Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First of all, marriage is not a "right" (try reading the Constitution just once before commenting on rights). It is not - nor has it ever been - a "right". Why do you think you have to get a marriage license from the state? Rights do not require government-approved licenses. Join us in reality, won't you? Please? Just once?
Second, a gay woman has every freedom to marry a man as a straight woman does. A gay man has ever freedom to marry a woman that a straight man does. Gays have never been denied anything in this country. Again - reality is calling. Won't you please answer so we can move USMB discussions into mature, sane, accurate threads?
Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has set that precedent in such rulings as Loving v Virginia. You may not like it, but it's a legal fact.
And Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Wisconsin.
Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has set that precedent in such rulings as Loving v Virginia. You may not like it, but it's a legal fact.
The fact that you are required to obtain a license from the state proves it is not a right. The Supreme Court is not authorized to alter the Constitution. Their ruling in a single case means absolutely nothing outside of that case. They are not empowered to alter the Constitution.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you (on more than one occasion).
Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has set that precedent in such rulings as Loving v Virginia. You may not like it, but it's a legal fact.
And Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Wisconsin.
Thank you for proving your liberal cohort wrong! If the Supreme Court had made marriage a right in "Loving vs. Virginia", then they would not have even agreed to hear "Turner vs. Safley" and "Zablocki vs. Wisconsin" and certainly wouldn't have needed to reaffirm it a third time.
It's not a right. It never has been. I can prove it. Go read the Constitution.
Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has set that precedent in such rulings as Loving v Virginia. You may not like it, but it's a legal fact.
The Supreme Court does not get to alter the Constitution. They do not get to add rights. It really is that simple.
The Constitution can only be altered through the amendment process. Would you like to try again?
Look up Fundamental Rights. Not all rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's why we have a justice system.
Every American citizen has equal rights. Are gay people denied their free speech? No. Are gay people denied their right to bear arms? No. Are gay people denied their freedom of religion? No.
I could go on and on, but this is more than enough to prove your post is a desperate attempt to garner support for a failed ideology. Would you like to try again CCJ?
Marriage is a fundamental right. And people like you are trying (and beginning to fail) to prevent your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens that fundamental right based on gender.
First of all, marriage is not a "right" (try reading the Constitution just once before commenting on rights). It is not - nor has it ever been - a "right". Why do you think you have to get a marriage license from the state? Rights do not require government-approved licenses. Join us in reality, won't you? Please? Just once?
Second, a gay woman has every freedom to marry a man as a straight woman does. A gay man has ever freedom to marry a woman that a straight man does. Gays have never been denied anything in this country. Again - reality is calling. Won't you please answer so we can move USMB discussions into mature, sane, accurate threads?
The fact that you are required to obtain a license from the state proves it is not a right. The Supreme Court is not authorized to alter the Constitution. Their ruling in a single case means absolutely nothing outside of that case. They are not empowered to alter the Constitution.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you (on more than one occasion).
Now now...Rottie knows so much more than the Supreme Court.
First of all, marriage is not a "right" (try reading the Constitution just once before commenting on rights). It is not - nor has it ever been - a "right". Why do you think you have to get a marriage license from the state? Rights do not require government-approved licenses. Join us in reality, won't you? Please? Just once?
Second, a gay woman has every freedom to marry a man as a straight woman does. A gay man has ever freedom to marry a woman that a straight man does. Gays have never been denied anything in this country. Again - reality is calling. Won't you please answer so we can move USMB discussions into mature, sane, accurate threads?
Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has set that precedent in such rulings as Loving v Virginia. You may not like it, but it's a legal fact.
The fact that you are required to obtain a license from the state proves it is not a right. The Supreme Court is not authorized to alter the Constitution. Their ruling in a single case means absolutely nothing outside of that case. They are not empowered to alter the Constitution.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you (on more than one occasion).
Now now...Rottie knows so much more than the Supreme Court.
On this issue (the power of the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution) - your goddamn right I do.
I'll make you ladies a deal right here and now. If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.
Can't do it? Yeah, I didn't think so...
Is this truly a republican principle, to deny citizens their civil liberties?
Or is this the new republican principle of fear and reactionaryism.
Every American citizen has equal rights. Are gay people denied their free speech? No. Are gay people denied their right to bear arms? No. Are gay people denied their freedom of religion? No.
I could go on and on, but this is more than enough to prove your post is a desperate attempt to garner support for a failed ideology. Would you like to try again CCJ?
So if CA decided to pass by initiative a law that prevented all Lutherans from legal marriage, you'd be okay with that?
The Supreme Court does not get to alter the Constitution. They do not get to add rights. It really is that simple.
The Constitution can only be altered through the amendment process. Would you like to try again?
Look up Fundamental Rights. Not all rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's why we have a justice system.
Those aren't rights. A judicial decision - outside of your Constitutional rights - are merely privileges and can be revoked at any moment depending on political winds, who is occupying the bench, etc.
Clearly you have no idea what a right is...
The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:
The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a woman to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
e. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)
Any restrictions on these rights are evaluated with strict scrutiny. If a right is denied to everyone, it is an issue of substantive due process. If a right is denied to some individuals but not others, it is also an issue of equal protection. However, any action that abridges a right deemed fundamental, when also violating equal protection, is still held to the overriding standard of strict scrutiny, instead of simply a rational basis test.
Every American citizen has equal rights. Are gay people denied their free speech? No. Are gay people denied their right to bear arms? No. Are gay people denied their freedom of religion? No.
I could go on and on, but this is more than enough to prove your post is a desperate attempt to garner support for a failed ideology. Would you like to try again CCJ?
So if CA decided to pass by initiative a law that prevented all Lutherans from legal marriage, you'd be okay with that?
False narrative much [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]?
Gays have never been denied the right to marriage. Just like a straight woman, a gay woman had equal access to marry a man anytime she wanted. Just like a straight man, a gay man had equal access to marry a woman anytime he wanted.
So if CA decided to pass by initiative a law that prevented all gay women from marrying a man (like their straight female counterparts) all gay men from marrying a woman (like their straight male counterparts) from legal marriage, I would march along side you and fight until that injustice was corrected.
Any other false narratives you would like me to expose today SW?
Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has set that precedent in such rulings as Loving v Virginia. You may not like it, but it's a legal fact.
The fact that you are required to obtain a license from the state proves it is not a right. The Supreme Court is not authorized to alter the Constitution. Their ruling in a single case means absolutely nothing outside of that case. They are not empowered to alter the Constitution.
So...you are completely ignoring the Supreme Court decisions. Delightfully ignorant on your part.
Now now...Rottie knows so much more than the Supreme Court.
On this issue (the power of the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution) - your goddamn right I do.
I'll make you ladies a deal right here and now. If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.
Can't do it? Yeah, I didn't think so...
While I agree with your premise here-the SC does have the authority to interpret the Constitution (not change, and not rule on). But that's irrelevant to gay marriage (or should be). As of right now: it's very simple.
-Does the federal government have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? No.
-Do state governments have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? Yes.
So if CA decided to pass by initiative a law that prevented all Lutherans from legal marriage, you'd be okay with that?
False narrative much [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]?
Gays have never been denied the right to marriage. Just like a straight woman, a gay woman had equal access to marry a man anytime she wanted. Just like a straight man, a gay man had equal access to marry a woman anytime he wanted.
So if CA decided to pass by initiative a law that prevented all gay women from marrying a man (like their straight female counterparts) all gay men from marrying a woman (like their straight male counterparts) from legal marriage, I would march along side you and fight until that injustice was corrected.
Any other false narratives you would like me to expose today SW?
Lutherans wouldn't be prevented from marrying either, they would just have to switch faiths.
