Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

You haven't read the Old Testament have you.

Great...another Bible thumper.

The lie that was stated was 'it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals.

I pointed out that was a lie and that anyone who has read the Old Testament knows it is a lie.

Always good to point out lies.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?

Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

Dear DOTR It will take Constitutionalists standing with Cruz and Libertarians to
change the Court System back to Constitutional standards. And away from
bias by political beliefs and party pressure.

For Trump, any business plans along the border, to organize deals with Mexico,
set up land to be claimed by the 12-20 million Mexican nationals living and working
illegally or undocumented in the US, and move production and jobs back to America,
will take his leadership rallying the workers and independents who are sick of paying
taxes for other people's crime, corruption, health care costs and other govt waste and abuse.

These two men will have to work together,
to lead a restitution system of paying back taxpayers
for all the wrongs and expenses on our tax dollars,
credit it back to us through the federal reserve system
where instead of debts for the wrongs of others we
keep track of credits, issue notes and/or borrow capital
from investors against these debts, and invest in rebuilding
our cities, including 4-5 city states along the border where
families of mixed status can claim dual citizenship, and Vets
and Military can have sustainable jobs in border security while
these communities are developed to provide access to jobs
education and services so nobody has to cross illegally anymore.

The Democrats will have our hands full cleaning up the prison
system and repurposing those resources and facilities to
provide sustainable health care for the greater populations
with the current tax dollars we already waste on prisons and
and equally failed mental health system that
generate worse sickness and dependence on drugs and
where private contractors and pharmaceuticals have been
profiting off sickness. When we replace all that with cost effective
healing and preventative/correctional therapies, the lives and
money we save, the people not going to prison and losing their
ability to work while costing taxpayers 50K a year, all those
resources can go into medical programs, training residents
and interns to do the public service work to earn their education.

We have a lot of work to do, to organize and unite all the parties
on the different areas that need massive reform, so restitution
for past wrongs, abuses, violations, corruption and waste
can be assessed and credited back to taxpayers to finance
jobs doing the reform and rebuilding/redevelopment needed.

Clinton and Trump, Sanders and Cruz, Johnson and Stein
will all need to work together to take America to the next
stage of social, economic and political development.

 

[emilynghiem]

[d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality .

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Same with spiritual beliefs about transgender and homosexual orientation.
This should be respected and protected as anyone's else's right to choose
and define their spiritual identity and beliefs.

We don't have "special laws" naming Anarchists, Atheists, Muslims,
Hindus, Buddhists etc. from being persecuted for their beliefs and
right to identity and expression.

But because of the legal lobby organized around LGBT, this "identity"
and set of beliefs has been able to lobby to be recognized as a class.

When I tell my Christian friends that it isn't AGAINST prolife beliefs
to enforce Constitutional standards to keep these beliefs OUT OF GOVT
and public policy because they are FAITH BASED,
most of them understand by Constitutional principles to respect
equal religious freedom. And work toward reform by free choice
and consensus on law, not by forcing it through govt which violated
religious freedom.

The same is true for banning same sex marriage.

The people who aren't getting it are the liberals and LGBT who
depend on govt to recognize them as a class in order to "feel
they have rights."

So whatever "political belief" it is that people have
who cannot exercise or experience equal protection of the laws
without Judges and Govt TELLING them they have religious
freedom to exercise their beliefs in marriage rights,
this "belief" is not shared by all people.

In fact, there are many people AGAINST teaching this "belief"
that your human rights are defined and depend on govt.

To me that is as bad if not worse than people criticizing
Christianity for depending on some outside authority
Jesus or God. Now liberals and LGBT are even more
depending on Government as their God authority
to substitute for what everyone else has who DON'T
rely on Govt to dictate their beliefs which by the
Constitution are supposed to remain free choice.

But now the Govt is being abused to FORCE people
to recognize gay marriage as a public institution.

So this negates the prochoice arguments that
faith based standards should not be pushed through govt.

It opens the door for prolife and Christians who believe
in expressing their religious and spiritual beliefs to be integrated and
recognized in public institutions.

We can no longer argue that since those practices are biased
by beliefs that not all people share, they should be kept out of govt and public policy.

That is the precedent being set.

So if we don't agree to treat all beliefs the same,
and now there is even more discrimination going on
as a backlash to the discrimination that was intended to be corrected,
we need to go back to our legislatures and decide how to
address "political beliefs" so it's fair.

I still believe there should be a consensus on how to manage
these so that everyone has equal protection of the laws.

Either agree how to write the laws, how to separate the
policies in conflict, or agree how to trade out concessions.

So if liberals want their right to marriage and right to health care recognized
and conservatives want their right to life and right to Christian references
recognized in public institutions, the parties can agree to write joint
legislation and pass Amendments that establish how to include
these political beliefs, given that not all Americans believe in or recognize them.

How do we get to an agreement or resolution on this?

Which representatives, party leaders or other groups should we
start with to ask for a truce, a resolution to pass on political beliefs,
to recognize these and set up an agreed policy or process around them?

 

[emilynghiem]

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?

Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.

Syriusly No, Cruz and the Constitutionalists
will redirect where gay marriage should be recognized
which is through the private sectors as a free choice.

You cannot force everyone through legislation to recognize Muslims as an identity that
needs special laws and protections written just for that particular belief.

If Muslims want to practice Shariah it remains in private,
and is not endorsed or recognized through govt as a "right"
because it is already under religious freedom like anyone else's beliefs or practices.

So should gay marriage be treated the same way.
And if you want to be fair, ALL MARRIAGE should be treated the same way!

Leave it to the personal and private choice of individuals,
and neutralize the public laws where there is no mention of
anything biased one way or another. Let people and reps of
each state revise their laws to be neutral and neither
ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
any beliefs about marriage, not unless people of that state agree.

If states cannot reach an agreement, that's where I would
recommend organizing policies and programs/benefits by
PARTY Where taxpayers can choose DIRECTLY which
policy for health care and benefits they want to pay into
with their tax dollars.

Again, the principle of FREE CHOICE is at stake here.
If we are going to continue arguing that right to life
cannot be mandated through govt because it involves
faith based beliefs, that same argument and standard
should be equally enforced for right to health care
and right to marriage as involving personal beliefs
that not all people share or agree on. And the govt
cannot continue to be abused to "establish beliefs"
of one side over another, regardless how harmless it appears ,
but based on principle alone.

Beliefs should remain a private choice,
and should require consent of the people if they
are going to be included in public policy or institutions.

The atheists and secularists made it VERY clear that
crosses, references to God prayer creation etc. are
NOT to be endorsed by or incorporated into public institutions.
Regardless if there was no harm or no coercion going on.

So it is only fair and equal treatment
to exclude marriage policies that one group objects to or another.
Regardless if there is no harm or coercion going on.

If Christians are expected to keep their identities, expressions,
"right to life beliefs" etc in private as a choice and not a public policy
to require everyone to recognize as "their right"

then the same should be enforced for Atheists,
Muslims, Buddhists, LGBT, and any other faith based groups.

You can claim equal religious freedom and protection
from harassment abuse and "discrimination by creed"
but so can all the other groups including Christians
who don't believe in abortion or gay marriage.

If Christians have to put their beliefs aside in order
to be Constitutionally fair to all people of all beliefs,
so should LGBT be treated equally as any others!

 

[Syriusly]

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?

Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.

Syriusly No, Cruz and the Constitutionalists
will redirect where gay marriage should be recognized
which is through the private sectors as a free choice.!

And what about the 'free choice' of Americans who want to get married?

 

[Syriusly]

[d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality .

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.

^ BTW Faun I would argue
that if you include the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment
all other rights are under the ones already defined.

The problem here is we don't agree what "religious freedom and beliefs"
include. We have not come to an agreement on political beliefs,
which is what the right to life and right to marriage fall under.
Voting rights and Gun rights are also political beliefs.

If you take the First Amendment,
most rights are a form of
religious freedom or free will / free choice,
freedom of speech or of the press ie expression which is involved in REPRESENTATION,
right to assemble and to petition to redress grievances,
also involved in "due process" which is later in the Bill of Rights.

Equal protection of the laws is written into the 14th Amendment.
And protection from "discrimination by creed" is language
introduced by Civil Rights legislation on a state and local level affecting public institutions.

The problem we are having:
if we don't recognize and respect each other's
religious beliefs as "free choice and consent"
then we end up fighting politically to try to force
this through govt or media etc.

We could solve these problems ourselves
by AGREEING TO RESPECT EACH OTHER'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Then we enforce the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.

Instead, if one person has stronger gun rights beliefs and fights
against legislation they deem unnecessary and infringing,
or another has Voting Rights issues,
another group fights for or against prolife or prochoice
"out of fear that the other group will push their bias instead"
Then we continue wasting resources and depending on
party leaders to BULLY for one belief over another.

Someone is going to have their "equal rights beliefs and protections"
trampled by the other group, unless they agree how to write
legislation that doesn't favor or exclude one side or the other,
but addresses the root problem without an unwelcome bias
that one side or another objects to as "promoting the other bias."

In short, we are Abridging our own rights and protections
by compromising the process to push one belief over the other
by abuse of majority rule to dictate in the area of faith based beliefs.

If we all AGREED to let govt dictate our beliefs, then we
can't complain about this majority rule process.

