Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[bigrebnc1775]

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.

Still wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal District courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside. You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses. That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"

Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.”

Nonsense.

State's don't have the authority to deny citizens their civil liberties. Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, where the states are subordinate to that, as the Federal Constitution protects the rights of American citizens regardless their state of residence, making citizens' civil liberties immune to attacks by the states.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.

Still wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal District courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside. You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses. That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"

Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.”

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage (contract) law written by the states and administered by state courts, marriage law that accommodates two equal partners entering into a commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is in the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

The Constitution only exists in the context of its case law, case law you've obviously never read or understood.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

The Constitution only exists in the context of its case law, case law you've obviously never read or understood.

The Constitution existed long before their were any case laws dumb ass it came first.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.”

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage (contract) law written by the states and administered by state courts, marriage law that accommodates two equal partners entering into a commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is in the Constitution.

There is no constitutional protected right to gay marriage. If their was one the Supreme court would have ruled so. instead they said nothing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.

Still wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal District courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside. You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses. That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"

Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.”

Nonsense.

State's don't have the authority to deny citizens their civil liberties. Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, where the states are subordinate to that, as the Federal Constitution protects the rights of American citizens regardless their state of residence, making citizens' civil liberties immune to attacks by the states.

Idiot if what you say had any truth the supreme court would have ruled on it. Shut the **** up and learn something.

 

[Czernobog]

Still wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal District courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside. You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses. That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"

Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

 

[Plasmaball]

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

doesnt understand what SCOTUS did, and thus fails at life...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

doesnt understand what SCOTUS did, and thus fails at life...

No it's you toy boy that doesn't understand go back to playing with your transformer dolls.

 

[Plasmaball]

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

doesnt understand what SCOTUS did, and thus fails at life...

No it's you toy boy that doesn't understand go back to playing with your transformer dolls.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[bigrebnc1775]

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

doesnt understand what SCOTUS did, and thus fails at life...

No it's you toy boy that doesn't understand go back to playing with your transformer dolls.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Normal dumb ass libtard response.

 

[Czernobog]

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

What are you going to do when this time next year same-sex marriage is recognized in every state, by decree of the federal district courts, and the Supreme court chooses not to hear one single case on the issue? Will you still insist that there is no "gay marriage", even as the homosexuals in every single state are getting married?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

 

[Czernobog]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.”

Nonsense.

State's don't have the authority to deny citizens their civil liberties. Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, where the states are subordinate to that, as the Federal Constitution protects the rights of American citizens regardless their state of residence, making citizens' civil liberties immune to attacks by the states.

Idiot if what you say had any truth the supreme court would have ruled on it. Shut the **** up and learn something.

Okay. Let's try this one more time.
Simple yes, or no question: Is it your contention that no question of constitutional legitimacy can ever be decided except by direct ruling from the Supreme court, and only by the Supreme court?

 

[emilynghiem]

There are actually several problems with this suggestion. The first is the time, energy, and effort required to make all of those changes. There is also the matter of the fact that many of those benefits are benefits provided by private industries. The government has no authority to demand that private industries change their policies to include social contract they do not wish to include. Now it could be argued that this would mean that these private industries could choose to not acknowledge "gay" marriage. However. in order to do this, would require them to change their policies to define in a way that the courts have already ruled, in 19 different cases, is unconstitutional, and discriminatory. Finally, the idea of the "civil union" runs afoul of the "separate but equal" restrictions that have already been determined are not constitutional. This final problem could of course be dealt with by simply removing marriage from the civil law altogether, and make civil unions the practice of the land for everyone. Good luck getting the Christians to agree to that.

3. It's not up to me but to the people in each state.

SURE, if they agree it is cheaper to allow gay marriage
then the people of that state can decide, either way.

Not up to me or to the govt to decide.


The people need to agree since religiously held beliefs are involved on both sides.

Either they agree to remove it from the state and revise all laws to be neutral
and refer to civil contracts and unions only independent of gender.

Or leave the laws as is and just open the door for this to
be applied or interpreted equally for any couple.

