Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Montrovant]

I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.

Did you know how Obergefell would be ruled? You have said it shouldn't have been heard at all, it was an incorrect decision, etc....either you don't have as strong a grasp of constitutional protections in relation to this case as you think or the court did not bother to follow the constitution. Either of these possibilities seems to argue against your predicting what the court will rule in the near future, at least until the makeup of the court changes.

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

If you want to twist and distort things around to make some other argument, we're not going to have it.... you can do it... I won't respond to it.

My point is that if you think this court overreaches and goes against the constitution any predictions you make are going to be questionable at best because they don't follow what you think is their proper role and power.

 

[Montrovant]

I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.

Did you know how Obergefell would be ruled? You have said it shouldn't have been heard at all, it was an incorrect decision, etc....either you don't have as strong a grasp of constitutional protections in relation to this case as you think or the court did not bother to follow the constitution. Either of these possibilities seems to argue against your predicting what the court will rule in the near future, at least until the makeup of the court changes.

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

If you want to twist and distort things around to make some other argument, we're not going to have it.... you can do it... I won't respond to it.

Marriage already existed. The court made it so that same sex couples were included in the already existing institution of marriage. That marriage is a fundamental right was already determined by the Supreme Court in multiple previous rulings.

 

[Montrovant]

What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?

Based on your opinion that the court can determine moral right and wrong for the people, as they did in Obergefell. From the very inception of our nation, slavery was an issue of moral right and wrong. This matter was left to the people and states to decide. The court did not have the power to confer citizenship on slaves and ordain them with Constitutional rights. Too bad it wasn't the 2015 court because they WOULD have!

I did not say the court can determine moral right and wrong for the people. The closest I came to that is the idea that the court, in determining the constitutionality of laws, is attempting to enforce the morals of society. Nor do I think the court determined moral right and wrong in Obergefell. That same sex marriage is now legal does not force anyone to find it morally correct.

Slavery should not have been left to the states. Nor should women's rights. Nor should minority rights. The idea that all men are created equal certainly seems, in this modern day, to mean all humans.

The courts didn't need to confer citizenship on slaves, that citizenship should have been considered to already have been there and the courts would have been enforcing the protections that all adults are granted by the constitution. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and the times were different. The court then interpreted the constitution differently than would be done today.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

The SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



To say Same-sex Civil Marriage didn't exist prior to the Obergegell decision is incorrect.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.

Fighting against bigots and for the rights of others is never easy
.

Oh really- I have no problem arguing against homophobic bigots like you and Boss.

Not hard at all.

And yourself! Which is what your doing.

Well lets review- shall we?

I shall list couples- and you and I can state our positions as to what who we personally believe should be able to legally marry:
White heterosexual couples- yes
Black heterosexual couples- yes
Mixed race heterosexual couples- yes
Gay couples- yes
Siblings- should not be able to marry
Mothers/sons- should not be able to marry.
A man and 40 women- no position

The choices are yes- no- no position.

Let us see who is the bigot.

 

[Boss]

What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?

The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights.

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished.

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.

You said this :

If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights.

Whether marriage is a right or not has nothing to do with the powers of the federal government. Your claim that if marriage was a fundamental right it would be included in the Bill of Rights is clearly contradicted by the 9th amendment.

You have to read ALL the words in the sentences I post. I said: If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. Take out the word "fundamental" and my sentence becomes something entirely different, and an argument you can defeat with the 9th Amendment.

But clearly, the 9th Amendment doesn't grant the SCOTUS the power to create a new fundamental right to same sex marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.

Did you know how Obergefell would be ruled? You have said it shouldn't have been heard at all, it was an incorrect decision, etc....either you don't have as strong a grasp of constitutional protections in relation to this case as you think or the court did not bother to follow the constitution. Either of these possibilities seems to argue against your predicting what the court will rule in the near future, at least until the makeup of the court changes.

The court didn't follow the Constitution. .

Says you-

Citing you

Sour grapes.

Still upset about Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Syriusly]

What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?

The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights.

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished.

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.

You said this :

If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights.

Whether marriage is a right or not has nothing to do with the powers of the federal government. Your claim that if marriage was a fundamental right it would be included in the Bill of Rights is clearly contradicted by the 9th amendment.

You have to read ALL the words in the sentences I post. I said: If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. Take out the word "fundamental" and my sentence becomes something entirely different, and an argument you can defeat with the 9th Amendment.

But clearly, the 9th Amendment doesn't grant the SCOTUS the power to create a new fundamental right to same sex marriages.

Wow- Boss is really upset about the Supreme Court overturning Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage.

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool.

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

The only ones that I am aware of that are bent out of shape about same sex siblings are you- and Boss.

You are bent out of shape about any siblings marrying.

Meanwhile

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have

Incompetence hangs in the air like the cold stench of death.

I'm drowning in a sea of inanity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils

They make me long for the comfort of the grave.

Dilbert Comic Strip on 2008-02-03 | Dilbert by Scott Adams

Yes!!

 

[Boss]

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

The SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



To say Same-sex Civil Marriage didn't exist prior to the Obergegell decision is incorrect.


