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.
Yes - I did forget about some of the variations on Mormonism, thanks.WillReadMore, the appellation "Mormon" applies to all who claim they follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration, not just the LDS.
Thus, the FLDS, the TLC, Allreds, etc., all claim to be Mormon, fairly, and they disagree with you.
The few Christian and Jewish polygs in our society as well as many Muslims here disagree with you.
What will be interesting is if and when SCOTUS throws out Reynolds.
Article IV section 1 says your state needs to honor the decisions made by other states. In Loving v Virginia we have a case where this was ruled as applying to marriage.SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.
My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.
SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.
My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.
That will change.
Article IV section 1 says your state needs to honor the decisions made by other states. In Loving v Virginia we have a case where this was ruled as applying to marriage.SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.
My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.
What is your state's response going to be if the court rules that your state is required to recognize the marriages performed by other states?
Again, we saw exactly this happen with interracial marriage. Read Loving v. Virginia.Article IV section 1 says your state needs to honor the decisions made by other states. In Loving v Virginia we have a case where this was ruled as applying to marriage.SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.
My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.
What is your state's response going to be if the court rules that your state is required to recognize the marriages performed by other states?
A state can't be forced to comply to something specifically against its constitution by virtue of the legislative action of another sovereign.
Come on now.
We have laws that don't allow marrying underage children, animals, inanimate objects, the dead, multiples of anything, etc.Race and sexual preference isn't the same thing...I might prefer to have 5 obedient wifes but that's not legal is it?
None of that makes a logical argument for the state to deny marriage to two adults.
If you want to deny marriage between two consenting adults, you need an argument for that.
To date, the only real weakness in laws denying marriage to two consenting adults of the same gender is that nobody can come up with a valid justification for that particular discrimination.
There are now...what? 15, 16 states that recognize same-sex marriage.SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.
My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.
That will change.
No it won't.
SCOTUS didn't opine on the merits or constitutionality of gay marriage.
Only the purview.
The purview being settled requires individual challenges to the Constitutions and laws of many states
There are now...what? 15, 16 states that recognize same-sex marriage.That will change.
No it won't.
SCOTUS didn't opine on the merits or constitutionality of gay marriage.
Only the purview.
The purview being settled requires individual challenges to the Constitutions and laws of many states
How long do you think it will be before states with Constitutional Amendments / laws against marriage contracts being honored in other states will have to be addressed?
Don't argue the law here. Just tell me how long you think it will be. Because you know and I know it will have to happen.
How long?
We have laws that don't allow marrying underage children, animals, inanimate objects, the dead, multiples of anything, etc.Race and sexual preference isn't the same thing...I might prefer to have 5 obedient wifes but that's not legal is it?
None of that makes a logical argument for the state to deny marriage to two adults.
If you want to deny marriage between two consenting adults, you need an argument for that.
To date, the only real weakness in laws denying marriage to two consenting adults of the same gender is that nobody can come up with a valid justification for that particular discrimination.
You're asking for special rights I couldn't marry a man either.
I don't see anything special about what is being asked.We have laws that don't allow marrying underage children, animals, inanimate objects, the dead, multiples of anything, etc.Race and sexual preference isn't the same thing...I might prefer to have 5 obedient wifes but that's not legal is it?
None of that makes a logical argument for the state to deny marriage to two adults.
If you want to deny marriage between two consenting adults, you need an argument for that.
To date, the only real weakness in laws denying marriage to two consenting adults of the same gender is that nobody can come up with a valid justification for that particular discrimination.
You're asking for special rights I couldn't marry a man either.
SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.
My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.
We have laws that don't allow marrying underage children, animals, inanimate objects, the dead, multiples of anything, etc.
None of that makes a logical argument for the state to deny marriage to two adults.
If you want to deny marriage between two consenting adults, you need an argument for that.
To date, the only real weakness in laws denying marriage to two consenting adults of the same gender is that nobody can come up with a valid justification for that particular discrimination.
You're asking for special rights I couldn't marry a man either.
There is no such thing as special rights, just as theres no such thing as gay rights.
Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the issue concerns states denying same-sex couples access marriage law, in violation of the 14th Amendment.
You're asking for special rights I couldn't marry a man either.
There is no such thing as special rights, just as theres no such thing as gay rights.
Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the issue concerns states denying same-sex couples access marriage law, in violation of the 14th Amendment.
"Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts,"
???
The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..
In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.
They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.
Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times. Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other
An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.
In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.
The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:
Page 14 same link as above:
New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry
A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.
Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?
Geez, this thread is still alive? hasn't everything possible already been said on this topic?
No one is going to change their positions on this issue no matter how much BS is slung around.
Time to move on to something that really matters.
No, the subject of this thread has not been exhausted, as anxious as you may be to see the topic "go away"...lol..
And I note that you offer this the second the real numbers for the lukewarm support of middle voters on gay marriage comes up. And the picture of chic fil a....
You may recall the seed of this thread is the ripping away of the People's Will through a consensus vote using propaganda and sedition. Part of that recipe is the strange polling results used to justify ripping away the Will of Consensus in California...those polling results don't line up with reality ie: the vote in CA TWICE and the chic fil a crowds that wrapped around the block for hours in support of a business owner vocally opposed to gay marriage. Maybe they are afraid of gay backlash and won't tell the truth but only in the voting booth. And that "telling" must be respected by law.
all I am saying is that neither side is going to change the minds of the other side. the voters in CA said no to gay marriage twice, and the will of the people was ignored.
I don't care if gays hook up and want to legally commit to each other, and when they do that they should have the same rights as a married man and woman. But what they have is not a marriage.
and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.
and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.
Well there are two sides to that coin.
Those whose efforts are to deny Marriage Equality to gays is also not about marriage, its about forcing their views on the rest of society. its about government mandated thought control.
>>>>
You can have gay marriage...the day after you legalize polygamy.
We have laws that don't allow marrying underage children, animals, inanimate objects, the dead, multiples of anything, etc.Race and sexual preference isn't the same thing...I might prefer to have 5 obedient wifes but that's not legal is it?
None of that makes a logical argument for the state to deny marriage to two adults.
If you want to deny marriage between two consenting adults, you need an argument for that.
To date, the only real weakness in laws denying marriage to two consenting adults of the same gender is that nobody can come up with a valid justification for that particular discrimination.
You're asking for special rights I couldn't marry a man either.
We can see now where youre confused.If you are going to rely on the courts it does matter what the FF thought to a certain extent, and what the populace at the time thought. Slavery was abolished with an amendment that represents the will of the people. Women can vote due to an amendment also.It doesn't matter what the FF thought about SSM anymore than what they thought about blacks, non landowners or women voting. They wrote a document that allows for them.
Youre incorrectly perceiving that Supreme Court rulings such as Windsor somehow change the Constitution, or change the original intent of the Framers, the same way an amendment makes a change to the Constitution.
Again, this is incorrect.
When the Windsor Court stuck down DOMA, for example, it did so in accordance with the original intent of the framers, and in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
Its time once again to remind conservatives of the Framers original intent, as Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:
The Framers did not presume to possess a finite understanding of what constitutes individual liberty, and it was not their intent to codify such an understanding in the Constitution.Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
Their intent was to codify the fundamental principles underpinning individual liberty, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of that liberty in all its manifold possibilities.
Consequently, that slavery was ended or women allowed the vote as a result of Constitutional Amendments has no bearing whatsoever concerning the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law. As to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Liberty Clause of the 5th Amendment, and since such a prohibition violates the fundamental principles of liberty codified by the Framers in the Constitution, so too does it violate the Framers original intent as to the very nature of the expression of that individual liberty.
