GOP backs law limiting marriage

Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS.

What ‘powers’?

Clear on what?

You make no sense.

I have never understood why Government is in the Marriage business to begin with. Government should deal solely in Civil Unions. Let the Marriage of 1 man and 1 Woman remain where it belongs. The Church.

More nonsense.

Marriage is a legal and binding contract and states write and regulate contract law. That law has nothing to do with religion.

That marriage law is subject to Constitutional restriction was made abundantly clear in the already cited Loving v. Virginia (1967):
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

One need only replace ‘another race’ with ‘of the same sex’ and the precedent is clearly applicable.

With Loving incorporating Equal Protection and Due Process to the states with regard to marriage laws, and Lawrence v Texas striking down anti-gay (‘sodomy’) laws as an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment, it’s obvious the Prop 8 ruling will be upheld by the Court.

What powers?? The powers granted to the government are specifically ENUMERATED.. and yes, that capitalized word is a hint

And no.. a choice is not the same as a race
 
Obama and Biden are Republicans?

Who knew?
"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.

I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex".
..
..
.

Q: Let’s try to avoid nuance. Do you support gay marriage?


BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.


PALIN: My answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

So? I disagree with the statements; I understand why Obama & Biden need to respond as they did, but neither you nor I know what they really think. DOMA is mean spirited, bigoted and a disgrace to our heritage.

What part of this sentence do you not understand? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


So, why are you only going after Republicans, when the leader of your own party, the President of the United States, agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.


What's not equal?

A homosexual man cannot marry another man.

A heterosexual man cannot marry another man.

The law is the same for all, no one may marry the same gender, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Why am I going after the GOP? They are the ones supporting prop 8 in California at this time. The GOP wants to deny liberty to a group of Americans based on their sexual orientation. How would you feel if the Democrats went to court to deny gun ownership to all members of the NRA?
 
My point was right as in accurate.

As with others on the right, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Feel free to cite a Supreme Court case overturning either Loving or Lawrence.

What powers?? The powers granted to the government are specifically ENUMERATED.. and yes, that capitalized word is a hint.

You may capitalize all you want – it doesn’t alter the fact that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means:

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling was an interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, Section 8. So the 10th Amendment doesn’t mean what you think it means – it hasn’t for almost 200 years.

But however interesting that may be, that’s not the issue with regard to same sex marriage.

At issue is the 14th Amendment and its requirement that the states apply their laws equally, to all citizens, regardless of class. In other words, a specific group may not be singled out and excluded from participation in a given legal process simply because of who they are.
 
Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS.
What ‘powers’?

Clear on what?

You make no sense.

I have never understood why Government is in the Marriage business to begin with. Government should deal solely in Civil Unions. Let the Marriage of 1 man and 1 Woman remain where it belongs. The Church.
More nonsense.

Marriage is a legal and binding contract and states write and regulate contract law. That law has nothing to do with religion.

That marriage law is subject to Constitutional restriction was made abundantly clear in the already cited Loving v. Virginia (1967):
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
One need only replace ‘another race’ with ‘of the same sex’ and the precedent is clearly applicable.

With Loving incorporating Equal Protection and Due Process to the states with regard to marriage laws, and Lawrence v Texas striking down anti-gay (‘sodomy’) laws as an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment, it’s obvious the Prop 8 ruling will be upheld by the Court.

That depends on what standard of scrutiny the court decides is applicable. The Obama administration is arbitrarily applying strict scrutiny to the question, a standard that has never before been applied to marriage laws. The court has held that the state does have an interest in regulating marriage when they upheld bigamy laws that were challenged on the basis of freedom of religion. A strict scrutiny standard would require the court to reverse its ruling in Reynolds. That probably means that they will choose to use the rational basis standard, which makes it much easier for the government to argue their position.

My guess is that the 9th will go to far, follow your specious logic, and rule Prop 8 unconstitutional. SCOTUS will review, over rule the 9th, and either rule that the defendants do not have standing, or remand it back the the 9th and tell them to rule on that issue and leave it alone.
 
Newsflash to Clayton Jones, I am not a rightwinger and number two every American has the "right" to marriage and can marry, they just can't have a slew of marriages that suit their sexual behavior, if fags can have gay marriage incestuous people should have incest marriage and polygamists should have their marriage. Fags are asking for something they already have the right to do.
 
Newsflash to Clayton Jones, I am not a rightwinger and number two every American has the "right" to marriage and can marry, they just can't have a slew of marriages that suit their sexual behavior, if fags can have gay marriage incestuous people should have incest marriage and polygamists should have their marriage. Fags are asking for something they already have the right to do.

Why is being gay the same as having incestuous sex? Please, elaborate. You're only embarrassing yourself here.
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The GOP's rejection of the principles upon which are nation declared its independence is reprehensible.

even though back when this Country was founded....Gay Marriage was considered just as it is now.....probably even worse....so how is just the GOP just at fault here.....if back then,Gay Marriage was Considered by non Conservatives to be.....a little strange as well?....
 
What makes you think that is agnostic? He is attempting to find a way not to offend gays without loosing all the blacks that voted for him. He is opportunistic.

So? He's still more likely to vote for marriage equality than the GnOP candidates.

No he's not.

Gays make up about 3% of the voting public, blacks are around 20%.

That's simple math.

Here's some more "simple math"... (with even simpler pictures)

Gallup: For First Time, Majority Supports Marriage Equality

vqf79nrpfewws7ibh-1u-q.gif
 
It doesn't matter what the Gop does or does not support, marriage is not up to the Federal Government to dictate. It is a states issue. Marriage is not covered under the United States Constitution in any shape or form, and anything not in the constitution is left up to the states to dictate. If you do not like the marriage laws in your state feel free to move to another state or to elect a representative that will vote in the fashion that you believe they should.
Straight from the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

Loving V Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley

Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS

It sure is...which is why marriage equality will be a reality in no time...

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."


and

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 
Unbeknownst to him, Bass brought up a good point. This isn't a partisan issue anymore. Sure, one party does tend to harbor more anti-gay bigots than the other, but with more and more gays and lesbians coming out of the closet and not hiding who they are, that is changing rapidly. Just look at the current marriage equality fight in NY. The biggest donors FOR marriage equality were a group of Republicans.
 
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

Loving V Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley

Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS

It sure is...which is why marriage equality will be a reality in no time...

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."


and

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equality by getting government out of marriage.. GREAT!!

The other way.. not so much... forced acceptance of a choice is not the business government is supposed to be in
 
Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS

It sure is...which is why marriage equality will be a reality in no time...

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."


and

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equality by getting government out of marriage.. GREAT!!

The other way.. not so much... forced acceptance of a choice is not the business government is supposed to be in

And yet it IS the business the government is placed in time and again isn't it...

Loving v Virginia
Lawrence v Texas
Brown v Board of Ed

etc...
 
LOL, wow, one of the most preten[t]ious posts I've ever encountered wrapped nicely in a straw man with a pinch or two of hy[p]erbole - half baked and served with sprig of arrogance and self[-]right[e]ous indignation.

The GOP in practice violates the idea expressed here: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

A Libertarian would support the rights of all human beings in their pursuit of happiness, so long as the pursuit causes no harm.

You're a phony.

Pretentious? (misspelled :lol:) Hyperbole? Self-righteous? Phony?

So you want to get ugly.

No. You're just a two-bit punk, a second-rater who doesn't recognize the terms of his own political heritage and thinks in slogans. You live in the black-and-white world of a paper bag out of which you couldn't think yourself if I tossed ya a switchblade.

Pay attention this time, nitwit.

(1) I'm not a libertarian; I'm a classical liberal of the Lockean tradition, you know, that of the Founders.

(2) Neither a classical liberal of the Lockean tradition nor a classical libertarian would sensibly support the prospect of expanding the power of the state to enforce civil rights protections based on sexual behavior against uninhibited free-association and the fundamental liberties associated with private property. JACKASS!

(3) Of course, a Johnny-come-lately, post-modern libertarian or socialist libertarian (Google it) might . . . because this so-called libertarian is a dumbass, jackass.

(4) I emphatically stated that I would rather the government got out the marriage business altogether, given that lefty is just using it as a wedge issue to further divide us and impose his values on us.

(5) But since that's not going to happen any time soon, in the meantime you're damn right I'm going to oppose the phony-ass agenda of you moralizing, two-bit punk collectivists.
 
Last edited:
It sure is...which is why marriage equality will be a reality in no time...

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."


and

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equality by getting government out of marriage.. GREAT!!

The other way.. not so much... forced acceptance of a choice is not the business government is supposed to be in

And yet it IS the business the government is placed in time and again isn't it...

Loving v Virginia
Lawrence v Texas
Brown v Board of Ed

etc...

More like they place themselves in the middle of it.
 
It doesn't matter what the Gop does or does not support, marriage is not up to the Federal Government to dictate. It is a states issue. Marriage is not covered under the United States Constitution in any shape or form, and anything not in the constitution is left up to the states to dictate. If you do not like the marriage laws in your state feel free to move to another state or to elect a representative that will vote in the fashion that you believe they should.
Straight from the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

Loving V Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley

Judicial activism, it still does not mean the Amendment doesn't mean what it actually says.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top