I find it very disturbing

[Skylar]

If you consider yourself a "small government" kind of guy, you just sold yourself down the river. Unless it harms others, it is NOT the business of the government to dictate what is normal and acceptable. Get it yet?

many believe that gay marriage, polygamy, and other forms of marriage would harm society as a whole. All I want is for society as a whole to make that decision.'

why do you fear the will of the people?

Because in this nation we have something called the Constitution. We don't toss it out a window when we find it inconvenient.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

With the USSC overturning DOMA's SSM prohibitions, preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, and denying every stay requested by those states seeking to defend gay marriage bans....

......how do you think they're going to rule?

 

[Skylar]

I get it, you don't give a shit what society considers normal and acceptable. you are an anything-goes kind of guy. Ok, great. We just disagree. Lets move on.

I get you consider freedom your right to do as you please and my right to do as you please. So we certainly will disagree and I am fine with moving on.

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

 

[dblack]

many believe that gay marriage, polygamy, and other forms of marriage would harm society as a whole. All I want is for society as a whole to make that decision.'

why do you fear the will of the people?

Seriously?

yes, very seriously. The majority of humans on planet earth are opposed to gay marriage.

No. I mean, seriously, do you have to ask why someone would have cause to fear the will of the people?

 

[PratchettFan]

If you consider yourself a "small government" kind of guy, you just sold yourself down the river. Unless it harms others, it is NOT the business of the government to dictate what is normal and acceptable. Get it yet?

many believe that gay marriage, polygamy, and other forms of marriage would harm society as a whole. All I want is for society as a whole to make that decision.'

why do you fear the will of the people?

Because in this nation we have something called the Constitution. We don't toss it out a window when we find it inconvenient.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

This is a legal issue, not a moral one. You can think it is right or wrong as you please. The only issue now is can a same sex couple be denied the same right to marry as a different sex couple. Which ever way the Court goes is the way the nation will go. That is how it works under the Constitution. Ultimately, I don't think it matters which way they go. The states are already changing and if a majority of people aren't already in favor of it, they will be in the next 20 years as the old folkies die off. And I say that as an old folkie. I think it would be best if they speed up the inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact it is inevitable.

 

[Redfish]

many believe that gay marriage, polygamy, and other forms of marriage would harm society as a whole. All I want is for society as a whole to make that decision.'

why do you fear the will of the people?

Because in this nation we have something called the Constitution. We don't toss it out a window when we find it inconvenient.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

With the USSC overturning DOMA's SSM prohibitions, preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, and denying every stay requested by those states seeking to defend gay marriage bans....

......how do you think they're going to rule?

I don't know, do you?

 

[Skylar]

Because in this nation we have something called the Constitution. We don't toss it out a window when we find it inconvenient.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

With the USSC overturning DOMA's SSM prohibitions, preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, and denying every stay requested by those states seeking to defend gay marriage bans....

......how do you think they're going to rule?

I don't know, do you?

'Know' isn't what I asked you. 'Think' was. And I certainly have an opinion. What's yours?

 

[Redfish]

I get you consider freedom your right to do as you please and my right to do as you please. So we certainly will disagree and I am fine with moving on.

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

 

[Redfish]

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

With the USSC overturning DOMA's SSM prohibitions, preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, and denying every stay requested by those states seeking to defend gay marriage bans....

......how do you think they're going to rule?

I don't know, do you?

'Know' isn't what I asked you. 'Think' was. And I certainly have an opinion. What's yours?

my opinion is I don't know. I thought they would rule against obamacare, so I can't predict what they will do on this.

 

[Skylar]

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

Nope. If a state passes a law that abrogates rights, regardless of if is supported by the majority, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. At the very least.

We're a constitutional republic. And the constitutional part is where your argument breaks. As you're describing the tyranny of the majority. Where with a 50% plus 1 vote, any individual can be stripped of any right.

That's not our system. Nor was it ever. We've always protected rights, placing them above the power of government to abrogate. Though this began as an prohibition against Federal abrogation and later grew to a prohibition of State abrogation.

You did give us a lovely window into how YOU think this country should work though.

 

[Skylar]

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

With the USSC overturning DOMA's SSM prohibitions, preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, and denying every stay requested by those states seeking to defend gay marriage bans....

