Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So why don't you allow the states to vote then, and to have the last word on it in each state...

The issue has nothing to do with anyone ‘allowing’ the states to do anything; the states as a fact of Constitutional law lack the authority to ‘have the last word’ as to who will have his civil rights and who will not (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

The Federal Constitution, Federal laws, and rulings by Federal courts are supreme, the states are subject to these laws and rulings, and may not enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[Silhouette]

So why don't you allow the states to vote then, and to have the last word on it in each state...

The issue has nothing to do with anyone ‘allowing’ the states to do anything; the states as a fact of Constitutional law lack the authority to ‘have the last word’ as to who will have his civil rights and who will not (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

The Federal Constitution, Federal laws, and rulings by Federal courts are supreme, the states are subject to these laws and rulings, and may not enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Yet the only body who does have the authority to 'have the last word' as to who will have the privelege of marriage [denied also to others besides LGBT cultees] Found last Summer that it was the "unquestioned authority" of the several states to determine, via consensus of the governed, if gay marriage was legal there or not.

Read Windsor. The attorneys representing Utah have...

 

[beagle9]

So why don't you allow the states to vote then, and to have the last word on it in each state...

The issue has nothing to do with anyone ‘allowing’ the states to do anything; the states as a fact of Constitutional law lack the authority to ‘have the last word’ as to who will have his civil rights and who will not (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

The Federal Constitution, Federal laws, and rulings by Federal courts are supreme, the states are subject to these laws and rulings, and may not enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Yet the only body who does have the authority to 'have the last word' as to who will have the privelege of marriage [denied also to others besides LGBT cultees] Found last Summer that it was the "unquestioned authority" of the several states to determine, via consensus of the governed, if gay marriage was legal there or not.

Read Windsor. The attorneys representing Utah have...

The problem with all these comparisons, and the joining together of these things within the "laws" in which allow many rights or the same rights unto people as if they are all the same, is that it is highly dangerous and badly flawed. Why ? It's of course because of the differences in the people themselves (no longer united or even thinking alike), so the laws themselves can't determine whether or not this person or that person should be entitled to certain rights or not to be entitled to certain rights, so what does it do so lazily and foolishly ? Well it just grants rights to everyone as being the same, and it figures that they will take those rights and be constructive, ethical and moral with them. WOW!

This has been a flawed idea, and it has been a flawed idea as proven over time now. So how come it just keeps on going and going in the wrong direction, and no one is able to stop and take heed of these things ?

It is so dangerous, because people are not the same by a long shot anymore, and they can abuse these rights granted unto them at any given time afterwards, and especially once the rights are granted by law unto them as whole groups, when afterwards they may have not deserved them or would ever do right by them as a whole group. Many times people have abused these rights as were granted under whole group labels, but the rights still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.

I think this nation should return to granting individuals rights only under what it is to be labeled American, and the rights being attached to that and not people in general. We shouldn't be granting rights to whole groups in which is being found in some that they simply hate America, and especially if those groups won't police themselves from within. This therefore allows the devils who are within the group, to enoy the same rights in which the group enjoy's, and that put's those devils right in the same theater with everyone else. Oh yes there are devils who come in and among groups big time, and if the group is ok with that, then Houston we have a serious problem on our hands.

How do yall think that evil people who are among society, get next to you and your family ? They do it by attaching themselves to others for whom you trust or sometimes through rights that are blanketly granted unto whole groups, in which then allows the devil to sup with them, and to be with them in that group having no problem with that. WOW!

If groups would properly police themselves, and rid themselves of the devils within somehow, then the nation should grant them the same rights that anyone else enjoys as Americans, but in many cases that isn't happening or it hasn't happened therefore leading to many troubles coming out of groups who have been granted access, but it also granted access to their devils who operate from within the group also. It is a HUGE problem!

 

[Silhouette]

..Many times people have abused these rights as were granted under whole group labels, but the rights still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.

I think this nation should return to granting individuals rights only under what it is to be labeled American, and the rights being attached to that and not people in general. We shouldn't be granting rights to whole groups in which is being found in some that they simply hate America, and especially if those groups won't police themselves from within. This therefore allows the devils who are within the group, to enoy the same rights in which the group enjoy's, and that put's those devils right in the same theater with everyone else. Oh yes there are devils who come in and among groups big time, and if the group is ok with that, then Houston we have a serious problem on our hands.

The thing is that marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. That's why I put the word "privelege' in italics in my last post; for emphasis.

Cult members of the church of LGBT are not the only people denied marriage in the several states. Minors are. Polygamists are. Adult incest couples are. The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic. For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics] The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes that is easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add. Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be. Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood]. It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can. Driving isn't a right in most states either. You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road. Does every driver drive perfectly every time? No. But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently. The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to quailfy people before they are licensed to drive. And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

 

[beagle9]

..Many times people have abused these rights as were granted under whole group labels, but the rights still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.

I think this nation should return to granting individuals rights only under what it is to be labeled American, and the rights being attached to that and not people in general. We shouldn't be granting rights to whole groups in which is being found in some that they simply hate America, and especially if those groups won't police themselves from within. This therefore allows the devils who are within the group, to enoy the same rights in which the group enjoy's, and that put's those devils right in the same theater with everyone else. Oh yes there are devils who come in and among groups big time, and if the group is ok with that, then Houston we have a serious problem on our hands.

