Gay Marriage everywhere, mass hysteria ensues

[boyst]

Yeah, like making interracial marriage and separate but equal illegal. This country is going to hell. Ha-rumph, ha-rumph. We need a country that preserves the sanctity of states rights over human rights.

it was wrong then, otoo.

[Max Fischer]

As the country moves further to the left, more people will be shoved to the right as the center line moves. There will come a day when the bleeding-heart liberals of today will be called a right-wing nut job by their grand children.

 

Yesterday, we ended a debate that lasted 20yrs over an issue that is "none of our business" that affects less than 3% of the population.

 

Interracial marriage was a result of pulling the nation to the left? If that is the definition of progress why would you be mad?

 

Or, are you're saying that because gay marriage only effects a small minority of people that the court was wrong?

it was wrong then, otoo.

What was wrong? The state bans on interracial or SCOTUS making those laws illegal?

[boyst]

Interracial marriage was a result of pulling the nation to the left? If that is the definition of progress why would you be mad?

 

Or, are you're saying that because gay marriage only effects a small minority of people that the court was wrong?

 

What was wrong? The state bans on interracial or SCOTUS making those laws illegal?

SCOTUS involving itself in states rights of legal contracts and individual rights.

[DC Tom]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/white-house-buildings-across-the-country-light-up-122601444526.html

 

Liberals use public building (including the White House) to gloat. Rainbow lights splashed across monuments.

 

For a movement that demands we butt out of their private lives, they sure love to rub their "private lives" in everyone's faces.

 

Nice to know the government doesn't represent me anymore.

 

Yeah I was thinking about that. But the same thing applies even then: marriage in England, since England has had rule of law, has always been a religious establishment. Your point is well-taken, however.

 

Anyway, more Scalia quotes:

 

 

 

GodDAMN, Scalia, you're on a ROLL

 

EVERY outtake from the court's opinion I've read concerns itself with whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong. Not one I've seen concerns itself with the matter of separation of powers.

 

If I were the governor of a state that banned gay marriage, I'd immediately suspend the granting of marriage licenses under any condition, and tell the federal government "You want to define marriage and take that power from the states, you issue the licenses."

[B-Man]

A Question For Those Who Celebrate the Gay Marriage Decision

 

 

What would you think if the Court had decided the opposite?

 

That is, if the Court had held that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, so that all state laws approving such unions are void, and all court decisions establishing same sex marriage are overruled. Would you then think it appropriate for “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice Roberts put it, to remove this issue from the democratic process and purport to resolve it by judicial fiat?

 

I am pretty sure you wouldn’t. I am pretty sure that in the face of such a ruling, you would howl with outrage and insist that the issue of same sex marriage be determined by democratic processes.

 

I realize that hardly anyone on the Left acknowledges any obligation to be consistent. But logically, the issue of same sex marriage either is governed by the Constitution, or it isn’t.

 

The truth is that the Constitution is silent with regard to marriage, which has always been a matter of state law. To assert that the Constitution mandates gay marriage is as outrageous as to assert that it prohibits gay marriage.......... It does neither.

 

Liberals have become accustomed to the idea that Supreme Court decisions can help, but never hurt, their causes. But that isn’t true. At one time, the Court held that there is a fundamental constitutional right to own slaves, which Congress could not limit in the territories. (The justices in the Dred Scott majority were loyal Democrats, doing their party’s bidding much like today’s progressives.) Subsequently, the Court held that wage and hour laws were unconstitutional because they infringed the fundamental right of contract. Both of those cases were decided on precisely the same theory as the Court’s gay marriage decision, i.e., substantive due process.

 

It is disheartening to see the almost universal acclaim received by a decision that is, in terms of process, a raw and unconstitutional usurpation of power.

 

One would think that there should be many Americans who care about the Constitution, regardless of their views on gay marriage. But that does not appear to be the case.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited June 27, 2015 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Yeah, like making interracial marriage and separate but equal illegal. This country is going to hell. Ha-rumph, ha-rumph. We need a country that preserves the sanctity of states rights over human rights.

 

Just curious...which inconsistencies in the states' definition of "marriage" would you like to see the Supreme Court normalize next? National recognition of common-law marriages? (Legal in Colorado, not recognized by North Carolina even if established in another state.) Marriage between first cousins? (Legal in Florida, discriminated against in West Virginia.) Should marriage license fees be declared illegal, since it places an undue burden on the poor exercising a civil right? (Much as poll taxes restrict the civil right to vote.) Should Connecticut's requirement to present photo ID be illegal, since it discriminates against illegal immigrants and minorities? (Again, see "civil right to vote.")

[Max Fischer]

SCOTUS involving itself in states rights of legal contracts and individual rights.

So, you do not believe the U.S. constitution gives a white person the right to marry a black person? That a black person does not have the right to drink from a publicly designated "white" fountain?

[B-Man]

So, you do not believe the U.S. constitution gives a white person the right to marry a black person? That a black person does not have the right to drink from a publicly designated "white" fountain?

 

 

see post #85

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

So, you do not believe the U.S. constitution gives a white person the right to marry a black person? That a black person does not have the right to drink from a publicly designated "white" fountain?

 

The US Constitution doesn't give ANYONE the right to marry anyone else, you idiot.

[Max Fischer]

Just curious...which inconsistencies in the states' definition of "marriage" would you like to see the Supreme Court normalize next? National recognition of common-law marriages? (Legal in Colorado, not recognized by North Carolina even if established in another state.) Marriage between first cousins? (Legal in Florida, discriminated against in West Virginia.) Should marriage license fees be declared illegal, since it places an undue burden on the poor exercising a civil right? (Much as poll taxes restrict the civil right to vote.) Should Connecticut's requirement to present photo ID be illegal, since it discriminates against illegal immigrants and minorities? (Again, see "civil right to vote.")

You are confusing basic rights (are you allowed to marry) with a few reasonableness questions.

 

I do think common law will be challenged and I'm curious about the legal restrictions (property, health, insurance, kids, etc). I think fees are a reasonablness question and whether there is sufficient evidence that fees are indeed a barrier to marriage (doubtful). Haven't heard about the photo ID issue but again, why does the law exist and is it a barrier to marriage? As for cousins, I always thought that was a medical issue but if not sufficient scientifIc proof it's harmful, then an argument could be made they have the right.

 

Anything else?

 

Tell me again why you don't think interracial and gay marriage is not a basic human right?

see post #85

 

 

.

That's a weak cop out. You don't think interracial marriage and dozens of other logical and basic human rights are protected by the Constitution? Either you do or you don't. To hide under the "constitution is silent" argument has been a long standing crutch that has been steamrolled by common sense for generations.

The US Constitution doesn't give ANYONE the right to marry anyone else, you idiot.

Ah, the "you idiot" argument. Took you long enough. The Supreme Court (and history) says otherwise.

[DC Tom]

You are confusing basic rights (are you allowed to marry) with a few reasonableness questions.

 

I do think common law will be challenged and I'm curious about the legal restrictions (property, health, insurance, kids, etc). I think fees are a reasonablness question and whether there is sufficient evidence that fees are indeed a barrier to marriage (doubtful). Haven't heard about the photo ID issue but again, why does the law exist and is it a barrier to marriage? As for cousins, I always thought that was a medical issue but if not sufficient scientifIc proof it's harmful, then an argument could be made they have the right.

 

Anything else?

 

I gave examples in each case where it is a restriction, either directly, or when considered in equivalency to other basic rights (like voting.) If photo ID or a poll tax is an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right like voting, why isn't it an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right like marriage? If all states must recognize gay marriage, why shouldn't all states be required to recognize common law marriage (note: North Carolina doesn't recognize common law marriage from other states. Why should that be allowed?)

 

To expand on the second...why should a common-law married couple receive the federal benefits of their common law marriage in Colorado, but not receive them in North Carolina?

 

Tell me again why you don't think interracial and gay marriage is not a basic human right?

 

Tell me where I said that.

[Max Fischer]

I gave examples in each case where it is a restriction, either directly, or when considered in equivalency to other basic rights (like voting.) If photo ID or a poll tax is an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right like voting, why isn't it an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right like marriage? If all states must recognize gay marriage, why shouldn't all states be required to recognize common law marriage (note: North Carolina doesn't recognize common law marriage from other states. Why should that be allowed?)

 

To expand on the second...why should a common-law married couple receive the federal benefits of their common law marriage in Colorado, but not receive them in North Carolina?

 

 

 

Tell me where I said that.

Do you believe that gay and interracial marriage are basic right under the constitution?

I gave examples in each case where it is a restriction, either directly, or when considered in equivalency to other basic rights (like voting.) If photo ID or a poll tax is an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right like voting, why isn't it an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right like marriage? If all states must recognize gay marriage, why shouldn't all states be required to recognize common law marriage (note: North Carolina doesn't recognize common law marriage from other states. Why should that be allowed?)

 

To expand on the second...why should a common-law married couple receive the federal benefits of their common law marriage in Colorado, but not receive them in North Carolina?

 

Poll tax is undoubtedly unreasonable and reasonably argued by the Supreme Court. I have the same concerns about photo ID simply because there is insignificant evidence that it's necessary and can impede voting. Whether there is the evidence that ID impedes marriage I do not know.

 

Same for common law, I would lean toward a recognition of common law marriage but I don't know enough about the arguments for and against. I would say the burden of proof would have to be on those trying to restrict the recognition

[boyst]

So, you do not believe the U.S. constitution gives a white person the right to marry a black person? That a black person does not have the right to drink from a publicly designated "white" fountain?

Yep. I do not believe the US Constitution does not give that right.

 

But, I believe everyone should have that right. As stated earlier, I believe anyone should be allowed to marry anyone or anything they want. Of course, the whole legal process of who's a beneficiary and such is a mess... I just want to piss off people by seeing a man divorce his toaster to marry his horse.

 

The Constitution does not say anything about marriage, as Tommy boy points out. And, further, the US Supreme Court has no business being involved in such benevolent social issues pandering to political posturing proliferating pistol packing punk polar penguins putting potatoes on pizza.

Do you believe that gay and interracial marriage are basic right under the constitution?

 

Poll tax is undoubtedly unreasonable and reasonably argued by the Supreme Court. I have the same concerns about photo ID simply because there is insignificant evidence that it's necessary and can impede voting. Whether there is the evidence that ID impedes marriage I do not know.

 

Same for common law, I would lean toward a recognition of common law marriage but I don't know enough about the arguments for and against. I would say the burden of proof would have to be on those trying to restrict the recognition

do you believe you are as dense as you keep indicating?! the constitution has nothing to do with the rights of marriage.

 

MARRIAGE MEANS NOTHING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

 

Now, if you even attempted to grasp out that the rights of equality should be shared between same sex couples and normal couples, well, you'd be almost there to making a point. But, it doesn't work that way.

To expand on the second...why should a common-law married couple receive the federal benefits of their common law marriage in Colorado, but not receive them in North Carolina?

Can we take this in a stupid North Carolina backward South direction instead? I feel it could go in the direction of weed being legal in Colorado.

[Max Fischer]

Yep. I do not believe the US Constitution does not give that right.

 

But, I believe everyone should have that right. As stated earlier, I believe anyone should be allowed to marry anyone or anything they want. Of course, the whole legal process of who's a beneficiary and such is a mess... I just want to piss off people by seeing a man divorce his toaster to marry his horse.

 

The Constitution does not say anything about marriage, as Tommy boy points out. And, further, the US Supreme Court has no business being involved in such benevolent social issues pandering to political posturing proliferating pistol packing punk polar penguins putting potatoes on pizza.

do you believe you are as dense as you keep indicating?! the constitution has nothing to do with the rights of marriage.

 

MARRIAGE MEANS NOTHING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

 

Now, if you even attempted to grasp out that the rights of equality should be shared between same sex couples and normal couples, well, you'd be almost there to making a point. But, it doesn't work that way.

 

 

Well, about a hundred years of Supreme Court decisions say you are thankfully wrong and I believe the country stronger and better for it.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Max Fischer

[boyst]

Well, about a hundred years of Supreme Court decisions say you are thankfully wrong and I believe the country stronger and better for it.

ok quote the constitution and explain where it tells me i am entitled to marriage? because, i am 33 and as far as i know makayla marroney is still single so i want to exercise my right.

 

edited: i had to fix my age. i forgot how old i was...wtf.

Edited June 28, 2015 by jboyst62

[Max Fischer]

ok quote the constitution and explain where it tells me i am entitled to marriage? because, i am 33 and as far as i know makayla marroney is still single so i want to exercise my right.

 

edited: i had to fix my age. i forgot how old i was...wtf.

See the 14th Amendment. Better yet, read Kennedy's opinion. He does a good job of explaining it. While you're at it, read Loving vs Virginia and let us know where they're wrong.

[DC Tom]

Do you believe that gay and interracial marriage are basic right under the constitution?

 

No. The right to marriage is nowhere defined in the constitution.

That's the whole point of this argument we're having.

 

Poll tax is undoubtedly unreasonable and reasonably argued by the Supreme Court. I have the same concerns about photo ID simply because there is insignificant evidence that it's necessary and can impede voting. Whether there is the evidence that ID impedes marriage I do not know.

 

Same for common law, I would lean toward a recognition of common law marriage but I don't know enough about the arguments for and against. I would say the burden of proof would have to be on those trying to restrict the recognition

 

So it's not the principle of the thing, it's whether or not it places an "undue burden" on a civil right.

[Max Fischer]

No. The right to marriage is nowhere defined in the constitution.

 

That's the whole point of this argument we're having.

 

 

 

 

 

So it's not the principle of the thing, it's whether or not it places an "undue burden" on a civil right.

The right to marry is in the 14th amendment. Undue burdens are a basic legal definition. You seem smart enough to not employ 2nd grade arguments.

[boyst]

See the 14th Amendment. Better yet, read Kennedy's opinion. He does a good job of explaining it. While you're at it, read Loving vs Virginia and let us know where they're wrong.

Kennedy was a joke. His opinion has nothing to do with the actual Constitution.

 

And I read the 14th Amendment. Those big words were tricky so I just hit CTRL F and could not find "Marriage." Please advise.

 

& who wouldn't love Virginia?

The right to marry is in the 14th amendment. Undue burdens are a basic legal definition. You seem smart enough to not employ 2nd grade arguments.

I don't understand, where?!

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

 

Find it, please?! Help?! We are too dumb - I don't think our Netscape Navigators are able to find it.

[Max Fischer]

Kennedy was a joke. His opinion has nothing to do with the actual Constitution.

 

And I read the 14th Amendment. Those big words were tricky so I just hit CTRL F and could not find "Marriage." Please advise.

 

& who wouldn't love Virginia?

Ah, just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean "his opinion has nothing to do with the actual Constitution." That's your opinion, it's not fact.

 

Very few matters are expressly stated in the constitution. That's why we have courts, and judges of all stripes use their brains to determine what they believe is right. The document was written by humans, and to be interpreted by humans. Otherwise, we would just use a computer to search terms.