Page 8 of 88 FirstFirst ... 6789101858 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 880

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

  1. #71
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,191

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

    The thing that SCOTUS needs to rule on is whether a state is bound to recognize legal marriages from another state. At which point, if you move what is the status of your marriage? Can you just change your official residence for a couple of months as a backdoor divorce? Why does a state get to say "we recognize this marriage from another state, but not this one" just because of sexuality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #72
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    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.



    >>>>
    Im not aware of anything that changed in the constitution between 1972 and now that would make difference in gay marriage. If you read the district courts rulings they are based on the 14th amendment and creating a new protected class. So you can cite those other factors but those arent what the judges are saying. What exactly has changed in the 14th amendment from 1972 to now?

  3. #73
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.
    The general welfare of this country wouldn't improve or diminish if I married someone else. The general welfare of this country is far greater than who we choose to marry, and it isn't something that our politicians need to be or should be involved in. They have enough to worry about and don't even manage what they're elected to do.

    Marriage is a deeply personal issue and nobody's business but the 2 (or more) people who are looking to partner with other/others via a ceremony and a piece of paper.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    It means at the time that the federal court had no place in hearing the case. Sodomy was illegal in 45 states in 1971.
    Just as the federal courts have no place ruling on gay marriage today, the 14th amendment said the same words in 1972 as it does today.

  5. #75
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    That is the job of the court system, not the SCOTUS. This is not an oligarchy.
    it's their job to make sure that fundamental rights are not denied in ANY state. the SCOTUS should have heard the case and thrown out the state bans. because they abdicated, now we have a hodgepodge of states in which people are denied a fundamental right.

  6. #76
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    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.
    : Anyone who is firstly madly in love with themselves probably doesn't have a clue about what someone else should or should not do!

  7. #77
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
    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
    Not necessarily. In a lot of the cases, the bans did not even pass the lowest level of scrutiny for the Equal Protection Clause, Rational Basis review. The states were having a really hard time showing that their respective state bans were rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    The general welfare of this country wouldn't improve or diminish if I married someone else. The general welfare of this country is far greater than who we choose to marry, and it isn't something that our politicians need to be or should be involved in. They have enough to worry about and don't even manage what they're elected to do.

    Marriage is a deeply personal issue and nobody's business but the 2 (or more) people who are looking to partner with other/others via a ceremony and a piece of paper.
    Gay people can already have a ceremony and live happily ever after, obviously there is something magical about the government sanctioning their marriage or they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it

  9. #79
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
    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
    they basically already have.


    Supreme Court Declares Gays a Protected Class

  10. #80
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    The thing that SCOTUS needs to rule on is whether a state is bound to recognize legal marriages from another state. At which point, if you move what is the status of your marriage? Can you just change your official residence for a couple of months as a backdoor divorce? Why does a state get to say "we recognize this marriage from another state, but not this one" just because of sexuality.

    Question: "if you move what is the status of your marriage?"

    You remain married because the license was issued and remains valid in the jurisdiction in which it was issued. The marriage remains valid, it's just that the new state doesn't recognize it. To end the marriage either a state court would have to issue a divorce (which would require the new state to recognize it as a marriage to begin with - a Catch 22) or it would have to be annulled in the original jurisdiction. Simply moving doesn't annul a Civil Marriage.



    Question: "Can you just change your official residence for a couple of months as a backdoor divorce?"

    Moving (or returning to the new state) isn't a "divorce" or "annulment". The marriage remains valid, for example a couple from Mississippi go to Massachusetts and gets a legal marriage and then returns to Mississippi. Mississippi doesn't recognize the marriage but the couple still gets federal recognition and submits their tax forms as "Married Filing Jointly". If their Civil Marriage was annulled by simply setting foot in Mississippi, then they would have no Federal recognition.


    Question: "Why does a state get to say "we recognize this marriage from another state, but not this one" just because of sexuality."

    At this point in time, because Article IV, Section 1 gives Congress the power to determine the "effect thereof" of public acts between the States. Congress did that in 1996 by passing the Defense of Marriage Act and in Section 2 stating that States are not required to recognize Civil Marriages from another states for same-sex couples. Now whether that provision is Constitutional or not is another question since it relies on the gender classification of the couple. However the SCOTUS has not had a case where they have ruled on Section 2, Windsor only impacted Section 3. Now if Congress had said that States were no required to recognize ANY Civil Marriage that conflicted with their own internal laws, then that would have been 100% Constitutional.



    >>>>

Page 8 of 88 FirstFirst ... 6789101858 ... 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
  •