This was unconstitutional

[dgirl1986]

I find this whole post disgusting and weird.

And just plain wrong.

 

[JoStories]

Yeah, join the crowd of people who are moving to Canada over America legalizing gay marriage, even though Canada legalized it along time ago.

Maybe one day I'll understand how sharing this nation with others is interpreted in ways such as "living as exiles in our own country." It's pretty bad when I used to be one of them and I still can't understand it.

Very true Shadow. I have the unique position to have been an exile, of a sort, in two categories. I am Bisexual and I am Native American, both of which are seen as 'less' than the white community because we are not 'true' Americans. If being NA makes me out to be an untrue American, I would rather it remain that way.

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah, when you talk about Illegal Immigrants, you mean almost all of us, funny thing most of the "illegal immigrants" coming from Mexico are at least part Native North American.

 

[Revoltingest]

Very true Shadow. I have the unique position to have been an exile, of a sort, in two categories. I am Bisexual and I am Native American, both of which are seen as 'less' than the white community because we are not 'true' Americans. If being NA makes me out to be an untrue American, I would rather it remain that way.

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.

 

[leibowde84]

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 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.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

Polygamous and incestuous marriages have been seen by the court to be detrimental for society. They feel that they have an interest in keeping the State from sanctioning them. With same-sex marriage, that case has not been made successfully. There is a massive lack of evidence (beyond pure speculation) that shows any kind of societal detriment caused by same-sex marriage. Since it has been around for quite some time, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is no such evidence, seeing how it has not been discovered yet.

 

[McBell]

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?

Actually, the states made it a federal issue when they declared they would not recognize the completely legal same sex marriages of other states.
When there is a conflict between the states such as this, the Federal Government has every constitutional right to step in.

So if you want to assign blame, put it where it belongs, on the states.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

Surprise surprise!
The basis of this argument has absolutely nothing to do with State's Rights and everything to do with ignorance and disdain.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Wow, your preconceived notions and prejudice against homosexuals is astounding. None of this is true, and is merely based on your own subjective experience, which is extremely and obviously biased. There is absolutely no objective evidence pointing at homosexuals being any less committed in marriage than heterosexuals.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yep, we agree much. I've always thought that government might work better if we just randomly selected people--I used to say from the phone book, but since most people aren't in phone books anymore...). Yes you'd get incompetents and people who would try to use the system, but you'd avoid the problem of experienced politicians who have developed extensive relationships with special interest donors. Downside of that is that they would have to depend heavily on staff...

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.

 

[BSM1]

Polygamous and incestuous marriages have been seen by the court to be detrimental for society. They feel that they have an interest in keeping the State from sanctioning them. With same-sex marriage, that case has not been made successfully. There is a massive lack of evidence (beyond pure speculation) that shows any kind of societal detriment caused by same-sex marriage. Since it has been around for quite some time, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is no such evidence, seeing how it has not been discovered yet.

This can change with enough outcry, evidently.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

 

[David M]

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?

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution gives everyone equal rights under the law, which means that it is precisely the job of the Supreme Court to determine when states are placing legal barriers on people in civil life in a manner that is unconstitutional.

 

[leibowde84]

This can change with enough outcry, evidently.

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.

 

[David M]

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..

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

 

[Jainarayan]

so the only question was whether there was sufficient reason to deny this right to same-sex couples. SCOTUS found that there was not.

People are looking for reasons "why grant" instead of reasons "why not grant". The NJ state supreme court also said there was no evidence or reason to deny same sex couples marriage. If I understand the philosophy, the job of the court was to prove a negative (why ssm should be denied), which they could not. Seems the burden of proof was on the opponents, and there is no proof. Did all that make sense?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Our system is structured such that laws can be enacted & repealed easily & quickly.
But even these laws must obey other laws, ie, the Constitution, which is much more difficult & time consuming to change.
This is to prevent momentary passions from resulting in inadequately considered changes to our rights.
People give the Constitution this authority, because it's the foundation of our laws.

 

[leibowde84]

People are looking for reasons "why grant" instead of reasons "why not grant". The NJ state supreme court also said there was no evidence or reason to deny same sex couples marriage. If I understand the philosophy, the job of the court was to prove a negative (why ssm should be denied), which they could not. Seems the burden of proof was on the opponents, and there is no proof. Did all that make sense?

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I think heads might explode if you suggest that the constitution is only merely a piece of paper. But, of course, it is a meaningless and worthless piece of paper, with its only value being what people bestow upon it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Our system is structured such that laws can be enacted & repealed easily & quickly.
But even these laws must obey other laws, ie, the Constitution, which is much more difficult & time consuming to change.
This is to prevent momentary passions from resulting in inadequately considered changes to our rights.
People give the Constitution this authority, because it's the foundation of our laws.

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.