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.
Incorrect. At issue is whether the states can discriminate against the LIFE of citizens based on sexual orientation.Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.
Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this. Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it? Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is.
You said. "Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this." No, I will not candy coat what the states are doing.
You asked, "Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it?" As to first cousins... Yes, it is. Discriminating against "first cousins" who are consenting adults based on HARM to any kids they may have together is old and well established law. As to age restrictions.... NO, an UNDERAGE CHILD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.
You say, "Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is." You can candy coat it all you want, but the result is the same, at issue is whether the THE STATES CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSENTING ADULTS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
But most of the underage allowances are with the consent of the parents. Isn't that discrimination against parents who like to see their kids married off early?
When everything is discrimination, nothing is. When courts can overrule the will of the people in flimsy situations like this, we have oligarchy.
You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.
WOW... JUST WOW No sir. That's BANNING IT based on sexual orientation. Just because your not gay does not give you the effing right to piss on gay people.Would you prefer italics or bold to make emphasis?INCORRECT AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE COURTS CAN FORCE GAY PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. At issue is whether the states can DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LIFE OF CITIZENS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.Gay marriage would be if it is enforced by the courts.
1. Typing in caps doesn't make it any more correct.
2. its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people, when there is no precedent for what is being forced. The feds can force one State to recognize a marriage license from another, but they cannot force them to change their own contract in this situation.
You say, "its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people." Incorrect, the change is the states adding laws banning same sex marriage, you are being obtuse.
They didn't ban it, they clarified what everyone knew about the contract before SSM became an issue. Its not like they allowed it, then didn't. Thats a ban.
Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.Incorrect. At issue is whether the states can discriminate against the LIFE of citizens based on sexual orientation.
Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this. Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it? Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is.
You said. "Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this." No, I will not candy coat what the states are doing.
You asked, "Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it?" As to first cousins... Yes, it is. Discriminating against "first cousins" who are consenting adults based on HARM to any kids they may have together is old and well established law. As to age restrictions.... NO, an UNDERAGE CHILD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.
You say, "Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is." You can candy coat it all you want, but the result is the same, at issue is whether the THE STATES CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSENTING ADULTS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
But most of the underage allowances are with the consent of the parents. Isn't that discrimination against parents who like to see their kids married off early?
When everything is discrimination, nothing is. When courts can overrule the will of the people in flimsy situations like this, we have oligarchy.
You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.
I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"
The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.
WOW... JUST WOW No sir. That's BANNING IT based on sexual orientation. Just because your not gay does not give you the effing right to piss on gay people.Would you prefer italics or bold to make emphasis?INCORRECT AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE COURTS CAN FORCE GAY PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. At issue is whether the states can DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LIFE OF CITIZENS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
1. Typing in caps doesn't make it any more correct.
2. its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people, when there is no precedent for what is being forced. The feds can force one State to recognize a marriage license from another, but they cannot force them to change their own contract in this situation.
You say, "its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people." Incorrect, the change is the states adding laws banning same sex marriage, you are being obtuse.
They didn't ban it, they clarified what everyone knew about the contract before SSM became an issue. Its not like they allowed it, then didn't. Thats a ban.
How am I "pissing on gay people" when if given the chance I would vote for changing my State's marriage contract to allow SSM, and agree the constitution requires States to recognize all valid marriage contracts from other states?
and it still not "banning" it if it was never allowed in the first place. pot was legal, then it was banned. smoking in bars was legal, then it was banned.
Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this. Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it? Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is.
You said. "Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this." No, I will not candy coat what the states are doing.
You asked, "Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it?" As to first cousins... Yes, it is. Discriminating against "first cousins" who are consenting adults based on HARM to any kids they may have together is old and well established law. As to age restrictions.... NO, an UNDERAGE CHILD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.
You say, "Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is." You can candy coat it all you want, but the result is the same, at issue is whether the THE STATES CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSENTING ADULTS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
But most of the underage allowances are with the consent of the parents. Isn't that discrimination against parents who like to see their kids married off early?
