Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[dcraelin]

This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.

Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?

Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?

Why is marriage a conservative concept??

Really?

Think about it. You know I'm right.

This is probably the most brilliant point ever made on this board.

civil unions are a conservative concept also....one probably 75% or more of the country would agree with.....but apparently that isnt good enough.

If we really want to do this right government has to get out of marriage and NO tax benefits should be based on relationship status

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why is marriage a conservative concept??

Really?

Think about it. You know I'm right.

This is probably the most brilliant point ever made on this board.

civil unions are a conservative concept also....one probably 75% or more of the country would agree with.....but apparently that isnt good enough.

If we really want to do this right government has to get out of marriage and NO tax benefits should be based on relationship status

Actually, it was Social Conservatives that shut the door on Civil Unions as an acceptable alternative with State Constitutional Amendments like:

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Virginia Constitution
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Then there were instances like Washington State where Social Conservative started a ballot initiative because the State legislature approved Civil Unions that were "to much like marriage" the only difference being the name. (The initiative lost at the polls, but that isn't the point. The point it Social Conservatives tried to stop Civil Unions.

The idea that Civil Unions was doable was not a conservative position a decade ago when they felt they were in a position of strength, they've only really become the new mantra as a fall back position as more and more States are taking on Marriage Equality.



>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

Really?

Think about it. You know I'm right.

This is probably the most brilliant point ever made on this board.

civil unions are a conservative concept also....one probably 75% or more of the country would agree with.....but apparently that isnt good enough.

If we really want to do this right government has to get out of marriage and NO tax benefits should be based on relationship status

Actually, it was Social Conservatives that shut the door on Civil Unions as an acceptable alternative with State Constitutional Amendments like:

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

...........
Then there were instances like Washington State where Social Conservative started a ballot initiative because the State legislature approved Civil Unions that were "to much like marriage" the only difference being the name. (The initiative lost at the polls, but that isn't the point. The point it Social Conservatives tried to stop Civil Unions.

The idea that Civil Unions was doable was not a conservative position a decade ago when they felt they were in a position of strength, they've only really become the new mantra as a fall back position as more and more States are taking on Marriage Equality.
>>>>​

that may be so but doesnt change the truth of what I said​

 

[WorldWatcher]

civil unions are a conservative concept also....one probably 75% or more of the country would agree with.....but apparently that isnt good enough.

If we really want to do this right government has to get out of marriage and NO tax benefits should be based on relationship status

Actually, it was Social Conservatives that shut the door on Civil Unions as an acceptable alternative with State Constitutional Amendments like:

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

...........
Then there were instances like Washington State where Social Conservative started a ballot initiative because the State legislature approved Civil Unions that were "to much like marriage" the only difference being the name. (The initiative lost at the polls, but that isn't the point. The point it Social Conservatives tried to stop Civil Unions.

The idea that Civil Unions was doable was not a conservative position a decade ago when they felt they were in a position of strength, they've only really become the new mantra as a fall back position as more and more States are taking on Marriage Equality.
>>>>​

that may be so but doesnt change the truth of what I said​

It shows that Social Conservatives did not consider Civil Unions as an acceptable compromise and that they are the one that fought against them...

...well until they started losing in the State legislatures and at the ballot box, then suddenly it becomes the fall back position.


>>>>​

 

[Silhouette]

Fact #1: Windsor did not settle the question of whether States can say "no", it only addressed whether Federal government has to recognize Civil Marriage from States that said "Yes".

Fact #2: Windsor had no impact on Prop 8 (which is typically your other attempt to mis-apply Windsor), Prop 8 was found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed it to stand by not vacating the District Courts decision.

Fact #3: It will be a different case (possibly Utah) in which the SCOTUS addresses whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.

Fact #4: You cherry-picking and out of context quotes are an attempt to mis-state what the court said. The court said the States have the "unquestioned authority" to say "yes" and the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages. They specifically didn't say that States have "unquestioned authority" to say "No", but that State Civil Marriage laws were still subject to Constitutional guarantees. If States have the "unquestioned authority" to define Civil Marriage as they see fit, then the court would not have overturned State marriage bans in the Loving case. Since they did, that shows the court recognizes there are constitutional limits on how State Civil Marriage laws can function.[/indent][/indent]
>>>>

Not cherry picking at all. In fact it was you who cherry picked just one paragraph from DOMA while I provided 6 of them all in alliance with the "states have the ultimate say..since the founding of our nation" theme.

You're being dishonest when you don't tell the whole story about how states can come to a decision on gay marriage.

1. DOMA says it prefers consensus to judicial or legislative activism.

2. After reiterating state's right to choose under the context of gay marriage, I don't know, maybe a hundred times? Just shy of that possibly?...DOMA mentioned Loving, other oddball marriages like 13 year olds, of which nobody will contend must be forced upon the states, except maybe gays and lesbians later on [See Harvey Milk Law in California]. Then DOMA concluded that gay marriage was only "allowed" "in some states".

True, technically and only to the most hopeful of rose-colored-glasses-wearers, the Court did not step up and say that states can forbid gay marriage. Yet they did say that though, didn't they? When they said that the choice on gay marriage was right and proper in the states, dating back to the founding of our country, and the decision was to be "consensus" among the governed, they did say a state has the right to say no to gay marriage, at least at the time of the writing of DOMA. The Utah challenge will clarify what their stance is now. Though I must warn you, the Court doesn't like to reverse it's own stance, express or implied within just a year's time. Traditionally I think that's never happened? Not a Supreme Court history expert.

When they said "consensus", did you think they meant "only the right for everyone to agree and no dissent?" A consensus in this country means that everybody gets to weigh in and that they have a choice on how they weigh in. "Consensus" does not mean "no choice". It is the opposite meaning in fact. And of a choice where "yes" and "no" exist, both are valid in a consensus.

The dictionary I think more than any other "legal document" is going to get in the way of the Harvey Milk club in convincing legal arguments...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fact #1: Windsor did not settle the question of whether States can say "no", it only addressed whether Federal government has to recognize Civil Marriage from States that said "Yes".

Fact #2: Windsor had no impact on Prop 8 (which is typically your other attempt to mis-apply Windsor), Prop 8 was found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed it to stand by not vacating the District Courts decision.

Fact #3: It will be a different case (possibly Utah) in which the SCOTUS addresses whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.

Fact #4: You cherry-picking and out of context quotes are an attempt to mis-state what the court said. The court said the States have the "unquestioned authority" to say "yes" and the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages. They specifically didn't say that States have "unquestioned authority" to say "No", but that State Civil Marriage laws were still subject to Constitutional guarantees. If States have the "unquestioned authority" to define Civil Marriage as they see fit, then the court would not have overturned State marriage bans in the Loving case. Since they did, that shows the court recognizes there are constitutional limits on how State Civil Marriage laws can function.[/indent][/indent]
>>>>

Not cherry picking at all. In fact it was you who cherry picked just one paragraph from DOMA while I provided 6 of them all in alliance with the "states have the ultimate say..since the founding of our nation" theme.

Sure you are as you ignore the fact that all the quotes are subject (as the court said) to "constitutional guarantees".

You're being dishonest when you don't tell the whole story about how states can come to a decision on gay marriage.

States have come to decisions on Same-sex Civil Marriage based on:

1. Court decisions.

2. Legislative action.

3. Constitutional Amendments at the ballot.​

I've never been dishonest about how States have arrived at their decisions.

1. DOMA says it prefers consensus to judicial or legislative activism.

"Activisim" is in the eye of the poster, in this case "activism" means (and I paraphrase) - "an action or decision I disagree with".

You tout "consensus" and now refer to "legislative activism". You may realize it by the Windsor case - the one you continually misrepresent - was based on legislative action not a direct vote. Actions which the court referred to as the state demonstrating a consensus.

2. After reiterating state's right to choose under the context of gay marriage, I don't know, maybe a hundred times? Just shy of that possibly?...DOMA mentioned Loving, other oddball marriages like 13 year olds, of which nobody will contend must be forced upon the states, except maybe gays and lesbians later on [See Harvey Milk Law in California].

Except that's not what the decision does. What the Windsor decision does is say that if a State accepts Same-sex Civil Marriage, then the Federal government can't say "no" to those legal marriages.

Funny thing is, that all States accept the legal Civil Marriages from other states (including one in which a 13 year old in New Hampshire [where a 13 can get married] and moves to another state) EXCEPT for Civil Marriage based on gender. All the others are accepted.

Then DOMA concluded that gay marriage was only "allowed" "in some states".

Windsor simply pointed out that it was allowed in certain states and not allowed in others. Which is a true statement reflecting the current status of SSCM.

Whether states will continue to be allowed to ban SSCM's will be another case. Historically prior to 1967 interracial marriage was allowed in some states but not others. That changed.

they did say a state has the right to say no to gay marriage, at least at the time of the writing of DOMA.

False, they said that if a State said "yes" the Federal government could not say "no".

Windsor did not address whether States could constitutionally say "No".

The Utah challenge will clarify what their stance is now.

Technically it would clarify anything as the court has not ruled on a States ability to discriminate in terms of Civil Marriage laws based on gender.

It would be establishing an initial stance.

Though I must warn you, the Court doesn't like to reverse it's own stance, express or implied within just a year's time. Traditionally I think that's never happened? Not a Supreme Court history expert.

Since they have not issued a ruling on the matter, no reversal in involved.



>>>>

 

[beagle9]

The feds need to get out of the marriage issue period, and all other non-federal affairs that exist in this nation, and I mean quickly, because it is corrupt in it's twisted thinking now on such matters (IMHO), and it is corrupting this nation more and more with it's misrepresentation of this nation's citizens on many of these things in which it is weighing in on here and/or there.

