Page 7 of 88 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 880

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

  1. #61
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Nobody should be involved in the issue of marriage. How the hell did this happen that it's an issue anyway? When I decided to marry my husband, I had no interest in anyone else's opinion on it whatsoever as I was free and over 18 (over 21 actually) and as an adult, it was up to me who I married, and nobody else.

    Gay people should get to marry who they want. Polygamists should get to marry who they want (assuming their choice is of legal age). A 90 year old woman should get to marry a 18 year old guy. An 88 year old man whose penis is kept in a jar of formaldehyde should get to marry a 21 year old girl if it makes her happy.

    This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
    Agree with all the points you made! I for one am getting tired of being bored to death on this topic! If you are 6' 8" tall, and you want to marry a midget, go for it! It's your life, and no one else's business! Or, is it just something they keep alive to keep us from focusing on the important things, like the millions of unemployed, or our ever increasing debt load, or our crumbling infrastructure - because if it is, it ain't working!

  2. #62
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,545

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Baker was decided for "lack of substantial federal questions". It did not rule that marriage was a state issue.
    What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?

  3. #63
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
    The issue is not so much who should marry who, but which marriages the governement should sanction or promote.

  4. #64
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,095

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    The issue is not so much who should marry who, but which marriages the governement should sanction or promote.
    They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.

  5. #65
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,545

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    what? the SCOTUS can't decide every single case in the US. but it can, should, and must rule when an entire protected class of people are being denied a fundamental right in some states.
    That isnt exactly correct, sexual orientation is not a protected class. The SCOTUS would have been ruling on whether or not it was a protected class had they taken up the case

  6. #66
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Baker was decided for "lack of substantial federal questions".
    What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?


    I can't answer for CT of course, but my thoughts are:

    1. Baker was issued in 1972.

    2. In 1972 there were no Civil Marriages in any state in the union.

    3. It wasn't until 1996 the DOMA was passed (i.e. federal law which impact directly the recognition of Civil Marriages by federal entities and Congress said whether other states had to recognize out of state marriages).

    4. In 2004 the first state authorized SSCM (Massachusetts).

    5. Now in 2014 there were 19 states recognizing SSCM.



    In 1972 there really wasn't any federal question, in 2014 that condition didn't apply.



    >>>>

  7. #67
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,396

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Nobody should be involved in the issue of marriage. How the hell did this happen that it's an issue anyway? When I decided to marry my husband, I had no interest in anyone else's opinion on it whatsoever as I was free and over 18 (over 21 actually) and as an adult, it was up to me who I married, and nobody else.

    Gay people should get to marry who they want. Polygamists should get to marry who they want (assuming their choice is of legal age). A 90 year old woman should get to marry a 18 year old guy. An 88 year old man whose penis is kept in a jar of formaldehyde should get to marry a 21 year old girl if it makes her happy.

    This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?


    Government's first stepped in for health reasons, then for birthing reasons, age limits then welfare. With the rise of social welfare systems came the need for qualifiers and, of course, morality reasons, such as preventing inter-racial marriages etc. Today, the state defines what is a marriage, and dictates that through both religious and lait marriages partly due to the increase in "common law" marriages, divorces and so forth.
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  8. #68
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,095

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    Government's first stepped in for health reasons, then for birthing reasons, age limits then welfare. With the rise of social welfare systems came the need for qualifiers and, of course, morality reasons, such as preventing inter-racial marriages etc. Today, the state defines what is a marriage, and dictates that through both religious and lait marriages partly due to the increase in "common law" marriages, divorces and so forth.
    They need to step out. Of all of the people in this country who should not have a right to tell any citizen who he/she can or can't marry, it's our politicians.

  9. #69
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.
    I believe it to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the country. If you're going to do away with government involvement, you may as well do away with the concept entirely, because the contract becomes meaningless.

  10. #70
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
    What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?
    It means at the time that the federal court had no place in hearing the case. Sodomy was illegal in 45 states in 1971.

Page 7 of 88 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... 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
  •