When everything is discrimination, nothing is. When courts can overrule the will of the people in flimsy situations like this, we have oligarchy.
You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.
I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"
The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.
WOW... JUST WOW No sir. That's BANNING IT based on sexual orientation. Just because your not gay does not give you the effing right to piss on gay people.Would you prefer italics or bold to make emphasis?1. Typing in caps doesn't make it any more correct.
2. its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people, when there is no precedent for what is being forced. The feds can force one State to recognize a marriage license from another, but they cannot force them to change their own contract in this situation.
You say, "its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people." Incorrect, the change is the states adding laws banning same sex marriage, you are being obtuse.
They didn't ban it, they clarified what everyone knew about the contract before SSM became an issue. Its not like they allowed it, then didn't. Thats a ban.
How am I "pissing on gay people" when if given the chance I would vote for changing my State's marriage contract to allow SSM, and agree the constitution requires States to recognize all valid marriage contracts from other states?
and it still not "banning" it if it was never allowed in the first place. pot was legal, then it was banned. smoking in bars was legal, then it was banned.
You are trying to turn this into a states rights issue. I was with you 8years ago. As with slavery, and interracial marriage, and yes even public access laws, some civil rights need to be universal in this country. The right to free speech needs to be universal. The right to religion needs to be universal. The right to fair trial needs to be universal. The right to carry and bear arms needs to be universal. But most of all THE RIGHT TO LIFE needs to be universal. And marriage is fundamental part of life.
The constitution did not end with the 10th Amendment. The 14th Amendment already passed and with it died the ability of the states to arbitrarily discriminate. The states have to show due process now, they can't just attack one group over another arbitrarily.WOW... JUST WOW No sir. That's BANNING IT based on sexual orientation. Just because your not gay does not give you the effing right to piss on gay people.Would you prefer italics or bold to make emphasis?
You say, "its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people." Incorrect, the change is the states adding laws banning same sex marriage, you are being obtuse.
They didn't ban it, they clarified what everyone knew about the contract before SSM became an issue. Its not like they allowed it, then didn't. Thats a ban.
How am I "pissing on gay people" when if given the chance I would vote for changing my State's marriage contract to allow SSM, and agree the constitution requires States to recognize all valid marriage contracts from other states?
and it still not "banning" it if it was never allowed in the first place. pot was legal, then it was banned. smoking in bars was legal, then it was banned.
You are trying to turn this into a states rights issue. I was with you 8years ago. As with slavery, and interracial marriage, and yes even public access laws, some civil rights need to be universal in this country. The right to free speech needs to be universal. The right to religion needs to be universal. The right to fair trial needs to be universal. The right to carry and bear arms needs to be universal. But most of all THE RIGHT TO LIFE needs to be universal. And marriage is fundamental part of life.
Then get rid of federalism and the 10th amendment, but do it through the amendment process, not the courts.
This IS a federalism issue.
Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.You said. "Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this." No, I will not candy coat what the states are doing.
You asked, "Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it?" As to first cousins... Yes, it is. Discriminating against "first cousins" who are consenting adults based on HARM to any kids they may have together is old and well established law. As to age restrictions.... NO, an UNDERAGE CHILD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.
You say, "Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is." You can candy coat it all you want, but the result is the same, at issue is whether the THE STATES CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSENTING ADULTS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
But most of the underage allowances are with the consent of the parents. Isn't that discrimination against parents who like to see their kids married off early?
When everything is discrimination, nothing is. When courts can overrule the will of the people in flimsy situations like this, we have oligarchy.
You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.
I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"
The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.
All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.
it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.
Just like they did in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. There IS precedent.
For race based marriage, prisoners, and child support issues. As much as you want to make them the same as SSM, they are not. NONE of these involved overriding and fundamental changes to the marriage contract.
So there is a right for a convicted murderer on death row to marry, but not gays?
