It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I think that recognition by government of homosexual marriage is a violation of the religious freedom rights of others..

How?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

Obergefell does not require that you enter a same gender marriage. It doesn't even require you as an individual approve of same gender marriages.

 

[Boss]

Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I think that recognition by government of homosexual marriage is a violation of the religious freedom rights of others..

How?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

Obergefell does not require that you enter a same gender marriage. It doesn't even require you as an individual approve of same gender marriages.

Well it's obvious. It required Kim Davis to have to issue a license to do something she is religiously bound to reject and condemn. The law is now going to obligate others to be faced with the same problem. If you are a secular who has a very low moral bar, it is difficult to present you with an analogy to compare this to, but people are bound to their religious beliefs as a part of their religious exercise and when you've made laws which impinge on those beliefs there is a problem.

 

[David_42]

Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I think that recognition by government of homosexual marriage is a violation of the religious freedom rights of others..

How?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

Obergefell does not require that you enter a same gender marriage. It doesn't even require you as an individual approve of same gender marriages.

Well it's obvious. It required Kim Davis to have to issue a license to do something she is religiously bound to reject and condemn. The law is now going to obligate others to be faced with the same problem. If you are a secular who has a very low moral bar, it is difficult to present you with an analogy to compare this to, but people are bound to their religious beliefs as a part of their religious exercise and when you've made laws which impinge on those beliefs there is a problem.

Hey, you do realize satanists could use the same argument?

 

[Boss]

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

Again... what do we mean when we say "is constitutional"? Does it mean what SCOTUS currently, at the time, has ruled "is constitutional" or is it what actually adheres to the principles of the Constitution? Before a case and ruling, is a law not "constitutional" by virtue of being legitimately passed by Congress and having become law of the land? What about all the hundreds of laws which may or may not violate the rights of someone but the case has never reached the Supreme Court? Are those laws "constitutional" or could that be changed?

I have not argued the SCOTUS opinion is invalid, just that it's wrong. There are ways to render it irrelevant without an amendment. Those who think this ruling settles the issue once and for all and that "gay marriage IS constitutional" need to remember that what "is constitutional" amounts to a meaningless term. For now, it "is constitutional" but that can change and it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Homosexuality's been a percentage of every culture all along. People's inability to tolerate it seems to have a lot to do with accepting the reality that sexuality isn't as either/or as most would seem to prefer. Kinsey's 1's and 6's (all gay or straight) aren't the majority. Vast majority of a given population are some degree of bisexual. And this reality is why some have such a problem with homosexuality and sexuality in general. "That's kinda like me." And their impression of themselves as straight and 'normal' is challenged.

 

[Boss]

Hey, you do realize satanists could use the same argument?

Not really... as far as I know, we don't have laws which require Satanists to act in moral contradiction of their religion. If so, they should bring a case and see if they can get it appealed up to SCOTUS for a ruling.

 

[Boss]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Homosexuality's been a percentage of every culture all along. People's inability to tolerate it seems to have a lot to do with accepting the reality that sexuality isn't as either/or as most would seem to prefer. Kinsey's 1's and 6's (all gay or straight) aren't the majority. Vast majority of a given population are some degree of bisexual. And this reality is why some have such a problem with homosexuality and sexuality in general. "That's kinda like me." And their impression of themselves as straight and 'normal' is challenged.

What you raise is yet another aspect of all this that is often overlooked. There is a difference between your sexuality and your sexual behavior. You can be gay but not practice homosexual behavior. You can practice heterosexual behavior and be totally gay. You can be attracted to both sexes and be completely asexual. You can be hetero but bi-curious. You can be homo but bi-furious!

Trannys.. do they like other trannys? Do they like heterosexual men who like trannys? Do they like women? I'm a totally straight virile male who likes women but hey... if we're living in a new sexual revolution and I can get laid by dressing as a tranny, I might give that a shot! Get some tequila in me and show me the dresses mutherfuckers!

My whole problem with this entire issue is that "government in the bedroom" thing. I don't like the government being in the bedroom, even if it's to tell me that gay sex is okay. Because, what inevitably results is change and soon the government is in your bedroom telling you which positions are approved.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Homosexuality's been a percentage of every culture all along. People's inability to tolerate it seems to have a lot to do with accepting the reality that sexuality isn't as either/or as most would seem to prefer. Kinsey's 1's and 6's (all gay or straight) aren't the majority. Vast majority of a given population are some degree of bisexual. And this reality is why some have such a problem with homosexuality and sexuality in general. "That's kinda like me." And their impression of themselves as straight and 'normal' is challenged.

What you raise is yet another aspect of all this that is often overlooked. There is a difference between your sexuality and your sexual behavior. You can be gay but not practice homosexual behavior. You can practice heterosexual behavior and be totally gay. You can be attracted to both sexes and be completely asexual. You can be hetero but bi-curious. You can be homo but bi-furious!

Trannys.. do they like other trannys? Do they like heterosexual men who like trannys? Do they like women? I'm a totally straight virile male who likes women but hey... if we're living in a new sexual revolution and I can get laid by dressing as a tranny, I might give that a shot! Get some tequila in me and show me the dresses mutherfuckers!

My whole problem with this entire issue is that "government in the bedroom" thing. I don't like the government being in the bedroom, even if it's to tell me that gay sex is okay. Because, what inevitably results is change and soon the government is in your bedroom telling you which positions are approved.

Homo/Hetero.Bisexuality are all just words. Coined it's worth mentioning by a lunatic German back in the 19th century who maintained any sexual behaviours not done for reproductive was pathological. So maybe consider the source.

I assert sexual orientations don't even exist but rather we all belong to one nebulously defined "sexual" or "not sexual" category. As conditions and circumstances change, so too does a person's sexuality. As with prisoners. As when intoxicated. As with for money. But the word a person may choose to label themself with no more binds them to its definition than any other word does. Can say you're whatever orientation you like because at that moment it seems to fit. Then 20 years down the road you might change how you define yourself. So how objectively valid was the first term or the latter one? They're just words. They don't control us or turn us into automotons. We have sex with whoever's willing at a given moment, and that then is our sexuality. But given the right circumstance(s) we can have different sex as with same-sex sex the very next time we're sexual.

The words don't mean anything.

 

[Syriusly]

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

Again... what do we mean when we say "is constitutional"? Does it mean what SCOTUS currently, at the time, has ruled "is constitutional" or is it what actually adheres to the principles of the Constitution?.

Who determines what 'actually adheres to principles of the Constitution?

Sure you can think that State laws against mixed race marriage or same gender marriage were perfectly Constitutional- while others thought they were not. Some people thought state laws banning gun ownership were constitutional- and others felt such laws were not.

The Supreme Court is who determines what adheres to the principles of the Constitution- that is who is entrusted to make that decision in our system because there is ALWAYS disagreement about what is Constitutional.

We may not agree with the Courts decision- but it is always Constitutional at that time. Dred Scott was a horrible decision- but it was Constitutional.

So we changed the Constitution.

If Dred Scott was not Constitutional- we would have had no need to change the Constitution in regards to Dred Scott.

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I think that recognition by government of homosexual marriage is a violation of the religious freedom rights of others..

How?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage. Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

Obergefell does not require that you enter a same gender marriage. It doesn't even require you as an individual approve of same gender marriages.

Well it's obvious. It required Kim Davis to have to issue a license to do something she is religiously bound to reject and condemn. The law is now going to obligate others to be faced with the same problem..

And the religious freedom of gay couples?

It is much easier to argue that denying government recognition of same gender marriage was a violation of the religious freedom of gay couples who were married according to their own religion- but were denied the legal recognition of their marriage.

Why don't you care about their religious freedom?

 

[Syriusly]

Hey, you do realize satanists could use the same argument?

Not really... as far as I know, we don't have laws which require Satanists to act in moral contradiction of their religion. If so, they should bring a case and see if they can get it appealed up to SCOTUS for a ruling.