The thing is that marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. That's why I put the word "privelege' in italics in my last post; for emphasis.

Cult members of the church of LGBT are not the only people denied marriage in the several states. Minors are. Polygamists are. Adult incest couples are. The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic. For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics] The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes that is easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add. Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be. Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood]. It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can. Driving isn't a right in most states either. You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road. Does every driver drive perfectly every time? No. But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently. The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to quailfy people before they are licensed to drive. And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

Good reading, and the key part was the swinging the barn door wide open as you say, where as it (marriage and the downfall of the traditional family) will even be further exploited in it all, until the children are so confused as a result of it all that civilized society will begin to fall in a landslide eventually from these things or even stop in it's existance of. We are seeing the results now in the traditional family desolving into a sespool of adultery and abandonement which is bad enough. We must begin by working to shore up those breeches in these failing institutions I think (it can be done), before we begin to inject more pain and confusion into the frey don't you think ? This government and hollywood, if they would get back to the basics, and begin to promote a civilized society again, then the children might have a chance in this world once more, but I don't see it doing nothing but getting worse from here on out. We will end up like the Nazi's soon, where as we will be high tech, but yet we will have lost our own direction in the world. For this we will pay as a nation who had proclaimed to the world that we were the righteous who were among the world, and a becon of light for all the world to follow after, but here we are with that light fading fast, and the world readying itself to except our defeat in these things finally. When that barn door flies open, as it surely will, then we are done.

 

[dcraelin]

recently read part of a book that contests whether the 14th amendment is legitimate at all.

And ironically enough it was likely proposed to negate SC idiocy in Dred Scott v Sanford

and Barron v Baltimore (sp?)

 

[Flopper]

..Many times people have abused these rights as were granted under whole group labels, but the rights still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.

I think this nation should return to granting individuals rights only under what it is to be labeled American, and the rights being attached to that and not people in general. We shouldn't be granting rights to whole groups in which is being found in some that they simply hate America, and especially if those groups won't police themselves from within. This therefore allows the devils who are within the group, to enoy the same rights in which the group enjoy's, and that put's those devils right in the same theater with everyone else. Oh yes there are devils who come in and among groups big time, and if the group is ok with that, then Houston we have a serious problem on our hands.

The thing is that marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. That's why I put the word "privelege' in italics in my last post; for emphasis.

Cult members of the church of LGBT are not the only people denied marriage in the several states. Minors are. Polygamists are. Adult incest couples are. The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic. For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics] The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes that is easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add. Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be. Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood]. It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can. Driving isn't a right in most states either. You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road. Does every driver drive perfectly every time? No. But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently. The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to quailfy people before they are licensed to drive. And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

Even if marriage is a privilege, does that mean the state can grant that privilege based solely and arbitrarily on gender? Driving may be a privilege but denying that privilege is based on sound reasons of public safety. I think it will be incumbent on the states to show that denying the privilege of marriage to same sex couples is likewise based on sound reasons. That will be difficult because almost all the reasons for denying gay marriage is based religious beliefs, socially accepted patterns of behavior, or just traditional values and that's not going to hold up any better before the Supreme Court than it has in the lower courts. There is just not enough evidence that gay marriage will damage society and such evidence must exist to deny something so basic and important as the right marry the person of your choice.

 

[beagle9]

..Many times people have abused these rights as were granted under whole group labels, but the rights still hold the same for all involved regardless of the abuse that goes on ? I just don't get it really.

I think this nation should return to granting individuals rights only under what it is to be labeled American, and the rights being attached to that and not people in general. We shouldn't be granting rights to whole groups in which is being found in some that they simply hate America, and especially if those groups won't police themselves from within. This therefore allows the devils who are within the group, to enoy the same rights in which the group enjoy's, and that put's those devils right in the same theater with everyone else. Oh yes there are devils who come in and among groups big time, and if the group is ok with that, then Houston we have a serious problem on our hands.

The thing is that marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. That's why I put the word "privelege' in italics in my last post; for emphasis.

Cult members of the church of LGBT are not the only people denied marriage in the several states. Minors are. Polygamists are. Adult incest couples are. The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic. For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics] The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes that is easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add. Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be. Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood]. It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can. Driving isn't a right in most states either. You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road. Does every driver drive perfectly every time? No. But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently. The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to quailfy people before they are licensed to drive. And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

Even if marriage is a privilege, does that mean the state can grant that privilege based solely and arbitrarily on gender? Driving may be a privilege but denying that privilege is based on sound reasons of public safety. I think it will be incumbent on the states to show that denying the privilege of marriage to same sex couples is likewise based on sound reasons. That will be difficult because almost all the reasons for denying gay marriage is based religious beliefs, socially accepted patterns of behavior, or just traditional values and that's not going to hold up any better before the Supreme Court than it has in the lower courts. There is just not enough evidence that gay marriage will damage society and such evidence must exist to deny something so basic and important as the right marry the person of your choice.

Sil has laid out her case, did you forget already ?