Topic: Finally: US Supreme Court agrees to settle gay marriage dispute - page 2. (Read 1678 times)
January 18, 2015, 03:47:36 PM
Any state which ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn't have done so if it wanted to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
January 18, 2015, 03:42:23 PM
Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to restrict the states on this matter. The gay marriage debate must be settled by the electorate and their representatives in each state. The courts have no right to engage in judicial activism and overturn our elected officials on this one.
Note that I am saying that the courts can neither force NOR prevent states from adopting their own laws on this issue.
That being said, I have a feeling they will misconstrue the 14th Amendment and ignore the 10th along with the rest of the Constitution. Judicial activism trumps the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Land these days.
Note that I am saying that the courts can neither force NOR prevent states from adopting their own laws on this issue.
That being said, I have a feeling they will misconstrue the 14th Amendment and ignore the 10th along with the rest of the Constitution. Judicial activism trumps the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Land these days.
January 18, 2015, 01:56:21 PM
I personally think they will likely punt on the issue. Traditionally marriage has been defined as between a man and a women. Sure there are religious aspects to this, however there are also traditional aspects to this.
I personally would like to see the tax benefits of marriage taken away (as well as welfare benefits). If this were to happen I would say that neither side would be anywhere near as passionate about the subject as they are
I personally would like to see the tax benefits of marriage taken away (as well as welfare benefits). If this were to happen I would say that neither side would be anywhere near as passionate about the subject as they are
I think the pro marriage would still want to keep marriage sacred due to principle.
January 18, 2015, 04:29:07 AM
I personally think they will likely punt on the issue. Traditionally marriage has been defined as between a man and a women. Sure there are religious aspects to this, however there are also traditional aspects to this.
I personally would like to see the tax benefits of marriage taken away (as well as welfare benefits). If this were to happen I would say that neither side would be anywhere near as passionate about the subject as they are
I personally would like to see the tax benefits of marriage taken away (as well as welfare benefits). If this were to happen I would say that neither side would be anywhere near as passionate about the subject as they are
January 18, 2015, 02:52:23 AM
This is yet one faction lobbying the state against another faction that has used the state to keep the former down for a long time. The end result is that the state is the one calling the shots and not private associations of voluntary contracting individuals. The statists (social conservatives in this instance) will likely see the power of the state bear down on them as the baton changes hands as was expected after a generational societal shift. Live by the state's sword for a while, then get stuck with it. I'm at the point where this particular vestige of religious freedom (not having to acknowledge gay marriage) isn't at the top of my list and is basically the rooster coming home to roost because you went to bed with vultures (the state) for so long and now times have changed and you're on the outs. On one hand, I think the LGB community has gone too far at times but you can hardly blame them for bringing out the so-called knives against a bunch (evangelicals, socons, etc) that have targeted them for far too long. As it is, most of the latter are one or two issue voters and their main mea culpa in recent times has been the gay community. So, in the end, liberty rises and falls because those that sought it used the state to be their protector.
truer words never spoken before.
January 18, 2015, 12:03:29 AM
This is yet one faction lobbying the state against another faction that has used the state to keep the former down for a long time. The end result is that the state is the one calling the shots and not private associations of voluntary contracting individuals. The statists (social conservatives in this instance) will likely see the power of the state bear down on them as the baton changes hands as was expected after a generational societal shift. Live by the state's sword for a while, then get stuck with it. I'm at the point where this particular vestige of religious freedom (not having to acknowledge gay marriage) isn't at the top of my list and is basically the rooster coming home to roost because you went to bed with vultures (the state) for so long and now times have changed and you're on the outs. On one hand, I think the LGB community has gone too far at times but you can hardly blame them for bringing out the so-called knives against a bunch (evangelicals, socons, etc) that have targeted them for far too long. As it is, most of the latter are one or two issue voters and their main mea culpa in recent times has been the gay community. So, in the end, liberty rises and falls because those that sought it used the state to be their protector.
January 17, 2015, 10:53:06 PM
The government should have no involvement in marriage period, including heterosexual marriages.
what happened to separation of the church and state yet the state can force a church to wed someone if they want to or not.
January 17, 2015, 04:23:54 PM
The government should have no involvement in marriage period, including heterosexual marriages.
January 17, 2015, 03:16:15 PM
why does the government have to get in peoples business just let people believe what they want to.
January 17, 2015, 06:07:14 AM
I love how the gov wants to get involved in people's relationships like a jealous ex partner or something.
January 17, 2015, 03:12:24 AM
Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy (1988) by A. N. Wilson, p. 146. link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273222
The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.
State, opting to print less bread, has introduced another act.
January 17, 2015, 02:49:30 AM
Yes, it took conflict of lower courts to force the hand of the US Supreme Court. Have you heard them discuss this sort of thing in the past? Asking questions like where do you draw the line on what's and acceptable relationship or what can be considered a marriage. They overcomplicate it. In a way it seems like a no brainer slam dunk in favor of human rights but who knows.
January 16, 2015, 11:12:02 PM
Theoretically per the constitution, there is no federal power to deal with such an issue like marriage which imo, shouldn't be allowed between any number of people but only recognized by those that choose to. However, the founding document is meaningless in many instances so oh well. There should be no government marriage licenses and people should just contract with each other on their own and steer clear of community pockets that don't take kindly to their arrangements.
January 16, 2015, 10:30:00 PM
Marriage isn't protected by the Constitution; it's the religious aspect and statement of marriage that is protected.
The SCOTUS will likely view marriage as a statement, or in other words an expression. Marriage will be a protected form of free speech, and the government will be forced to recognize it as such by issuing marriage licenses to any two people who request one.
The SCOTUS will likely view marriage as a statement, or in other words an expression. Marriage will be a protected form of free speech, and the government will be forced to recognize it as such by issuing marriage licenses to any two people who request one.
January 16, 2015, 10:07:25 PM
Lower courts will continue to rebel with bullshit like "[SCOTUS] will need to say so more plainly".
January 16, 2015, 09:50:27 PM
Quote
Setting the stage for its most significant ruling ever on gay rights, the U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it would resolve the state-by-state battle over same-sex marriage.
The justices said they will decide cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where state officials are defending laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman.
The high court is expected to hear arguments in late April and will probably issue a decision by the end of June.
The case could lead to a landmark ruling on whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry nationwide under constitutional protections for individual rights and equal treatment.
The justices said they will decide cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where state officials are defending laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman.
The high court is expected to hear arguments in late April and will probably issue a decision by the end of June.
The case could lead to a landmark ruling on whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry nationwide under constitutional protections for individual rights and equal treatment.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-gay-marriage-20150116-story.html#page=1
Predictions or bets?
Jump to: