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.
what discriminations would those be? I agree that same sex marriages should be treated as heterosexual marriages are treated.
But the point of this thread and the comments made by Cruz, Thomas and others is that it is not a federal constitutional issue. Now if congress and the states want to ratify a new constitutional amendment then they should do so. Until then it is up to the voters or each state. Sorry if you don't like it, but thats the way it is.
good points, I say let the voters of each state decide what licenses that state will issue and whether SSM from other states will be recognized.I am OK with them being treated the same as long as enacted through State legislatures, but they are not the same in a historical context. SSM is a new concept, less than 3 decades old.
To me, as I stated before, all Obergfell should have addressed is the acceptance of out of State SSM licenses, and not the issuance of said licenses.
Yeah, if it were normal, we wouldn't be so worried about it.good points, I say let the voters of each state decide what licenses that state will issue and whether SSM from other states will be recognized.
my issue, is telling kids that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can simply make that choice at any time in their lives. It is a mental aberration, no matter how much the libs try to call it normal----------it is NOT NORMAL
are you really going to claim that the libs and dems are not binary and partisan? Are you that ignorant?The world isnt binary. However, you and your partisan ilk are.
No, that's the Full Faith and Credit issue: all the states have to recognize others' laws, which means such new customs spread all over fast, like the quickie Reno divorces back in the 1940s.To me, as I stated before, all Obergfell should have addressed is the acceptance of out of State SSM licenses, and not the issuance of said licenses.
I didnt even come close to saying such a thing.are you really going to claim that the libs and dems are not binary and partisan? Are you that ignorant?
good points, I say let the voters of each state decide what licenses that state will issue and whether SSM from other states will be recognized.
my issue, is telling kids that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can simply make that choice at any time in their lives. It is a mental aberration, no matter how much the libs try to call it normal----------it is NOT NORMAL
No, that's the Full Faith and Credit issue: all the states have to recognize others' laws, which means such new customs spread all over fast, like the quickie Reno divorces back in the 1940s.
Lots of states didn't approve of that, but Zoom --- here it comes and now everyone does it.
Then it would just be like abortion: people from, say, Alabama go out to do a homosexual wedding (no doubt with a homosexual cake) in some other state and then all come back home to Alabama. It wouldn't impede them, just take a few days longer.And that's how Obergfell should have been ruled. Alabama doesn't have to issue SSM licenses, but it would have to accept valid SSM licenses from other States just as they were already doing for hetero marriage licenses.
Then it would just be like abortion: people from, say, Alabama go out to do a homosexual wedding (no doubt with a homosexual cake) in some other state and then all come back home to Alabama. It wouldn't impede them, just take a few days longer.
Sorry I have to draw you a picture, I guess I forgot who I was talking to.
I said marriage should be limited to 2 people that were capable of producing children, meaning a man and woman.
That is over the top stupid! Lesbians have a uterus and overies . Gay men produce sperm.No, but I think they know and feel keenly that they are barren.
Well stepdads don't feel keenly they are barren. You are a strange...bird...No, but I think they know and feel keenly that they are barren. It's a natural thing for women to feel, if they are. If your sister-in-law has to deal with a lot of "that" through years and years, I suppose they adopted blacks --- nothing says "barren" like a white mom with a couple black babies. I saw one just yesterday --- at Wegmans, of course. It's that kind of "progressive" store. I always wonder why they get them in pairs; you see that often. Because of the lower intelligence problem, I will guess all that money and time they spent won't prove a good investment. Not my problem. Enjoy.
Forget "religious objection" --- I don't see why they have to do anything like that if they just plain don't want to!! I sure wouldn't, and wouldn't cry "religion, religion."And that's what the Constitution mandates.
As I said, I had no issue with NY State legislatively changing marriage laws to allow SSM. My issue has always been with courts making up rights.
That, and things like bakers and photographers being ruined because they take religious exception to working a SSM ceremony or reception.
They ain't gonna get adopted: all those black babies? What there are don't usually get adopted now. They'll just get abused and neglected, for the most part. And then become criminals.Well stepdads don't feel keenly they are barren. You are a strange...bird...
I guess all those babies needing adoption Post Roe are SLOL in your world.
Forget "religious objection" --- I don't see why they have to do anything like that if they just plain don't want to!! I sure wouldn't, and wouldn't cry "religion, religion."
You don't know that. States might try to invalidate marriages that had already been performedBut even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed.
Wrong again. You are just making stuff up. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution did not mandate reccognition of same sex marriage accross state lines before Obergefell, and it would not post Obergefell. You seem to be trying to find reasons why overturning Ibergefll is no big deal.Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state. So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages. A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.
You have NO idea what you are talking about. Gays won the right to marry because, for the most part, the states trying to ban it could not establish a compelling government societal interest, or even a rational basis for doing so. Incest, poygamy and beastiality have for different implications for society and each would have to be litigated as a separate issue. Ya think the government might beable to defend a law against fucking dogs a bit more easily than they could defent a law prohibiting the marriage of two consenting adults? THINK!! And it is not about privacy. It is about equal ptotection under the lawGetting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.
what discriminations would those be? I agree that same sex marriages should be treated as heterosexual marriages are treated.
But the point of this thread and the comments made by Cruz, Thomas and others is that it is not a federal constitutional issue.
You should read the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy. It's an eye openerBut the point of this thread and the comments made by Cruz, Thomas and others is that it is not a federal constitutional issue.
