This was unconstitutional

[gsa]

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 among a host of US Supreme Court decisions dating back more than 50 years.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think its clearly unconstitutional or constitutional. The results remain to be seen. The question of whether something is 'Constitutional' is really about this: whether it unifies citizens. This decision by the court has to take into account recent understanding about the nature of people and to try and hold the country together, and its been very torn by this issue in the last 3 decades. They waited, but this issue didn't go away. If this legal decision doesn't work, or if for some reason gay marriage turns out to be oppressive and destructive then it will cause a reaction which will result in further legislation and jurisprudence in the other direction. Hopefully this will result in a more united culture and a stronger argument for other countries to forsake dictator-style government.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anyone who's known gay people knows it doesn't usually last long.

Anyone who knows people knows it usually doesn't last long.

Also there are gays that even spoke out against homo marriage and having them adopt children, but you don't see the news report that, do you?

And some women speak out against women's rights and feminism.

Again, not to many children with homo parents turn out well.

That is total and utter rubbish.

not just because it's disgusting and weird.

And now we know how you really feel, which isn't logical or rational but entirely from within a frame of homophobia.
Just because you find it disgusting and weird doesn't make it so.

 

[columbus]

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

I love the smell of religionists whining in the morning.

It smells like Victory.
Tom

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

All things considered there doesn't seem to be any choice except to at least give it a try. Maybe its a mistake, but we'll find out together. I'm sure the Republican party is happy right, now; because this takes a lot of pressure off of them. Since the Supreme Court has ruled on it, they don't have to take a strong position on it. They can move towards center.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Going by the conventional definition of socialism.....
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com
....the claim that we're becoming more socialist is valid.
Anyone who runs a manufacturing, real estate or medical business can see the yearly increase in government control over us.
Control is integral to "ownership".
To avoid tedium, I'm skipping a more detailed description of what ownership entails.)

Now, before any objects to a claim that Americastan is "socialist", remember that I'm talking only about a change in that direction.
We're at a point in a continuum between to extremes, ie, capitalism & socialism. And this point is moving.

 

[Jainarayan]

Has anyone noticed how those who argue against the decision have their legal and constitutional ducks scattered all over the place?

 

[Curious George]

The federal government didn't have to stick their noses in it. People act as if every state had slavery. Some didn't and it wasn't just the south either. The North had slaves, too. You can phase those things out without having it forced on everyone. Once you use force, you create more problems.

Funny how gays talk of getting married, but a lot of them are promiscuous and wouldn't stay married. Anyone who's known gay people knows it doesn't usually last long. Also there are gays that even spoke out against homo marriage and having them adopt children, but you don't see the news report that, do you? It ends up ruining the family because both a mother and father are needed to balance things out. Again, not to many children with homo parents turn out well. Diseases are spread more because they tend to be more promiscuous. Lots of strippers and porn stars are gay or at least bi. AIDS was more common in gays than hetero couples. That and with messing up the family, THAT is the reason why religions were against it, not just because it's disgusting and weird.

Omfg, tell us how you really feel, lol.

No more hiding behind, well I love all people, but I don't approve of gay marriage because it is against the law, and the people need to decide. I don't think you would be happy if the people did decide.


Any part of your rant is (and has been) a thread unto itself.

Every point has been, rebuked, refuted, debunked, and generally tore asunder. You can continue to believe this despite all of the evidence to the contrary, or you can accept that maybe you are wrong, and need to revisit your beliefs.

Btw, your post is fractally wrong.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Going by the conventional definition of socialism.....
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com
....the claim that we're becoming more socialist is valid.
Anyone who runs a manufacturing, real estate or medical business can see the yearly increase in government control over us.
Control is integral to "ownership".
To avoid tedium, I'm skipping a more detailed description of what ownership entails.)

Now, before any objects to a claim that Americastan is "socialist", remember that I'm talking only about a change in that direction.
We're at a point in a continuum between to extremes, ie, capitalism & socialism. And this point is moving.

Come to think of it both Republicans and Libertarians win, because now their position on Gay Marriage doesn't matter much. The only losers are the winners, the Democrats. Ironic that victory hurts.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

I considered this too.
Marriage is pretty clearly a right.
Why?
Because were it denied, everyone would be up in arms.
The question is about who is entitled to it.
I can see polygamy & incestuous marriages being rights too, but that would be a much harder sell to the Supremes.
The only rights we have legally are the ones recognized by enuf people for gov to do the same.

 

[Curious George]

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?

I see a problem with your mode of thinking. We tried a decentralized government...it did not work. We have given our centralized government enough power to guarantee the rights of u.s. citizens are not infringed upon. This means that while most discussion takes place at a state level, the federal government can step in. Protecting the rights of a minority group is one of those times.

 

[Revoltingest]

Come to think of it both Republicans and Libertarians win, because now their position on Gay Marriage doesn't matter much. The only losers are the winners, the Democrats. Ironic that victory hurts.

Huh?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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.

You appear to have a very poor grasp of the Constitution, Rule of Law, and what was decided in this case. Marriage is still a state issue--states have purview over such things as granting marriage licenses--except when the conflicts between the ways that the different states handle marriage cause problems for the citizens. Then, the SC has the responsibility of hearing and ruling on the case. In the prior post, I explained the CONSTITUTIONAL reasons it was before the federal SC.

Chief Justice Roberts could have refused to have the court hear the case, as the Chief Justice does with literally thousands of cases every year. Obviously, last fall he thought there was a legitimate reason for the court to hear the case, otherwise he would have said no. The court heard the arguments of the two sides, and entertained briefs from many "friends of the court" on both sides. The justices then deliberated, and the decision could have gone either way. Had the majority ruled the other way, you would presently be trumpeting how wonderful and wise the SC is, how the system WORKED, and so on. However, the majority were not convinced by the arguments that you prefer, although Roberts did an apparently good job of laying out the reasoning. Instead, the majority were convinced by the argument that there is no compelling governmental reason for states to discriminate against GLBTQ individuals, and the patchwork of policies by the different states needed to be resolved. You may not like it, but it is NOT the end of the world, or even the public debate about the topic. Some like to say the SC is the final word, but it's not.

So what happens next? State legislatures can try to draft new legislation, and Congress can do so as well. Any such legislation would have to have executive approval, then if passed would undoubtedly face another court challenge, that might well in a few years result in ANOTHER SC case--which could go either way, depending on the language of the law, the intent, the legal arguments, the sitting justices, etc. To stand Constitutional muster before the court, the legislation would have to clearly establish a compelling governmental reason in favor of discrimination.

Also, Constitutional amendments can be proposed in Congress to declare marriage in the US to be only between one man and one woman. Any such legislation would also need to be approved by the procedures laid out in the Constitution, but it could happen. If it did, then that would become the law of the land, and the current court ruling would become moot.

My guess is that people who oppose same-sex marriage will push for new legislation of various sorts and work to make sure that only conservatives get elected to office, get appointed to the bench and the SC, etc. And people who support marriage equality will continue to oppose and challenge those efforts. After all, that's what's been happening regarding people's rights based on gender, race, skin color, ethnic or national origins, age, handicapping condition, etc., etc., etc., for more than 50 years.

 

[gsa]

The federal government didn't have to stick their noses in it. People act as if every state had slavery. Some didn't and it wasn't just the south either. The North had slaves, too. You can phase those things out without having it forced on everyone. Once you use force, you create more problems.

Funny how gays talk of getting married, but a lot of them are promiscuous and wouldn't stay married. Anyone who's known gay people knows it doesn't usually last long. Also there are gays that even spoke out against homo marriage and having them adopt children, but you don't see the news report that, do you? It ends up ruining the family because both a mother and father are needed to balance things out. Again, not to many children with homo parents turn out well. Diseases are spread more because they tend to be more promiscuous. Lots of strippers and porn stars are gay or at least bi. AIDS was more common in gays than hetero couples. That and with messing up the family, THAT is the reason why religions were against it, not just because it's disgusting and weird.

All Southern states had slavery, while a small minority of Northern states also had slavery.

When you say that "a lot of [gays[ are promiscuous and wouldn't stay married" and that gay relationships "don't usually last long" while referring to their marriages as "homo marriage," and stating that gays are diseased strippers and porn stars, and that gays are "disgusting and weird," you reveal the precise reason that this decision was necessary.

Maybe you should focus on things that make you happy. Go worship some trees before Christian fundamentalists decide to try to ban it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Marriage is not (should not) even be a governmental matter whatsoever. The supreme court far as I know is empowered to interpret the law. Not legislate it.

Givin the ruling, it seems appros as it deals with one's right to the pursuit of happiness for which people desiring same sex recognition are no doubt a part of.

 

[Nietzsche]

The federal government didn't have to stick their noses in it. People act as if every state had slavery. Some didn't and it wasn't just the south either. The North had slaves, too. You can phase those things out without having it forced on everyone. Once you use force, you create more problems.

Wow, the Jim Crow & Pro-Slavery stuff just writes itself at this point.

 

[Willamena]

Marriage is not (should not) even be a governmental matter whatsoever.

Why not?

It should be a federal matter if it involves the whole population. The definition of marriage involves the whole population.

 

[Iti oj]

i

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.

this

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Looking at Yahoo News just now, I saw this extract from Justice Roberts' dissent:

"The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

One real problem in this whole discussion is that there are TWO kinds of marriage being discussed. One is a private arrangement between individuals that is recognized and consecrated by a religious organization, quite without any role or input or regulation from government. It has not legal standing in court, but most religious people believe that it is in some way a contract with or before God. The SC decision does nothing to affect this kind of marriage--churches are free as private organizations to define what marriage is within that church organization, and can conduct such marriages or not as they see fit.

The other is a legal contract, not consecrated by a religious organization, but established and regulated by government (in the US, state governments) for certain reasons that are deemed legitimate governmental purposes, having to do with property rights, tax classification, etc. That is the kind of marriage affected by the SC decision.

That the second grew out of the first is, under the legal system Common Law (also known as Rule of Law) that we use here in the US, irrelevant in court. That there are valid religious reasons (according to some religions or religious believers) for the law as it was is irrelevant in court, because religious beliefs are no longer given legal precedence in the creation and implementation of law, at least not to the degree it was, say, 60 years ago. The court ruled that these legal contracts, created and approved and regulated by the government, cannot be issued in a manner that discriminates on the basis of the gender of the applicants for a marriage license--just as the court had previously ruled that race, skin color, ethnic origin, etc., could not be discriminated against. The SC majority found that there is no compelling government (state or federal) interest that would justify not issuing wedding licenses to same-sex couples, and that all states must recognize and respect in all legal manners as valid same-sex marriages conducted in other states. State laws that prohibit same-sex marriages are null and void, because they violate the rights of same-sex individuals.

Again, this has nothing to do with marriages conducted by churches, only by officers of the state--which, I must note, most pastors and other church officials who conduct most weddings ARE. When you get married, you go to the court house to get a marriage license (the legal document). Many if not most weddings are conducted by ministers, who in addition to having permission from their denomination or church to conduct the religious-service weddings, also have agreed to become licensed as state actors to conduct the legal wedding at the same time. Some churches and denominations are going to have no problem with this, and will start conducting same-sex weddings that are both religious and legal, but others will find themselves with a conundrum.