|
On June 27 2015 09:38 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 09:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2015 09:35 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2015 09:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2015 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2015 09:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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? Just to be clear, you're joking right? Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking? Clearly not :D I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge. Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America. Speaking of which, now that you guys can gay marry, do you think you can choose who you gay marry, or is one assigned to you? I just looked at my postcount... need to go work on my milestone blog now  Wooo! This gon b good. #hype #dontletmedown ^^ xD
On June 27 2015 09:40 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 09:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2015 09:35 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2015 09:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2015 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2015 09:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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? Just to be clear, you're joking right? Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking? Clearly not :D I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge. Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America. Speaking of which, now that you guys can gay marry, do you think you can choose who you gay marry, or is one assigned to you? Obviously, every straight marriage is now legally divorced and everyone is forced to gay marry a person of the same sex randomly selected for them, even if you're straight  I just looked at my postcount... need to go work on my milestone blog now See you in a bit
Job's finished!
On June 27 2015 22:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote:
It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be. I was under the impression that all marriages were done by clergy and that judges and county clerks could only perform civil unions.
Nope, not true I have friends who casually got licenses to perform marriages, and they're in no way related to the church (they're not even religious lol). While clergymen often perform marriages, the job isn't specific to them
|
Nope, not true I have friends who casually got licenses to perform marriages, and they're in no way related to the church (they're not even religious lol). While clergymen often perform marriages, the job isn't specific to them
Good to know! Not sure how it all works.
Going to check out your milestone post!
|
On June 27 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 13:54 travis wrote: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.
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.
Point 1:
The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding.
point 2:
Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman.
conclusion:
the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry
|
|
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote:
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
The 4 justices who voted against, lol.
Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??
Gay marriage is still marriage dude. Gay marriage isn't the issue. The issue is gays being able to have marriage.
|
On June 27 2015 23:17 xAdra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote:
The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved. I wish all people could think like this, but alas, it is an instinct to stuff religious restrictions on people for some reason
They've been separate for ages, you can get married under whatever religion you want or under no religion at all.
|
On June 28 2015 00:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote:
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do. The 4 justices who voted against, lol. And only one of them even said anything like this. Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using?? Gay marriage is still marriage dude. Gay marriage isn't the issue. The issue is gays being able to have marriage.
"Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??"
I'm using the logic of prior case law that defines fundamental liberty rights being deeply rooted in our history and traditions and essential to our scheme of ordered liberty...the court is not in the business of creating new fundamental rights.
|
On June 27 2015 23:17 xAdra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote:
The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved. I wish all people could think like this, but alas, it is an instinct to stuff religious restrictions on people for some reason
The right to marry is separated from religious matters since like 18th century lol
|
The divorce lawyers must be really happy with the decision as well.
|
On June 28 2015 00:21 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 13:54 travis wrote: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.
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. Point 1: The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding. point 2: Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman. conclusion: the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
|
I think americans today are very proud of themselves as a nation (at least liberal ones) and I'm proud of them too (does not happen often). But I still believe the whole lgb battle has two sides, the law battle for equal civil rights, and the cultural one. With the homosexual marriage the lgbt community has won the first, but lost the second, showing a subordination to the dominant culture wanting so badly signs and traditions that are so old and unfitting that are going to expire soon by themselves. I think we have enough proofs monogamy itself has no space anymore in human society in a not distant future, funny enough maybe the last marriage will be gay, sadly enough both of the parts are very late to this day, eterosexual to permit gay marriage and homosexual to obtain it.
|
On June 28 2015 00:44 Garuga wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 00:29 travis wrote:On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote:
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do. The 4 justices who voted against, lol. And only one of them even said anything like this. Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using?? Gay marriage is still marriage dude. Gay marriage isn't the issue. The issue is gays being able to have marriage. "Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??" I'm using the logic of prior case law that defines fundamental liberty rights being deeply rooted in our history and traditions and essential to our scheme of ordered liberty...the court is not in the business of creating new fundamental rights.
The characteristics you are taking out of the tradition as defining characteristics are not what the majority of americans (or of justices) are taking as defining characteristics. They say, those aren't defining characteristics, those are the characteristics that existed because of the times.
