Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

BOSS SAID:

“Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years.”

As a fact of law this is irrelevant.

That something is perceived to be 'traditional' or 'historic' is not justification to deny citizens their civil rights.

NONSENSE! If this were the case, we could just pass a law that I can blow your ass away just for looking at me wrong in public and I can say that's my "right" because you threatened my right to life and pursuit of happiness.

We don't arbitrarily CHANGE what things mean so they fit our agenda! I can't just up and SAY that "marriage" means I should have the right to marry a 12-year-old! Now, there is actually a better argument for THAT since it wasn't that long ago it was perfectly legal to marry 12-year-olds! But the point is, we can't just up and say something is "marriage" because we want to do it!
 
How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!
Actually, the 9th Circuit did that. What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court. Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was? That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.

For now... In the state of California.
Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...
 
*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!
Actually, the 9th Circuit did that. What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court. Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was? That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.

For now... In the state of California.
Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...

Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.
 
Actually, the 9th Circuit did that. What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court. Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was? That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.

For now... In the state of California.
Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...

Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.
I'm not the one who keeps trying to change how the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts work. The rulings of the District Courts apply to all the states in that circuit; not only the state that specifically passed the law that is being considered by the court - it is called a circuit court for a reason - and the ruling does not apply to all 50 states - it is called a circuit court for a reason.

Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction.
 
For now... In the state of California.
Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...

Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.
I'm not the one who keeps trying to change how the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts work. The rulings of the District Courts apply to all the states in that circuit; not only the state that specifically passed the law that is being considered by the court - it is called a circuit court for a reason - and the ruling does not apply to all 50 states - it is called a circuit court for a reason.

Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction.

Isn't it more accurate to say "Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction"...when the SCOTUS chose not to hear the cases?
 
How? How exactly is insisting that every person has the right to make moral decisions for themselves forcing my morality on you?

Because with Gay Marriage, that is NOT what you are saying. You're telling me that I have to accept your moral view against my will because you think your view is superior to mine.

MY solution doesn't impose anyone's moral views on anyone else, it removes government from imposing ANY moral view. It resolves this issue in a way that allows each individual to determine their own moral view without the government involved at all. As it SHOULD be!
His view is superior to yours, and your view is intellectually repulsive.

PS, I'm still calling it marriage equality
 
Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...

Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.
I'm not the one who keeps trying to change how the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts work. The rulings of the District Courts apply to all the states in that circuit; not only the state that specifically passed the law that is being considered by the court - it is called a circuit court for a reason - and the ruling does not apply to all 50 states - it is called a circuit court for a reason.

Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction.

Isn't it more accurate to say "Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction"...when the SCOTUS chose not to hear the cases?
Welll...that's true. The SCOTUS could haven chosen to vacate the ruling, if they felt that the court over-stepped its jurisdiction. It chose not to.
 
For now... In the state of California.
Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...

Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.
I'm not the one who keeps trying to change how the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts work. The rulings of the District Courts apply to all the states in that circuit; not only the state that specifically passed the law that is being considered by the court - it is called a circuit court for a reason - and the ruling does not apply to all 50 states - it is called a circuit court for a reason.

Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction.

The ruling applies to a law in the State of California only. The case was not about anything other than a law in the State of California. I'm not changing anything about the court's jurisdiction. Had they been ruling on laws in all those states, then their ruling would apply to all those states. They were not. They ruled on a law in the State of California.
 
Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.
Either you don't understand what a federal Circuit Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that I don't understand those things...

Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.
I'm not the one who keeps trying to change how the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts work. The rulings of the District Courts apply to all the states in that circuit; not only the state that specifically passed the law that is being considered by the court - it is called a circuit court for a reason - and the ruling does not apply to all 50 states - it is called a circuit court for a reason.

Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction.

Isn't it more accurate to say "Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction"...when the SCOTUS chose not to hear the cases?
No. Because again, the case in question was about a law passed in the State of California, not any other state or law passed in any other state. The ruling only applies to the case brought before the court, which was regarding the law passed in California. If another state passed a similar law and someone brought that case before the court, they may use Hollingsworth v Perry as a precedent, or they may find there isn't enough similarity to justify that. It's up to the court to decide at that time. They did not rule on constitutionality of gay marriage, only on a law passed in the State of California.
 
BREAKING NEWS:
US Circuit Court: There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage


US Circuit Court There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage LibertyNEWS.com

Today’s decision helpfully explained why these laws are constitutional, why it is reasonable for citizens to support such laws, and why arguments for court-imposed redefinition of marriage do not succeed. It also sets the stage for marriage to return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As the 6th Circuit decision helpfully notes, at issue in these cases is “whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit” to redefine marriage. The court ruled that the democratic process should continue:

Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the 32 million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

In a similar fashion to a ruling last month from a federal judge in Puerto Rico, the 6th Circuit today noted that no Supreme Court precedent requires the judicial redefinition of marriage—and that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case supports the authority of states to make marriage policy.


..........RUH ROH!
 
Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.

More liberty is more than less liberty.

It's really simple.

I could be either a vegetarian or an omnivore right? That is my choice. How is declaring that you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex any different than the state declaring you can only serve vegetarian cuisine in a restaurant?

Because it is akin to saying that flying a rocket ship is the same as driving a car... then declaring you have a right to blow down the highway on a rocket because you have a driver's license and your rocket is a car. In your restaurant analogy, it's like saying that you have the right to serve food made of plastic instead of real food, but you call the plastic food real because it looks real to you.

Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years. The union of same sex couples is just the union of same sex couples... not marriage. Now, I have no problem with you having a "wedding" and calling it a "marriage" ...just like I have no problem with you setting your table with plastic food and pretending you are eating dinner. I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law.

I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will. Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people. I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?

You did present what you believe to be a reasonable solution.

Others disagree.

If the courts overturn laws legalizing same gender marriage- well then I will treat that like every other Supreme Court decision that I disagree with- I will still consider the Supreme Court ruling legal and binding.
 
BREAKING NEWS:
US Circuit Court: There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage


US Circuit Court There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage LibertyNEWS.com

Today’s decision helpfully explained why these laws are constitutional, why it is reasonable for citizens to support such laws, and why arguments for court-imposed redefinition of marriage do not succeed. It also sets the stage for marriage to return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As the 6th Circuit decision helpfully notes, at issue in these cases is “whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit” to redefine marriage. The court ruled that the democratic process should continue:

Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the 32 million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

In a similar fashion to a ruling last month from a federal judge in Puerto Rico, the 6th Circuit today noted that no Supreme Court precedent requires the judicial redefinition of marriage—and that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case supports the authority of states to make marriage policy.


..........RUH ROH!

I was beginning to wonder if any American courts would disagree- and whether the Supreme Court would never even have to address the issue.

Now that 3 Appellete courts have rule one way- and now one has ruled the other- the supreme court should take this up.
 
BREAKING NEWS:
US Circuit Court: There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage


US Circuit Court There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage LibertyNEWS.com

Today’s decision helpfully explained why these laws are constitutional, why it is reasonable for citizens to support such laws, and why arguments for court-imposed redefinition of marriage do not succeed. It also sets the stage for marriage to return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As the 6th Circuit decision helpfully notes, at issue in these cases is “whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit” to redefine marriage. The court ruled that the democratic process should continue:

Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the 32 million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

In a similar fashion to a ruling last month from a federal judge in Puerto Rico, the 6th Circuit today noted that no Supreme Court precedent requires the judicial redefinition of marriage—and that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case supports the authority of states to make marriage policy.


..........RUH ROH!

I was beginning to wonder if any American courts would disagree- and whether the Supreme Court would never even have to address the issue.

Now that 3 Appellete courts have rule one way- and now one has ruled the other- the supreme court should take this up.
Which is appropriate.

Compelling gay Americans to fight for their civil rights on a state by state basis is anathema to the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law. Citizens don't forfeit their civil liberties merely as a consequence of their state of residence, where the consistent application of citizens' rights is mandated by the 14th Amendment.
 

Forum List

Back
Top