- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,814
- Reaction score
- 98,830
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No I honestly cannot understand what your post is saying. It just seems to be random words strung together.
They are.
No I honestly cannot understand what your post is saying. It just seems to be random words strung together.
For those who send 0-5 years, do you believe in the next 5 years the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage in all of the states and overturn their constitutional bans on it? Because changing state constitutions will take more than 5 years, especially in the deep south.
You say christians don't have the 'copyright' of marriage. Does that one plurality of state judges who decreed marriage for all have a 'copyright' of discrimination? If yes, why? If no, why?
For those who send 0-5 years, do you believe in the next 5 years the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage in all of the states and overturn their constitutional bans on it? Because changing state constitutions will take more than 5 years, especially in the deep south.
What if a state supreme court deemes that allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional? What happens then? Is the precedent gone? Is there no discrimination if gay marriage isn't allowed?
Of course, the union of a same sex couple will receive all the same rights and responsiblitlies as in marriage through state legislation already created or through state legislaton that can easily be created.
On what grounds, under what Constitutional basis could they possibly rule that allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional?
This should be good.
On what grounds, under what Constitutional basis could they possibly rule that allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional?
This should be good.
On what grounds did the original plurality of state supreme court judges deem that prohibiting marriage to everyone is unconstitutional? That original decision of marriage for everyone is why out of the box, especially when judges use precedents in their decision making. Which precedents were were being violated?
If one group of judges can go why out of the box to make decisions, why can't another group of judges go way out of the box to make a 'reversal' decision? Ya know, for example, prohibition was repealed.
Prohibition was not repealed by judges.
A reversal was made. That's my point. I know your point: to nitpick. I used prohibition as an example of a reversal of law.
On what grounds, under what Constitutional basis could they possibly rule that allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional?
This should be good.
this assumes that the Justices don't have an agenda and always rule on the basis of the constitution ...
On what grounds did the original plurality of state supreme court judges deem that prohibiting marriage to everyone is unconstitutional? .
I agree with Goodrich V. dep't of health. Give unions all the rights and responsibilties of civil marriage.
All marriages recognized by the State are civil marriages irregardless if a preist, rabbi or witch doctor performs the ceremony.
According to whom?
So basically one plurality of state judges can define, let's say, discrimination and the whole of the US is forced to follow suit? Not very fair.
Ninth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionI'm using, with my last post, discrimination (which many gay marriage advocates use to obfuscate the gay marriage issue). The say SSM couples are being discriminated against, and that conclusively and constitutionally demands gay marriage be allowed.
I'm not sure what's inside your head. Why don't you explain? Prove gay marriage is constitutional.
On what grounds did the original plurality of state supreme court judges deem that prohibiting marriage to everyone is unconstitutional? That original decision of marriage for everyone is way out of the box, especially when judges use precedents in their decision making. Which precedents were were being violated?
If one group of judges can go way out of the box to make decisions, why can't another group of judges go way out of the box to make a 'reversal' decision? Ya know, for example, prohibition was repealed. I believe in the prohibition reversal, public opinion did as much as anything to cause the reversal. There isn't a plurality of americans who believe in marriage for everyone, yet.