Page 80 of 193 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290130180 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 1930

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

  1. #791
    American
    cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lakewood,WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,113
    Blog Entries
    10

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Figured this was going to happen at some point.



    Well maybe now we can move on and address some issues that are actually important to us all...
    Like the Confederate Flag.

  2. #792
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14,412

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    As opposed to the anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-family and anti-life...Left.
    There is nothing anti-Christian about same sex couples being given the right to legal marriage recognition as no churches are forced to marry any couple they disagree with marrying.

    There is nothing anti-family about same sex couples being given the right to legal marriage recognition as it has nothing to do with any family except the ones getting legal marriage recognition.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  3. #793
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,924

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.
    Ontologuy! I was wondering when you would show up.

    So that means it was 4-4 along ideological lines, not about the constitution, per se.

    Then Kennedy, always wanting to be the "Me, me!" of the SCOTUS, contrived an as far reaching argument as possible, not referencing the "equal protection" clause of the 14th many thought would be referenced, but instead the "due process" clause of the 14th and in a very nebulous reference, that no one really expected.
    Incorrect. Equal protection was also referenced.

    So watch out, boys and girls, as the next time a cat-owner wants to enter their cat in a dog show, "due process" will support 'em!
    Dog shows aren't government legislation, I'm not sure why you think the 14th amendment applies to dog shows.

    Seriously, does anybody even care about the definition of words anymore as the foundation to determine if something like "due process" applies???

    Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    There is no rational "due process" reference that can change that reality.
    False based on the previous faulty assumption that equal protection was not referenced.
    And, of course, 5-4 is hardly a mandate.
    You admitted the 4 dissenters were all ideologues so I really don't care.

    "Due process" doesn't mean you have the liberty to do whatever you want simply because you or enough of you want to. That's ludicrous!
    No, that's absurd hyperbole and you know it.

    It's a huge stretch to say that what happens in one state must be allowed in another state, as this ruling sets precedent. Now one state can legislate anything and then every state has to allow it. There goes state's rights.

    But to step out off that limb and say that "due process" can prevent a state from declaring "we will not allow the perform of the oxymoroninc "gay marriages" in our state" is the height of Kennedy's dictatorial ego.

    Roberts is right: the constitution had nothing to do with this decision.

    Why even the four liberals were sitting on the "equal protection" clause, a plausible yet still definitively inapplicable reference with respect to the subject matter: "marriage". "Due process"? Nope .. though, sure, they'll go along with Master Kennedy, to get what they ideologically want.
    Again from the false premise.

    Kennedy stepped off solid constitutional ground and into irrelevant ether.

    Thus the last word simply has not been spoken here, not by a long shot.

    Religious liberty will now most certainly mount some challenges that could easily overturn this ridiculous and fragile ruling.
    Keep telling yourself that.

    This isn't about a "definition." I know semantics is your end-all and be-all, but this actually was an equal protection challenge. Yes, the opinion first referenced due process, but later they referenced equal protection. You should have kept reading.

    And equal protection under the law requires that the states show some kind of reason behind preventing a male from entering into a private contract with a male, or a female with a female. No state has demonstrated a legitimate interest in doing so.

    All your side ever had to do was provide a single, legitimate state interest in stopping that private choice. You failed. It's over. Short of a constitutional amendment, this is never going to go the other way. (and you're not going to get a constitutional amendment)

  4. #794
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,037

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Oh, so you think I'm applying incorrectly?
    Nope, I don't think think you understood what I said at all. It's pretty clear. Sour grapes? It being used for the religious argument wanting to give marriage over to "the states" because they themselves cannot have control of it. exPRESSED? Whine? Some of my best work. Seriously. There are like 4 puns in one sentence.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #795
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,342

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Firstly, you give many examples of why marriage is a good idea yet none that require government sanction and reward.
    At it's core "marriage" is a state defined contract, with rights and responsibilities that the couple agrees to and that is common across all married couples and therefore known to creditors, hospitals, day care centers, schools, employers, etc. And that contract by being defined by the state does require government "sanction." And no, the government doesn't HAVE to reward marriage, but if a married couple results in societal benefits, then I see no problem rewarding marriage with tax or other benefits.

    Secondly, I love how you claim that "I don't see perfectly "equal" treatment under the law necessarily a virtue" and yet the basis of this Supreme Court ruling is just that.
    I also said, "It's often/usually a virtue, but there is no problem in my view for society to grant benefits to activities that produce social benefits. We provide preferential tax treatment to adopting kids, which is a good thing. Also for charitable donations, and tax benefits for taking care of dependents, even dependent adults. All good things in my view. "

    If you'd like to address that snippet in context that would be helpful!

    I'll add I'm not a fan of fake black and white choices. Life isn't black and white so if I'm for equality in marriage and support SSM, I don't feel any obligation at all to support marriage between an adult and a 8 year old, although we aren't treating those relationships "equal" under the law.

  6. #796
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Denver Colorado
    Last Seen
    06-26-15 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    32

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

    So I guess this is like the official end of the world for social conservatism then right?


    Nothing fills me with more joy than knowing some hypothetical social conservative judges in states like Mississippi and Alabama will now have to issue gay marriage licenses. This is just great :P

  7. #797
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,059

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Actually the more people think about it before doing it the MORE meaningful it becomes. It used to be like eating candy.
    But the marriage rate now is about half the rate it was in the 1960's and the divorce rate has doubled. And people were far more likely to describe their marriages as good/happy then than they are now. So maybe when marriage was considered the cultural norm, that was a healthy thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before living together, that was a good thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before having kids, that was a very beneficial thing. And expecting to make a life together and grow old together and share experiences with kids and grandchildren together was something to anticipate instead of being unusual.

    Too many people, if they bother to get married at all, go into marriage as a trial thing fully expecting to divorce if it didn't turned out according to expectations. There is no longer any stigma to having kids, accidentally or on purpose, outside of marriage. And too many look to government to be their sugar daddy instead of building and sharing economic security together.

    Whatever the motives or reasons were for changing the definition of marriage, I cannot see it as a good thing for anybody in the long term as I do expect as a culture marriage will be even less desirable and important than before.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #798
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    37,715

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    It's not hard to see his work and know what makes him filled with glee.
    Satan does not ****ing exist. Stop trying to run other people's lives based on the whims of your imaginary sky fairy and his evil cousin.

    You lost. Eat it.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  9. #799
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,188

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Not really. I know how old you are and I was born and raised in Wyoming so there is a thing or two I know about defending myself and using the appropriate tools. You are welcome to make all the veiled threats you want. I will defend my rights.
    What difference does my age make?
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  10. #800
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,037

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.
    Reagan appointee too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._homosexuality

    In the 2000 case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Kennedy voted, with four other justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters.

    ....

    Two years later, Kennedy authored the majority ruling in the landmark decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, which holds that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry nationwide.
    What an amazing progress...
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Posting Permissions

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