My point is the govt cannot be abused to force a decision on
the people without full public consent.

Actually, that's not true. The Supreme Court decided in 1967 under Loving v Virginia that marriage to the person of one's own choosing is, in fact, a right of every citizen protected under the 14th amendment. It is on this precedent that many of these same-sex marriage bans are falling.

Because of religious freedom that the state cannot force
people to change and be under policies against their religious beliefs.

Both beliefs for and against gay marriage are equally valid.
the state has no right to judge this, thinking it's the same as
race when it isn't. The homosexuality and marriage issues
involve spiritual issues and beliefs the state has no jurisdiction over
except with the public's consent. We used to consent to marriage
laws under the state for convenience, but if that is not the case
anymore and people do not agree, then we have to change it
one way or the other, depending on what people in each state agree to do.

Not my place, I just believe in respecting all beliefs
equally and asking all people and states to support neutral policies for that reason.

You're making the same mistake that many on the right are making. you are conflating the civil contract of marriage with the religious ritual of a wedding.

You see, a marriage is a marriage whether the wedding ceremony is performed by the local parish preacher, the justice of the peace, or the Fake Elvis down at "Billy Bob's Wedding Emporium" on the Strip in Vegas. In the eyes of the law, those are all marriages. To have a marriage doesn't require a religious ceremony. It only requires a license, and someone recognized in your state as having the authority to officiate - and you can get this online in 5 minutes; no religious beliefs necessary.

Thanks again CZ for articulating
your reasons and replies so clearly,
which I hope compels others there to rise above the usual
rhetoric back and forth that fails to address the root issues.

No problem. I actually don't mind having this discussion with grown ups.

Hi Czernobog and Thanks again for your points
which I find essential if we are going to address all levels of this issue.

You are addressing the vital legal points
while I am also adding the reality of dealing with people's religious beliefs.
I understand that people will never agree to govt forcing them to change their beliefs.
But with the points you bring up, they have a choice of how much it will cost
to either accommodate their beliefs one way or another.

So you are right, the opposition should be informed of these costs and logistics involved
in order to make an educated choice in what direction to go.

The same way they cannot be expected to abandon their beliefs
neither can they expect the people including Christians in support of gay marriage to abandon theirs.

So either the policies must be separated, or they agree to accommodate.
Which way is it going to be?

If you give people this choice, and THEY decide they'd rather accommodate gay marriage
that is DIFFERENT from telling them their beliefs are wrong or need to be overridden by other people's beliefs.

I believe your approach will be more effective
rather than insulting people for their beliefs and threatening to
exclude one side or the other.

Why not just present the options and offer to the people
of each state to take on these costs and logistics if they
really really want to keep gay marriage out of the state.
Leave that choice to the people instead of assuming it for them, which causes resentment and rejection.

Fine, here's the to-do list....

NOTE: In the case of atheist lawsuits to remove crosses from public property,
in one case where preservationists raised money to buy the land and transfer it to private ownership to ersolve
the conflict, the lawyers for the atheist blocked that transaction claiming the state was still enabling the religious group.
But I disagreed: I believe it is proper to give the option to transfer a contested policy out of govt hands into private parties
if that will preserve religious freedom, prevent imposition on the public, and promote taking responsibility for one's own beliefs.

so if people really do not want to institutionalize gay marriage through the state,
then all contracts and laws should be reverted to neutral language.

I'm glad to see you spell this out,
and I believe this should be presented for all those lobbyists per state
to start working out plans to pay for all this if they really want to defend and exercise their religious freedom.

Thanks CZ

 

[emilynghiem]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

As a religious ceremony and spiritual partnership, that part remains with the people.

For the civil contracts, yes, that is through the state; where I suggest to neutralize
the language where it is neither banning nor establishing gay marriage so neither side feels excluded,
forced to go against their beliefs, or otherwise discriminated against by creed.

Can neither be prohibited nor imposed on people by the state.
Only if people Consent to a policy can it be implemented where religious beliefs are involved
so there is no infraction or unequal discrimination going on.