Kennedy addresses your point, he spends a lot of time on it.
Loving did not ask about a “right to interracial marriage”; Turner did not ask about a “right of inmates to marry”; and Zablocki did not ask about a “right of fathers with unpaid child support duties to marry.” Rather, each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right.
This really isn't an easy quote to toss aside imo. Interracial marriage was not only something new, but something that just like gay marriage was specifically taboo and tons of people would argue "is not in the spirit of marriage". And yet now, it seems obvious that interracial couples should be allowed to marry right? I sure hope it does.
It's no different with gay marriage, and if someone disagrees with that I would argue that it's because they are using a religious definition of marriage. That isn't my definition of marriage! And it isn't the majority's.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.
The court is not changing the definition of the right. The definition was always up to interpretation.
|
On June 28 2015 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 00:21 travis wrote:On June 27 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 13:54 travis wrote: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.
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. Point 1: The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding. point 2: Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman. conclusion: the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason. Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex.
Because marriage has a function... and the first 2 are outside the scope of the function of marriage.
Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
umm, well that's a loaded statement. But sure if you want to purposely lack understanding and oversimplify it let's say yes, yes exactly. Just like they did with interracial marriage. times change man, it's called progression. it's been happening for the entirety of this nation's history.
|
On June 28 2015 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 00:21 travis wrote:On June 27 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 13:54 travis wrote: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.
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. Point 1: The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding. point 2: Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman. conclusion: the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason. Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
And this is why a Constitution is written to be future-proof and not stuck enforcing hundred year old values.
Shockingly, countries can violate rights for a very long time, and "being pretentious" is the dumbest reason possible to avoid fixing them.
|
On June 28 2015 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 00:21 travis wrote:On June 27 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 13:54 travis wrote: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.
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. Point 1: The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding. point 2: Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman. conclusion: the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason. Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
Every legal mind...except a good chunk of the dozens of state and federal judges in lower courts that have ruled on anti-same sex marriage legislation in the past few years.
|
On June 28 2015 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 00:21 travis wrote:On June 27 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 13:54 travis wrote: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.
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. Point 1: The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding. point 2: Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman. conclusion: the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason. Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
I find your willful obtuseness amusing.
I have been having a good day watching the bigots of the internet bending themselves in all sorts of shapes with semi-legal waffling.
|
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
I can see concealed carry license holders taking the 2nd half of that decision and trying to do something with it, now that I think about it.
|
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote:
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
"Rooted deeply in our history and traditions" is an absolutely horrible way to define a right.
A number of rights that we have aren't "deeply rooted in our history or traditions".
You can't just arbitrarily decide that "marriage" and "gay marriage" are two different things, therefore SCOTUS just gave everyone a new right. You'd have to actually argue that "marriage" and "gay marriage" are two different things (and therefore two different rights), and that's some questionable logic that Justice Kennedy even addressed.
Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
Why yes, that is in fact what happened. It has happened on a wide range of issues. And no, it's not pretentious, it's reality.
Also, absolutely nothing that you mentioned precludes marriage from being a right. All rights have qualifiers. You just mentioned some of them concerning the right to marry.
I think americans today are very proud of themselves as a nation (at least liberal ones) and I'm proud of them too (does not happen often). But I still believe the whole lgb battle has two sides, the law battle for equal civil rights, and the cultural one. With the homosexual marriage the lgbt community has won the first, but lost the second, showing a subordination to the dominant culture wanting so badly signs and traditions that are so old and unfitting that are going to expire soon by themselves. I think we have enough proofs monogamy itself has no space anymore in human society in a not distant future, funny enough maybe the last marriage will be gay, sadly enough both of the parts are very late to this day, eterosexual to permit gay marriage and homosexual to obtain it.
I don't know what hipster paradise you live in, but you might want to come back to reality.
The idea that marriage or monogamy are outdated traditions that are going to go away soon it a joke.
|
Disgusting and sad.
Going backwards is "progressive" now apparently.
User was temp banned for this post and a poor moderation history
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