But with areas of political beliefs, these are different from other
areas of legislation that are secular. People are NOT WILLING
to compromise their political beliefs to opposing beliefs policies or parties!

So there is NOT consent to use the democratic process to
decide issues of conflicting BELIEFS. People only agree
"if their belief wins" so the end result does NOT carry
consent of the governed, but only the winning side.

That is NOT equal protection of the laws, but it is saying
only the people affiliated with the MAJORITY party
will have their beliefs protected, but not the beliefs of those in the MINORITY.

So that's why we need a better process for
resolving conflicts and writing better laws
that don't introduce or impose any such bias!

 

[emilynghiem]

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?

Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.

Syriusly No, Cruz and the Constitutionalists
will redirect where gay marriage should be recognized
which is through the private sectors as a free choice.!

And what about the 'free choice' of Americans who want to get married?

Same as the free choice of Muslims who want to practice Shariah.
You already have that freedom and just have to practice it.

As for benefits, the Mormons have their own social security system they use.
Galveston Texas has its own social security program their residents pay into.

There is nothing to prevent LGBT organizations or the entire Democratic Party
from setting up a collective health care and benefits system so everyone
who believes in the right to marriage and right to health care can practice that.

We expect Catholics to set up their own right to life programs and practice
that independently.

To this day, Catholics still argue for the right to life through govt,
and in the meantime have set up their own programs themselves.

If you want to exercise and express your beliefs, you already have the right
to set up your own systems just like everyone else has to.

If you suffer persecution for it, welcome to the club.
So have Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons,
Christians, Buddhists. Not everyone recognizes their beliefs as valid either!

But they don't go whining to govt they need special protection in order
to feel they have equal rights.

We already have rights to free will and expression as part of our human nature.
But if we don't respect our own and each other's rights, we abridge them every day.

If we start respecting each other's rights,
that's the best way to raise the standards on enforcement.

We can't tell other people to stop violating rights
if we do this to other people. Such as harassing each other
for our beliefs, or judging and condemning people without due process and defense.

So that's why I would argue equally to defend political beliefs
by setting up means to practice these WITHOUT imposing on people of other beliefs.

If we expect Christians to practice their "expressions" in private
and not establish these through public policy, we should
treat all beliefs the same way.

But if LGBT and liberals really want the right to marriage
and right to health care to become public institutions,
would we be willing to let Christians and prolife
incorporate their expressions and beliefs into public policy?

How much do we want these rights in public,
or would we say no thanks and be "content" to organize
and exercise them in private.

Because that's what we're telling Christians
and Prolife where they can take their beliefs. In private.

So which way is it going to be???

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
But if LGBT and liberals really want the right to marriage

Americans really want the legal right to marry.

That includes liberals and LGBT.

I am ignoring your healthcare whatever because it isn't relevant.

 

[emilynghiem]

[d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality .

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

 

[DOTR]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

Correct. Marriage is something the people, in their various states, have decided to recognize. The power of the states to do this IS Constitutional.

 

[DOTR]

Funny they didn't for 220+ years. Not even to the men who wrote and signed our Constitution. You would think they would know wouldn't you?

 

[DOTR]

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?

Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.

If that were true you wouldn't have gotten your ass handed to you 30+ times at the polls when the issue was put to the voters. Deep down you know.

 

[DOTR]

[d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality and or "creating rights" that belong to legislative and Constitutional amendments.

Cruz and the Tea Party can challenge and fix this. Too bad Trump threw him under the bus but good for Clinton who needed that. Maybe God set this up so America would have our first woman President.

Cruz trump and sanders still need to lead the working taxpayers to fix the messes of govt that Clinton and the limousine liberals make money off as career politicians who only care about elections and office.

The ppl are still left to do all the work to fix problems.

Including teaching Constitutional law to all the ppl hoodwinked into thinking the govt controls ppl and policy and ppl depend on govt instead of the reality that it's the other way around. Taxpayers have been footing the bill for freeloaders who get better health care than the taxpayers who paid trillions in dollars to corporate insurance under ACA.

What a mess.

This thread shows me how many ppl still live by the belief that laws are decided top down by govt in Washington instead of the Constitution as a social contract where govt is supposed to represent the consent of the ppl and not dictate beliefs or manage social programs and benefits that belong to local states.

How do I get out of this nightmare.
How many liberals don't recognize their political beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage are beliefs just like right to life and gun rights.

Where are the self aware liberals who recognize the biases in beliefs are mutual on both sides. And if you are going to lobby one side through govt, and not respect free choice and consent of the governed, then what's to stop right to life from being pushed through govt against free choice and consent of others who don't share those beliefs either.

Yes your nightmare is true. The world is full of people who want to be led and told what to do by their rulers. And yes perhaps it is Gods plan to allow us a woman ruler...along with a court which imposes its own will rather than the law and a media and education system which pushes every vile perversion it can find.

