Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.
...moving on...

Nothing you quoted from the Constitution above gives citizens the right to sue their own state. Also The above was I believe modified by amendments. At least the 11th and maybe more.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

FindLaw Cases and Codes

 

[Youch]

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

You can move on all you like. If constitutionality is your measuring stick, you just lost the argument. Marriage is not a prescribed federal, constitutional institution, and thus falls to the states, which the SCOTUS just obstructed. This is basic stuff. That you fail to understand it just places you in the "dangerous to my family" category.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.
...moving on...

Nothing you quoted from the Constitution above gives citizens the right to sue their own state. Also The above was I believe modified by amendments. At least the 11th and maybe more.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

FindLaw Cases and Codes

Case laws are not the Constitution
The Constitution came before any Case laws dumb ass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.
...moving on...

Nothing you quoted from the Constitution above gives citizens the right to sue their own state. Also The above was I believe modified by amendments. At least the 11th and maybe more.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

FindLaw Cases and Codes

Case laws are not the Constitution
The Constitution came before any Case laws dumb ass.

Of course the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, that's why we don't hear you and others on the right complaining about Heller and Citizens United.

 

[Seawytch]

Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right". If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).

The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.

Not really. The theory, not entirely inaccurate, is that being married, and starting a family, carries with it added financial burdens. It is for this reason that couples filing as married get the tax benefits they get - to offset these costs. It is the same reason for the "Child Tax Credits". By your logic, there should be no "Child Tax Credit"; that should just be another credit that everyone gets. Otherwise we're "discriminating" against people without kids.

And here's the thing. Tax breaks are not rights; there is no guarantee that everyone gets the same benefits. However, everyone should have the same right to the opportunities that make those benefits possible. Hence, the drive for Same-Sex Marriage Equality.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right?
Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that.
Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.

Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups, should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis.
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status.
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.

Private placement groups do not have to place children with anyone they don't want. If, however, you take money from the Federal government or from a state with non discrimination laws that include gays and lesbians you don't get to discriminate against gays.

You said:

.well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

That would leave out all infertile couples...you know, the ones that adopt children the most. Gays are not born with an inability to have children within their relationship. We're born gay, not infertile. (I've had five)

What Amendment was specifically cited in the Loving decision?

 

[Seawytch]

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

You can move on all you like. If constitutionality is your measuring stick, you just lost the argument. Marriage is not a prescribed federal, constitutional institution, and thus falls to the states, which the SCOTUS just obstructed. This is basic stuff. That you fail to understand it just places you in the "dangerous to my family" category.

Please do, using your "states rights" argument...explain Loving v Virgina, Zablacki v Redhail and Turney v Safley.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No semantic game here.

Since the state is not supreme, it can be sued by those who have standing.

 

[dcraelin]

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.
...moving on...

Nothing you quoted from the Constitution above gives citizens the right to sue their own state. Also The above was I believe modified by amendments. At least the 11th and maybe more.

It can be found here in the Constitution:
FindLaw Cases and Codes

Part of that "case law" is ex parte Young......a little piece of favoritism to big railroad corporations passed by a crooked federal court & it has been misusing as precedent for years

 

[dcraelin]

Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right". If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).

The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.

Not really. The theory, not entirely inaccurate, is that being married, and starting a family, carries with it added financial burdens. It is for this reason that couples filing as married get the tax benefits they get - to offset these costs. It is the same reason for the "Child Tax Credits". By your logic, there should be no "Child Tax Credit"; that should just be another credit that everyone gets. Otherwise we're "discriminating" against people without kids.

And here's the thing. Tax breaks are not rights; there is no guarantee that everyone gets the same benefits. However, everyone should have the same right to the opportunities that make those benefits possible. Hence, the drive for Same-Sex Marriage Equality.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right?
Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that.
Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.

Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups, should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis.
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status.
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.

Private placement groups do not have to place children with anyone they don't want. If, however, you take money from the Federal government or from a state with non discrimination laws that include gays and lesbians you don't get to discriminate against gays.
You said:

.well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

That would leave out all infertile couples...you know, the ones that adopt children the most. Gays are not born with an inability to have children within their relationship. We're born gay, not infertile. (I've had five)
What Amendment was specifically cited in the Loving decision?

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.
There is differentiation between Infertile couples and gay-couples.....I doubt if most infertile couples were born that way...even if so tho, other aspects of their gender remain so that they mimic normal fertile couples.
Yes, I realize you can still be fertile and be gay, which I think maybe points away from the "born-that-way" idea but ...I think if you accept your gayness as being innate perhaps u should accept that you shouldn't raise children.

