I find it very disturbing

[Seawytch]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

Explain how Turner v Safley plays into your narrative.

Turner v. Safley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Redfish]

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

 

[Redfish]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.

depends on the definition of marriage.

 

[PratchettFan]

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

No. Only what is legal and illegal.

 

[bodecea]

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.

depends on the definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage was once between two people of the same race. We know SCOTUS' response to that. We shall have to see what happens.

 

[bodecea]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.

depends on the definition of marriage.

The legal definition of marriage is what matters when we are talking legal, civil marriage.

 

[Liminal]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

 

[Redfish]

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

 

[Liminal]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

Explain how Turner v Safley plays into your narrative.

Turner v. Safley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't have a narrative, I leave that to really smart people like you.

 

[Redfish]

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.

depends on the definition of marriage.

The legal definition of marriage is what matters when we are talking legal, civil marriage.

since the constitution is silent on marriage, then we need a constitutional amendment to define what marriage means and who can participate in it.

why do you fear letting the people decide?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Of course they can make a ruling in conflict with existing law. They do that just about every time they make a ruling. If they decide in favor of SSM they will be in conflict with quite a lot of laws. They were in conflict with law in the Hobby Lobby case. That is what they do. And the only organization which can keep the SCOTUS within its Constitutional limits is SCOTUS. At least if we are going to follow the Constitution.

I misspoke, I should have said that the SC cannot render a decision that is in conflict with the constitution. The problem is that the SC is the one that makes that determination and the fact that the SC has become nothing but a political pawn rather than the independent body it was intended to be.

“Intended to be” according to whom?

The Supreme Court is acting now has intended by the Framers, as authorized by Articles III and VI, in accordance with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, its rulings don't 'conflict' with the Constitution because its rulings are the Constitution, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

You and others on the right weren't whining about the Supreme Court being 'wrong' and a “political pawn” when it ruled in Heller, McDonald, or Citizens United.

The Constitution isn't a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick and chose the rights you like and ignore the rights you don't; the same is true with regard to decisions made by the Supreme Court – if the Second Amendment recognizes the right of an individual to possess a firearm, then the 14th Amendment likewise recognizes the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law, including marriage law.

 

[Seawytch]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

Again please explain the SCOTUS ruling Turner v Safley. (Marriage was declared a fundamental right in Turner v Safley)

 

[Liminal]

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

Again please explain the SCOTUS ruling Turner v Safley. (Marriage was declared a fundamental right in Turner v Safley)

Why don't you feel free to educate me, I haven't had time to study for your quiz.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.

depends on the definition of marriage.

The legal definition of marriage is what matters when we are talking legal, civil marriage.

since the constitution is silent on marriage, then we need a constitutional amendment to define what marriage means and who can participate in it.

why do you fear letting the people decide?

The Constitution is not 'silent' on marriage; the Supreme Court has made several rulings determining that marriage is a fundamental right in accordance with the Constitution, consequently no 'amendments' are needed.

The Supreme Court has also held that gay Americans are entitled to Constitutional protections, including due process and equal protection of the law, which is why the Federal courts are invalidating measures seeking to violate those rights concerning access to marriage law.

Again, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, where the rights of citizens are not determined by 'majority rule.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

LIMINAL SAID:

“Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.”

Incorrect.

No one is 'pretending' anything.

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, these laws can accommodate two equal, consenting adult partners who are not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite sex.

The 14th Amendment requires that the states afford all persons in the states access to all of a state's laws, that could be African-Americans' right to vote in accordance with a state's elections laws, or same-sex couples with regard to a state's marriage law.

The state may not seek to disadvantage persons residing in the states based solely on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. The same fundamental principles of Constitutional jurisprudence that ended segregation and poll taxes also apply to measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Consequently no one is comparing the experience of African-Americans with that of gay Americans; rather, the nature of the discrimination by the state toward both are similar because both are equally repugnant to the Constitution.

