It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

I actually agree with the above.

 

[Faun]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

I actually agree with the above.

Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..

 

[Pop23]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

What Faun posted is a nearly complete interpretation of what happened.

The State ha to find a Compelling reason to deny the individual it Constitutional right. The bar is set extremely high in this regard because once declare a Constitutional right, the State must meet the Strict Scrutiny Test. That is for all our protection to have the bar set so high.

That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

 

[Pop23]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

I actually agree with the above.

Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..

Why, it was incredibly well done.

Kudos

 

[Syriusly]

All morality is individual.

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.

Now, I am a very libertarian-minded individual when it comes to morality and the laws. I know a lot of you won't believe that in a million years, but that's who I am in real life. I personally do not care one way or another if "domestic partners" of any kind are afforded any benefits that our government, society or culture may have established for "couples" in contrast to individuals. I don't care if a brother and sister want such a contract... I don't care if a father and daughter want such a contract... I don't care if two gay lovers want such a contract... I don't care if traditional Christian males and females want such a contract. I think that should be left up to the two parties to decide if they are 18 years or older. That is MY personal view.

I don't WANT government involved in this... from EITHER aspect. I don't want them telling me that "marriage" is THIS... what WE say with OUR court! Fuck you!

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

I've said before, I think there is effectively 0 chance of marriage being removed from our laws in the near future. A change of the name is possible; I could see marriage becoming civil unions for all as at least possible. Removing marriage laws as they stand and having people create their own contracts instead, however, I cannot see. This is especially true because there are certain aspects of marriage which I do not think would be allowed through basic contract law. In particular, the formation of a new immediate family bond where one did not exist.

Well in addition- essentially no one but Boss wants such a change.

There is no legislative interest in eliminating legal marriage- and it is less likely to go away than Social Security or the deduction for mortgage interest.

No, I can't think of a reason, outside of tradition, that I couldn't live without it. .

Well no one will force you to get married then- or ending your marriage.

Meanwhile- there is no indication that virtually anyone other than Boss agrees with you- and would like legal marriage to end.

Certainly though- you are as welcome to pursue legislative change as you are to go to the courts to argue for your right to marry your sibling.

 

[Pop23]

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.

Now, I am a very libertarian-minded individual when it comes to morality and the laws. I know a lot of you won't believe that in a million years, but that's who I am in real life. I personally do not care one way or another if "domestic partners" of any kind are afforded any benefits that our government, society or culture may have established for "couples" in contrast to individuals. I don't care if a brother and sister want such a contract... I don't care if a father and daughter want such a contract... I don't care if two gay lovers want such a contract... I don't care if traditional Christian males and females want such a contract. I think that should be left up to the two parties to decide if they are 18 years or older. That is MY personal view.

I don't WANT government involved in this... from EITHER aspect. I don't want them telling me that "marriage" is THIS... what WE say with OUR court! Fuck you!

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

I've said before, I think there is effectively 0 chance of marriage being removed from our laws in the near future. A change of the name is possible; I could see marriage becoming civil unions for all as at least possible. Removing marriage laws as they stand and having people create their own contracts instead, however, I cannot see. This is especially true because there are certain aspects of marriage which I do not think would be allowed through basic contract law. In particular, the formation of a new immediate family bond where one did not exist.

Well in addition- essentially no one but Boss wants such a change.

There is no legislative interest in eliminating legal marriage- and it is less likely to go away than Social Security or the deduction for mortgage interest.

No, I can't think of a reason, outside of tradition, that I couldn't live without it. .

Well no one will force you to get married then- or ending your marriage.

Meanwhile- there is no indication that virtually anyone other than Boss agrees with you- and would like legal marriage to end.

Certainly though- you are as welcome to pursue legislative change as you are to go to the courts to argue for your right to marry your sibling.

Blabbering noted

 

[Syriusly]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

 

[Faun]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

What Faun posted is a nearly complete interpretation of what happened.

The State ha to find a Compelling reason to deny the individual it Constitutional right. The bar is set extremely high in this regard because once declare a Constitutional right, the State must meet the Strict Scrutiny Test. That is for all our protection to have the bar set so high.

That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

Then you should start a thread on it.

 

[Montrovant]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

What Faun posted is a nearly complete interpretation of what happened.

The State ha to find a Compelling reason to deny the individual it Constitutional right. The bar is set extremely high in this regard because once declare a Constitutional right, the State must meet the Strict Scrutiny Test. That is for all our protection to have the bar set so high.

That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

I believe there are multiple states that require a license to own a firearm.

 

[Pop23]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

 

[Faun]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

I actually agree with the above.

Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..

Why, it was incredibly well done.

Kudos

Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.

 

[Pop23]

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

I actually agree with the above.

Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..

Why, it was incredibly well done.

Kudos

Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.

Back atcha

 

[Faun]

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

I actually agree with the above.

Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..

Why, it was incredibly well done.

Kudos

Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.

Back atcha

Of course, what else could you do but have others think for you?

 

[Montrovant]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

 

[Syriusly]

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

 

[Syriusly]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Says you.

Quoting you.

Feel free to cite a Supreme Court ruling which says anything like that.

If you want a citation about the State's rights to regulate marriage, feel free to read the DOMA decision or Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Pop23]

I actually agree with the above.

Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..

Why, it was incredibly well done.

Kudos

Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.

Back atcha

Of course, what else could you do but have others think for you?

You do realize the post I gave you Kudos for contains the same argument for legal same sex sibling marriage? Right?

 

[Pop23]

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

True, and you fail to grasp that implication. Regulating rights is what your fighting against.

 

[Pop23]

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

 

[Pop23]

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Says you.

Quoting you.

Feel free to cite a Supreme Court ruling which says anything like that.

If you want a citation about the State's rights to regulate marriage, feel free to read the DOMA decision or Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia.

With strict scrutiny and/or due process.

Correct, which is my argument to begin with.