It has no business dealing with such things anyway or it has no business being used by those who are using the feds on such maters as these in which it finds itself dealing with these days, and all because of being easily used ? Wow! Hey and their doing it for what, a few who want to be different, and for whom want to go against the grain ? They are thwarting the will of the people in this nation at every turn now, and that is tyranny pure and simple if you ask me.

The feds have been taken over by radicals who control it in many ways, and it is proven in all that has transpired over the recent years. It has been led to parse words, reinterpret words, and to play politics with everything in order to try and tune in on what it thinks is the next up and coming voter block, and if a group is being held back as an up and coming voter block in which they THINK numbers many, then it will weigh in on an issue in order to insure that block is not hindered in it's growth in any way. The feds are drunken with power now, and they are using this power in unprecedented ways against the good citizens of this nation, and it does this all because of a mere few who handle her in these ways now ? Wow what has happened to this nation ?

The people see it, but they feel they are powerless against it now, and that is a shame really.

Let the people speak, and then become strong together in a United way again in this nation, that is what I say about it. The feds need to quit forcing this nation to become something it does not want to become. Hey nothing wrong with refereeing a bit or making sure that the laws are abided by, but let the people ultimately decide their own fate on some uncharted matters being dealt with, and especially if that fate is good for the majority whom want their fate to be what it is for them as a majority, and not thwarted by a minority in order to bend for the few who are in numbers that are too few to even consider major changes for. This is the way it should be while being in and amongst the many who want something different in their lives, otherwise as opposed to what the radicals or those who are too few to count want in their scheme of things. Shouldn't a majority have some say in their lives or is that over now in this taken over nation by a minority view, in which rules it now as a minority (by way of the feds), in order to empower such views that it has these days over the majority as it were ? Abiding by laws is one thing, but the feds are taking this to levels that are ridiculous anymore if you ask me.
I hope it wakes up soon, because it shouldn't be used like this if you ask me, and it needs to make a stand against being used like this in the ways that it is now being used.

 

[Seawytch]

Why is marriage a conservative concept??

Really?

Think about it. You know I'm right.

This is probably the most brilliant point ever made on this board.

civil unions are a conservative concept also....one probably 75% or more of the country would agree with.....but apparently that isnt good enough.

If we really want to do this right government has to get out of marriage and NO tax benefits should be based on relationship status

Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional.

No it isn't.

It is a State right to define marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional.

No it isn't.

It is a State right to define marriage.

How well did that work for Alabama?


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional.

No it isn't.

It is a State right to define marriage.

How well did that work for Alabama?


>>>>

Alabama ?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional."

Who knows. Perhaps the 97% will amend the Constitution or otherwise render homosexuality as (constitutionally) illegal and therefore negate the present argument, if you push 'em too far.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No it isn't.

It is a State right to define marriage.

How well did that work for Alabama?


>>>>

Alabama ?

Yes, they were one of the States that had a Constitutional Amendment overturned by the Loving decision in 1967.

They defined, in their State Constitution, that marriage could not occur across racial lines.


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

How well did that work for Alabama?


>>>>

Alabama ?

Yes, they were one of the States that had a Constitutional Amendment overturned by the Loving decision in 1967.

They defined, in their State Constitution, that marriage could not occur across racial lines.


>>>>

Race is a protected qualifier.

They ghey is not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Alabama ?

Yes, they were one of the States that had a Constitutional Amendment overturned by the Loving decision in 1967.

They defined, in their State Constitution, that marriage could not occur across racial lines.


>>>>

Race is a protected qualifier.

They ghey is not.

Where does the Constitution list these "protected qualifiers"?


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes, they were one of the States that had a Constitutional Amendment overturned by the Loving decision in 1967.

They defined, in their State Constitution, that marriage could not occur across racial lines.


>>>>

Race is a protected qualifier.

They ghey is not.

Where does the Constitution list these "protected qualifiers"?


>>>>

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

 

[WorldWatcher]

Race is a protected qualifier.

They ghey is not.

Where does the Constitution list these "protected qualifiers"?


>>>>

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Oh you mean these "protected qualifiers" - they aren't in the Constitution?

Here's one for you...

"Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

No qualifiers in the Constitution to equal protection & due process.

BTW - Check Romer v. Evans, Colorado tried to pass discriminatory law against homosexuals. How'd that work out?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Gotta get on the road.

Be back later.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

>

Gotta get on the road.

Be back later.


>>>>

Be safe, Chief.

 

[Seawytch]

"...Civil unions would be fine...if they applied to everyone gay or straight. Legal marriage for you and civil union for me is unconstitutional."

Who knows. Perhaps the 97% will amend the Constitution or otherwise render homosexuality as (constitutionally) illegal and therefore negate the present argument, if you push 'em too far.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

There isn't a will. Try Russia