......how do you think they're going to rule?

I don't know, do you?

'Know' isn't what I asked you. 'Think' was. And I certainly have an opinion. What's yours?

my opinion is I don't know. I thought they would rule against obamacare, so I can't predict what they will do on this.

Fair enough. Though if you'd like a very informed perspective on the matter, read Scalia's dissent in Windsor. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'.

 

[Redfish]

many believe that gay marriage, polygamy, and other forms of marriage would harm society as a whole. All I want is for society as a whole to make that decision.'

why do you fear the will of the people?

Because in this nation we have something called the Constitution. We don't toss it out a window when we find it inconvenient.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

This is a legal issue, not a moral one. You can think it is right or wrong as you please. The only issue now is can a same sex couple be denied the same right to marry as a different sex couple. Which ever way the Court goes is the way the nation will go. That is how it works under the Constitution. Ultimately, I don't think it matters which way they go. The states are already changing and if a majority of people aren't already in favor of it, they will be in the next 20 years as the old folkies die off. And I say that as an old folkie. I think it would be best if they speed up the inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact it is inevitable.

if its such a done deal, lets do a constitutional amendment and settle it once an for all, get 38 states to ratify that two people of the same sex or opposite sex can marry. that would stop the polygamists, the sibling marriers, and all the other kooks.

lets do it.

 

[Redfish]

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

Nope. If a state passes a law that abrogates rights, regardless of if is supported by the majority, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. At the very least.

We're a constitutional republic. And the constitutional part is where your argument breaks. As you're describing the tyranny of the majority. Where with a 50% plus 1 vote, any individual can be stripped of any right.

That's not our system. Nor was it ever. We've always protected rights, placing them above the power of government to abrogate. Though this began as an prohibition against Federal abrogation and later grew to a prohibition of State abrogation.

You did give us a lovely window into how YOU think this country should work though.

was the 14th amendment put in place by majority vote? yes or no

 

[Skylar]

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

Nope. If a state passes a law that abrogates rights, regardless of if is supported by the majority, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. At the very least.

We're a constitutional republic. And the constitutional part is where your argument breaks. As you're describing the tyranny of the majority. Where with a 50% plus 1 vote, any individual can be stripped of any right.

That's not our system. Nor was it ever. We've always protected rights, placing them above the power of government to abrogate. Though this began as an prohibition against Federal abrogation and later grew to a prohibition of State abrogation.

You did give us a lovely window into how YOU think this country should work though.

was the 14th amendment put in place by majority vote? yes or no

A 3/4ths majority of States, yes. But that's not what we're describing in a State law that prohibits marriage, is it?

An individual state doesn't have the authority to abrogate any right.

 

[Skylar]

Because in this nation we have something called the Constitution. We don't toss it out a window when we find it inconvenient.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

This is a legal issue, not a moral one. You can think it is right or wrong as you please. The only issue now is can a same sex couple be denied the same right to marry as a different sex couple. Which ever way the Court goes is the way the nation will go. That is how it works under the Constitution. Ultimately, I don't think it matters which way they go. The states are already changing and if a majority of people aren't already in favor of it, they will be in the next 20 years as the old folkies die off. And I say that as an old folkie. I think it would be best if they speed up the inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact it is inevitable.

if its such a done deal, lets do a constitutional amendment and settle it once an for all, get 38 states to ratify that two people of the same sex or opposite sex can marry. that would stop the polygamists, the sibling marriers, and all the other kooks.

lets do it.

Give that gay marriage is already legal in 37 of 50 States.....why would an amendment be necessary? Recognition by the judiciary works just as well.

 

[PratchettFan]

I can't seem to get this across to you, though I keep saying it. It is none of my business. My approval is irrelevant. Do you need my approval to live as you deem right?

I get it, you don't give a shit what society considers normal and acceptable. you are an anything-goes kind of guy. Ok, great. We just disagree. Lets move on.

I get you consider freedom your right to do as you please and my right to do as you please. So we certainly will disagree and I am fine with moving on.

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

No, it wasn't. It was done by the various governments of the states. But even if you were right, that does not mean we ignore the Constitution when it suits you. The process is there and that is what we are going to use, whether you approve or not.

 

[PratchettFan]

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

No, they can't. That may be the way a democracy works but we are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't they teach civics in your high school?

