SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[Stephanie]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

YES THEY CAN! Just like they forced desegregation. Get over it.

No they can't. states rights overrules all you fascist. so you can stop with the drama words like desegregation,, slavery, blaa blaaa

 

[Stephanie]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

The people do not have to bow down to the SCOTUS. That's not the point.

I see what you are saying with regard to the tone of the discussions.

It's time for the gay community to be honorable in their win... not to rub faces. But I don't see them here rubbing faces. What I see is democrats rubbing republican faces..

thank you. if you look at his post from addicting info he claimed Republicans were melting down. so he's far from one who is honorable

 

[Camp]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

YES THEY CAN! Just like they forced desegregation. Get over it.

No they can't. states rights overrules all you fascist. so you can stop with the drama words like desegregation,, slavery, blaa blaaa

Yes they can. That is why there is no confederate states of America.

 

[RKMBrown]

You see. they get what they want but here they are still going around calling everyone names. like bigot. when are you people going to take a stand?

ok ok... why is bigot a bad word to use?

Is it not appropriate to call someone that does not want a minority group to have the same freedoms that other groups have a bigot against that group?

For example, are we as a nation not bigoted against islamic radical terrorists?

I didn't mean the way you put it. I'm talking about the homosexual mafia out in force on here

Yes, ok. I agree there are radical elements said mafia that I'm also against. Just as I'm against the radical elements in the catholic mafia It would seem most groups have their radical elements.

These radical elements try to usurp their groups.

However, I would point out that more often than not the radical elements are not "running" the group, they are just the ones the media likes to put in front of the camera to sell air time.

 

[RKMBrown]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

The people do not have to bow down to the SCOTUS. That's not the point.

I see what you are saying with regard to the tone of the discussions.

It's time for the gay community to be honorable in their win... not to rub faces. But I don't see them here rubbing faces. What I see is democrats rubbing republican faces..

thank you. if you look at his post from addicting info he claimed Republicans were melting down. so he's far from one who is honorable

We all need to be somewhat careful in our generalizations. While it would be accurate to say some republicans are melting down... as evidenced through the media anyway, it is not accurate to say all republicans are melting down.

I've not spoken to a single republican that is against secular gay marriage in a very long time.

 

[Stephanie]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

The people do not have to bow down to the SCOTUS. That's not the point.

I see what you are saying with regard to the tone of the discussions.

It's time for the gay community to be honorable in their win... not to rub faces. But I don't see them here rubbing faces. What I see is democrats rubbing republican faces..

thank you. if you look at his post from addicting info he claimed Republicans were melting down. so he's far from one who is honorable

We all need to be somewhat careful in our generalizations. While it would be accurate to say some republicans are melting down... as evidenced through the media anyway, it is not accurate to say all republicans are melting down.

I've not spoken to a single republican that is against secular gay marriage in a very long time.

I not upset with them marrying anyone. what I am upset with is this Supreme court. How they think they can come out and just override a peoples votes in their states and overrule a States rights, is what has me burning. I'm not sure if this over. but we are having it shoved in our faces like they always do when they think they've won something. and again it's all being done over the majority of the people in the country for a 3% of people

 

[RKMBrown]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

YES THEY CAN! Just like they forced desegregation. Get over it.

No they can't. states rights overrules all you fascist. so you can stop with the drama words like desegregation,, slavery, blaa blaaa

Edited to clarify...

States rights rule over some things and not others. States should have been able to decide for themselves whether they will provide marriage licenses but should not have been able to take away a marriage license provided by another state. However, if they do provide marriage licenses, they should not have been able to select one pairing over another based on discrimination. The reason is they are required to treat everyone equally under the law. Nor can they decide for the country whether marriage licenses will be provided for any particular group. So, because we have freedom of travel, and freedom from discrimination, there are some things the states can't rule over.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

YES THEY CAN! Just like they forced desegregation. Get over it.

No they can't. states rights overrules all you fascist. so you can stop with the drama words like desegregation,, slavery, blaa blaaa

I think you have it backwards.

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

 

[Stephanie]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again

I get ticked when that happens too. Just recognize that they are "trolling" you... they are using this decision to empower themselves in our divisive on-going political war between the left and right. The more you express your anger at them the more power you give them. This is called feeding the troll. Course, I'm just as guilty myself. Sometimes you just can't help it

 

[Stephanie]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again

I get ticked when that happens too. Just recognize that they are "trolling" you... they are using this decision to empower themselves in our divisive on-going political war between the left and right. The more you express your anger at them the more power you give them. This is called feeding the troll. Course, I'm just as guilty myself. Sometimes you just can't help it

yes, I should always remember that. but. lol

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again

LOL ! Dum ass Ted Cruz said that last Thursday and Friday were among the darkest days in American History! That is not having a meltdown??

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again

LOL ! Dum ass Ted Cruz said that last Thursday and Friday were among the darkest days in American History! That is not having a meltdown??

That's not a meltdown that's a war drum.

 

[rightwinger]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again

LOL ! Dum ass Ted Cruz said that last Thursday and Friday were among the darkest days in American History! That is not having a meltdown??

Does it get any darker than allowing the government to give healthcare subsidies and allowing two people who love each other to marry?

That dwarfs the stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, JFKs assasination and 9-11

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again

LOL ! Dum ass Ted Cruz said that last Thursday and Friday were among the darkest days in American History! That is not having a meltdown??

Does it get any darker than allowing the government to give healthcare subsidies and allowing two people who love each other to marry?

That dwarfs the stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, JFKs assasination and 9-11

You can't trust a word Cruz says. The guys's both a politician and a lawyer...

 

[EverCurious]

The Supreme Court takes its powers from Article III of the Constitution. Article III, §1 provides that "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In accordance with this provision, the Suprem Court of the United States was created by the authority of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court met for the first time on February 2, 1790.

[...]

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW — These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence.

"The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans . . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom.

To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

~ The Supreme Court in the American System of Government

 

[Faun]

who ever said they were unequal?

The highest court in the land.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.​

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the fuck makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

That's the system of government we live in. You don't like it? Too fucking bad. The best part? There's nothing you can do about it except move to a country which doesn't have the U.S. Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like. They take this position as an alternative to the legalization of gay marriage and assert that in the absence of government regulation anyone can form a union-via contract- with anyone else who they chose to, and call it whatever they want. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when such nuptials are universally recognized by government. Other just hate anything that the government does. The idea it seems is to sink the ship in order to drown the rats. In addition, I have yet to hear any real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

I believe that it is wrought with problems and pitfalls, and promoted by people who do not really want it to come to that-indeed they don’t believe that it will-but who are also being coy about their opposition to equality or government regulation of anything. However, far be it from me-the Progressive Patriot- to jump to conclusions or rush to judgment so I decided to take a closer look.

First, let us consider why marriage is something that is regulated by the government in the first place. It is true that for centuries, marriage was in fact a private affair between families. However it is also true that the practice of requiring marriage licenses dates back more than 400 years in England. (When those opposed to gay marriage talk about tradition, I say, now there is tradition! A tradition that you might want to think twice about discarding)

This license requirement came about because ”

…. When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.” The American colonies later adapted many of the same customs and laws. Gradually, the states began to exercise greater control over who one could marry and a major concern was to prevent inter racial marriage. Later, the primary reason for government control of marriage licenses remains for vital statistics recording and continues as a source of revenue for local and state governments. Source: http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html#ixzz2sg0BKysk

It’s interesting to note that while marriage licenses came about in England at the behest of the state run church, and the church continued to have enormous influence in the colonies , once the United States came into being, there was no longer a state church and in fact a state church was specifically prohibited. However, concessions were made to the church such as granting tax exempt status, and most notable with respect to marriage, clergy were afforded the right to perform wedding ceremonies that result in a legally binding union under the law. Some would say that doing so blurs the lines between church and state.

So on the surface, it may seem at this point that government regulation came about for the wrong reasons or is no longer relevant:

• Interracial marriage is no longer an issue
  
  
• There is no state sponsored church that has official influence on government so presumably, government could pull out of the marriage regulation business if chose to.
  
  
• Marriage licenses are probably not a significant source of revenue, it is restricted to local government and it is not a reason to require legal marriage that most people would endorse.
  
  
• Public health and vital statistics could be compiled by the census and through the registration of those private contracts
  

But wait! What is a “private contract” Not being a student of midlevel history, I don’t know what the concept of “contract” was then. However, I know that in our system of government and law, a contract is a legal construct that is it is created by law. Its execution and desolation is controlled by statute, and only government creates statutory law. So I submit to you that to get government “out of marriage” is not a choice under the contemporary definition of contract

Ok, so some government involvement is inevitable. But you might say if those contracts are regulated by government, why can’t they just be like any other contract such as one you might enter into with an employer, or someone remodeling your home. What makes a “marriage contract” special? Why require a license to enter into a marriage contract, but not other contracts?

As it turns out, there is at least one supporter of traditional marriage who think that it would, in fact be a very bad idea to remove the government sanction and regulation of marriage.

Robert George, one of the leading voices contending for traditional marriage today, along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, have written a thorough and well-documented piece in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy entitled What is Marriage? Among other things, they argue that attempts to stop government from regulating marriage are naive at best and ruinous at worst.

They go on to say:

“Almost no society that has left us a trace of itself has done without some regulation of sexual relationships…The wellbeing of children gives us powerful prudential reasons to recognize and protect marriage legally”.

And while a main concern of theirs stems from an opposition of extension of marriage to gays, they have much more to say in support of government regulation.

“…… the government cannot simply bow out of the marriage regulation business, as divorces will still have to be adjudicated, for there will inevitably be disputes over marital unfaithfulness, assets, and custody of children. The state will have to involve itself in disentangling the mess after traditional marriage has been thus dismantled. This is why the libertarian argument fails. For a true libertarian would surely want less governmental intrusion into our private lives, but the de-regulation of marriage would in fact lead to more of it”.

And:

“Although some libertarians propose to “privatize” marriage, treating marriages the way we treat baptisms and bar mitzvahs, supporters of limited government should recognize that marriage privatization would be a catastrophe for limited government. In the absence of a flourishing marriage culture, families often fail to form, or to achieve and maintain stability. As absentee fathers and out‐of‐wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies follows.”

http://russellandduenes.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/should-we-do-away-with-all-governmental-regulation-of-marriage/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

who ever said they were unequal?

The highest court in the land.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.​

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the fuck makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is what the constitution and case law says. Read the freakin thing. Read some cases. Educate yourself.