 

[Czernobog]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.”

Nonsense.

State's don't have the authority to deny citizens their civil liberties. Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, where the states are subordinate to that, as the Federal Constitution protects the rights of American citizens regardless their state of residence, making citizens' civil liberties immune to attacks by the states.

Idiot if what you say had any truth the supreme court would have ruled on it. Shut the fuck up and learn something.

Okay. Let's try this one more time.
Simple yes, or no question: Is it your contention that no question of constitutional legitimacy can ever be decided except by direct ruling from the Supreme court, and only by the Supreme court?

Hi Czernobog: With the courts, judicial ruling, Supreme Court
we have never resolved the issue of political beliefs: what if a religious belief crosses over into beliefs about govt
and laws themselves, such as the right to health care through the govt or the right of marriage through the govt.

All conflicts over crosses, prayers in schools, etc. have continued to be protested even after
rulings or laws were passed because peole do not agree to have their beliefs excluded, on either side.

This has never been resolved, but we keep making the same mistake of assuming
that these issues are like any other matter of law that can be decided by the state/govt.

No, they cannot. People do not agree to give up their religious equality due to a onesided ruling
or majority rule in Courts or Congress. We just haven't addressed this.

The Constitution and Amendments address "religious freedom" and "discrimination by creed"
but we have never established what do we do when we cannot separate a religious beliefs
from a govt policy, becuase the belief involves the govt role in whether or not it can decide a policy.

th eprolife and prochoice issue was one of the first to bring this out.
the two sides will always have clashing beliefs, so we need to write laws
better that do not impose either way on one beleif or the other.

We have never agreed to a process to handle political beliefs.

CZ you are highly intelligent, precise in articulating points,
and intellectual honest which I find vital if we are going to address this issue.

I see it is very hard foryou to understand this other mentality of
people on the far right who cannot separate church from state,
but see prolife as not a choice but a natural right of the child,
and see the gay marriage issue as not natural but a lifestyle and not to be incorporated into the state.

You can separate these in your mind because you do not have these beleifs.
Can you understand some people's beliefs cannot separate them.
And it is not fair to impose a separation if that is not natural or inherent
or even possible in their minds.

If this is the case with some people, why can't that be accommodated equally.

Why do these beliefs have to be overridden.
Why can't these people be offered the choice to do all the work to revise the laws.

As long as they taek responsibility for their beliefs, let them have religious freedom
not to be under a policy they don't believe in.

This isn't just about marriage or gay marriage.

With the health care, and "natural rights" vs. "health care is a right through govt"
people will not budge on their beliefs either.

So maybe it will come to the point that these people
should WELL separate their beliefs by party and fund their
own policies separately.

Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.

Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
without mandating things they believe are not govt jurisdiction.

if people cannot change or separate their beliefs from govt
at least let them separate from each other and practice independently.

I think you misunderstand my position, Emily. the fact is from my perspective it is irrelevant whether homosexual is genetic, or a lifestyle choice. Either way, it is a behavior that is private, and personal, and has no business being regulated in any way. The abortion question is one of conflating words to mean things that they simply do not mean. But, I'm not gonna get into the pro-choice vs anti-choice, here, because that is an entirely different argument, an d would fill an entire thread all by itself.

So, let's just stick to homosexuality, and marriage, shall we? I actually like your idea, except there is one small problem with the statement of your understanding of the positions:

Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.
​

To the bold: You get that under "Single Payer" there would be no need for mandating, or "members paying into" anything, right? The whole point of single-payer is that healthcare is all government-funded. Now, it would mean raising taxes on the top 1%, and corporations. Well...boo-fucking-hoo. I am sick to death corporatists whining about how put out corporations, and CEOs are.

Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
without mandating things they believe are not govt jurisdiction.
​

To the bold: You see, this is the real problem between progressives, and so-called "Social Conservatives". We have fundamental, antithetical opinions on what "government jurisdiction" is. Thus, in order for this to work, you would need to spell out, exactly, what you think those are. For instance, on that abortion issue. I think that every Republican should be forced on the record, clearly, what his opinion is on abortion, and abortion clinic closing legislation If they had to do that, I think you would be surprised how many votes they lost from what they previously thought were "conservative women".​

 

[WorldWatcher]

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.

