This was unconstitutional

[muichimotsu]

What about it? That means if there is a conflict feds overrule, marriage has never been the federal governments responsibility. That's why it was always left to the states. Really the intention was to have the fed basically oversee the states and the states would act like countries of their own but still work together and agree on the federal governments conditions, not have all of them do whatever the federal government says with no questions asked.

There are some things the states cannot decide arbitrarily or even through some modicum of democracy, like civil rights that are imbedded in society or can arguably fall under the inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As much as marriage could be construed as a privilege, the right to choose one's partner shouldn't be restricted based on a heteronormative idea of marriage and presented as "traditional", when it's far from that, historically speaking.

Supremacy Clause means the constitution is the law of the land, states and federal government are both beholden to it. The state doesn't get to override it with their state level constitutions.

 

[Jainarayan]

What about it? That means if there is a conflict feds overrule, marriage has never been the federal governments responsibility. That's why it was always left to the states. Really the intention was to have the fed basically oversee the states and the states would act like countries of their own but still work together and agree on the federal governments conditions, not have all of them do whatever the federal government says with no questions asked.

It says that when there is a conflict between state law and the Constitution, the Constitution trumps all. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and in doing so they found that state bans on gay marriage violated the 14th Amendment. Apart from the fact that you simply disagree with it, what is so hard to understand?

 

[leibowde84]

I already know people will regret it. Because by allowing the feds to do this, you'll let them overrule everyone and states will become non existant.This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to avoid. a big federal government. Not all amendments are good either like the income tax amendment. What I wonder is if the 14th amendment gives them a right to have gay marriage, why didn't you see it legalized everywhere in the states? This amendment protects privileges. Marriage is not a privilege but a commitment. People love to twist that around. Like the people who say healthcare is a right. Entitlements are not rights and this isn't a privilege.

The fact that it wasn't legalized in all states is the reason it got to the Supreme Court as a constitutional issue. If they had all legalized it, the the SCOTUS decision wouldn't have been necessary.

 

[leibowde84]

What about it? That means if there is a conflict feds overrule, marriage has never been the federal governments responsibility. That's why it was always left to the states. Really the intention was to have the fed basically oversee the states and the states would act like countries of their own but still work together and agree on the federal governments conditions, not have all of them do whatever the federal government says with no questions asked.

If a law is unconstitutional the courts responsibility is to strike it down. That is their purpose.

 

[Jainarayan]

As much as marriage could be construed as a privilege

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a fundamental right.

 

[muichimotsu]

Acknowledged, though it's one of those things that's a civil right more than an inalienable one. It all comes down to the nuances involved: if we get a license, it makes one wonder how it is a right when there are requirements, except that those requirements are essential in some sense for marriage, rather than based in granting something new, like the legality of driving a car.

 

[Jainarayan]

Acknowledged, though it's one of those things that's a civil right more than an inalienable one. It all comes down to the nuances involved: if we get a license, it makes one wonder how it is a right when there are requirements, except that those requirements are essential in some sense for marriage, rather than based in granting something new, like the legality of driving a car.

I think it has to do with a duty of the government to protect its citizens. The marriage license confers legal protections as well as protections against too close a blood relationship between the partners, minimum age of consent, etc. Just my guess.

 

[Iti oj]

I already know people will regret it. Because by allowing the feds to do this, you'll let them overrule everyone and states will become non existant.This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to avoid. a big federal government. Not all amendments are good either like the income tax amendment. What I wonder is if the 14th amendment gives them a right to have gay marriage, why didn't you see it legalized everywhere in the states? This amendment protects privileges. Marriage is not a privilege but a commitment. People love to twist that around. Like the people who say healthcare is a right. Entitlements are not rights and this isn't a privilege.

marriage when recognized by the state is a privilege.

 

[metis]

What about it? That means if there is a conflict feds overrule, marriage has never been the federal governments responsibility. That's why it was always left to the states. Really the intention was to have the fed basically oversee the states and the states would act like countries of their own but still work together and agree on the federal governments conditions, not have all of them do whatever the federal government says with no questions asked.

No, it was not always left to the states, such as with the case with polygamy and previous state bans on interracial marriages. On top of that, because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, there very much is a civil-rights issue involved, and that obviously also involves the potential of invoking the Constitution because of that even in an area mostly regulated under state laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

State marriage bans were clearly unconstitutional. Refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from other states was a violation of the full faith and credit clause.

 

[Jainarayan]

State marriage bans were clearly unconstitutional. Refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from other states was a violation of the full faith and credit clause.

Yep, and not to mention the 14th Amendment which was the basis for the decision; the equal protection clause: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." State marriage laws were made and enforced unequally.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I guess they didn't talk about it much because gay marriage was virtually unheard of back then. They've seen gay relationships but no one could even comprehend gay marriage even in the 19th century.