Youths oppress my people, women rule over them.
My people, your guides lead you astray
they turn you from the path.
Isaiah 3:12

 

[DOTR]

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

Dear DOTR It will take Constitutionalists standing with Cruz and Libertarians to
change the Court System back to Constitutional standards. And away from
bias by political beliefs and party pressure.

For Trump, any business plans along the border, to organize deals with Mexico,
set up land to be claimed by the 12-20 million Mexican nationals living and working
illegally or undocumented in the US, and move production and jobs back to America,
will take his leadership rallying the workers and independents who are sick of paying
taxes for other people's crime, corruption, health care costs and other govt waste and abuse.

These two men will have to work together,
to lead a restitution system of paying back taxpayers
for all the wrongs and expenses on our tax dollars,
credit it back to us through the federal reserve system
where instead of debts for the wrongs of others we
keep track of credits, issue notes and/or borrow capital
from investors against these debts, and invest in rebuilding
our cities, including 4-5 city states along the border where
families of mixed status can claim dual citizenship, and Vets
and Military can have sustainable jobs in border security while
these communities are developed to provide access to jobs
education and services so nobody has to cross illegally anymore.

The Democrats will have our hands full cleaning up the prison
system and repurposing those resources and facilities to
provide sustainable health care for the greater populations
with the current tax dollars we already waste on prisons and
and equally failed mental health system that
generate worse sickness and dependence on drugs and
where private contractors and pharmaceuticals have been
profiting off sickness. When we replace all that with cost effective
healing and preventative/correctional therapies, the lives and
money we save, the people not going to prison and losing their
ability to work while costing taxpayers 50K a year, all those
resources can go into medical programs, training residents
and interns to do the public service work to earn their education.

We have a lot of work to do, to organize and unite all the parties
on the different areas that need massive reform, so restitution
for past wrongs, abuses, violations, corruption and waste
can be assessed and credited back to taxpayers to finance
jobs doing the reform and rebuilding/redevelopment needed.

Clinton and Trump, Sanders and Cruz, Johnson and Stein
will all need to work together to take America to the next
stage of social, economic and political development.

I dont think so emily. You seem like a decent person but you are like the French building the Maginot Line...you are fighting the last war.
Cruz is compromised. When he bowed to feminists in his virtue signaling he demonstrated that. The man called Trump out by saying "no real man attacks a woman"...then wanted the nomination to campaign against a female? She would have cleaned his clock. Then he picked a woman as VP before he was nominated mind you and a woman who has lost almost every election she ran in and driven into the ground any company she ever led. It was craven.
He is too weak to lead us...or perhaps too kindhearted. And any of the other candidates would have fared as bad. What the elites are doing to Trump they would have done to any of them...except the others would not have fought back.
Your country is run by globalist elites who pit men against women while they divide and denigrate families. They depend on foreign votes to swamp citizens. They have embedded themselves into power in the media, academia and corporate America. They ignore and over rule votes. They spend huge sums of taxpayer money to buy votes which allow them to rule against the wishes of the taxpayers.
Remember Romney brought that up? He was crucified for it, cravenly apologized and was soundly beaten. They even said he hated dogs! LOL
Sanders is bowing to Hillary as we speak.
Nice men wont be able to fix this. It is way past that.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality .

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

So you only want Americans to be able to be married while they are in private?

Or do you want to deny all Americans the right to be legally married?

 

[Syriusly]

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?

Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.

If that were true you wouldn't have gotten your ass handed to you 30+ times at the polls when the issue was put to the voters. Deep down you know.

Deep down you know that American's attitude has shifted, and you just can't deal with reality.

Yes- at one time Americans specifically voted to deny marriage to gay Americans......and then things began to change.

First of all of course the Massachusetts Supreme Court recognized that banning gay marriage violated their own state constitution- that was way back in 2003.

In 2006 voters in 7 states voted in bans on gay marriage.
In 2008 Californians voted to ban gay marriage.
in 2009 Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine's legislature legalized gay marriage.
Also in 2009 Maine's voters voted against gay marriage
2011 New York legislature legalized gay marriage.
Nov. 6, 2012 - Maine, Maryland and Washington Become First States to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage by Popular Vote
Also- Minnesota voters voted against a measure to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman,
2013- Rhode Island's. Minnesota's, Hawaii, Ilinois and Delaware's legislature makes gay marriage legal.

Meanwhile- what do the polls say? That American's attitude has been changing.

 

[Faun]

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality .

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

 

[ding]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Well the compelling interest is that it is not in the best interest of society, but the legal argument is that there is no discrimination. Everyone is being treated equally. People who prefer having sex with same gender are seeking special rights.