I am legally married, thanks...to a woman. (And it's legal in 38% of the country and growing)
#YouLost
Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has set that precedent in such rulings as Loving v Virginia. You may not like it, but it's a legal fact.
And Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Wisconsin.
Thank you for proving your liberal cohort wrong! If the Supreme Court had made marriage a right in "Loving vs. Virginia", then they would not have even agreed to hear "Turner vs. Safley" and "Zablocki vs. Wisconsin" and certainly wouldn't have needed to reaffirm it a third time.
It's not a right. It never has been. I can prove it. Go read the Constitution.
On this issue (the power of the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution) - your goddamn right I do.
I'll make you ladies a deal right here and now. If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.
Can't do it? Yeah, I didn't think so...
While I agree with your premise here-the SC does have the authority to interpret the Constitution (not change, and not rule on). But that's irrelevant to gay marriage (or should be). As of right now: it's very simple.
-Does the federal government have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? No.
-Do state governments have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? Yes.
Only until the SCOTUS agrees to hear a challenge since they chickened out on Prop 8.
Marriage is a fundamental right. And people like you are trying (and beginning to fail) to prevent your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens that fundamental right based on gender.
First of all, marriage is not a "right" (try reading the Constitution just once before commenting on rights). It is not - nor has it ever been - a "right". Why do you think you have to get a marriage license from the state? Rights do not require government-approved licenses. Join us in reality, won't you? Please? Just once?
Second, a gay woman has every freedom to marry a man as a straight woman does. A gay man has ever freedom to marry a woman that a straight man does. Gays have never been denied anything in this country. Again - reality is calling. Won't you please answer so we can move USMB discussions into mature, sane, accurate threads?
Just because something isn't expressed in the Bill of Rights-doesn't mean it's not a right. In fact you have NO rights under the BOR. The BOR restricts what the federal government can do. Hence "shall not restrict".
This is because anything not expressed in the BOR would not been seen as a right (if the BOR granted your rights, and didn't restrict the federal government). As such everything else falls under the 10th. The federal government doesn't have the ability to restrict gay marriage under the Constitution. State governments do however.
If the federal government were to make gay marriage illegal (without amending the Constitution)-it would be in violation of the 10th, and be a big example of big government at work.
While I agree with your premise here-the SC does have the authority to interpret the Constitution (not change, and not rule on). But that's irrelevant to gay marriage (or should be). As of right now: it's very simple.
-Does the federal government have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? No.
-Do state governments have the authority under the Constitution to restrict gay marriage? Yes.
Only until the SCOTUS agrees to hear a challenge since they chickened out on Prop 8.
If people want gay marriage to be legalized across the country-they have to amend the Constitution. Just like if people want it to be banned across the country they have to amend the Constitution. It's not rocket science.
PS: As a straight (and engaged) man, I personally support gay people being able to get married (as long as it doesn't force religious institutions to perform the marriage). But there's a process and rule of law.
And Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Wisconsin.
Thank you for proving your liberal cohort wrong! If the Supreme Court had made marriage a right in "Loving vs. Virginia", then they would not have even agreed to hear "Turner vs. Safley" and "Zablocki vs. Wisconsin" and certainly wouldn't have needed to reaffirm it a third time.
It's not a right. It never has been. I can prove it. Go read the Constitution.
The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
But thats not in the Constitution is a failed and ignorant argument.
Such an argument is also a source of conservative hypocrisy. Nowhere in the Second Amendment, for example, do we find the words individual, handgun, or self-defense, but well hear no one on the right argue there is no individual right to own a handgun because its not in the Constitution.
The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
But thats not in the Constitution is a failed and ignorant argument.
Such an argument is also a source of conservative hypocrisy. Nowhere in the Second Amendment, for example, do we find the words individual, handgun, or self-defense, but well hear no one on the right argue there is no individual right to own a handgun because its not in the Constitution.