 

[PratchettFan]

Because in this nation we have something called the Constitution. We don't toss it out a window when we find it inconvenient.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

This is a legal issue, not a moral one. You can think it is right or wrong as you please. The only issue now is can a same sex couple be denied the same right to marry as a different sex couple. Which ever way the Court goes is the way the nation will go. That is how it works under the Constitution. Ultimately, I don't think it matters which way they go. The states are already changing and if a majority of people aren't already in favor of it, they will be in the next 20 years as the old folkies die off. And I say that as an old folkie. I think it would be best if they speed up the inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact it is inevitable.

if its such a done deal, lets do a constitutional amendment and settle it once an for all, get 38 states to ratify that two people of the same sex or opposite sex can marry. that would stop the polygamists, the sibling marriers, and all the other kooks.

lets do it.

No. We have a process in place. We don't need to amend the Constitution every time an issue arises. It is the basis of our republic and you don't mess with it unnecessarily.

 

[Redfish]

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

Nope. If a state passes a law that abrogates rights, regardless of if is supported by the majority, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. At the very least.

We're a constitutional republic. And the constitutional part is where your argument breaks. As you're describing the tyranny of the majority. Where with a 50% plus 1 vote, any individual can be stripped of any right.

That's not our system. Nor was it ever. We've always protected rights, placing them above the power of government to abrogate. Though this began as an prohibition against Federal abrogation and later grew to a prohibition of State abrogation.

You did give us a lovely window into how YOU think this country should work though.

was the 14th amendment put in place by majority vote? yes or no

A 3/4ths majority of States, yes. But that's not what we're describing in a State law that prohibits marriage, is it?

An individual state doesn't have the authority to abrogate any right.

the question is whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right. that is what they will be deciding.

 

[Redfish]

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

This is a legal issue, not a moral one. You can think it is right or wrong as you please. The only issue now is can a same sex couple be denied the same right to marry as a different sex couple. Which ever way the Court goes is the way the nation will go. That is how it works under the Constitution. Ultimately, I don't think it matters which way they go. The states are already changing and if a majority of people aren't already in favor of it, they will be in the next 20 years as the old folkies die off. And I say that as an old folkie. I think it would be best if they speed up the inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact it is inevitable.

if its such a done deal, lets do a constitutional amendment and settle it once an for all, get 38 states to ratify that two people of the same sex or opposite sex can marry. that would stop the polygamists, the sibling marriers, and all the other kooks.

lets do it.

Give that gay marriage is already legal in 37 of 50 States.....why would an amendment be necessary? Recognition by the judiciary works just as well.

an amendment would limit marriage to two adults, without that the door would be open for all forms of marriage---polygamy, siblings, parent/child, etc.

 

[Redfish]

please quote where the words "gay marriage" appear in the constitution. Or, failing that, give us a quote from any of the founders saying that gay marriage should be a right of US citizens.

I really wish people would read the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a process to resolve disputes under the Constitution. That process does not include "letting the people decide". You can scour the document all you like and you are not going to find that phrase anywhere. SSM is a dispute and it is being handled in accordance with the Constitution. The Court will decide this, just as is laid out in the Constitution.

the SC will decide if state laws regarding SSM are constitutional. not if gay marriage is right.

This is a legal issue, not a moral one. You can think it is right or wrong as you please. The only issue now is can a same sex couple be denied the same right to marry as a different sex couple. Which ever way the Court goes is the way the nation will go. That is how it works under the Constitution. Ultimately, I don't think it matters which way they go. The states are already changing and if a majority of people aren't already in favor of it, they will be in the next 20 years as the old folkies die off. And I say that as an old folkie. I think it would be best if they speed up the inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact it is inevitable.

if its such a done deal, lets do a constitutional amendment and settle it once an for all, get 38 states to ratify that two people of the same sex or opposite sex can marry. that would stop the polygamists, the sibling marriers, and all the other kooks.

lets do it.

No. We have a process in place. We don't need to amend the Constitution every time an issue arises. It is the basis of our republic and you don't mess with it unnecessarily.

then why do we have any constitutional amendments? they were put in place to clear up disagreements on issues just like this.

the will of the people was ignored twice in california on gay marriage, that is not right or constitutional.