32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[bodecea]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

Crushed?

And....are you saying if an anti-gun measure passed 54%-48%...it's a mandate that no judge is permitted to overturn?

The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The right to homosexual marriage, or marriage, period, is ambiguous and determined solely in interpretation of various amendments.

And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.

My brother is a constitutional lawyer. We always have a good laugh when we talk about queers and their aping of the word "rights". But maybe you can show me the particular section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that singles out queers and their "right" to queer "marriage"? I'm waiting.

 

[SixFoot]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

 

[initforme]

As a 76 year old white3, married, heterosexual male with 4 kids, WHY SHOULD I CARE about this issue? It makes zero sense. It is zero threat to my marriage. If you believe is less gov't then this is a non issue. Less gov't intrusion = stay out of the bedroom of two adults. A case of saying one thing but when it doesn't suit you exactly then you have an ILLEGITIMATE gripe.

 

[Vigilante]

SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to take this hot potato, they'll simply refer it back to the lower district courts....Cowards DO wear black robes, beside the scum of ISIS!

And vigilantes.

It's a black cape, hat, shirt and pants..... unlike the diaper you wear!

 

[Silhouette]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

You mean legal marriage as decided by the discreet community of each separate state, right? You realize of course that there is no Constitutional provision for covering "gay marriage" as a right? And no precedent where behaviors [just some but not others] are afforded "constitutional protection". You realize that LGBT are a loose collection of just some deviant sexual behaviors. I hope you're not mistaking them for race?

 

[bodecea]

And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.

My brother is a constitutional lawyer. We always have a good laugh when we talk about queers and their aping of the word "rights". But maybe you can show me the particular section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that singles out queers and their "right" to queer "marriage"? I'm waiting.

And my brother is a Supreme Court Justice....and my best friend's wife is another. and they have a good laugh over things like what you say and claim. This is fun......let's play some more.

 

[bodecea]

As a 76 year old white3, married, heterosexual male with 4 kids, WHY SHOULD I CARE about this issue? It makes zero sense. It is zero threat to my marriage. If you believe is less gov't then this is a non issue. Less gov't intrusion = stay out of the bedroom of two adults. A case of saying one thing but when it doesn't suit you exactly then you have an ILLEGITIMATE gripe.

You have to understand, and pity, those whose marriages ARE under threat by legalized gay marriage. They are hanging onto wedded bliss by a thread.

 

[Silhouette]

And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.

My brother is a constitutional lawyer. We always have a good laugh when we talk about queers and their aping of the word "rights". But maybe you can show me the particular section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that singles out queers and their "right" to queer "marriage"? I'm waiting.

And my brother is a Supreme Court Justice....and my best friend's wife is another. and they have a good laugh over things like what you say and claim. This is fun......let's play some more.

Is one of them Kennedy? Just curious if he's laughing too or not.

 

[SixFoot]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

You mean legal marriage as decided by the discreet community of each separate state, right? You realize of course that there is no Constitutional provision for covering "gay marriage" as a right? And no precedent where behaviors [just some but not others] are afforded "constitutional protection". You realize that LGBT are a loose collection of just some deviant sexual behaviors. I hope you're not mistaking them for race?

I have no idea what you're accusing me of.

I'm simply speaking from an old fashioned (Constitutional) point of view. The federal government has provisions for married couples in their tax code. According to the Constitution, they have to recognize marriage, be it a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment demands equal treatment in such a matter.

HOWEVER, the federal government (the Judicial Branch included) has no right to tell States that they cannot dictate what constitutes a legal marriage, as per the 10th Amendment.

Your fervent reply leads me to believe we both agree that gay marriage is just that - gay. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. I will most certainly support the Constitution as it is plainly written, though.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm sorry but I find this a bunch of BS

ANYONE from some state can write a letter

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm sorry but I find this a bunch of BS

ANYONE from some state can write a letter

You are ******* stupid..seriously ******* stupid.
this isnt about anyone writing a letter.

 

[Plasmaball]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

You mean legal marriage as decided by the discreet community of each separate state, right? You realize of course that there is no Constitutional provision for covering "gay marriage" as a right? And no precedent where behaviors [just some but not others] are afforded "constitutional protection". You realize that LGBT are a loose collection of just some deviant sexual behaviors. I hope you're not mistaking them for race?

yawn....anything else that will actually carry weight?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a black cape, hat, shirt and pants..... unlike the diaper you wear!

You are nothing but a cartoon character.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle of incorporation and the 14th have dominated, rightly, this debate in the courts.

We are within ten months of resolution in favor of marriage equality.

 

[Vigilante]

It's a black cape, hat, shirt and pants..... unlike the diaper you wear!

You are nothing but a cartoon character.

Funny thing is, my cartoons actually make a point with satire, your points actually make you satire!

 

[rightwinger]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

When one state doesn't recognize legal documents issued by another state, the federal government needs to get involved

What happens when a legally married gay soldier stationed in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage has issues related to state services or medical coverage?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a black cape, hat, shirt and pants..... unlike the diaper you wear!

You are nothing but a cartoon character.

Funny thing is, my cartoons actually make a point with satire, your points actually make you satire!

The irony is that you think that is so, when in fact it is merely laughable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What happened in Utah, rightwinger. State was told to recognize it for benefits, or face losing federal money.

Utah rolled on its back with its paws up in a heartbeat.

 

[Vigilante]

It's a black cape, hat, shirt and pants..... unlike the diaper you wear!

You are nothing but a cartoon character.

Funny thing is, my cartoons actually make a point with satire, your points actually make you satire!

The irony is that you think that is so, when in fact it is merely laughable.

It's a shame you haven't started playing LIKE stakes, as you did with Rep Frog, the intelligence level of threads increased dramatically when you didn't post in them!