• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

So yes, some states do.

That doesn't negate the fact that some don't and can't be forced to.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Actually no that judges ruling is violation of the constitution. another state cannot tell another state what to do. this is in the 10th amendment.

this judges ruling is in direct violation of the 10th amendment.

even if you pass gay marriage my state is under non obligation to acknowledge that as based on constitutional law.

So one state can ignore ignore another's adherence to the 1st amendment?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

So one state can ignore ignore another's adherence to the 1st amendment?

What does the 1st Amendment have to do with the question?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

What does the 1st Amendment have to do with the question?

Well...you said one state can ignore another's adherence to the 14th amendment, so I was wondering what other amendments worked in a similar fashion.

EDIT: Oh, I'm sorry, ludin said that. The guy I quoted. My bad.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Well...you said one state can ignore another's adherence to the 14th amendment, so I was wondering what other amendments worked in a similar fashion.

My first post was to you. I had made no other...
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

My first post was to you. I had made no other...

Yeah, sorry, I edited it. I assumed it was ludin that answered, and the girlfriend was yapping at me.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Yeah, sorry, I edited it. I assumed it was ludin that answered, and the girlfriend was yapping at me.

Do States no longer have any rights?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

And Scotus Blog adds even more:

"Moveover, like DOMA’s Section 3, the discrimination legitimized by Section 2 and practiced by the majority of states is of an “unusual character.” All states currently recognize the vast majority of marriages celebrated in other states, not as a constitutional requirement (the conventional wisdom is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn’t apply here) but as a matter of comity and common sense. Accordingly, individual states have long recognized marriages – common-law, first-cousin, even uncle-niece – that they themselves would not have created. Mini-DOMAs simply carve out a gay/lesbian exception to this longstanding rule.

Whatever federalism-based respect we must continue giving states in deciding whether to create same-sex marriages, these states have no humane, reasonable, or even coherent interest in demanding the continued power to sunder the unions of couples who are already married. If, by creating a same-sex marriage, a state invokes its “historic and essential authority” to confer “dignity and status of immense import,” as the Court told us today, then requiring sister states to recognize that marriage is the price of living in a federal system of equal sovereigns."

Next on the agenda for marriage equality litigators
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Do States no longer have any rights?

Well, that's what I'm asking. Do they have the right to ignore amendments?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Well, that's what I'm asking. Do they have the right to ignore amendments?

States shall have all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government. It's rather simple until the courts get involved...
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

States shall have all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government. It's rather simple until the courts get involved...

So they get to ignore the 14th, okay. Are there any other amendments they can ignore? That was my question.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

So they get to ignore the 14th, okay. Are there any other amendments they can ignore? That was my question.

To what specifically are you referring? Is it that you don't agree with some States' voters decisions?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

The 10th is alive and well, it gives those powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States to BOTH the states and people. Some who quote the 10th seem to think it ONLY gives rights/powers to the States if not granted to the feds. It by NO means approves of unconstitutional laws passed by state governments. A state that doesn't abide by the Constitution gets called out on it... the Judiciary doesn't rule us, it acts as a check to government over reach and government favoritism.

If the Ayatollahs have the power, abortion would be illegal, women would be stoned for adultery, and any worship not sanctioned by them would be illegal. Oh and the whole women can't go to school or go in public alone.... so that rhetoric is rather silly... :peace
i'm glad you noted "respectively, or to the people" as the end of the 10th's language.

I am a bit confused -this is a US judge - not a state judge right? So a US judge can issue a ruling, but is the state bound by it ?
I would think so -as state law is subservient to fed;l law. though the state would prolly appeal.

in practicality all this has to go to SCOTUS - and I'm fairly sure it will - gotta be a lot of appeals headed their way, and they would have to hear the case.

* gotta get some sleep - early work weekend coming up* - maybe think clearer after work tomorrow.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

To what specifically are you referring?

I'm referring to them ignoring the 14th. Are there any other amendments they can ignore? It's a yes or no question.

Is it that you don't agree with some States' voters decisions?

