Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[TNHarley]

All the feds care about marriage by the constitution is that is is accepted as any other contract is accepted from State to State. States set marriage requirements as they are the ones issuing the licenses.

Obergfell should have allowed States to issue or not issue SSM licenses as they saw fit, but forced them to recognize any out of State marriage as they had to in the past.

I had no issue when NY as a State made SSM legal via legislative action, my issue is with Obergfell, and the issue is the same as Thomas' and Cruz's issue, substantive due process.

Bottom line is, they are heavily involved in marriage. They shouldnt be.
Either get them out of marriage or accept the gays will marry each other.

 

[Zincwarrior]

All the feds care about marriage by the constitution is that is is accepted as any other contract is accepted from State to State. States set marriage requirements as they are the ones issuing the licenses.

Obergfell should have allowed States to issue or not issue SSM licenses as they saw fit, but forced them to recognize any out of State marriage as they had to in the past.

I had no issue when NY as a State made SSM legal via legislative action, my issue is with Obergfell, and the issue is the same as Thomas' and Cruz's issue, substantive due process.

We're going to have to...agree.

 

[martybegan]

Bottom line is, they are heavily involved in marriage. They shouldnt be.
Either get them out of marriage or accept the gays will marry each other.

As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract.

I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.

 

[Faun]

As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract.

I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.

Guess what? Even states must abide by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract.

I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.

Ummm OK Boomer

Partners Task Force - GAO: Federal Marriage Laws - 1997

buddybuddy.com

Its unconstitutional but it creates a right with all this legislation.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

no where, that's why it should be a state by state issue.

As soon as you get the Fed Govt to remove all marriage related benefits then I would be cool with it only being a state issue

 

[Faun]

As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract.

I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.

False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.

 

[TNHarley]

False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.

If it goes back to being a religious institution, that could very well be the case.

 

[Faun]

If it goes back to being a religious institution, that could very well be the case.

States cannot craft laws based on religion.

 

[martybegan]

Guess what? Even states must abide by the U.S. Constitution.

Where in the US Constitution does it say States have to issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses?

 

[TNHarley]

States cannot craft laws based on religion.

Marriage is a religious institution. Except in our Country, it has been made a government institution. If the SC were to rule that the fed gov has no business in marriage and get the govt out of it, that would mean married people lose all those awesome perks, and power would go back to the states. Where it is supposed to be.
Right now, gays just want the same benefits hetero married couples get. Why would they want it if they didnt get those perks? To be all godly and shit? No, God makes it clear that homos are full of sin.

 

[martybegan]

Ummm OK Boomer

Partners Task Force - GAO: Federal Marriage Laws - 1997

buddybuddy.com

Its unconstitutional but it creates a right with all this legislation.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

DOMA was a response, and to me overstepped the federal governments powers.

All of the other laws are based on STATE licenses for Federal Benefits. That isn't the feds "all in on marriages"

I am saying the documents are made at the State level, and are State controlled.

 

[TNHarley]

Where in the US Constitution does it say States have to issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses?

With the federal govt being so involved in marriage, the 14th does just that.

 

[martybegan]

False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.

There is plenty of reason to say it isn't in the Federal Constitution. SSM is a new concept, less than a few decades old, and has nothing to do with "equal application" because it isn't equal to Marriage as a heterosexual institution and contract.

States can make it equivalent via legislation, but there is nothing in the Federal Constitution forcing the issue, except of course in the mind of legislating progressive jurists.

 

[TNHarley]

for Federal Benefits.

Hey, you are starting to come around. Good job, bro.

 

[martybegan]

With the federal govt being so involved in marriage, the 14th does just that.

SSM and heterosexual marriage aren't equal unless made equal by legislation. All the feds should do is make all States recognize valid marriage licenses from other States, regardless of if said marriage meets the States requirements or not, just like now.

 

[martybegan]

Hey, you are starting to come around. Good job, bro.

That isn't being "all involved". It's taking the State document and using it for other contractual purposes.

 

[Faun]

Where in the US Constitution does it say States have to issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses?

LOL

You're such a fucking idiot, marty.

There are many laws states enact which are not mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution; but what IS in the U.S. Constitution is that all laws are to be applied equally. There's no equality in telling one person they can obtain a state-issued marriage license for one adult to marry the love of their life while denying another person that same freedom, as long as they're seeking to marry a consenting adult or consenting minor with parental approval in accordance with each states' respective laws.

 

[Faun]

There is plenty of reason to say it isn't in the Federal Constitution. SSM is a new concept, less than a few decades old, and has nothing to do with "equal application" because it isn't equal to Marriage as a heterosexual institution and contract.

States can make it equivalent via legislation, but there is nothing in the Federal Constitution forcing the issue, except of course in the mind of legislating progressive jurists.

False. Marriage is marriage no matter who it's between; as long is it involves two consenting adults or consenting minors with parental approval in accordance with state age of consent laws.

 

[martybegan]

LOL

You're such a fucking idiot, marty.

There are many laws states enact which are not mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution; but what IS in the U.S. Constitution is that all laws are to be applied equally. There's no equality in telling one person they can obtain a state-issued marriage license for one adult to marry the love of their life while denying another person that same freedom, as long as they're seeking to marry a consenting adult or consenting minor with parental approval in accordance with each states' respective laws.

The thing is Obergfell made States issue SSM licenses regardless of the will of their legislatures, based on the made up concept of substantive due process. A concept I agree with Justice Thomas is made up crap.

Once you start bringing in emotion bait like "love" you show you don't actually have a legal based argument, simply "I think X and and I will follow any jiggery pokery some SJW justice makes up like the good little lemming I am"