Massachusetts: Private Domestic Adoption Agencies
Catholic Charities of Somerville
270 Washington Street
Somerville, MA 02143
Phone: (617) 625-1920

Catholic Charities of Worcester
10 Hammond Street
Worcester, MA 01610
Phone: (508) 798-0191

Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc.
PO Box M South Station
1600 Bay Street
Fall River, MA 02724
Phone: (508) 674-4681

Adopting.com - Adoption Agencies and Attorneys



Catholic Social Services is committed to improving the quality of life for those in need by providing comprehensive social and human services including basic and emergency needs, homelessness, immigration issues, housing and residential services, disabilites, adoption, mental health counseling, elder health services, neighborhood rehabilitation, foreclosure help, and much more. (A Service of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, United States of America)



Catholic Social Services - Southeastern MA s leading Multi-service human services provider



Catholic Charities, Diocese of Worcester (MA) Adoption Agency and Foster Care : Domestic Adoption Services
http://adoption-agencies-foster-car...96/Catholic-Charities-Diocese-of-Worcester-MA


****************************************

I don't know what you have been "reading" but Catholic Charity adoption is still active in Massachusetts.

Now what you may have read about is that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to suspend operations because they were not going to able to operate under a government contract. When they found they would loose $1,000,000 in taxpayer dollars they decided to suspend operations.

So that money went to other organizations.



>>>>

 

[Czernobog]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

Okay. I propose putting that theory to the test. I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type. Let's see how well that works out for that state.

Agreed. Even if it works by reverse psychology, it will give people free choice to decide how to settle this
instead of the govt or party politics deciding or imposing on people against their will.

Either agree to open up marriage to all,
or neutralize all language regarding civil unions and contracts,
and keep the personal beliefs out of the state altogether.

Let's be civilized about this. If people have separate beliefs
then separate by party or churches to preserve equal freedom and protection
to exercise as each believes without imposing one way for all the state that one side doesn't believe in.

We need to do the same with health care policies also,
since a similar 'right to health care' is not agreed upon either as a belief.

Again it may be reverse psychology, but people must be offered
the choice to fund their own policies and quit imposing that through
the state as the only choice against the will and beliefs of others.

People do not believe the same, and shouldn't be excluded because of that.

I think you missed my point. Due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of article IV in the Constitution, and all of the different benefits provided to married couples - not just from the government, but from private industries as well - I'm pretty sure the Federal Government would show M14 just how wrong he is about his assumption that a state can simply choose to "abolish" marriage in their state...

 

[Czernobog]

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

What are you going to do when this time next year same-sex marriage is recognized in every state, by decree of the federal district courts, and the Supreme court chooses not to hear one single case on the issue? Will you still insist that there is no "gay marriage", even as the homosexuals in every single state are getting married?

I'm not worried about next year. When the shit drops faggots will be fair game in this part of the country.

What? That sounded very much like a threat against the homosexual community. Would you care to clarify?

 

[Carla_Danger]

What's your point? Just because there are laws against incestuous relationships/marriage, doesn't mean everyone else must procreate in order to get married.

Ohhhhh, anyone else aye

Quite an argument

You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.

If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.

My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

 

[Pop23]

Ohhhhh, anyone else aye

Quite an argument

You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.

If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.

My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Incest is icky

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

Think a change of definition will change that?

 

[Czernobog]

Dear C_Clayton_Jones

And yet this substantive due process
does not apply to people of other parties who believe in free choice of paying and managing health care
without being forced to go through insurance or federal mandates.

Yes it did. The question of the "Individual Mandate" specifically made it's way through the courts to the Supreme court. You are confusing due process with agreeing with the court's decision after you had your day in court.

When one party pushes for the "right to marriage" or "right to health care"
as their political BELIEFS, this is justified as establishing through the govt as law.

But [fill in the blank] forbid if
people of OTHER beliefs push for
* right to life
* natural rights
and try to defend that. Suddenly there should be "separation of church and state"
to keep these beliefs out of govt.

I*sigh* I swore I wasn't going to get into this, but, okay. Here is the problem, Emily. It is a matter of definition. I could go through all seven of the process individually, but suffice to say that defending "right to life" is nothing more than misleading rhetoric. A fetus does not meet the criteria for being an independent life. it is a mass of living cells, but it is not, itself, a life. This is why "pro-life" is a misnomer, and why advocating for banning all abortions on the grounds of "right to life" is erroneous. In the case of a pregnant women there is only one life in question - the woman's. The fetus is nothing more than a potential life. I'm sorry, I am going to be more concerned over the natural rights of the actual life, than I am the potential life.

And, again, you can, and did have your right to defend these positions in court. You seem to be confusing being allowed to have your day in court with winning your argument. They are not the same thing.

But when liberals have beliefs, those are OKAY to establish through Courts and Congress as a nationalized belief.

Maybe if we address and change this paradigm,
we could address the issues of marriage, health care, etc. per se.

If we keep ignoring the bias going on, people will fight that
and we can't focus on the issues.

Same with abortion, gun rights, etc. that keep getting into political fights
over ideology and pushing biases or beliefs through govt.

Once again there is no bias going on. You have had your chance to bring every one of your issues before the courts, just like progressives have. The "bias" is that none of your positions was supported in the Constitution, so your side lost its argument every time. hat's not a problem with our political system; that is a problem with one side - who shall remain nameless - constantly choosing to support concepts that are antithetical to the Constitution.

Hey I have an idea.

Let's agree to make laws that reflect and represent/include/protect beliefs Equally.

let's agree to stop bullying back and forth by political force and majority rule to exclude the other beliefs.

And maybe we can stop fighting long enough to work out
solutions that neither impose or deny one side or the other.

How about that, actually respecting equal due process, representation
and protection of the laws for all beliefs, without discrimination by creed.

What a concept, sounds like it might even be Constitutional, you think?

Again, you can "make" any laws you want - as the marriage bans prove. However, once you are done making those laws, the Judicial Branch gets to do its job, and adjudicate whether those laws are Constitutional, or not. You seem to be suggesting that the "will of the people" has supreme authority", without restriction. Guess what? It doesn't. The authority of the "people" ends at the Constitution. The people do not get to enact laws that contradict the rights innumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much some would like to.

 

[emilynghiem]

No semantic game here.

Since the state is not supreme, it can be sued by those who have standing.

Dear JakeStarkey
Though I agree in principle there is still some recourse, in practice this reliance on suing
runs into at least three problems that make it unequal:
1. the cost of legal expense/defense and the chance the corrections sought
won't go through, or will get so tied up timewise or resourcewise that it defeats any purpose gained,
puts an unfair burden on the person petitioning to restore rights or justice
2. if the rights petitioned for are INalienable rights,
then having to sue the state to restore these rights
means they weren't inalienable, so this is contradictory and in abridging the
belief that the rights were inalienable becomes an irreparable act of damage
(similar to how murder and rape cases can seek restitution after the fact,
but can never fully restore the original state of never having been raped or murdered)
3. during the process of suing or appealing or petitioning,
in the interim the party whose rights were infringed upon is NOT EQUAL
with the party who is enjoying the privilege of having their side represented by law or govt.
One side already has the govt representing their beliefs or interests,
the other has to go through this long expensive process, not guaranteed as above,
to try to restore the protection and representation of their interests in teh matter.

So in effect, as long as the govt takes one side over the other, if there is an error
and it takes a legal process to correct it for the other side to have equal justice and protection of the laws,
that isn't equal.

This is why I urge mediation, conflict resolution and consensus
especially in cases where religiously held beliefs or political creeds are involved
where both sides should ideally be protected by govt and not impose one set of beliefs on the other.

For the reasons above, it becomes legally necessary
Never to infringe in the first place, because of the cost, time and lack of guarantee
that any such error or unfair bias/ruling can be corrected. This can be prevented
by making consensus the standard. And although that seems hard or may seem impossible,
if it is not possible to form a consensus, then CERTAINLY the state should not be in charge
of making such a religious-based decision of picking one side's beliefs over the other.
The inability to form a consensus should serve as a telltale warning or sign of an error in judgment.

 

[Czernobog]

You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.

If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.

My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

 

[bodecea]

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

What are you going to do when this time next year same-sex marriage is recognized in every state, by decree of the federal district courts, and the Supreme court chooses not to hear one single case on the issue? Will you still insist that there is no "gay marriage", even as the homosexuals in every single state are getting married?

I'm not worried about next year. When the shit drops faggots will be fair game in this part of the country.

What? That sounded very much like a threat against the homosexual community. Would you care to clarify?

If you follow littlereb's postings over the years, he thinks he's some tough hombre with his keyboard threats. But he's just a scared little boy afraid of the big bad world.

 

[bodecea]

You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.

If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.

My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Incest is icky

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

Think a change of definition will change that?

Why do you keep bringing up procreation in marriage threads?