Page 142 of 193 FirstFirst ... 4292132140141142143144152192 ... LastLast
Results 1,411 to 1,420 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1411
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No one was talking about the likelihood of gay marriage in the middle east. It's about how/who makes the decision to restrict or allow the behavior. Our system, it used to be the Constitution that was the ultimate authority. Now it's the will of the Ayatollahs.
    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Sounds like this ruling does just those things that I bolded. Note how an opposite ruling would not have done anything for this very first line of the Constitution. Opening up marriage to any combination of sexes secures more liberty for everyone and helps bring justice for those people. Continuing to restrict marriage based on sex does not do anything for justice, domestic tranquillity, common defence, the general welfare, or securing liberty for ourselves or our future children and while some may say that it could make a "more perfect union", this is not only subjective but also unlikely considering same sex marriage has been legal in many of the states for a while now, meaning that not having it legal in every state causes much more problems between those states and the citizens of those states.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #1412
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I just found out that a friend of mine who is transgender and a lesbian just got engaged. Thanks to this ruling. WOOT!

    Have they been living together?

  3. #1413
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    East TN
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Posts
    79

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Wrong. Simply Wrong. I understand perfectly the Obergefell opinion and the dissent. I spent three years in Law School and have been a practicing attorney for over 25 years...so I think I know how to read an opinion.

    Where your entire premise is flawed is in the very basic understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution was created will the principle idea that there are certain fundamental/inalienable rights that are not to be subject to the whim of the majority, i.e., a popular vote. So the Obergefell decision is completely in line with the Constitution (you would know that if you understood how the Constitution works).

    And your conclusion is completely wrong again. It is not the "STATES AND THEIR PEOPLE" that have the final say about what the Constitution means.....it actually IS the Supreme Court. The state/people remedy if they disagree with the Supreme Court is to pass a Constitutional Amendment. That is how our system is set up (you might understand that if you understood how the Constitution works).
    Yes, I'm a little confused by the several posts that claim that SCOTUS does not have the final say on interpreting the constitution, and the vague assertions that the SC doesn't have any way to enforce its rulings.

    Is not the whole purpose of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and have the final say in such matters?

    Certainly there have been times when individual states have resisted court rulings. Most notably when Arkansas national guard attempted to prevent the implementation of desegregation in 1957. Eisenhower intervened, and with the help of the 101's airborne enforced the law.

    Are posters suggesting this ruling will prompt another such action, or series of actions? Seems unlikely at best.

    Desegregation was extremely unpopular among a certain group in society, and this same posturing was attempted then. But eventually, the ruling was enforced. In today's society, it seems an extreme stretch to think that history might repeat itself over this ruling, much less be taken any further. I suppose anything's possible, just seems highly unlikely.

    More likely that there will be some political posturing, and some ineffectual (presumably) attempts to amend the constitution. Then the whole thing will blow over when sexual orientation is finally recognized as a civil right.

    I could be wrong of course, it just seems that is the course we're on.

  4. #1414
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,973

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Considering the lawless disregard of the Constitution the majority's exercise of judicial fiat involved, I think Justice Scalia's comments were, if anything, too moderate. He would have been nothing but truthful if he had called Kennedy an unprincipled liar and a disgrace to the Court. And Scalia's arguments were very solidly founded in logic, as were Justice Thomas's. I doubt you've read Obergefell, and I am sure you would not understand the legal issues raised in the dissenting opinions if you had. Having read your posts, I'm not the least surprised that you would accept Kennedy's high-sounding, incoherent gibberish as legal reasoning.

    Obergefell is a direct attack on both democracy and the freedom of religion. Its sloppy, emotion-driven gobbbledygook has a special appeal for the witless. That includes most of the millions of pseudo-liberal lumps in the lumpenproletariat who are now taking up space in this once-great nation. Like their president, they care only about getting theirs, and they do not give a tinker's damn about this country, its Constitution, or the rule of law. The thought that a million American men have died to defend the rights of a such a bunch of simpering pajama boys is disgusting.
    Equal protection under the law isn't "judicial fiat," it's a constitutional right.

  5. #1415
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,378

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by free_think View Post
    Yes, I'm a little confused by the several posts that claim that SCOTUS does not have the final say on interpreting the constitution, and the vague assertions that the SC doesn't have any way to enforce its rulings.

    Is not the whole purpose of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and have the final say in such matters?

    Certainly there have been times when individual states have resisted court rulings. Most notably when Arkansas national guard attempted to prevent the implementation of desegregation in 1957. Eisenhower intervened, and with the help of the 101's airborne enforced the law.

    Are posters suggesting this ruling will prompt another such action, or series of actions? Seems unlikely at best.

    Desegregation was extremely unpopular among a certain group in society, and this same posturing was attempted then. But eventually, the ruling was enforced. In today's society, it seems an extreme stretch to think that history might repeat itself over this ruling, much less be taken any further. I suppose anything's possible, just seems highly unlikely.

    More likely that there will be some political posturing, and some ineffectual (presumably) attempts to amend the constitution. Then the whole thing will blow over when sexual orientation is finally recognized as a civil right.

    I could be wrong of course, it just seems that is the course we're on.

    You are absolutely correct. The whole slippery slope argument is nothing more than sour grapes and paranoia.

  6. #1416
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,227

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    i'd like to point out that this ruling is also huge even for gay couples in states that *already* allowed SSM. My gay uncle in california suddenly becomes unmarried every time he visits michigan. If one of them had an emergency during the trip, no hospital visitation, too bad! If they drove, they'd be unmarried in idaho, married again in utah, unmarried again in oklahoma, married in indiana...you get the point, it was stupid as hell

    This aspect of the ruling isn't getting as much attention, but it goes deeper into illustrating the absurdity of "states' rights" in an age of traveling across the entire country in a matter of hours. Every other country except mexico legalized SSM for the whole country simultaneously.

  7. #1417
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,194

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Have they been living together?
    Nope, the two have their own separate places.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #1418
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,227

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    If you think that Scalia's vitriolic dissent was becoming of Supreme Court Justice and was founded in logic....then I think it speaks clearly as to what constitutes a "dim bulb".
    yeah at one point he even blamed the "hippies" and used a phrase no less childish than 'doody head'. If this man is one of our top legal minds, we may as well have P Diddy as chief justice

    he truly comes across as a typical dullard redneck

  9. #1419
    Educator
    Sykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mmm. Bacon.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,241

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You know I think highly of you, and I understand the desire to kinda rub it in, but really, things like this are really unhelpful. Raising emotional ire is exactly the last thing that gay people and those who want to get SSM and live a happy life need. It just makes people mad, and they will then take it out on the most obvious targets. It is time to celebrate(and I am incredibly happy right now), but it is also time to start working on mending fences and getting past the ire. And I think it is those of us who have pushed for this to happen who should start doing the mending.
    At the time of your post, the decision was about three hours old. I think it was way too early to expect the celebrants to pipe down. And I have no idea why you think activists should be apologizing for finally attaining marriage equality.
    "If you donít have time for political correctness, you donít have time to be the caretaker of our rights under the Constitution." Kareem Abdul Jabbar, 9/2/2015

  10. #1420
    Educator
    Sykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mmm. Bacon.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,241

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    And who says multiple marriages cannot be inter-species - or even with inanimate objects? Yes this does open up a whole pandora's box of paths for the future.
    Yeah, DO let me know when inanimate objects can enter into a contract.
    "If you donít have time for political correctness, you donít have time to be the caretaker of our rights under the Constitution." Kareem Abdul Jabbar, 9/2/2015

Posting Permissions

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