This was unconstitutional

[Marisa]

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?

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the constitution. Basic rights, of which marriage is one, are not up for vote.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

What makes you think I'm not putting in effort? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not being thoughtful about my position.

Even if every religion were universally against it; which isn't even true in Christianity, as you admit yourself; it wouldn't matter in regards to a constitutional right to marriage being required to be protected by judicial review and congressional legislation. Religion doesn't dictate law by necessity, they incidentally agree: it's not that complicated a concept.

You don't have evidence for this, or you certainly haven't brought it up. The CDC reports I've heard aren't about gays, first off, and other studies are 40+ years old, so they cannot reasonably apply to gay people today.

The family structure is not just about gender dimorphism, it's about love and commitment to the child's well being overall.

You've researched nothing i that's your conclusion: you've looked at this with the most blatant confirmation bias and have ignored anything that contradicts that position because otherwise your head might explode.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

You should probably expect some fallback from blanket statements about the behavior of large groups of people.

All the more so when those statements intend to oppose their basic rights and imply that those people simply deserve to be treated as lesser, without even a need for a justification.

 

[metis]

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.

However:
Third, the divorce rate is lower for same-sex couples than straight couples. It would be wonderful to proclaim that this shows that gay folks are more committed to their marriages than straight folks -- and given the recent rash of near instantaneous divorces (think Kardashian) this wouldn't seem that crazy. However, I suspect that this can be attributed to the types of couples getting married in these early years of same-sex marriage, and not a testament to the stability of lesbian and gay relationships. There's no statistical data out yet on this particular dynamic, but in my experience as a lawyer working with same-sex couples, the partners getting married tend to be those who have already been together for some time. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. For that reason, we should not be surprised that they are not rushing to get divorced so quickly. Of course, there are a fair number of such couples whose relationships don't last, but on the whole it's a rather select group. Think about it -- the couples with shakier relationships are not likely to travel across state lines to get married -- and there certainly aren't any "shotgun" marriages in the gay community! -- Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples | Frederick Hertz

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I already know people will regret it.

The only ones who are going to regret it are those who are prejudiced against homosexuals.

 

[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.

I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS was intended to decide constitutional issues in legislation.

 

[Jainarayan]

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?

You have to admit your post had a one-way ticket to Unbelievablestan with a layover in Yougottabekiddingmestan. Yes?

 

[leibowde84]

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?

You make incredibly insulting claims about homosexuals that are based solely on your own experiences and fail to provide sociologically supported research to support it. It is almost as if you are saying ... "come one guys, we all know that gays are just permiscuous, fake, feminine acting men who couldn't cut it with heterosexuality". Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is the clearest form of prejudice I've seen in a while.

 

[gsa]

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.

1. Egalitarian, partnership marriage was incomprehensible in the 19th century, unless you were a free love radical. Perhaps you missed the discussion of coverture, arranged marriages and the like. You can throw in limited grounds for divorce while you are at it. We are dealing with an institution that did not begin to exist until about the middle of this century, one thoroughly reformed by egalitarianism.

2. No, I do not know what you are talking about. I think you mean non-monogamy, which sure, is more common among gay men, even those in partnerships and marriages. As opposed to the serial monogamy, covert infidelity and deadbeat dad status that has come to define the American heterosexual male, perhaps? If you are going to insist upon monogamy, you better be willing to be consistent. Perhaps an "Oath of Monogamy" will be a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license now? Along with an "Oath to Procreate Through The Missionary Position" I assume? And since we are making up rules as we go along, particularly when it comes to religious freedom, we should also prohibit interfaith marriages.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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?

Apparently, you aren't familiar with the principles of debate: make assertion, present evidence, defend proposition and evidence to challenge, challenge assertions and evidence presented by the other side.

So far, you have made assertions, not presented evidence of any quality in support of your assertions, not responded to direct challenges to your assumptions, reasoning, and limited evidence, and you have not made any effective challenge to the assertions, reasoning or evidence presented by your opponents. Instead, you continue to repeat the same assertions that others have already more than adequately responded to.You were expecting?

 

[McBell]

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.

Actually, that is not accurate.
If the states that banned same sex marriage had not went so far as to declare they would not recognize the legal same sex marriages of other states, the Supreme Court would not have gotten involved.

So it is as though the states banning same sex marriage were begging the Supreme Court to declare their ban illegal.

 

[Revoltingest]

So it is as though the states banning same sex marriage were begging the Supreme Court to declare their ban illegal.

Perhaps they thought they'd win.
They almost did.

 

[JoStories]

It's never left enough or right enough for some folks. Personally I suspect both parties are in bed with each other on the politician level. They just put on a circus to keep folks distracted from anything important that's going on.

Whatever is going on that people don't like can be blamed on the other party.

Well, here in Maine, an independent state for the record, we do have enough voice to currently be asking for the impeachment of our current governor, who is an imbecile and currently has so over stepped his office as to have now had a special committee to investigate his heinous actions. Every single day, there is at least one letter to the editor either asking for his impeachment or him to resign. This is what the voice of BOTH parties are asking for here. So we do have an impact it seems.

 

[JoStories]

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.

Where are your sources to defend your statement here. I just saw a lovely story of two 90 year old women, who because of small minded people such as you, were not allowed to marry, despite being in a relationship for 70 YEARS, and just the other day, these two lovely women got married. Both in wheelchairs. If you can prove that gay relationships don't last as long as straight, who btw, have the highest stats of divorce, then prove it with a credible source.

 

[JoStories]

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

That is what I just asked. Because the fact is, the divorce rates among straight couples are much higher than for SS couples. And furthermore, children raised by gay parents are just as likely to be normal as with hetero couples. And diseases, as this poster intimated, are higher among hetero males hiring hookers. His posts indicate, at least to me, the anti-gay propaganda that has existed regarding this issue, most from those with agendas, such as the WBC, all based on bull pucky.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps they thought they'd win.
They almost did.

True enough. On the other hand, the tide was already turning. It was only a matter of how long it would take for the formalization to be produced.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, here in Maine, an independent state for the record, we do have enough voice to currently be asking for the impeachment of our current governor, who is an imbecile and currently has so over stepped his office as to have now had a special committee to investigate his heinous actions. Every single day, there is at least one letter to the editor either asking for his impeachment or him to resign. This is what the voice of BOTH parties are asking for here. So we do have an impact it seems.

For independent states.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Lol, no I don't think the ruling would have been different. I think that philosophical approach to the law certainly affects their disposition, not their views on marriage equality. The interpretations seen here are not anything remarkable. While Kennedy could have gone either way, it is hard to ignore the stare decisis.

Marriage is a fundamental right. This is well decided and not likely to change. While people may argue that it is not written in the constitution, can anyone honestly think it otherwise. No one invented a new right. Marriage was never in question. Why in the world would you think that marriage is not a fundamental right? If the government cannot take your gun, why the hell would they be able to your spouse?

so the fact that 4 of the 9 justices did rule against it doesn't mean anything to you? It doesn't show that every single justice who was against same sex marriage voted against it and every justice for same sex marriage voted for it? What would have happened if just one of the justices that voted yes had voted no? It would have been the opposite ruling. If it were clear cut it would have been unanimous or at least close.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We know it's the luck of the draw.
The justices can (& often do) rule based upon personal whim.
We just got lucky this time with the Constitution & public opinion on our side, albeit barely.

True.

 

[Jainarayan]

And so it begins...

EXCLUSIVE: County Clerk Resigns Instead of Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses | Todd Starnes

I wonder if she'll try to get unemployment benefits then complain she's being punished when she doesn't get them.

Btw, it's hypocrisy, or ignorance of her own religion at its finest:

Romans 13:1-2
1. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.