Oh, I'm sure I don't. Do you agree with every states' voters decisions? That's like 300+ million people to agree with, all the time.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

I'm referring to them ignoring the 14th. Are there any other amendments they can ignore? It's a yes or no question.



Oh, I'm sure I don't. Do you agree with every states' voters decisions? That's like 300+ million people to agree with, all the time.

No one is ignoring Constitutional Amendments other than those ignoring the 10th...
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

No one is ignoring Constitutional Amendments other than those ignoring the 10th...

No? Kentucky isn't by refusing to acknowledge the 14th, as acknowledged in other states?

Cause...ya know...that's exactly what the topic is about.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

No? Kentucky isn't by refusing to acknowledge the 14th, as acknowledged in other states?

Cause...ya know...that's exactly what the topic is about.

When exactly did KY refuse to acknowledge the 14th?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

When exactly did KY refuse to acknowledge the 14th?

When they refused to acknowledge marriages from other states that were deemed to be legal by the federal government, via the constitution, including the 14 amendment?

Did you read the thread/article or did you just wander in here randomly?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

When they refused to acknowledge marriages from other states that were deemed to be legal by the federal government, via the constitution, including the 14 amendment?

Did you read the thread/article or did you just wander in here randomly?

Deemed? Do you know the meaning of the word?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Deemed? Do you know the meaning of the word?

Yes, I do. Thank you for that question. Can you answer mine now, about which amendments you can ignore from other states and which you can't?
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Yes, I do. Thank you for that question. Can you answer mine now, about which amendments you can ignore from other states and which you can't?

I deem your question irrelevant to the discussion as it has nothing to do with the amendment in question...
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Actually it is. KY constitution sets marriage as a man and a women. if a couple go to VT and get married the judge says that KY has to acknowledge that marriage in violation of it's constitution. that means that VT has power over the KY state and constitution. a judge ordered another state to violate it's own constitution based on the laws of another state. I could careless about the whole gay marriage thing on this. this judge should be removed from the bench. his job is to uphold the constitution why can't judges remember this.

Let's try it this way- Back in 1860 I am a free negro from the great state of Michigan. I have papers from the Great State of Michigan saying I am a free negro. I accompany some lumber buyers to Kentucky, a slave state with slavery in it's state Constitution. Kentucky doesn't have to have a system to free it's slaves like Michigan does, howsomever it has to recognize me as a free negro even if their State Constitution has slavery of negroes is legal.

Now if the Great State of Kentucky feels this judge has violated the Constitution by all means they should call for his impeachment- but they won't as it will end with the State definition of marriage being called unconstitutional. I imagine this is but a step in doing just that.

FYI, the Judge is a federal one, not state one. He upholds the Federal Constitution, not the State one with the unconstitutional definition of marriage... :peace
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

People will stop caring about equal rights when we have equal rights.

We already do.

Gay marriage is not about equal rights.
 
Re: And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

Let's try it this way- Back in 1860 I am a free negro from the great state of Michigan. I have papers from the Great State of Michigan saying I am a free negro. I accompany some lumber buyers to Kentucky, a slave state with slavery in it's state Constitution. Kentucky doesn't have to have a system to free it's slaves like Michigan does, howsomever it has to recognize me as a free negro even if their State Constitution has slavery of negroes is legal.

Now if the Great State of Kentucky feels this judge has violated the Constitution by all means they should call for his impeachment- but they won't as it will end with the State definition of marriage being called unconstitutional. I imagine this is but a step in doing just that.

FYI, the Judge is a federal one, not state one. He upholds the Federal Constitution, not the State one with the unconstitutional definition of marriage... :peace

stacked hypotheticals are not arguments.

actually your hypothetical is wrong for even if you were a free black person in the north and went south they did not recognize that and you would be put on a plantation or some other work camp. at worst you would have been deemed a run away and shot or hanged right there.

you wouldn't have gotten a trial. so you are wrong they don't have to recognize you at all even with a paper.

doesn't matter he still violated the 10th amendment federal judge or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom