How has your marriage been hurt?

[rightwinger]

As I said just above, then Obergfell should have just said States have to continue to recognize marriages from other States under full faith and credit, and could continue to issue only traditional marriage licenses if they choose to.

Why?

It just forces same sex couples to go to other states to get married. Why harass gay couples?

 

[martybegan]

Why?

It just forces same sex couples to go to other states to get married. Why harass gay couples?

because that would have been the Constitutionally sound way of handling it. Full faith and credit is a well established Constitutional concept.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nine years ago, gay marriage was legalized. Many were sure that such a thing would irrevocably harm existing marriages, and it was claimed that marriage to animals would soon be enacted. I haven't found any evidence of all the terrible things we were told would happen. Somebody help me out here. What happened to all that destruction of marriage, or even the wedding announcements for all those Human/Animal marriages?
Please list in detail how your marriage has been harmed by gay marriage, or how marriage in general has been harmed. Do you think 9 years is just not enough time for those bad repercussions to gay marriage to develop? Do we have to wait longer for the bad effects to be shown?

There aren’t any bad effects

 

[rightwinger]

because that would have been the Constitutionally sound way of handling it. Full faith and credit is a well established Constitutional concept.

It would be petty harassment of same sex couples.

Even Bible Belt States that fought same sex marriage have accepted it. Nobody cares

 

[martybegan]

It would be petty harassment of same sex couples.

Even Bible Belt States that fought same sex marriage have accepted it. Nobody cares

It would have been Constitutionally sound.

Keep up with the Trans bullshit, and a backlash is inevitable.

You are also talking to someone who if given a choice would vote for SSM in my State (NY) if it was up for vote.

 

[rightwinger]

It would have been Constitutionally sound.

Keep up with the Trans bullshit, and a backlash is inevitable.

You are also talking to someone who if given a choice would vote for SSM in my State (NY) if it was up for vote.

Nothing in the Constitution addresses marriage

The 14th Amendment addresses equal protection under the law

 

[martybegan]

Nothing in the Constitution addresses marriage

The 14th Amendment addresses equal protection under the law

SSM is not equal in the historical sense, as it is a new concept from the past 30 years or so.

If that is to be changed, the Legislatures are the way to go, not the courts.

 

[DBA]

Problem is that a state has to recognize the legal actions of another state. You can’t have peoples marital status change as they pass through different states. We used to be married, now we aren’t

You mean like gun laws? In one state I am legal and in the next I am not. Why does each state get to dictate their own gun law? Why does Illinois, CA and NY get to implement laws that are against the 2nd Ammendment just because they don’t like it?

What about sanctuary cities?

 

[rightwinger]

You mean like gun laws? In one state I am legal and in the next I am not. Why does each state get to dictate their own gun law? Why does Illinois, CA and NY get to implement laws that are against the 2nd Ammendment just because they don’t like it?

What about sanctuary cities?

I actually agree with you on this.
CCA should be like a Drivers License and recognized in all states.
Just like you have to comply with another states driving laws, you would have to comply with their gun laws

 

[martybegan]

I actually agree with you on this.
CCA should be like a Drivers License and recognized in all states.
Just like you have to comply with another states driving laws, you would have to comply with their gun laws

The thing is you don't have to take the local driving courses, or follow the same procedures to GET the license as the State you are driving through.

 

[rightwinger]

SSM is not equal in the historical sense, as it is a new concept from the past 30 years or so.

If that is to be changed, the Legislatures are the way to go, not the courts.

What happened when states argued against SSM in courts is they could not identify any valid reason to deny it or any harm that they are protecting against

 

[LordBrownTrout]

5 or 6 individuals making laws for 320 million people

Flaunting and mocking Nature for the sake of perverts with severe mental problems

And society has been circling the drain ever since

Shortly after transgenders were cutting off and adding parts. The depravity continues and knows no depth. It eventually destroys the nuclear family.

 

[martybegan]

What happened when states argued against SSM in courts is they could not identify any valid reason to deny it or any harm that they are protecting against

They took the wrong approach, and they paid for it. They should have argued full faith and credit to recognize and acknowledged the point, but pointed out there was no historical equality between SSM and regular marriage either at the time of the Constitution, or when the 14th amendment was passed. Again this is a new concept, only making it's appearance in the past 2-3 decades.

 

[rightwinger]

It eventually destroys the nuclear family.

Yet, after over ten years, you can’t identify any actual destruction

 

[rightwinger]

They took the wrong approach, and they paid for it. They should have argued full faith and credit to recognize and acknowledged the point, but pointed out there was no historical equality between SSM and regular marriage either at the time of the Constitution, or when the 14th amendment was passed. Again this is a new concept, only making it's appearance in the past 2-3 decades.

Equal Protection is still equal protection.
The state can’t take sides on which marriages they approve of and which they consider ….yucky

Hence Loving v Virginia

 

[martybegan]

Equal Protection is still equal protection.
The state can’t take sides on which marriages they approve of and which they consider ….yucky

Hence Loving v Virginia

Race and sexuality aren't the same thing. There were inter-racial and inter-tribe marriages throughout history.

Loving was correct, Obergfell was not.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yet, after over ten years, you can’t identify any actual destruction

Sure you can. Societies compass continues to spiral and accept deviant behavior as it is normalized.

 

[DBA]

What history is that?

Rome sticks out.

 

[rightwinger]

Race and sexuality aren't the same thing. There were inter-racial and inter-tribe marriages throughout history.

Loving was correct, Obergfell was not.

Doesn’t matter

Loving was still a state deciding which marriages it considered yucky without identifying a pressing reason to prohibit them.
No harm, no foul

 

[martybegan]

Doesn’t matter

Of course it matters. Obergfell is up there with Roe and Plessey in making stuff up because some Justices felt like it.