I guess it should not matter if it is allowed. Most gays won't stay married for long anyway. I'm not saying this to be mean, but more often than not, gay relationships are promiscuous and they usually break up soon. There are promiscuous straight people but it's more common among the gay population. If you've talked to gays and seen their relationships you probably know what I'm talking about.

 

[muichimotsu]

I guess they didn't talk about it much because gay marriage was virtually unheard of back then. They've seen gay relationships but no one could even comprehend gay marriage even in the 19th century.

I guess it should not matter if it is allowed. Most gays won't stay married for long anyway. I'm not saying this to be mean, but more often than not, gay relationships are promiscuous and they usually break up soon. There are promiscuous straight people but it's more common among the gay population. If you've talked to gays and seen their relationships you probably know what I'm talking about.

Novelty doesn't render something immoral or somehow a threat to society: are you aware this whole debate started over 20years ago in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the anti gay marriage law unconstitutional?

And now you're parroting unfounded propaganda again. Did you not even care that people have pointed out how flawed your reasoning is?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I guess you'd think they didn't talk about it much was that gay marriage was virtually unheard of back then. They've seen gay relationships but no one could even comprehend gay marriage even in the 19th century.

They also didn't think of and couldn't comprehend big permanent interstate corporations back in those days--something that didn't exist much in practice until after the Civil War, and were recognized as fictional persons by the appointed justices on the Supreme Court, so property could be owned in a collective manner. Five years ago, five of the unelected supremes decided that these fictional persons have a right to free speech, in the form of campaign contributions, advertising for candidates, etc. A right made up out of whole cloth, according to some--but it's the interpretation of the law according to the Supreme Court, until something happens to change it.

 

[Jainarayan]

I guess they didn't talk about it much because gay marriage was virtually unheard of back then. They've seen gay relationships but no one could even comprehend gay marriage even in the 19th century.

I guess it should not matter if it is allowed. Most gays won't stay married for long anyway. I'm not saying this to be mean, but more often than not, gay relationships are promiscuous and they usually break up soon. There are promiscuous straight people but it's more common among the gay population. If you've talked to gays and seen their relationships you probably know what I'm talking about.

I think my brain just died a little reading that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess they didn't talk about it much because gay marriage was virtually unheard of back then. They've seen gay relationships but no one could even comprehend gay marriage even in the 19th century.

I guess it should not matter if it is allowed. Most gays won't stay married for long anyway. I'm not saying this to be mean, but more often than not, gay relationships are promiscuous and they usually break up soon. There are promiscuous straight people but it's more common among the gay population. If you've talked to gays and seen their relationships you probably know what I'm talking about.

Even if you were correct (and you probably are not), that would not even matter.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I guess it should not matter if it is allowed. Most gays won't stay married for long anyway. I'm not saying this to be mean, but more often than not, gay relationships are promiscuous and they usually break up soon. There are promiscuous straight people but it's more common among the gay population. If you've talked to gays and seen their relationships you probably know what I'm talking about.

Well, to be equal then, just because SOME marriages might end in divorce, and because some people are promiscuous, it's obvious that we should just abolish marriage althogether, since it creates so many problems!

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Novelty doesn't render something immoral or somehow a threat to society: are you aware this whole debate started over 20years ago in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the anti gay marriage law unconstitutional?

And now you're parroting unfounded propaganda again. Did you not even care that people have pointed out how flawed your reasoning is?

Well I might care if people actually did point it out. You haven't done much better either. Anyone can say" you are a stupid head! Lolz" but it takes effort to actually debate. Religions overall are against it too and it wasn't just because it was different. Gays are more promiscuous and therefore spread more disease. Why do you think aids was more common in gays. Gays adopting children is bad because there is no balance and it disrupts the family. Not too many happy families have existed through gay adoption. Excuse me if I'm not spoon fed half truths like you and the others. I research.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I think my brain just died a little reading that.

I must say that is quite a convincing point. You know how to debate well. My mistake you weren't debating, it was just insults.

Has everyone taken crazy pills and only know how to insult and be obnoxious? Or is this expected in this forum?

 

[leibowde84]

I guess they didn't talk about it much because gay marriage was virtually unheard of back then. They've seen gay relationships but no one could even comprehend gay marriage even in the 19th century.

I guess it should not matter if it is allowed. Most gays won't stay married for long anyway. I'm not saying this to be mean, but more often than not, gay relationships are promiscuous and they usually break up soon. There are promiscuous straight people but it's more common among the gay population. If you've talked to gays and seen their relationships you probably know what I'm talking about.

So, you have evidence to back up your claim that married homosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals?