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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
When a law infringes upon a constitutional right, no, there can be no vote. Our rights are nut subject to popular will. That was kind of the whole purpose of a constitution and including in it an enumeration of certain rights.feel free to provide a link.
but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.
i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.
there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.
but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.
Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:
Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com
that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.
marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.
I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.
The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.
So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.
You might want to research things before calling someone else stupid;I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.
Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.
You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.
Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.
Yes. You really are that kind of stupid. I didn't believe anyone could be but you have proven me wrong. What an idiot.
According to the Notary Bulletin:
"Here comes the Notary. Maybe. Two states — Minnesota and Indiana — have recently proposed legislation that would permit Notaries to perform wedding ceremonies. If passed, those states would join Maine, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada as the only jurisdictions to allow Notaries to legally join two people in marriage." So, six states permit notaries to marry couples. Who feels stupid now?
We don't elect Justices. They are appointed and approved. So much for your knowledge of the Constitution.This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.
Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.
The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.
Congrats, you got me in a typo.
change it to "appoint"
enjoy your "win".
Saying "elected" instead of "appointed" is NOT a typo......it's a basic misunderstand as to how our Supreme Court Justices are put on the Court.We don't elect Justices. They are appointed and approved. So much for your knowledge of the Constitution.This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.
Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.
The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.
Congrats, you got me in a typo.
change it to "appoint"
enjoy your "win".
They were made null and void because they passed a law that was not constitutional. If Kentucky passed a law stating that Muslims could not marry non-Muslims, would that be constitutional?Kentucky has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. They destroyed the marriage institution a long, long, long time ago.It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.
What has that at all to do with the facts that the votes of the people of Kentucky were made null and void? They say gasoline is cheaper in Louisiana than it is in Florida but that has no bearing on the discussion either.
When a law infringes upon a constitutional right, no, there can be no vote. Our rights are nut subject to popular will. That was kind of the whole purpose of a constitution and including in it an enumeration of certain rights.Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:
Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com
that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.
marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.
I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.
The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.
So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.
It was on the state's ballots because a couple of state Courts had found that gay people had the right to marry and there was a rush to pass legislation to deny the rights of gay people to marry. That and to create a wedge issue to aid Republicans in improving turnout.So...the Court, instead of Loving v. Virginia should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow inter-racial marriage or not? And not force all states to recognize any valid marriage license from another state?They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.
The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.
Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.
The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.
That's the way it has been done for years. Why else do you think the issue has been on most all of the states ballots?
They were made null and void because they passed a law that was not constitutional. If Kentucky passed a law stating that Muslims could not marry non-Muslims, would that be constitutional?Kentucky has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. They destroyed the marriage institution a long, long, long time ago.It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.
What has that at all to do with the facts that the votes of the people of Kentucky were made null and void? They say gasoline is cheaper in Louisiana than it is in Florida but that has no bearing on the discussion either.
Let me ask you....if you marry your 12 year old cousin in one state (ugh)...then move to another state..........are you still married? Yes or no?marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.
Wrong.
When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?
That's federal.
When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?
That's federal gifts you are accepting.
When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?
That's federal cash and prizes.
The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.
The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
You posted this: "You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage." That statement is wrong. Being a notary does not make one eligible to perform a marriage in all but six states. In 44, notaries cannot perform marriages.You might want to research things before calling someone else stupid;Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.
You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.
Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.
Yes. You really are that kind of stupid. I didn't believe anyone could be but you have proven me wrong. What an idiot.
According to the Notary Bulletin:
"Here comes the Notary. Maybe. Two states — Minnesota and Indiana — have recently proposed legislation that would permit Notaries to perform wedding ceremonies. If passed, those states would join Maine, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada as the only jurisdictions to allow Notaries to legally join two people in marriage." So, six states permit notaries to marry couples. Who feels stupid now?
You should. It proved you wrong, not me.
Or Robert Bork?Wanna bet he says Andrew Napolitano.Name one for us.Justices are not just appointed...they are approved by the Senate......part of our checks and balances. And who do you have in mind as a "better Justice"?That's how the system works per the Constitution. What better plan do you have?
Appoint better justices than the 4.5 progressive asshats we have now.
Yes, they are appointed. They are not elected. Approval is part of being appointed.
A better Justice to me a strict constructional federalist.
marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.
Wrong.
When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?
That's federal.
When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?
That's federal gifts you are accepting.
When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?
That's federal cash and prizes.
The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.
The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
Apparently, the end of the world is near. Drama Drama Drama.marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.
Wrong.
When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?
That's federal.
When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?
That's federal gifts you are accepting.
When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?
That's federal cash and prizes.
The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.
The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
puleeze...
If one is overly fussy about their beliefs on who can legally marry and who cannot.....especially if their fussiness is based on their religion......they should work for a church, not the government."Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
There are vot4es on many laws that are later determined to be unconstitutional. That is how our system works. The legislative branch passes a bill,When a law infringes upon a constitutional right, no, there can be no vote. Our rights are nut subject to popular will. That was kind of the whole purpose of a constitution and including in it an enumeration of certain rights.that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.
marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.
I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.
The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.
So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.
Well, they've been having votes on it for quite some time now. Go figure.
And....?It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.
We are discussing equal protection of the law and its application to state marriage laws. Sorry if the argument is at a level beyond your comprehension.They were made null and void because they passed a law that was not constitutional. If Kentucky passed a law stating that Muslims could not marry non-Muslims, would that be constitutional?Kentucky has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. They destroyed the marriage institution a long, long, long time ago.It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.
They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.
What has that at all to do with the facts that the votes of the people of Kentucky were made null and void? They say gasoline is cheaper in Louisiana than it is in Florida but that has no bearing on the discussion either.
Are eggs cheaper in China or in Japan? Oh the need to argue about anything.
I think that's high... but it's also meaningless since constitutional rights aren't subject to a vote... as you should know from brown v bd of ed...
No it is not high. That's exactly what the vote was. It has traditionally been up to vote. Nearly all states have voted on the issue. Some states voted for same sex marriage while the voters in other states voted against it in their states. It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
feel free to provide a link.
but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.
i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.
there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.
but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.
Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:
Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com
that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.
marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.
I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.
Let me ask you....if you marry your 12 year old cousin in one state (ugh)...then move to another state..........are you still married? Yes or no?marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.
Wrong.
When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?
That's federal.
When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?
That's federal gifts you are accepting.
When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?
That's federal cash and prizes.
The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.
The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.
The Kentucky clerk was jailed for contempt of court after she refused to do her job which included issuing marriage licenses for gay AND straight couples. Two of the couples who ran to the judge for relief were straight couples. You need to read up on the facts instead of propaganda."Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.
Let's go back five decades and rewrite your post:
"It will prevent the primary goal of the interracial marriage community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone."
Same bullshit, different decade.
No it isn't. The Kentucky clerk was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. That need never happen again once all states adopt the form method that Alabama has proposed.