That African-Americans were subject to criminal acts of discrimination infinitely more heinous and severe than that suffered by gay Americans is beyond dispute and not at issue; this does not mitigate the fact, however, that gay Americans are nonetheless subject to discrimination, discriminatory measures that are clearly un-Constitutional and subject to invalidation.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

It is entirely about marriage and who that right is afforded to under the constitution. In that way it is exactly the same as the fight over interracial marriages. Since that matter has been settled this will be soon as well.

People argued against interracial marriage using religious objections in much the same way as they are now. Do some reading on it.
It's very interesting. Here's a quote from a lower court judge upholding a ban.

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

 

[Skylar]

Marriage IS a civil right...you can pout about it all day long, but it is. Ergo, unless you've got some compelling legal reason why including gays in that civil right causes harm........the government cannot deny that civil right to gay citizens.

So....rant all you want. I'm sure, in some way, it makes you feel like you've got some say in this matter.

Marriage is NOT a Civil Right. Just because some blockheaded Judge says it is, doesn't mean it is.

Dred Scott.

As to the harm/gays question, it is incumbent on your side to show that allowing gay marriage will NOT cause the harm you address.

The burden is on your side.

Here's what your side is doing wrong.....

This is a new phenomenon. Big time and a big, big way.

Maybe it isn't to you. Cool, I can understand that. But here's a clue -- Try looking outside your own little circle once in a while and understand how the rest of us live

We don't think about gays or gay marriage that much.

If we do, it's because we're forced to think about it.

So we will. We should think about it.

But here's what you're doing wrong......

It took us 5,000 years to end slavery.

It took another 5,000 years to end the poor treatment of women (and that isn't working too well everywhere)

It took 2,700 years to give women the vote.

And you want the world to grant your wish to change the way it thinks about gays in ten years?

You're pushing too hard. You're doing more harm to your cause than good. You may think you're winning small victories but you're not. You're setting your cause back by being bullying and aggressive.

Trust me. You better learn to slow down and savor each little victory as it comes

Marriage is most definitely a civil right as has been determined in several SCOTUS decisions. Not just one, but several. You may not like it, in this case....heck you may not have liked in the case of Loving v. Virginia....but it is. It's established case las.

Loving was interracial marriage, not two people of the same sex. Loving does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

Absolutely. There is no sin against interracial marriages. Moses married Zipporah ( a black woman) and I believe the LORD found his wife for him and knew she would be a great blessing to him. Race is of God -created of God - while - homosexuality is not.

You're missing the point. Its not whether there's a sin. Its whether someone *believes* there is a sin. The court doesn't weight if a particular theological position is merited. They merely recognize that the theological position exists.

And religion was *long* used as justification for interracial marriage bans. Sometimes, in court. By the judges:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Leon Bazilel ruling against Richard and Mildred Loving

If we accept that religious belief allows someone to ignore civil law.....then civil law immediately becomes subjective and voluntary. Sharia law is immediately authoritative and overrides civil law. And religion can be used as a justification for summarily dismissing most statutes.

That's not our system.

 

[Skylar]

Damn. Hutch beat me to it.

 

[Skylar]

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It's a sin. To make gay marriage legal would be an abomination before God because America was dedicated to God when George Washington was President. America is already under the judgment of God. Are you looking to speed it up?

In your so-called religion, perhaps. But we have secular laws...and are not ruled by your (or anyone else's) religion. Just like we don't have laws against the sin of eating shellfish.

so-called? have your read the declaration of independence, the constitution, looked at our money which says " in God we trust" ? Whether you like it or not, this country was founded on judeo/Christian principles.

Blah blah blah....this is a secular country with secular laws. Deal with it.

our secular laws are based on judeo/Christian principles of right and wrong. Deal with it.

And the principles of the Enlightenment. Which powerfully temper religious doctrine in civil law. Your religious beliefs don't trump civil law. And when you look at the arguments of the fringe right on this issue, they're arguing for exactly that. For us to take their religion and to impose it upon the civil law.

No. We're not doing that.