|
On June 27 2015 03:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 03:28 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues. Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not he party being denied the right to marry. its the right of the bigots to file lawsuits and challenge the rights of gay marriage within the confines of the law. why are you saying that like its a negative? its not principle, its checks and balances. the supreme court has a very narrow role, but constantly expand that beyond what was originally intended. this isnt about gay marriage, its about the limited role of the supreme court. i am pleased that gay marriage is now a done deal; i am not pleased about how it was done.
Yes, the courts legislate too much. The actual legislature passes legislation with so many nonrelated things added that it makes your head spin and makes it really hard to know if many bills should have been passed or not. (I had this problem a few years back when something I wanted was passed, but in the passing of it two individuals that were completely unrelated were given multimillion dollar construction deals.../sigh).
And the Presidents have taken on the authority to make attack almost a country a year since the US was founded with very few of the operations which we would consider an act of war being properly approved (oh yeah limited window where the President can have a war before it has to be approved).
I think the US needs to start all over and rewrite all documents and make things meaningful to a modern society, well defined in definition, and work better and more appropriately in general. Just ratify everything with a 3/4s popular vote for consensus. One can only dream...
|
All that would take is a new constitutional convention. Though getting the consensus would be rather hard. If you get that many people, it might be better to just amend the flaws in the old one rather than make a whole new one.
I do favor having a convention to do some serious amending.
|
On June 27 2015 10:46 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 03:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 03:28 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues. Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not he party being denied the right to marry. its the right of the bigots to file lawsuits and challenge the rights of gay marriage within the confines of the law. why are you saying that like its a negative? its not principle, its checks and balances. the supreme court has a very narrow role, but constantly expand that beyond what was originally intended. this isnt about gay marriage, its about the limited role of the supreme court. i am pleased that gay marriage is now a done deal; i am not pleased about how it was done. Yes, the courts legislate too much. The actual legislature passes legislation with so many nonrelated things added that it makes your head spin and makes it really hard to know if many bills should have been passed or not. (I had this problem a few years back when something I wanted was passed, but in the passing of it two individuals that were completely unrelated were given multimillion dollar construction deals.../sigh). And the Presidents have taken on the authority to make attack almost a country a year since the US was founded with very few of the operations which we would consider an act of war being properly approved (oh yeah limited window where the President can have a war before it has to be approved). I think the US needs to start all over and rewrite all documents and make things meaningful to a modern society, well defined in definition, and work better and more appropriately in general. Just ratify everything with a 3/4s popular vote for consensus. One can only dream...
Yeah talking as if elected officials do things right as opposed to appointed judges is rather silly when you put this into perspective..
+ Show Spoiler +
Democracy fuck yeah !
|
In the next few decades people will look upon this moment and wonder why it took this damn long. The less the US can focus on non-issues like gay marriage and move on to more pressing matters the better. Glad some members of the Supreme Court had the reason and progressiveness to move on to the 21st century.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50584 Posts
historical indeed, equal rights people!
|
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
|
On June 27 2015 11:28 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
|
On June 27 2015 00:00 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:57 Half the Sky wrote:
To those in America waiting for this - congratulations. Wedding planners & divorce lawyers.
Give it 10 years and we'll see what'll really pans out lol. Be interesting if the statistics comes out to be that more traditional marriages end up in divorces because a partner, in that relationship, feels differently about his/her sexual orientation after committing.
|
On June 27 2015 11:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 11:28 MichaelDonovan wrote:On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. Morality and law are not the same thing. reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
|
On June 27 2015 11:19 PhoenixVoid wrote:
In the next few decades people will look upon this moment and wonder why it took this damn long. The less the US can focus on non-issues like gay marriage and move on to more pressing matters the better. Glad some members of the Supreme Court had the reason and progressiveness to move on to the 21st century.
Is there any sign we are actually moving toward debating serious issues though?
I see a couple of men were arrested for "Manspreading" on the NYC subway the other week...
Meanwhile Glass-Steagal is still not in effect and the banks are back to doing what they were before the GFC, they now have far larger liabilities in the derivatives market than during the GFC!
Occupy Wall St was originally a collaboration between people who wanted more banking regulation (Like Glass-Steagal), the End The Fed people, Gold/Silver as sound money people etc.By the time Steven Colbert interviewed a woman proporting to speak for the entire movement (Who called herself "Ketchup" - go watch the video for yourself) it had become clear that the movement had lost it's original goals.This message board post from someone who was there explains it well
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4iVkQny.jpg)
|
On June 27 2015 11:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 11:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 11:28 MichaelDonovan wrote:On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. Morality and law are not the same thing. reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing. The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
|
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Hypothetically, Roberts has a point. But I'm struggling with the practical implications of what he's arguing. There is a great deal of mobility in America, where people move to a different state to study and work. His argument would create a special disadvantaged class of citizens who will be unable to port their marriage from one state to another. Let's say one member of a gay couple is a member of the military or let's say it's a gay athlete who gets traded from a team in New York to a team in New Orleans. What happens to their legally adopted kid, for example, if they have to move to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage?
Having each state craft their own marriage laws sounds like a logistical nightmare that would create second class citizens.
|
On June 27 2015 13:40 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 11:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 27 2015 11:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 11:28 MichaelDonovan wrote:On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. Morality and law are not the same thing. reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing. The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal. And RE: dAPhREAk's claim: Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right. And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
|
A big victory for the LGBT community. Too bad marriage is so risky that even straight couples are wary of it these days.
It's going to be interesting to see how priests respond to this IMO. Hopefully those that continue to refuse to marry same sex couples are just ignored in favor of those who will, rather than same sex couples making a big deal out of it. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 13:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 13:40 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On June 27 2015 11:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 27 2015 11:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 11:28 MichaelDonovan wrote:On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. Morality and law are not the same thing. reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing. The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal. And RE: dAPhREAk's claim: Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right. And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so. Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states. Show nested quote +
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
|
On June 27 2015 13:46 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. Hypothetically, Roberts has a point. But I'm struggling with the practical implications of what he's arguing. There is a great deal of mobility in America, where people move to a different state to study and work. His argument would create a special disadvantaged class of citizens who will be unable to port their marriage from one state to another. Let's say one member of a gay couple is a member of the military or let's say it's a gay athlete who gets traded from a team in New York to a team in New Orleans. What happens to their legally adopted kid, for example, if they have to move to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage? Having each state craft their own marriage laws sounds like a logistical nightmare that would create second class citizens.
roberts acknowledged that there are points to the argument for gay marriage. thats not the problem. the problem is who makes the decision, and it shouldnt be the supreme court.
also, saying a big gov't should trump the state gov'ts is basically advocating that the constitution be thrown out.
|
On June 27 2015 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 13:46 andrewlt wrote:On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. Hypothetically, Roberts has a point. But I'm struggling with the practical implications of what he's arguing. There is a great deal of mobility in America, where people move to a different state to study and work. His argument would create a special disadvantaged class of citizens who will be unable to port their marriage from one state to another. Let's say one member of a gay couple is a member of the military or let's say it's a gay athlete who gets traded from a team in New York to a team in New Orleans. What happens to their legally adopted kid, for example, if they have to move to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage? Having each state craft their own marriage laws sounds like a logistical nightmare that would create second class citizens. roberts acknowledged that there are points to the argument for gay marriage. thats not the problem. the problem is who makes the decision, and it shouldnt be the supreme court. also, saying a big gov't should trump the state gov'ts is basically advocating that the constitution be thrown out.
Your political system stops your Supreme Court from ruling against Rights violations?
|
On June 27 2015 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Your political system stops your Supreme Court from ruling against Rights violations?
In theory it stops the Court from ruling against violations of rights that aren't guaranteed by the constitution or some other legal source. Obviously, what constitutes a legally guaranteed right is a matter of debate. If this doesn't make sense to you, it's because we employ a much more rigid approach to constitutional rights than Canada and Europe (and India) and fetishize our written constitution.
|
On June 27 2015 08:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote:
im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself? It's really annoying for me too. Like out of all issues we are going to make a fuss about, instead of focusing on more important things, we will spend years discussing simple things like abortion and gay rights. Hopefully with this, LGBT community will quiet down a bit, and behave like normal people (and get treated like normal people), so this shit stays out of news, as well as gaming communities. 99% of people here agree with gay rights already... These last 4 years have been like following cavemen learn about fire. edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
What the heck has equal marriage rights to do with socialism?
I'm with you on the public displays of sexuality though! All those straight people should just stop shoving their sexuality in peoples faces and publicly announcing their straight marriages, and have romantic dinners in restaurants, and walk publicly arm in arm. Yesterday I was a young straight couple kissing! In public! Just shoving their sexuality down my throat as they were doing with each other's tongues! It's even on death notices! "Loving husband of [wife] for 48 years"! Why air your private matters like that? And media! All those obvious straight relationships everywhere! All those commy creator types just ramming their deviant worldviews down peoples throats! Gross! Keep it in the bedroom people!
/sarcasm
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
