I find it very disturbing

[bodecea]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

The most beautiful thing about this is that it is one of the finest examples of the intelligent use of the first amendment I have ever seen. I really think an entire nation turned around in its attitudes because of gay pride parades. It was brilliant. I can't begin to express my level of admiration for the people who came up with it. Admittedly, there were other things as well and the Westboro Baptist Church can certainly take a bow for making the opposition look like idiots. The parades are what got it going. Those people truly deserve statues.

No, I disagree....the biggest turn around was encouraging more and more gay Americans to come out to their families and friends. It's very hard to be against equal rights for a group when you know and love members of that group.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage IS a civil right...you can pout about it all day long, but it is. Ergo, unless you've got some compelling legal reason why including gays in that civil right causes harm........the government cannot deny that civil right to gay citizens.

So....rant all you want. I'm sure, in some way, it makes you feel like you've got some say in this matter.

Marriage is NOT a Civil Right. Just because some blockheaded Judge says it is, doesn't mean it is.

Dred Scott.

As to the harm/gays question, it is incumbent on your side to show that allowing gay marriage will NOT cause the harm you address.

The burden is on your side.

Here's what your side is doing wrong.....

This is a new phenomenon. Big time and a big, big way.

Maybe it isn't to you. Cool, I can understand that. But here's a clue -- Try looking outside your own little circle once in a while and understand how the rest of us live

We don't think about gays or gay marriage that much.

If we do, it's because we're forced to think about it.

So we will. We should think about it.

But here's what you're doing wrong......

It took us 5,000 years to end slavery.

It took another 5,000 years to end the poor treatment of women (and that isn't working too well everywhere)

It took 2,700 years to give women the vote.

And you want the world to grant your wish to change the way it thinks about gays in ten years?

You're pushing too hard. You're doing more harm to your cause than good. You may think you're winning small victories but you're not. You're setting your cause back by being bullying and aggressive.

Trust me. You better learn to slow down and savor each little victory as it comes

Marriage is most definitely a civil right as has been determined in several SCOTUS decisions. Not just one, but several. You may not like it, in this case....heck you may not have liked in the case of Loving v. Virginia....but it is. It's established case las.

Loving was interracial marriage, not two people of the same sex. Loving does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

Have you bothered to read the decision in that case? Here, let me quote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Note the beginning.

please highlight the words "gay" or "same sex" in that decision. That decision is about race, not homosexuality

And has been proven to you and others on the right countless times – yet you continue to wallow in your willful ignorance – race is not the sole human condition entitled to Constitutional protections, the states may not violate the liberty of choice, nor citizens' right to due process and equal protection of the law, which is applied to both sexual orientation and race.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, rendering such state measures un-Constitutional and invalid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

Ignorant nonsense.

Citizens' civil rights can't be 'put up to a vote,' one's rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

Americans are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

The most beautiful thing about this is that it is one of the finest examples of the intelligent use of the first amendment I have ever seen. I really think an entire nation turned around in its attitudes because of gay pride parades. It was brilliant. I can't begin to express my level of admiration for the people who came up with it. Admittedly, there were other things as well and the Westboro Baptist Church can certainly take a bow for making the opposition look like idiots. The parades are what got it going. Those people truly deserve statues.

No, I disagree....the biggest turn around was encouraging more and more gay Americans to come out to their families and friends. It's very hard to be against equal rights for a group when you know and love members of that group.

I see what you are saying, but that is a private thing which doesn't really get past the family level. The parades made it public. It's possible your right though. No one in my family ever came out to me so my experience with it began with the parades.

 

[Redfish]

So SCOTUS can make law? Really?

SCOTUS can strike down laws.

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

 

[Redfish]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

Ignorant nonsense.

Citizens' civil rights can't be 'put up to a vote,' one's rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

Americans are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that.

bullshit------citizens civll rights were put to a vote when the constitution and its amendments were ratified (voted on). Civil rights were established by majority vote.

Do you think they just fell from the sky?

 

[PratchettFan]

SCOTUS can strike down laws.

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Of course they can make a ruling in conflict with existing law. They do that just about every time they make a ruling. If they decide in favor of SSM they will be in conflict with quite a lot of laws. They were in conflict with law in the Hobby Lobby case. That is what they do. And the only organization which can keep the SCOTUS within its Constitutional limits is SCOTUS. At least if we are going to follow the Constitution.

 

[Redfish]

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Of course they can make a ruling in conflict with existing law. They do that just about every time they make a ruling. If they decide in favor of SSM they will be in conflict with quite a lot of laws. They were in conflict with law in the Hobby Lobby case. That is what they do. And the only organization which can keep the SCOTUS within its Constitutional limits is SCOTUS. At least if we are going to follow the Constitution.

I misspoke, I should have said that the SC cannot render a decision that is in conflict with the constitution. The problem is that the SC is the one that makes that determination and the fact that the SC has become nothing but a political pawn rather than the independent body it was intended to be.

 

[bodecea]

SCOTUS can strike down laws.

yes, but the other poster said that whatever SCOTUS decides would BECOME law. SCOTUS can only rule on the constitutionality of existing law, they cannot make new law.

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

 

[bodecea]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

Ignorant nonsense.

Citizens' civil rights can't be 'put up to a vote,' one's rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

Americans are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that.

bullshit------citizens civll rights were put to a vote when the constitution and its amendments were ratified (voted on). Civil rights were established by majority vote.

Do you think they just fell from the sky?

That was back then at the beginning. And keep in mind, that wasn't a majority of citizens even then. Those under 21, those without property, women, and minorities had no say whatsoever..........the good old days, eh?

 

[bodecea]

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Of course they can make a ruling in conflict with existing law. They do that just about every time they make a ruling. If they decide in favor of SSM they will be in conflict with quite a lot of laws. They were in conflict with law in the Hobby Lobby case. That is what they do. And the only organization which can keep the SCOTUS within its Constitutional limits is SCOTUS. At least if we are going to follow the Constitution.

I misspoke, I should have said that the SC cannot render a decision that is in conflict with the constitution. The problem is that the SC is the one that makes that determination and the fact that the SC has become nothing but a political pawn rather than the independent body it was intended to be.

That is true...and they are the interpreters of what is conflict with the Constitution and what is not. The SC isn't a political pawn because they don't have to worry about staying popular to get re-elected. And their selection is done by the Executive Branch with the approval of the Senate (Legislative Branch)....our Framers were very smart.

 

[PratchettFan]

Case law is law.

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Of course they can make a ruling in conflict with existing law. They do that just about every time they make a ruling. If they decide in favor of SSM they will be in conflict with quite a lot of laws. They were in conflict with law in the Hobby Lobby case. That is what they do. And the only organization which can keep the SCOTUS within its Constitutional limits is SCOTUS. At least if we are going to follow the Constitution.

I misspoke, I should have said that the SC cannot render a decision that is in conflict with the constitution. The problem is that the SC is the one that makes that determination and the fact that the SC has become nothing but a political pawn rather than the independent body it was intended to be.

The justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. All in accordance with the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what their political affiliation must be.

 

[Seawytch]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

The most beautiful thing about this is that it is one of the finest examples of the intelligent use of the first amendment I have ever seen. I really think an entire nation turned around in its attitudes because of gay pride parades. It was brilliant. I can't begin to express my level of admiration for the people who came up with it. Admittedly, there were other things as well and the Westboro Baptist Church can certainly take a bow for making the opposition look like idiots. The parades are what got it going. Those people truly deserve statues.

No, I disagree....the biggest turn around was encouraging more and more gay Americans to come out to their families and friends. It's very hard to be against equal rights for a group when you know and love members of that group.

Agreed.

AIDS, whether we like to admit it or not, speeded up the process. People were forced out of the closet by the disease and inaction by the government sent more people to the streets protesting.

 

[bodecea]

you are confusing precedent with legislation.

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Of course they can make a ruling in conflict with existing law. They do that just about every time they make a ruling. If they decide in favor of SSM they will be in conflict with quite a lot of laws. They were in conflict with law in the Hobby Lobby case. That is what they do. And the only organization which can keep the SCOTUS within its Constitutional limits is SCOTUS. At least if we are going to follow the Constitution.

I misspoke, I should have said that the SC cannot render a decision that is in conflict with the constitution. The problem is that the SC is the one that makes that determination and the fact that the SC has become nothing but a political pawn rather than the independent body it was intended to be.

The justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. All in accordance with the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what their political affiliation must be.

Techically, there is nothing about their credentials...they don't even have to be a lawyer or judge, but the vetting process has been strict enough over the last 200 years that it's worked out pretty well.......oh sure, there are always people unhappy with their decisions, but for those who actually READ their decisions, they have to clearly state the Constitutional basis for each and every decision. Whiney people forget that.

 

[bodecea]

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

The most beautiful thing about this is that it is one of the finest examples of the intelligent use of the first amendment I have ever seen. I really think an entire nation turned around in its attitudes because of gay pride parades. It was brilliant. I can't begin to express my level of admiration for the people who came up with it. Admittedly, there were other things as well and the Westboro Baptist Church can certainly take a bow for making the opposition look like idiots. The parades are what got it going. Those people truly deserve statues.

No, I disagree....the biggest turn around was encouraging more and more gay Americans to come out to their families and friends. It's very hard to be against equal rights for a group when you know and love members of that group.

Agreed.

AIDS, whether we like to admit it or not, speeded up the process. People were forced out of the closet by the disease and inaction by the government sent more people to the streets protesting.

Yes, AIDS....sad to say, I forgot about that. Our worst hour, our finest hour.

 

[Liminal]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

 

[Seawytch]

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

The most beautiful thing about this is that it is one of the finest examples of the intelligent use of the first amendment I have ever seen. I really think an entire nation turned around in its attitudes because of gay pride parades. It was brilliant. I can't begin to express my level of admiration for the people who came up with it. Admittedly, there were other things as well and the Westboro Baptist Church can certainly take a bow for making the opposition look like idiots. The parades are what got it going. Those people truly deserve statues.

No, I disagree....the biggest turn around was encouraging more and more gay Americans to come out to their families and friends. It's very hard to be against equal rights for a group when you know and love members of that group.

Agreed.

AIDS, whether we like to admit it or not, speeded up the process. People were forced out of the closet by the disease and inaction by the government sent more people to the streets protesting.

Yes, AIDS....sad to say, I forgot about that. Our worst hour, our finest hour.

Exactly. I truly believe we would not be where we are today on gay rights without that horrible disease.

A very tarnished silver lining.

 

[PratchettFan]

In other words, your side is losing, and that is your last hope. And then if the vote goes against you, you will be back talking about 2nd Amendment solutions.

Years ago...when this gay marriage debate started with Hawaii, the RW mantra was...."the courts will never approve it"...then it changed to "no state has ever voted for it"...then it changed to "states that have gay marriage are going to fall apart", then it changed to "tyranny of the courts", then it changed to "the SCOTUS will never allow it" to now. They are now left with such arguments as "where is gay marriage in the Constitution" (straight marriage isn't in there either), and "3000 years of tradition can't be wrong "(great argument for slavery and women as chattel too).

The most beautiful thing about this is that it is one of the finest examples of the intelligent use of the first amendment I have ever seen. I really think an entire nation turned around in its attitudes because of gay pride parades. It was brilliant. I can't begin to express my level of admiration for the people who came up with it. Admittedly, there were other things as well and the Westboro Baptist Church can certainly take a bow for making the opposition look like idiots. The parades are what got it going. Those people truly deserve statues.

No, I disagree....the biggest turn around was encouraging more and more gay Americans to come out to their families and friends. It's very hard to be against equal rights for a group when you know and love members of that group.

Agreed.

AIDS, whether we like to admit it or not, speeded up the process. People were forced out of the closet by the disease and inaction by the government sent more people to the streets protesting.

Yes, AIDS....sad to say, I forgot about that. Our worst hour, our finest hour.

Well, whatever the cause, let me paraphrase Churchill.... never have so few changed the minds of so many, in so little time and with so little violence. I am in awe.

 

[bodecea]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.