View Poll Results: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0-2 years

    10 31.25%
  • 3-4 years

    7 21.88%
  • 5-6 years

    7 21.88%
  • 7-8 years

    1 3.13%
  • 9-10 years

    4 12.50%
  • 11-15 years

    0 0%
  • 16-20 years

    0 0%
  • 21-25 years

    0 0%
  • 26+

    0 0%
  • Never

    3 9.38%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

  1. #21
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Since culture is upstream from politics I disagree.
    again you agreeing or not doesnt matter to equal rights either lol
    again see loving vs Virginia, 80+% of the country was against interracial marriage, doesnt matter because its a rights issue.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #22
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    In the previous poll I said 10-15 years. I now say 0-5 years (3 to 4). I honestly think that the Supreme Court is going to rule soon, and it will rule in favor of marriage equality. I was not anticipating the dramatic wave of court rulings in favor of SSM and all that has occurred since Windsor.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  3. #23
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,493

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Half a decade. Again mostly because of a couple of holdout states.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
    Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

    Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

    Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

    you're welcome
    These cases are not all solely regarding gay rights, but rather define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage, correct?

  5. #25
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    These cases are not all solely regarding gay rights, but rather define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage, correct?
    No. They do not all even have to do with marriage (Lawrence v. Texas for example). The cases all have in common what the title of the link says:

    "14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right"

    In other words, 14 cases were the court affirmed marriage is a fundamental right.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  6. #26
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,493

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
    Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

    Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

    Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

    you're welcome
    There's what's legal and what's right. You're correct that SCOTUS has ruled on marriage before. US Conservative's question, which I'm sympathetic to, is should they be ruling on it? Marriage is largely a state regulated institution and having the Feds - yet again - insert themselves in the domain of the states really isn't a good thing.

    SSM should and will be legal across the land. The question is really does having the Federal government impose it from on high the right way to do it? That's legitimately debatable.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  7. #27
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    These cases are not all solely regarding gay rights, but rather define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage, correct?
    100% correct because gay rights is the sub issue, its a rights issue first and foremost, its a EQUAL rights issue to be exact.

    again loving vs Virginia was note solely regarding black rights was it? nope because it didnt have to it was about RIGHTS . . . EQUAL RIGHTS

    glad i could clear up you confusion for you
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #28
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    There's what's legal and what's right. You're correct that SCOTUS has ruled on marriage before. US Conservative's question, which I'm sympathetic to, is should they be ruling on it? Marriage is largely a state regulated institution and having the Feds - yet again - insert themselves in the domain of the states really isn't a good thing.
    2.)SSM should and will be legal across the land.
    3.)The question is really does having the Federal government impose it from on high the right way to do it?
    4.) That's legitimately debatable.
    1.) yes they SHOULD, because its an equal rights issue, states dont get to infringe on equal rights and when they do they are correct eventually. SO the FED is not inserting themselves the states overstepping is the issue and the fed is doing exactly what it should.
    2.) correct
    3.) this is how our government is designed, its not mob rule and states dont get to step on individual rights, the Constitution is the highest law.
    4.) only to those that falsely think this is a states rights issue, which it is not.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    No. They do not all even have to do with marriage (Lawrence v. Texas for example). The cases all have in common what the title of the link says:

    "14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right"

    In other words, 14 cases were the court affirmed marriage is a fundamental right.
    I specified gay marriage.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    There's what's legal and what's right. You're correct that SCOTUS has ruled on marriage before. US Conservative's question, which I'm sympathetic to, is should they be ruling on it? Marriage is largely a state regulated institution and having the Feds - yet again - insert themselves in the domain of the states really isn't a good thing.

    SSM should and will be legal across the land. The question is really does having the Federal government impose it from on high the right way to do it? That's legitimately debatable.
    You are correct in your inference. Well said.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •