32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Skylar]

Now, if people could produce actual proof that homosexuals are born that way, this would indeed be a civil rights issue.

What relevance does being 'born that way' have with rights? Even if its a choice....so is free speech. Or religion. Or not self incriminating.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing. Somebody explain how an identical twin brother who isn't homosexual who takes exception with his homosexual brother's lifestyle, is being "racist" against his queer brother. I must have been asleep in class that day. I'm wide awake now though. One of you "gay rights" racism experts enlighten me. I'm all ears.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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.

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.

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.

If your intentions are to have an actual debate, please stop throwing the goalposts all over the room.

If you want to just call me a dirty icky bigot, please just get it over with and move on.

I'm not shifting any goal posts, I'm following your logic. You said that gay rights are not civil rights because YOU believe being gay is a choice. Religion is a choice so is THAT choice deserving of civil rights or not? Would you find it acceptable for the state of TN to prohibit all Muslims from civilly marrying each other?

You are a bigot yes, but dirty and icky I have no knowledge of.

OK, time for you to move on. Its a shame you can't be more civil, I think we could've had some better conversations.

Actually, snarkiness aside, Seawytch's point if perfectly valid.

You made it clear that in your opinion two things exist:

1. The Federal Constitution ONLY applies to the Federal government,

2. That the Federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws to the states.​

Under your logic then States could ban (at least through a State Constitution Amendment): interracial Civil Marriage, Interfaith Civil Marriages, they could even ban Civil Marriage to Muslims only. Why? Because the incorporation of the 14th does not exist, therefore the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress and the Federal government because the 14th Amendment does not make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. The only "rights" then held by the people in terms of State action are those contained in the States Constitution and if the people of a State amend their Constitution they can do anything they like.

Kind of like Alabama which banned the CHOICE of people of different races getting Civilly Married. (Language which the electorate finally removed in 2000 via a new amendment vote, the sad part being that (IIRC) 40% of the vote was to retain the discriminatory language.) Each race could get Civilly Married, just not to each other.

The logic of your position is that the Federal government had no power to prevent such discrimination.

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing. Somebody explain how an identical twin brother who isn't homosexual who takes exception with his homosexual brother's lifestyle, is being "racist" against his queer brother. I must have been asleep in class that day. I'm wide awake now though. One of you "gay rights" racism experts enlighten me. I'm all ears.

You can "feel" any way you want to. It is when you seek to deny them equal rights that you become a bigot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing. Somebody explain how an identical twin brother who isn't homosexual who takes exception with his homosexual brother's lifestyle, is being "racist" against his queer brother. I must have been asleep in class that day. I'm wide awake now though. One of you "gay rights" racism experts enlighten me. I'm all ears.

Your confusing racism with bigotry they are not the same. A racist is a bigot, but a bigot is not necessarily a racist.

Bigtory refers to intolerance based on a general classification of a group. A bigot could be a bigot against women - all women regardless of race. A bigot could be a bigot against Jews - all Jews regardless of race (and yes there are Jews of different races). A bigot could be a bigot against homosexuals - all homosexuals regardless of race (and yes there are homosexuals of different races).

However, a racist bases their intolerance based on (a) a feeling of superiority for their own race, or (b) intolerance of any [or only a single other race] other than their own.



Glad to assist you in understanding the meaning of the terms.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

Actually, snarkiness aside, Seawytch's point if perfectly valid.

You made it clear that in your opinion two things exist:

1. The Federal Constitution ONLY applies to the Federal government,

2. That the Federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws to the states.​

Under your logic then States could ban (at least through a State Constitution Amendment): interracial Civil Marriage, Interfaith Civil Marriages, they could even ban Civil Marriage to Muslims only. Why? Because the incorporation of the 14th does not exist, therefore the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress and the Federal government because the 14th Amendment does not make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. The only "rights" then held by the people in terms of State action are those contained in the States Constitution and if the people of a State amend their Constitution they can do anything they like.

Kind of like Alabama which banned the CHOICE of people of different races getting Civilly Married. (Language which the electorate finally removed in 2000 via a new amendment vote, the sad part being that (IIRC) 40% of the vote was to retain the discriminatory language.) Each race could get Civilly Married, just not to each other.

The logic of your position is that the Federal government had no power to prevent such discrimination.

>>>>

If the federal constitution applies only to the States.....then how did the USSC prevent the city of Chicago (using Illinois policing authority) from applying gun bans in McDonald V. Chicago? Clearly, they can overrule state laws if they violate the constitution.

Originally the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. That changed with the 14th amendment. And since then the Federal Government can prevent the States from violating civil rights.

 

[SixFoot]

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.

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.

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.

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.

If your intentions are to have an actual debate, please stop throwing the goalposts all over the room.

If you want to just call me a dirty icky bigot, please just get it over with and move on.

I'm not shifting any goal posts, I'm following your logic. You said that gay rights are not civil rights because YOU believe being gay is a choice. Religion is a choice so is THAT choice deserving of civil rights or not? Would you find it acceptable for the state of TN to prohibit all Muslims from civilly marrying each other?

You are a bigot yes, but dirty and icky I have no knowledge of.

OK, time for you to move on. Its a shame you can't be more civil, I think we could've had some better conversations.

Actually, snarkiness aside, Seawytch's point if perfectly valid.

You made it clear that in your opinion two things exist:

1. The Federal Constitution ONLY applies to the Federal government,

2. That the Federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws to the states.​

Under your logic then States could ban (at least through a State Constitution Amendment): interracial Civil Marriage, Interfaith Civil Marriages, they could even ban Civil Marriage to Muslims only. Why? Because the incorporation of the 14th does not exist, therefore the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress and the Federal government because the 14th Amendment does not make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. The only "rights" then held by the people in terms of State action are those contained in the States Constitution and if the people of a State amend their Constitution they can do anything they like.

Kind of like Alabama which banned the CHOICE of people of different races getting Civilly Married. (Language which the electorate finally removed in 2000 via a new amendment vote, the sad part being that (IIRC) 40% of the vote was to retain the discriminatory language.) Each race could get Civilly Married, just not to each other.

The logic of your position is that the Federal government had no power to prevent such discrimination.

>>>>

Good to see you here, WW.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good to see you here, WW.

Good to see you to.

I got sick for awhile and then got really backed up at work so wasn't anywhere much. I need to get back to the other board and see what going on. But it's kind of embarrassing with what happened and being newly elevated to "mini-mod". I think it's time to ask for forgiveness.




>>>>

 

[bodecea]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing. Somebody explain how an identical twin brother who isn't homosexual who takes exception with his homosexual brother's lifestyle, is being "racist" against his queer brother. I must have been asleep in class that day. I'm wide awake now though. One of you "gay rights" racism experts enlighten me. I'm all ears.

Wait....what?

 

[SixFoot]

Good to see you here, WW.

Good to see you to.

I got sick for awhile and then got really backed up at work so wasn't anywhere much. I need to get back to the other board and see what going on. But it's kind of embarrassing with what happened and being newly elevated to "mini-mod". I think it's time to ask for forgiveness.




>>>>

Half the remaining posters on the other board set up new accounts here. That's what's going on over there in a nutshell. Very sad, but not unusual for the internet.

 

[JoeB131]

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!

I'm not seeing the problem with sending it back to the lower district courts for consideration, given that these are state cases. I think that is kind of how our judicial system is supposed to work. We consider an issue at length in the lower courts before the High Court considers all case law on the subject and finally settles it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree with you on that. However, gay marriage is not a civil right, its a manufactured thing.


Now, if people could produce actual proof that homosexuals are born that way, this would indeed be a civil rights issue.


Incorrect.


There is only one marriage (contract) law that can accommodate two persons entering into the marriage contract, same- or opposite-sex.


The states cannot deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, to do so violates the 14th Amendment, a fact of law reaffirmed by over 20 state and Federal courts.


Moreover, it is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant whether one is gay as a consequence of choice or birth, as the Constitution affords each citizen the right to self-determination, free from interference by the state – including those who are gay:


“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”


LAWRENCE V. TEXAS


Consequently, “ choosing to live an alternative lifestyle” is a liberty protected by the Constitution, where those hostile to gay Americans may not seek to disadvantage them merely because of who they are, as this is in fact a civil rights issue.

 

[rightwinger]

Gay marriage is a losing issue for Republicans. That ship has sailed, it is a done deal. It is even favored by a majority of republicans especially the young

The current opposition to gay marriage makes republicans look petty and out of touch......time to move on

 

[Skylar]

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!

I'm not seeing the problem with sending it back to the lower district courts for consideration, given that these are state cases. I think that is kind of how our judicial system is supposed to work. We consider an issue at length in the lower courts before the High Court considers all case law on the subject and finally settles it.

I agree. While I like the idea of decisive clarity in an efficient, timely manner......that's not how the courts work.

The USSC typically chooses the minimalist path, ruling in the narrowest manner possible. The longer lengths of time and back and forth in the lower courts gives society time to digest the issues involved and give local insitutions a chance to find alternative work around.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing. Somebody explain how an identical twin brother who isn't homosexual who takes exception with his homosexual brother's lifestyle, is being "racist" against his queer brother. I must have been asleep in class that day. I'm wide awake now though. One of you "gay rights" racism experts enlighten me. I'm all ears.

Wait....what?

[Seawytch does her best feigned-befuddlement when she knows damn well the points Tom Sweetnam was driving home]

The poster's point is that if there are two identical twins, one gay, one not, then gayness isn't genetic, it's behavioral. He further illustrates the absurd claims of the LGBT cult by then referring to a slander against such a behavioralist as "racism", get it? ie: there is no comparison between the struggles of race and the "struggles of gays to be favored over others legally", to have power over the majority by virtue of what they do in their bedrooms.

And his point is well taken. If you want protection under the 14th, you're going to have to show how two identical twins can be "born with" different orientations sexually. Then when you fail at that task, you'll have to show the Court why setting a new precedent to protect just some sexually deviant behaviors-become-cult to allow them to completely re-invent the word marriage to accomodate their lifestyles that are wholly repugnant to the majority's definition of marriage.

And don't forget the discussion about kids roped into such an arrangement where two people of the same gender are role-playing "mom and dad". There are their civil rights to consider prominent over all.

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage is a losing issue for Republicans. That ship has sailed, it is a done deal. It is even favored by a majority of republicans especially the young

The current opposition to gay marriage makes republicans look petty and out of touch......time to move on

Yes and no. Republicans are polishing off some of the old segregationist logic. Not segregation per se, but the State's Rights arguments used to justify it. Where discrimination, bigotry, and forcing your religious beliefs on others are all expressions of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.

Ideologically, they're kinda stuck with their opposition to gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing. Somebody explain how an identical twin brother who isn't homosexual who takes exception with his homosexual brother's lifestyle, is being "racist" against his queer brother. I must have been asleep in class that day. I'm wide awake now though. One of you "gay rights" racism experts enlighten me. I'm all ears.

Wait....what?

[Seawytch does her best feigned-befuddlement when she knows damn well the points Tom Sweetnam was driving home]

The poster's point is that if there are two identical twins, one gay, one not, then gayness isn't genetic, it's behavioral.

Its irrelevant in terms of rights. Free speech is behavioral. Religion is behavioral. Marriage is behavioral. Yet we protect the exercise of them all.

And his point is well taken. If you want protection under the 14th, you're going to have to show how two identical twins can be "born with" different orientations sexually.

Obviously, you don't. Anymore than you have to show how one identical twin can choose not protest say, a park closure while the other does. Or how one twin decided to get married but the other remained a bachelor. Behavior based rights are still rights. And we protect them. Rendering your entire point moot. As genetic or behavioral, rights are still rights.

The entire premise of your reasoning is irrelevant to the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!

I'm not seeing the problem with sending it back to the lower district courts for consideration, given that these are state cases. I think that is kind of how our judicial system is supposed to work. We consider an issue at length in the lower courts before the High Court considers all case law on the subject and finally settles it.

Well, ideally, all 50 states should simply follow the 14th Amendment and allow same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


The issue is many states have lost in their respective Federal courts of appeal, where their last and only recourse now is the Supreme Court, to whom they have the right to petition for a hearing.


In Romer v. Evans, for example, the state of Colorado petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its appeal because it disagreed with its own state Supreme Court's ruling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. equality does not require gay marriage. equality means you are treated the same regardless of your sex, race, age, ethnicity, or sexual orientaton. you do not need the word marraige to achieve equality.


Likely because there is no such thing as 'gay marriage.'


Again, there is only one marriage (contract) law that both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to participate in.


Equality requires equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law. To disallow same-sex couples access to marriage law is to seek to discriminate against them, which is why it's illegal and un-Constitutional.