This was unconstitutional

[Theweirdtophat]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

 

[Fraleyight]

Why should states be allowed to decide who gets equal rights? Should states be allowed to make decisions on interracial marriage as well?

 

[oldbadger]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated.

Well......you placed the thread up for debate, didn't you?

Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Tough luck........ sometimes it's a really good idea to enact legislation throughout a country.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Well......you placed the thread up for debate, didn't you?

Tough luck........ sometimes it's a really good idea to enact legislation throughout a country.

Um...no it's not a good idea to enact legislation everywhere. Otherwise, what's the point of having states? That's why we had states to begin with. We already know what the federal governments powers are and anything that aren't the federal government's responsibility is up to the states. There's a reason why some say America is becoming more socialist. This is one of them. Where everyone just does what the feds say and make it legal or illegal everywhere. This was forced against everyone who didn't want same sex marriage, against religious people who didn't want it. No one asked if they were ok with this. It was just forced on them against their will. No one sees a problem with this?

 

[gsa]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

While the dissenters pay mild lip service to this sophomoric view of constitutional law, the US constitution, courtesy of the Fourteenth Amendment, deprives the states of the power to deny fundamental rights, of which marriage is one. Everyone sitting on that court agrees with this view; the dissenters all joined together with Kennedy in the Citizens United case to render for-profit corporations the same as individuals when it comes to speech rights (an absurd view from a historical perspective).

Notwithstanding Justice Roberts' condescending dissent, this had everything to do with the constitution, which unquestionably protects the rights and dignity of individuals, including gay men and lesbians.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah....we'll leave it to the states so Alabama can still bar anyone who isn't white from going to a university.
The constitution guarantees equal application of the law, and that religion has no place making laws. Because religion is a super-majority on reasons to oppose homosexuality, and there are no scientific reasons to oppose it, then there is no valid or logical reason that it should not have been granted.

 

[oldbadger]

Um...no it's not a good idea to enact legislation everywhere. Otherwise, what's the point of having states? That's why we had states to begin with. We already know what the federal governments powers are and anything that aren't the federal government's responsibility is up to the states. There's a reason why some say America is becoming more socialist. This is one of them. Where everyone just does what the feds say and make it legal or illegal everywhere. This was forced against everyone who didn't want same sex marriage, against religious people who didn't want it. No one asked if they were ok with this. It was just forced on them against their will. No one sees a problem with this?

It's time for the USA to throw out as much prejudice, discrimination, harassment, bigotry and victimisation of any and all minorities as possible. If it takes federal legislation, then that's a good idea. But there's much more for you all to do in this area; this recent legislation is just a part of what is required.
Most religions do accept that all their followers must obey the laws of their countries, and so all the USA's citizens must now accept and follow this........

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

Really, it can't be debated? This is the US, and this is a discussion forum; OF COURSE it can be debated!

So, if you read the Constitution, you also find that the Supreme Court has the responsibility of deciding cases and controversies BETWEEN the states, which is EXACTLY one of the issues that had to be resolved. Another issue is that as a matter of civil rights, under the 14th Amendment (which despite some rhetoric to the contrary, IS part of the Constitution), the federal Supreme Court DOES have jurisdiction to rule that state as well as federal laws, and private practices of individuals and organizations, may violate the rights of individuals, and therefore must be ended or modified.

It WAS a state issue, until 1) there was a conflict because some states recognize such marriages and others refused to (another part of the Constitution spells out that the states must give full faith and credit to the laws and actions of the other states), which resulted in people being legally married in one state, moving to another and not having their marriage recognized; and 2) until citizens who were affected asserted that their civil rights (rights that are not specified in the Constitution, but are among the unenumerated rights retained by the people and the states under Amendments 9 and 10, and which individuals and groups can ask the state AND/OR FEDERAL government to act to protect) were being violated because states were not recognizing the laws of other states.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Really, it can't be debated? This is the US, and this is a discussion forum; OF COURSE it can be debated!

So, if you read the Constitution, you also find that the Supreme Court has the responsibility of deciding cases and controversies BETWEEN the states, which is EXACTLY one of the issues that had to be resolved. Another issue is that as a matter of civil rights, under the 14th Amendment (which despite some rhetoric to the contrary, IS part of the Constitution), the federal Supreme Court DOES have jurisdiction to rule that state as well as federal laws, and private practices of individuals and organizations, may violate the rights of individuals, and therefore must be ended or modified.

It WAS a state issue, until 1) there was a conflict because some states recognize such marriages and others refused to (another part of the Constitution spells out that the states must give full faith and credit to the laws and actions of the other states), which resulted in people being legally married in one state, moving to another and not having their marriage recognized; and 2) until citizens who were affected asserted that their civil rights (rights that are not specified in the Constitution, but are among the unenumerated rights retained by the people and the states under Amendments 9 and 10, and which individuals and groups can ask the state AND/OR FEDERAL government to act to protect) were being violated because states were not recognizing the laws of other states.

It still is a state issue. Why don't you point out a part in the Constitution where the Federal Government has a say of who can be married and who can't. Let me say it for you. You can't, hence it cannot be debated. It IS still a state issue, like it was before. Before, if you wanted to get married, you went to another state where it was legal. Now you have no choice. And this is supposed to be a free country. Really?

Any powers that are not part of the Federal Government is up to the states. Free speech is federal thing, not a state thing, so every state must agree with it to be apart of the union. However gay marriage is not in one of the federal governments powers. Hence it is a state issue. But the Supreme Court says "Nuh uh, we're gonna make it legal everywhere whether you like it or not.

I'm telling you, this is a seriously bad sign and you'll all regret being in favor of something like this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It still is a state issue. Why don't you point out a part in the Constitution where the Federal Government has a say of who can be married and who can't. Let me say it for you. You can't, hence it cannot be debated. It IS still a state issue, like it was before. Before, if you wanted to get married, you went to another state where it was legal. Now you have no choice. And this is supposed to be a free country. Really?

Slavery technically isn't a Federal issue, but the Federal government addressed it. Racial segregation is technically not a Federal issue, but the Federal government addressed it. Women's rights are technically not a Federal issue, but the Federal government addressed it. Marriage technically isn't a Federal issue, but the Federal government made it one with all of the benefits, and legal issues such as next-of-kin.
But, because marriage has become a Federal issue, long before yesterday, then gay marriage is in the interest of the Federal government.

I'm telling you, this is a seriously bad sign and you'll all regret being in favor of something like this.

Uh huh. Just like we were all supposed to regret the ending of slavery because of course we all know that negros are born for servitude. And golly gee were all gonna be havin' a hard time when those emotionally frail and naive women get their rights. And of course we can never treat those drunken brawling Irish like real people, and we all know the Chinese are after white women.
We're always supposed to regret granting freedoms, equality, and dignity, but society at large never does.

 

[Curious George]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

Wrong. While I understand your argument, it fails because there are certain rights which neither the federal or state can infringe upon without good reason. Marriage is one of them. As it turns out, there is no good reason to deny homosexuals marriage. Thus, all of the states that might choose to do so were in violation of the constitution.

But passing the buck under the federalist/anti federalist argument is at least a respectable argument. The question is...to what end?

 

[Willamena]

It still is a state issue. Why don't you point out a part in the Constitution where the Federal Government has a say of who can be married and who can't.

The feds have, as in the case of this ruling, only powers over who can be married, not who can't. They have the powers regarding civil rights, not wrongs.

The states have the powers regarding civil wrongs.

 

[Shad]

It still is a state issue. Why don't you point out a part in the Constitution where the Federal Government has a say of who can be married and who can't. Let me say it for you. You can't, hence it cannot be debated. It IS still a state issue, like it was before. Before, if you wanted to get married, you went to another state where it was legal. Now you have no choice. And this is supposed to be a free country. Really?

Any powers that are not part of the Federal Government is up to the states. Free speech is federal thing, not a state thing, so every state must agree with it to be apart of the union. However gay marriage is not in one of the federal governments powers. Hence it is a state issue. But the Supreme Court says "Nuh uh, we're gonna make it legal everywhere whether you like it or not.

I'm telling you, this is a seriously bad sign and you'll all regret being in favor of something like this.

It really only shows that certain states are poorly run and mired in traditions that no longer matter to many. Was Loving vs Virginia a bad sign as well?

 

[Revoltingest]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

I have multiple copies of the Constitution (to hand out to interested people).
I've read much of it.
This decision strikes me as perfectly in line with the 14th Amendment.
Equal protection is a right when there's no compelling reason to deny it.
Other than religious objections (which hold no water in court), they gots nuthin.
The issue also warrants a USSC decision because of legal conflicts between the states.

 

[Lyndon]

Um...no it's not a good idea to enact legislation everywhere. Otherwise, what's the point of having states? That's why we had states to begin with. We already know what the federal governments powers are and anything that aren't the federal government's responsibility is up to the states. There's a reason why some say America is becoming more socialist. This is one of them. Where everyone just does what the feds say and make it legal or illegal everywhere. This was forced against everyone who didn't want same sex marriage, against religious people who didn't want it. No one asked if they were ok with this. It was just forced on them against their will. No one sees a problem with this?

This statement about America becoming more socialist is absolute non sense, America as a country is becoming less socialist, If it where becoming more socialist we would have free socialized medicine, not a capitalist Obamacare program designed to benefit capitalist Heath Insurance companies, we would be seeing an increase in social welfare programs and in increase in Food stamps, we would be seeing socialized payed parental leave for parents of newborn children. We would be seeing easing of the strict rules for getting unemployment insurance, elimination of the time limits on receiving welfare for mothers with children, America is not moving to the left, it is rapidly moving to the right, and the right wing is brainwashing people to not notice it by trying to say it is getting MORE socialized, absolute rubbish!!

PS gay marriage has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with equal rights as outlined in the constitution.

 

[BSM1]

While the dissenters pay mild lip service to this sophomoric view of constitutional law, the US constitution, courtesy of the Fourteenth Amendment, deprives the states of the power to deny fundamental rights, of which marriage is one. Everyone sitting on that court agrees with this view; the dissenters all joined together with Kennedy in the Citizens United case to render for-profit corporations the same as individuals when it comes to speech rights (an absurd view from a historical perspective).

Notwithstanding Justice Roberts' condescending dissent, this had everything to do with the constitution, which unquestionably protects the rights and dignity of individuals, including gay men and lesbians.

Not to put to fine a point on it but where did you get the idea that marriage is a right? How would you explain laws against polygamy or incestual marriages?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

This statement about America becoming more socialist is absolute non sense, America as a country is becoming less socialist, If it where becoming more socialist we would have free socialized medicine, not a capitalist Obamacare program designed to benefit capitalist Heath Insurance companies, we would be seeing an increase in social welfare programs and in increase in Food stamps, we would be seeing socialized payed parental leave for parents of newborn children. We would be seeing easing of the strict rules for getting unemployment insurance, elimination of the time limits on receiving welfare for mother with children, America is not moving to the left, it is rapidly moving to the right, and the right wing is brainwashing people to not notice it by trying to say it is getting MORE socialized, absolute rubbish!!

Gun control, multiple welfare programs, having less freedom because you might "offend" someone, healthcare that's crappy and forced upon others, these are all things socialist countries do. How do you not see this? Social security is something a socialist would do. Trying to spread the wealth around is a socialist trait.

There are times where I feel like I'm Mugatu from Zoolander and I just want to scream "Doesn't anyone see this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

 

[Jainarayan]

It's not a states' rights issue. The 14th Amendment which the decision was based on says that no state can make a law that would abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen or deprive them of due process. State laws that permit heterosexuals to marry under protection of those laws, but denies those laws to homosexuals violates the equal protecton clause.

 

[Curious George]

It still is a state issue. Why don't you point out a part in the Constitution where the Federal Government has a say of who can be married and who can't. Let me say it for you. You can't, hence it cannot be debated. It IS still a state issue, like it was before. Before, if you wanted to get married, you went to another state where it was legal. Now you have no choice. And this is supposed to be a free country. Really?

Any powers that are not part of the Federal Government is up to the states. Free speech is federal thing, not a state thing, so every state must agree with it to be apart of the union. However gay marriage is not in one of the federal governments powers. Hence it is a state issue. But the Supreme Court says "Nuh uh, we're gonna make it legal everywhere whether you like it or not.

I'm telling you, this is a seriously bad sign and you'll all regret being in favor of something like this.

The constitution clearly indicates that the bill of rights is not exhaustive in enumerating rights of the people (9th amendment) the constitution clearly prevents states from making and enforcing laws that infringe upon our rights as citizens of the u.s. (14th amendment). The constitution does not have to say anything about marriage. That marriage was a fundamental right is connected to the fact that life liberty and property entail other rights. Marriage, privacy, and many more are rights we have upon which the government cannot encroach without due process, this includes good reason.

This was not a violation of the constitution.

 

[Jainarayan]

Not to put to fine a point on it but where did you get the idea that marriage is a right? How would you explain laws against polygamy or incestual marriages?

Loving v. Virginia says that marriage is a fundamental right of man.