What "fundamental change" occurred to the marriage contract now that I'm legally married?
Question 1, yes, unless your state or the state you get married in changed the contract by legislative means.
Question 2: You know the fundamental change, but are too dense or too ideological to admit it. SSM was never even considered except for the past 20 years or so as even a concept by the society as a whole.
Lucky for us gays, your opinion isn't supported by a logical argument or precedent.
Yes I see that you are a racist and a bigot. Next question.Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?You are free to place me on ignore at your option.
That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.
It's ok, I will not question your decision.
I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.
As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.
Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.
valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah
Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny
A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.
Oh dear
Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.
See the difference?
Arguments 1 and 2.Wrong.The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".
The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.
You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.
It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.
'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.
As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.
Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.
As long as its state government doing it.
The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.
You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.
Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.
You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.
Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.
The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:
“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”
Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog
Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.
Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.
Thats hysterical. The precedent for 2000years is that marriage is between one man and one woman. The USSC even mentioned this in oral arguments.Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.You didn't answer the question
And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?
Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.
If not the Supreme Court- who?
And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.
it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.
Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.
No. You are speaking of your marriage as the relationship the two of you have created with each other. That is not what is at stake. It is the marriage as a legal construct.No of course not. My wife and I and us alone define our marriage. I could give a shit what you think of it or what you say it is.Will your marriage get destroyed when "marriage" means "a financial arrangement open to any member of society"?Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?You are free to place me on ignore at your option.
That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.
It's ok, I will not question your decision.
I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.
As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.
Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.
valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah
Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny
A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.
Oh dear
There are no bans on same sex marriage. Never have been.Incorrect. BANNING IT FOR SAME SEX PEOPLE IS THE NEW THING. Before it was illegal just to be gay there was no need to ban gay marriage cause being gay was illegal.Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.
By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."
Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.
Taken alone and in combination each of your comments in that post are both racist and bigoted.Yes I see that you are a racist and a bigot. Next question.Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.
As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.
Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.
valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah
Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny
A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.
Oh dear
Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.
See the difference?
Please point out the racist comment.
Ok then lets reform your question based on your additional clarrification,... You are asking me if my "marriage licence" be destroyed when "marriage licenses" mean "a financial arrangement open to any member of society." No my marriage license will not be destroyed if and when marriage licences are specified to mean a financial arrangement open to any member of society. My marriage licence is a government managed contract that my wife and I signed. Yes, it is a financial arrangement per se. And yes it was available to heterosexual couples only. And no, my marriage licence will not be destroyed if and/or when plural marriages and/or same sex marriages are allowed.No. You are speaking of your marriage as the relationship the two of you have created with each other. That is not what is at stake. It is the marriage as a legal construct.No of course not. My wife and I and us alone define our marriage. I could give a shit what you think of it or what you say it is.Will your marriage get destroyed when "marriage" means "a financial arrangement open to any member of society"?Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.
As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.
Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.
valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah
Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny
A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.
Oh dear
Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.But most of the underage allowances are with the consent of the parents. Isn't that discrimination against parents who like to see their kids married off early?
When everything is discrimination, nothing is. When courts can overrule the will of the people in flimsy situations like this, we have oligarchy.
You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling what a marriage is. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.
I.e. "you are not agreeing with me BAAAAAAWWWWW"
The state only rules what marriage is when it comes to interaction with the State. Fundementalist mormons still do plural marriage in the US, its just that the State doesn't recognize it.
All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.
Well then what's the problem? Hey all you gays out there ^ Rabbi says you can all get married now and the government will give you your marriage license. It was all just a joke, really you can trust the Rabbi. All this discussion is just a fabrication by the left, so says Rabbi, so it shall be written, so it shall be done.There are no bans on same sex marriage. Never have been.Incorrect. BANNING IT FOR SAME SEX PEOPLE IS THE NEW THING. Before it was illegal just to be gay there was no need to ban gay marriage cause being gay was illegal.Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?
By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."
Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.
