Page 23 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #221
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,005

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Well, for one it was a reconstruction amendment, that should give you a clue right there.
    Meaning what? Amendments issued after the Civil War are null and void?


    Our amendment process was put into place for regular maintenance.
    So the addition of the Bill of Rights was merely "regular maintenance?" How curious.

    There were no limits placed on the scope of the amendment process. We are more than entitled to use it to modify the Constitution as we see fit -- including empowering another Constitutional Convention to completely rewrite and chuck the whole thing, if we so choose.

    It's also not a particularly easy process; in fact, the bar to amend the Constitution is fairly high. Unlimited scope, hard to enact -- that sure doesn't sound like "regular maintenance" to me.


    ....nor is the Constitution some sort of living document whose meaning and intent changes with the times. That's precisely what I mean by maintenance. We haven't kept up and now we rely upon nine robed justices to do the end runs around the Constitution.
    Oh, whatever

    There is no reason why contemporary Americans need to be yoked to the political beliefs of a bunch of dead, white, aristocratic politicians. We are under no obligation whatsoever to reject gay marriage just because they did, or to accept slavery because they did, or deny women the franchise because they did.

    And of course, the people who wrote -- and equally importantly, ratified -- the Constitution did not see eye to eye on lots of issues. They almost immediately split on topics like whether to have a standing army and a central bank.

    Oh, and they are no longer alive. Not only are we just getting someone's biased and self-serving interpretation of their opinions, they are not living in the same world as us, experiencing the societal changes we are, and they don't have to live with the consequences of our policies.

    A Constitution that cannot be modified or reinterpreted is not freedom. It's a straightjacket. Pass.

  2. #222
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,092

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I don't think marriage is so much a fundamental right (you don't have to be married you know), but I do think that if government is going to already be involved with marriage, it is fundamental that they ensure a fair and equal playing field.
    14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

  3. #223
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,092

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Not a good enough reason. There are thousands of cases filed each year in federal court that involve fundamental rights.
    this is a fundamental right that is being denied to an entire group of people. that makes it a pressing issue.

  4. #224
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    That's it? No particular statements by anyone involved in enacting the amendment? Courts were just slow to protect women, so that's it? Courts were slow to protect black people too, some of the early rulings had things like "It's ok to punish blacks more for the same crime as whites, as long as you punish all blacks equally." Nearly 60 years passed between Plessy and Brown. This isn't a particularly compelling argument, even if we're granting that the "intent" of the writers is critical. In general, I'd say that intent is ambiguous, and individual liberty trumps other concerns barring highly-compelling arguments to the contrary, and that is the real intent of the constitution as a whole.
    Once again, the 14th specifically cuts women out of the picture:

    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

  5. #225
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    this is a fundamental right that is being denied to an entire group of people. that makes it a pressing issue.
    Show me this fundamental right in the constitution please.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #226
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,092

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Quick point, nobody is being told they can't get married. It isn't a fundamental right to change marriage to suit your own needs. That's the real issue.
    incorrect. homosexual couples are being told that they can't get married in some states, which violates the equal protection clause.

  7. #227
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,092

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Show me this fundamental right in the constitution please.

    14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

    Section 2.

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
    Article III | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

  8. #228
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Meaning what? Amendments issued after the Civil War are null and void?
    You need to actually read the arguments you wish to respond to for comprehension. I said no such thing. However, it should give you a clue of the scope and intent of the amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    So the addition of the Bill of Rights was merely "regular maintenance?" How curious.
    What? Again, see my first comment about comprehension.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    There were no limits placed on the scope of the amendment process. We are more than entitled to use it to modify the Constitution as we see fit -- including empowering another Constitutional Convention to completely rewrite and chuck the whole thing, if we so choose.
    And I said there was where?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It's also not a particularly easy process; in fact, the bar to amend the Constitution is fairly high. Unlimited scope, hard to enact -- that sure doesn't sound like "regular maintenance" to me.
    And yet, until the modern era we managed to do it regularly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Oh, whatever

    There is no reason why contemporary Americans need to be yoked to the political beliefs of a bunch of dead, white, aristocratic politicians. We are under no obligation whatsoever to reject gay marriage just because they did, or to accept slavery because they did, or deny women the franchise because they did.
    And that's why we aren't. Again, there's that regular maintenance thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    And of course, the people who wrote -- and equally importantly, ratified -- the Constitution did not see eye to eye on lots of issues. They almost immediately split on topics like whether to have a standing army and a central bank.

    Oh, and they are no longer alive. Not only are we just getting someone's biased and self-serving interpretation of their opinions, they are not living in the same world as us, experiencing the societal changes we are, and they don't have to live with the consequences of our policies.

    A Constitution that cannot be modified or reinterpreted is not freedom. It's a straightjacket. Pass.
    More babble from travelling down the path of non-comprehension. The Constitution can be modified, updated, changed - that's why we have an amendment process. Reinterpretation is a ****ty way to go and not at all consistent with the Constitutional government we created. All this was discussed in the Federalist Papers. It puts all the power in the hands of a few lifetime appointed robes.

  9. #229
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,105

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The Supreme Court really can't avoid this issue forever. It will come back to them if, and more likely when, a gay couple, legally married in one state moves to a state where SSM is not recognized and demands equal treatment under the law. Likewise, when a gay couple who live in a state where SSM is not recognized travels to a state that does recognize it and legally marries only to return to their home state and demand equal treatment under their home state's laws.
    They can as long as no circuit court contradicts another circuit court. If we have consistent rulings amongst the circuits, there is no reason for the SCOTUS to ever have to hear such a case.

  10. #230
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,492

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So, now we have to allow polygamy?
    In a word yes. Is there a compelling reason - other than the "ick" factor - not to?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

Page 23 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •