Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics
---------------
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
- The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
- Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
what a country eh?
Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
what a country eh?
again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics
---------------
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
- The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
- Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
Stephanie, when a 40 year old man marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama where it's legal to do both, is their marriage valid in all 50 states, even those states that prohibit 1st cousin and underage marriage?
found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air
So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.
found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air
So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.
And Civil Unions would be just dandy...if they applied to everyone. Trying to set up civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays would be separate but equal. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was ruled unconstitutional.
I'd also like to point out that many of the anti gay marriage laws passed by bigots in their states also prohibit civil unions.
Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
what a country eh?
Stephanie, which states approved interracial marriage by popular vote and which states had it "forced" on them by "activist judges"?
found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air
So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.
And Civil Unions would be just dandy...if they applied to everyone. Trying to set up civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays would be separate but equal. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was ruled unconstitutional.
I'd also like to point out that many of the anti gay marriage laws passed by bigots in their states also prohibit civil unions.
Seperate but equal is not unconstitutional in all cases. It's often used when gender is concerned.
What culture tolerated homosexual relationships and where are those marriages. You clearly couldn't understand my point about male/female dynamics and why that union has been the only one tolerated by any civilized society. You're the one trying to alter history and reality, not me.Bullshit. Men and women have gotten together since time immemorial without ever producing children. There have been numerous cultures that have tolerated homosexual relations. The suggestion that the purpose of marriage is "only for procreation" is anything other than a new argument meant to impugn the idea of same sex marriage is as disingenuous as it is idiotic.
You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.Again, this is just plain stupid, and shows a complete lack of understanding of what has happened. lemme help you out with this. The Supreme court didn't leave the ruling of the State Courts in place; they left the previous ruling of the Federal Circuit Courts in place. In other words, this wasn't a State Issue; it was a Federal Issue, and the Supreme Court decided that it had already been decided. Furthermore, this action not only makes the marriage ban in these seven states invalid, it also makes the marriage bans in the other eleven states in their jusrisdiction illegal. "Homosexual marriage" is being seen as "the same"; 30 states out of 50. Sorry pal, your archaic, bigoted view is simply going the way of all bigotry - it is losing.
Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immoralitywonderful news for individual rights
It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).
The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immoralitywonderful news for individual rights
the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.
Wrong.You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.
What the heck are you inferring there, little reb?Since the states choose to create laws that prevented such acts the states spoke. It was federal judges that made the change This is not over by a long SHOT.bang bang..The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.
First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.
Bad news for the religious fanatics.
Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move
It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).
Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.
Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...
