This was unconstitutional

[Jainarayan]

Straight out of the Bigot's Handbook. Do you have any idea of the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the US? Its over 40%.

To counter your second claim all I will say is 55 years.
Adorable couple together for 55 years marry as Texas AG blasts Supreme Court ruling

The Bigot's Handbook (I wonder if there really is one they study ) is based on Paul Cameron's flawed and deliberately skewed "studies". Paul Cameron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are 10 myths debunked.
10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Right and wrong are about what you can get away with. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. People give up their rights willing in exchange for usually some protection if affords. So maybe a slow creep of Federal government control but that's what people want. Some powerful oversee that keeps them safe from the chaos of humanity.

As long as it is giving people what they want, they are ok with it. People won't regret it, they'll justify it. At some future point it'll probably all lead to massive governmental control of people's lives. I imagine until the government stops giving folks what they want.

No good reason to trust the government any more then the church but that's what folks do. People prefer the security of someone looking out for them even if it is an illusion.

 

[Jainarayan]

Why do you think that "proving same-sex marriage should be denied" is asking them to "prove a negative"? I don't see it that way, as it is a positive claim; reasons why same-sex marriage should not be recognized by the State.

What I mean is that the court proved there was no reason to deny ssm rights. Opponents made claims against it and hoped SCOTUS would find those negative claims also, but they didn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

True enough, as it is. I guess that is helpful from a stability standpoint.
But people talk about is as if it was sacred or something.

It's the closest thing I have to "sacred".

Edited to add: You do remember our own talks about how much importance there ought to be in remaining true to the intents of principles stated literally centuries ago in the Second Ammendment, don't you? It is clear to me that for various reasons that is simply not an issue to be taken seriously.

You needn't take it seriously.
I'll do that for you.

For one thing, those Founding Fathers of the time had no way of guessing what weapon carry would be and which implications it would have at the present time. James Madison, Ben Franklin and the like never had a fair chance of building an opinion about AR-15s or even Glocks.

They were aware that things would change in unpredictable ways.
This explains the generality of their language.
If we deem necessary, we can always amend the Constitution.

 

[JoStories]

That depends upon where one lives. Here, you're a privileged class.
Native Americastanians get free tuition at universities, & non-heterosexuals working for the City can get spousal benefits even if not married. Heteros & non-Indians are denied these bennies. So you're in a much higher class than I am....without even considering me table mannners.

Speaking only for myself Revolting, I personally have never used any of those benefits as I was raised to make my own on my own merits. If I could not do that, I should never tap into something that I dont need. I worked my way through my first college degrees (2 =BSN and BA) while raising two children alone and working 3 jobs. And where I live, now I could get benefits for my late partner but not at the time she was alive which is why she died.

 

[JoStories]

I know the constitution, and I am a lawyer, and I completely disagree. You are ignoring one of the main reasons that the Supreme Court exists. It is there, in large part, to protect minorities from the majority. When laws are passed that seem to infringe on a group's constitutionally protected rights, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to strike them down. And, the straw man argument that "there is no right for same sex couples to marry in the constitution" is nonsensical, as there is no need for that. Just look at the segregation cases. In theory, "separate by equal" could have been seen as constitutional when voted in by the majority of a state. But, since the court found that "separate but equal" was impossible in reality, they saw it as infringing on the rights of African Americans. Thus, the Court had to strike down segregation laws even though they were passed by a majority.

Basically, the opposing side did not present sufficient evidence to show why same-sex couples should be denied the ability to get married under the law. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the right to marry is constitutionally protected, so the only question was whether there was sufficient reason to deny this right to same-sex couples. SCOTUS found that there was not.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love you dear friend?

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think I will ever stop marvelling at how seriously people talk about what a Constitution says or fails to say as if it had any form of authority that did not come directly from people agreeing to lend it meaning and relevancy.

Yes, this is true. It's just a piece of paper. It's not only religion people get conditioned to see things as sacred. It's fine as long as the principles are something you agree with. However it's only agreement that gives it any value.

And I suppose just like the Bible, folks will interpret it in a manner that suits their morality.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, this is true. It's just a piece of paper. It's not only religion people get conditioned to see things as sacred. It's fine as long as the principles are something you agree with. However it's only agreement that gives it any value.

And I suppose just like the Bible, folks will interpret it in a manner that suits their morality.

The Constitution is a living document, which is absolutely necessary for any free nation. We learn from past mistakes and we progress.

 

[Nakosis]

The Constitution is a living document, which is absolutely necessary for any free nation. We learn from past mistakes and we progress.

The only stability it has it that people continue to support it's principles. I don't expect that to last forever. I'm not against it, I just see this as the reality. If we had more conservatives on the bench they could have as easily ruled the other way. It could change it's ruling at some future point.

We can see it as progress, other folks don't.

 

[leibowde84]

The only stability it has it that people continue to support it's principles. I don't expect that to last forever. I'm not against it, I just see this as the reality. If we had more conservatives on the bench they could have as easily ruled the other way. It could change it's ruling at some future point.

We can see it as progress, other folks don't.

Well ... one thing is for sure. You can't have any progress without change.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only stability it has it that people continue to support it's principles. I don't expect that to last forever. I'm not against it, I just see this as the reality. If we had more conservatives on the bench they could have as easily ruled the other way. It could change it's ruling at some future point.

Changing the ruling looks extraordinarily unlikely.
The lack of any imposition upon those who object to gay marriage means that their opposition will wither.

 

[BSM1]

Theoretically, I guess, but there isn't nearly enough support for it currently. Unlike same-sex marriage, there is actually objective evidence showing that incestuous and polygamous marriages are detrimental. So, apart from civil marriage being involved, I fail to see the connection.

You may be right. Stay tuned.

 

[Nakosis]

Changing the ruling looks extraordinarily unlikely.
The lack of any imposition upon those who object to gay marriage means that their opposition will wither.

Probably, but I'm the eternal pessimist.
What can go wrong, will.

(Wrong being a relative term)

 

[Nakosis]

Well ... one thing is for sure. You can't have any progress without change.

Change is the only constant: My rule of thumb.

I don't expect the US to be here forever. I expect at some point we'll have another dark age. Rome was progressive and seemly indestructible at one time.

Probably something for another thread, but Rome fell because of governmental corruption and immigration.

 

[leibowde84]

Probably, but I'm the eternal pessimist.
What can go wrong, will.

(Wrong being a relative term)

Murphy's law, right?

 

[Nakosis]

Murphy's law, right?

That and a lifetime of experience.

 

[Iti oj]

I don't think I will ever stop marvelling at how seriously people talk about what a Constitution says or fails to say as if it had any form of authority that did not come directly from people agreeing to lend it meaning and relevancy.

Have you read it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably, but I'm the eternal pessimist.
What can go wrong, will.
(Wrong being a relative term)

I like to prioritize my threats according to level & likelihood.
So I'll enjoy this victory with great confidence.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Even a random selection I think would be better than politicians, though we could also use similar filters as jury selections?, each law could be voted on by a group of citizens selected as qualified, eligible, without direct conflicts of interest. (e.g.) barring anyone who ever worked in politics!

I said logistics was a moot point with today's technology, but I think we could make a good argument that the logistics argument strongly favors 'citizen legislators' in this day and age-

One huge problem with the current system is that many laws are lumped into single bills, explicitly because it's impractical to get politicians to read, consider, understand and physically show up to vote on each one individually, so we get endless stuffing of bills with laws that would never stand a chance of being passed on their own by anybody.

A separate "jury" for each proposed law? I kind of like that.

 

[Iti oj]

True enough, as it is. I guess that is helpful from a stability standpoint.

But people talk about is as if it was sacred or something.

Edited to add: You do remember our own talks about how much importance there ought to be in remaining true to the intents of principles stated literally centuries ago in the Second Ammendment, don't you? It is clear to me that for various reasons that is simply not an issue to be taken seriously.

For one thing, those Founding Fathers of the time had no way of guessing what weapon carry would be and which implications it would have at the present time. James Madison, Ben Franklin and the like never had a fair chance of building an opinion about AR-15s or even Glocks.

He has to been treated sacred, and to say thins change and just do away with amendments means what protects out other rights if not the sacredness of the document. Why allow voting, that's so last century.