Anyone could make a plausible argument that almost any law violates their religion.
This is the problem with saying people should not have to obey laws that they say violates their religion.

There are Christian sects that believe that dancing is immoral. Would that mean such a Mayor could forbid dancing in a City because it would violate his or her religion? How about forbid the issuance of liquor licenses because he believes that drinking is a sin?

What about Muslim cab drivers who are obligated by law to transport blind passengers, but refuse blind passengers with guide dogs on religious grounds?

Can a judge refuse to sentence a murderer to death on religious grounds?

 

[Syriusly]

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

. For now, it "is constitutional" but that can change and it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment.

There are three ways to change something that you consider unconstutional

1. A constitutional amendment ala Dred Scott and the 13th and 14th Amendments
2. The Supreme Court reversing itself- something that no one can predict or effect or
3. Breaking the law

 

[Boss]

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

Again... what do we mean when we say "is constitutional"? Does it mean what SCOTUS currently, at the time, has ruled "is constitutional" or is it what actually adheres to the principles of the Constitution?.

Who determines what 'actually adheres to principles of the Constitution?

Sure you can think that State laws against mixed race marriage or same gender marriage were perfectly Constitutional- while others thought they were not. Some people thought state laws banning gun ownership were constitutional- and others felt such laws were not.

The Supreme Court is who determines what adheres to the principles of the Constitution- that is who is entrusted to make that decision in our system because there is ALWAYS disagreement about what is Constitutional.

We may not agree with the Courts decision- but it is always Constitutional at that time. Dred Scott was a horrible decision- but it was Constitutional.

So we changed the Constitution.

If Dred Scott was not Constitutional- we would have had no need to change the Constitution in regards to Dred Scott.

Well... Since Dred died in 1858, we didn't change the Constitution for his benefit. Seems to me I recall a rather massive Civil War that happened after Dred was dead, which was the impetus for change to the Constitution. Then, for the next 100 years, we "relied on SCOTUS to determine constitutionality" and had institutionalized segregation.

We can look back on some really awful SCOTUS rulings and wonder how such things could have been considered "in the spirit of constitutional principles" at all. In fact, in virtually every ruling there is a dissenting opinion which makes an argument against the ruling. This sometimes gives us insight into how a particular case was won or lost, what the other side of the coin was... because there is almost always other constitutional rights in play.

Very often, the SCOTUS is not simply deciding a case based on one specific constitutional right, it involves several and from various perspectives and parties. It would be impossible to have every law on the books never infringe on anyone's constitutional rights ever. The SCOTUS could never issue a ruling if they were charged with ensuring everyone's constitutional rights were respected. Very often, their ruling is a case where constitutional rights collide. You believe you have a right and I believe I have a right, and the SCOTUS determines which one of us has the more important right. It's not guaranteed they get it right.

Sure you can think that State laws against mixed race marriage or same gender marriage were perfectly Constitutional- while others thought they were not.

And SCOTUS rulings don't always resolve these issues. That is my point. Obviously, mixed race marriages were banned for many years after the 14th Amendment and I'm sure SCOTUS rejected many cases through the years contesting this. Some cases may have never made it that far, they were shot down at the appeals level and never reached SCOTUS. That is what makes cases like Dred Scott so important... it represents more than a single case that made it to the SCOTUS where the court made a ruling. It represents hundreds of cases that never made it that far, thousands of cases that were never brought, millions of people who were denied their constitutional rights for many years. It also illustrates how even the SCOTUS, with all it's wisdom and understanding of the Constitution, can still get it totally wrong.

 

[Boss]

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Actually a Supreme Court ruling cannot by definition violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can be wrong- I think the Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but their opinion is still valid- and the reason why the only way to overturn Citizen's United is by a Constitutional Amendment is because the Supreme Court's ruling interprets the Constitution- and once it is interpreted- only another ruling- or a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

. For now, it "is constitutional" but that can change and it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment.

There are three ways to change something that you consider unconstutional

1. A constitutional amendment ala Dred Scott and the 13th and 14th Amendments
2. The Supreme Court reversing itself- something that no one can predict or effect or
3. Breaking the law

Again, you are missing some other ways. Congressional legislation can create another case which the SCOTUS could render a ruling that supersedes a previous ruling. We can look at CRA for examples of this. After Civil Rights passed in '64, people could make a discrimination argument they couldn't make before. This changes the nature of a previous ruling issued in absence of that legislation. The court doesn't have to "reverse" a previous decision, the new ruling simply supersedes it.

Also, another unrelated case can be brought regarding constitutional rights effected by the results of a ruling. Perhaps it is something the court overlooked in their previous ruling or they didn't address adequately?

Finally, the Congress can enact legislation which renders a SCOTUS ruling irrelevant. Let's make a hypothetical using "gay marriage" for example... If Congress passed legislation rendering "marriage" obsolete from a government perspective, no longer recognizing ANY kind of marriage... it's no longer possible to "discriminate against gays" or anyone else, since marriage doesn't exist anymore in the eyes of government. For the record, I think something like this will eventually be what we have.

 

[EverCurious]

In other words; We forced you to play with us, but you're not playing the way we want so we're taking our ball (marriage) and going home!

Not that I care particularly. I'd be fine with another "name" for "marriage" as a "legal" binding of two people to more easily allocate various "couples rights."

 

[Pop23]

In other words; We forced you to play with us, but you're not playing the way we want so we're taking our ball (marriage) and going home!

Not that I care particularly. I'd be fine with another "name" for "marriage" as a "legal" binding of two people to more easily allocate various "couples rights."

Probably right

Ever wonder why marriage was the formation of a new family where none previously existed?

The answer is pretty obvious, but now absurd.

 

[EverCurious]

Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe... I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)

Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit.

Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans. Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now... Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing. It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway. Sad.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe... I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)

Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit.

Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans. Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now... Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing. It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway. Sad.

I don't completely disagree, but if a law exist, the call it what it is, simply a financial tool, like an LLC or S corp.

The argument that marriage creates a family where none other previously existed (so the State would not then be sanctioning incest, and damaged bloodlines) is absurd when many that could marry, for financial reasons, could not procreate, and many others would never think of having intercourse with each other.

See, some of us argue the point without a religious basis. None is actually needed. In its present form, the institution is absurd.

 

[Boss]

Marriage in "theory" has pretty much existed throughout history, in every society and religion, but the "specific term" marriage is a religious construct and the "legal" shit got attached to it at some point - I don't think it was even America, Greece, Egypt maybe... I'm not sure what all of the foreign language terms are, but /we/ English speakers translate it as "marriage" because the word itself, regardless of religious past history or belief, conveys a specific set of "legal rights" in a single term (ranging from medical care, financial care, to burial rights.)

Out of "respect" for religious folks, I'm personally willing to change the actual word used (I'm not sure why we /can't/ just do that and out the fucking bigots for what they are - I've heard it's paperwork, but shit how hard is ctrl-f "Marriage" ctrl-v "<whatever new term>"?), but the "idea," the "legal rights" conveyed, and the constitutional right of homosexual's to marry in our country must not be infringed upon by religious bullshit.

Shit like this is pretty much why I'm not, and probably never will be, a Republican; hypocritical bullshit like this is just as fucking bad as the Democrats, and perhaps worse for it's blatant attack on the freedoms of "certain" Americans. Shit has me angry enough this year that I'm prob. going to end up voting Dem., that hurts because we could seriously use some fiscal responsibility right now... Instead of just realizing that their crap is religious and shouldn't be in government, they gotta keep pushing, gotta try to make it illegal - all the while bitching and moaning that the "gay mofia" is pushing. It's total crap and they know it, but do it anyway. Sad.

Our religious freedom is something a lot of secular people simply have indifference to. I have always been in favor of some kind of civil unions to replace traditional marriage as far as government recognizing domestic partnership. I think that resolves the issue for all involved to the best we can hope to ever resolve it. And no, I don't want some "separate but equal" thing for gays, I said a replacement for all things "marriage" related to government or legal matters.