It is not Marks law. It is the law as written and it should be applied fairly. Do you believe that the constitution should provide equal treatment for all?
Mark
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision
- Thread starter Silhouette
- Start date
It is not Marks law. It is the law as written and it should be applied fairly. Do you believe that the constitution should provide equal treatment for all?
Mark
mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,039
- 2,630
The law banned gays from marrying was made void meaning gays could now marry. No new law was made, just the striking down of unconstitutional one.Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.
...Checkmate...
Personally, I don't care
What I do care about is that our constitutional system operates as it is supposed to.
The way it's supposed to work, is that The Supreme Court can't make laws.
The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Why do you hate pedophiles?
Mark
I hate child molesters- because they rape children.
Now- why do you hate persons who have consensual sex between adults(who can provide consent)?
That is the point. You(and society) are using your moral compass to disqualify an activity pursued by others based on your condition of "consent". And we all realize that "consent" is also a moral construct dreamed up by those who want to draw their own line in the sand.
Consent is nothing more than an agreed upon age that society can live with. One day you can drink at 18, and the next you have to be 21.
A society that sets the age of consent based on its moral code is a society of bigots.
Mark
No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.
I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs.k
No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.
It is truly sad that you cannot comprehend a philosophical argument.
But, around here, I'm used to it.
Mark
SassyIrishLass
Diamond Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 95,478
- 72,433
- 3,605
The law banned gays from marrying was made void meaning gays could now marry. No new law was made, just the striking down of unconstitutional one.Personally, I don't care
What I do care about is that our constitutional system operates as it is supposed to.
The way it's supposed to work, is that The Supreme Court can't make laws.
The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,039
- 2,630
The law banned gays from marrying was made void meaning gays could now marry. No new law was made, just the striking down of unconstitutional one.
The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SassyIrishLass
Diamond Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 95,478
- 72,433
- 3,605
The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SCOTUS can't make laws period. You know this
WildBillKelsoe
Silver Member
- Dec 23, 2015
- 3,201
- 421
- 90
The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
They only ruled against one law.
Debra K
Gold Member
- Jul 10, 2015
- 852
- 327
- 180
Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.
Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.
Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...
...Checkmate...
Both incest and bigamy are unlawful. Homosexual relations are not unlawful. See Lawrence v. Texas.
mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,039
- 2,630
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SCOTUS can't make laws period. You know this
I do and in this case they didn't.
I hate child molesters- because they rape children.
Now- why do you hate persons who have consensual sex between adults(who can provide consent)?
That is the point. You(and society) are using your moral compass to disqualify an activity pursued by others based on your condition of "consent". And we all realize that "consent" is also a moral construct dreamed up by those who want to draw their own line in the sand.
Consent is nothing more than an agreed upon age that society can live with. One day you can drink at 18, and the next you have to be 21.
A society that sets the age of consent based on its moral code is a society of bigots.
Mark
No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.
I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs.k
No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.
It is truly sad that you cannot comprehend a philosophical argument.
But, around here, I'm used to it.
Mark
Oh I can comprehend a philosophical argument- I just reject those that can't distinguish between child rape and the marriage of two consenting adults.
No more than I am up for the 'philosophical argument' of why Buchwenwald was okay.
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
They only ruled against one law.
They ruled against 3 laws- and their ruling applied to all similar laws- just as Loving v. Virginia ended up applying to all State's bans on inter-racial marriages.
They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SCOTUS can't make laws period. You know this
Exactly- which is why in both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court didn't make law- they overturned unconstitutional state laws.
WildBillKelsoe
Silver Member
- Dec 23, 2015
- 3,201
- 421
- 90
Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.
Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.
Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...
...Checkmate...
Both incest and bigamy are unlawful. Homosexual relations are not unlawful. See Lawrence v. Texas.
Sodomy is still illegal in Louisiana.
Anyone want to know WHY?
WildBillKelsoe
Silver Member
- Dec 23, 2015
- 3,201
- 421
- 90
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
They only ruled against one law.
They ruled against 3 laws- and their ruling applied to all similar laws- just as Loving v. Virginia ended up applying to all State's bans on inter-racial marriages.
Only 47 States left to go.
Or, in Obama's world, 54 States.
Why is it the Right takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, yet back those states that enact harsh gun ownership laws?
So here is the thing- I am fascinated by the states that have passed laws legalizing marijuana- and I applaud their efforts- but if the Federal government decided tomorrow to go into Washington and Oregon and Colorado and arrest every pot shop owner in each state- it could do so.
What you want though is for States to be able to pass laws that are unconstitutional- and be able to ignore the Supreme Court protecting the rights of Americans against unconstitutional laws.
I support the Supreme Court when it overturned unconstitutional marriage laws(Loving and Obergefell) just as I support the Supreme Court when it overturns unconstitutional gun laws.
What about you?
You and I see it differently. Marriage is a state issue, therefore they have overstepped their authority and the states have every right to fight it.
k
So you think that mixed race marriages were still illegal after Loving v. Virginia.
Nope. They got that one right. Race does not determine marriage, gender does. What they(finally) did was to overturn an illegal law.
Mark
Ah so we have the court of Mark deciding what is an illegal law- not the Supreme Court.
Why should the Court of Mark have precedence over the Supreme Court?
It is not Marks law. It is the law as written and it should be applied fairly. Do you believe that the constitution should provide equal treatment for all?
Mark
Again- you are saying that Mark is the one who determines how a law is applied fairly.
The Supreme Court did the exact same thing in both Loving and Obergefell- they overturned a State marriage law because it was unconstitutional.
You- in the role of Mark the decider- have decided the Supreme Court was right when it came to Loving- and wrong- when it came to Obergefell.
Me- I prefer to go with the Supreme Court- not the Court of Mark.
Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.
Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.
Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...
...Checkmate...
Both incest and bigamy are unlawful. Homosexual relations are not unlawful. See Lawrence v. Texas.
Sodomy is still illegal in Louisiana.
Anyone want to know WHY?
Sodomy is not still illegal in Louisiana- because the Supreme Court decided such laws are unconstitutional.
However, the Lousiana Legislature refused to overturn its sodomy laws on the books- knowing that they are unconstitutional- because of pressure from Conservative Christian lobbyists.
And yes, the federal government could raid every marijuana shop in Colorado. They won't though, because the left doesn't want them to. Now, they certainly would invade a state that denies gay marriage because the left would want them to.This kind of reaction reminds me of the pouty people in southern states who sought to negate the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which required desegregation in public schools. The Court frowned upon their recalcitrant efforts:
Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
As set forth in the syllabus, Cooper v. Aaron stands for the following propositions:
And yet some persons in Tennessee have filed a lawsuit in a state county court challenging the Court's ruling in Obergefell. Here's what they say is their argument:
Source: Lawsuit to Challenge Obergefell
The argument is disingenuous. The Court did not invalidate state marriage laws on their face. In other words, state marriage laws were not declared void ab initio. The Court merely found that depriving same sex couples the same right to marriage enjoyed by opposite sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. State marriage laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples were thus unconstitutional as applied to same sex couples. The marriage laws still exist, but the portions that limit the right to marry to opposite sex couples cannot be enforced. Same sex couples are thus entitled to state issued marriage licenses on the same statutory terms as opposite sex couples are entitled to get them.
If marriage license laws were rendered void ab initio as a result of Obergefell, then no couples--not even opposite sex couples--would be lawfully married. That's absurd. The litigants in the Tennessee case did not stumble upon a magic bullet to "do away with same sex marriage" and "upset and nullify" the Court's ruling in Obergefell. Their efforts will be rejected and put to shame the same as the segregationists' efforts were treated.
Keep chomping on that popcorn Sil ... you might have to buy a few more cases of the stuff to get you and your anti-gay ilk through these trying times.
Why is it the left takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, and yet back those states that allow sanctuary cities and legalizing drugs that stand directly against federal law?
Why is it the Right takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, yet back those states that enact harsh gun ownership laws?
So here is the thing- I am fascinated by the states that have passed laws legalizing marijuana- and I applaud their efforts- but if the Federal government decided tomorrow to go into Washington and Oregon and Colorado and arrest every pot shop owner in each state- it could do so.
What you want though is for States to be able to pass laws that are unconstitutional- and be able to ignore the Supreme Court protecting the rights of Americans against unconstitutional laws.
I support the Supreme Court when it overturned unconstitutional marriage laws(Loving and Obergefell) just as I support the Supreme Court when it overturns unconstitutional gun laws.
What about you?
No- no one would 'invade' a state in either case.
If the DEA and the FBI started arresting marijuana growers and shop owners in Colorado and Oregon and Washington- local and state police would not interfere. Possibly State governments would go to court arguing that the Federal government was overstepping its boundaries- which the states would probably lose(Federal Drug laws are a real stretch of the Commerce clause)
But if for instance, Alabama refused to conduct 'gay marriage, the Supreme Court would intervene and issue a court order requiring the States to follow the Constitution- and if the States agent refused to comply- they would be arrested for contempt of court (see Kim Davis)
Yes, Davis is a good example. When a state stands up for its "rights" concerning illegals and pot, the liberals get their way.
And when a state stands up for its "rights" concerning marriage, the left gets their way again.
Mark
The 'state' only gets its way when it comes to pot because the Executive Branch has decided not to pursue it.
The 'state' didn't get its way when it when Kim Davis ignored the Supreme Court- because the Judicial Branch exercised its authority.
By the way- 'right' is quite happy to let the courts overturn gun laws for being unconstitutional- but suddenly decides the courts are violating state's rights when it protects a persons right to marriage.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
They only ruled against one law.
They ruled against 3 laws- and their ruling applied to all similar laws- just as Loving v. Virginia ended up applying to all State's bans on inter-racial marriages.
Only 47 States left to go.
Or, in Obama's world, 54 States.
Which 47 states would that be?
Americans are getting married to the same gender in all 50 states now.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #359
The point is here is that if the Court "slapped down" all marriage laws defined as "one man/one woman" on States' books, then who (all) may or may not marry? That's what Tennessee is going to ask the Court. I imagine they're going to ask about polygamy too, and incest since each state would be concerned those people might slap a discrimination suit on them too..
mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,039
- 2,630
The point is here is that if the Court "slapped down" all marriage laws defined as "one man/one woman" on States' books, then who (all) may or may not marry? That's what Tennessee is going to ask the Court. I imagine they're going to ask about polygamy too, and incest since each state would be concerned those people might slap a discrimination suit on them too..
Lame. Those bringing this lawsuit are hoping for an idiotic sliver bullet to end gay marriage. It will fail...miserably, just like all the other poppycock you've thrown against the wall.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 370
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 563
- Replies
- 426
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 912
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10K
- Views
- 68K
- Replies
- 138
- Views
- 785
- Replies
- 196
- Views
- 767
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 14K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8399
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-