After your first enlistment, you start to get options available to get the duty station of your choice depending on the career path you've chosen. In any case, the Military isn't here to serve its Soldiers and spouses. Soldiers are here to support the Military. The Military (a federal entity) will uphold federal law.

ETA: Just so you know, I'm not here to do anything but give my opinions on the topics I participate in. Don't hate me for being different.

We always called it "The needs of the Navy come first."

Ewww, please don't tell me any submarine stories! LOL