>>>>

Two points.

1) The courts and state legislators cannot create new institutions without expressed consent from the people. This requires a ballot initiative and if that did not happen, there is no new institution and the State can't establish any legal law based on one. If liberal activist courts ruled it into being, it doesn't exist legally. If liberal activist politicians used every trick in the book to pass it... it's illegitimate. Courts certainly do not have this power in our country under our Constitution.

2) Once you've ruled out all instances where the will of the people was unconstitutionally circumvented, I think there are only two states who have passed same sex marriage laws by vote of the people. I have no legal argument with their decision or their right to do this. States, through the people can make any kind of new institution and that is fine. My objection is to the US Government and Supreme Court doing it lawlessly by a 5-4 ruling of justices acting on their personal feelings rather than the Constitution.

 

[Montrovant]

What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?

The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights.

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished.

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.

You said this :

If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights.

Whether marriage is a right or not has nothing to do with the powers of the federal government. Your claim that if marriage was a fundamental right it would be included in the Bill of Rights is clearly contradicted by the 9th amendment.

You have to read ALL the words in the sentences I post. I said: If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. Take out the word "fundamental" and my sentence becomes something entirely different, and an argument you can defeat with the 9th Amendment.

But clearly, the 9th Amendment doesn't grant the SCOTUS the power to create a new fundamental right to same sex marriages.

The courts had already previously declared marriage a fundamental right. Obergefell didn't create that right, it said the right extends to same sex couples.

Is it your contention that the 9th amendment does not apply to fundamental rights? That all fundamental rights are enumerated in the constitution?

 

[Montrovant]

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

The SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



To say Same-sex Civil Marriage didn't exist prior to the Obergegell decision is incorrect.


>>>>

Two points.

1) The courts and state legislators cannot create new institutions without expressed consent from the people. This requires a ballot initiative and if that did not happen, there is no new institution and the State can't establish any legal law based on one. If liberal activist courts ruled it into being, it doesn't exist legally. If liberal activist politicians used every trick in the book to pass it... it's illegitimate. Courts certainly do not have this power in our country under our Constitution.

2) Once you've ruled out all instances where the will of the people was unconstitutionally circumvented, I think there are only two states who have passed same sex marriage laws by vote of the people. I have no legal argument with their decision or their right to do this. States, through the people can make any kind of new institution and that is fine. My objection is to the US Government and Supreme Court doing it lawlessly by a 5-4 ruling of justices acting on their personal feelings rather than the Constitution.

1) Marriage is not a new institution. Same sex marriages are part of the same institution as opposite sex marriages, just as mixed race marriages were part of the same institution as same race marriages, just as no-dowry marriages were part of the same institution as dowry marriages, etc..

2) 3 by referendum according to the Wiki article Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Quite a few created by state legislature.

I'm unsure why you think state legislatures cannot pass law or that they are not ostensibly representing the will of the people, considering the representational basis of our government.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

The SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



To say Same-sex Civil Marriage didn't exist prior to the Obergegell decision is incorrect.


>>>>

Two points.

1) The courts and state legislators cannot create new institutions without expressed consent from the people. This requires a ballot initiative and if that did not happen, there is no new institution and the State can't establish any legal law based on one. If liberal activist courts ruled it into being, it doesn't exist legally. If liberal activist politicians used every trick in the book to pass it... it's illegitimate. Courts certainly do not have this power in our country under our Constitution.

2) Once you've ruled out all instances where the will of the people was unconstitutionally circumvented, I think there are only two states who have passed same sex marriage laws by vote of the people. I have no legal argument with their decision or their right to do this. States, through the people can make any kind of new institution and that is fine. My objection is to the US Government and Supreme Court doing it lawlessly by a 5-4 ruling of justices acting on their personal feelings rather than the Constitution.

Same sex Civil Marriage was passed by ballot initiative in some states. Therefore SSCM did exist as a public insitution prior to the Obergefell ruling and it was done via ballot.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.

Fighting against bigots and for the rights of others is never easy
.

Oh really- I have no problem arguing against homophobic bigots like you and Boss.

Not hard at all.

And yourself! Which is what your doing.

Well lets review- shall we?

I shall list couples- and you and I can state our positions as to what who we personally believe should be able to legally marry:
White heterosexual couples- yes
Black heterosexual couples- yes
Mixed race heterosexual couples- yes
Gay couples- yes
Siblings- should not be able to marry
Mothers/sons- should not be able to marry.
A man and 40 women- no position

The choices are yes- no- no position.

Let us see who is the bigot.

First set can

All others I oppose, yet I can find no Complelling state reason to deny their right.

Have you yet?

 

[Pop23]

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

The SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



To say Same-sex Civil Marriage didn't exist prior to the Obergegell decision is incorrect.


>>>>

Two points.

1) The courts and state legislators cannot create new institutions without expressed consent from the people. This requires a ballot initiative and if that did not happen, there is no new institution and the State can't establish any legal law based on one. If liberal activist courts ruled it into being, it doesn't exist legally. If liberal activist politicians used every trick in the book to pass it... it's illegitimate. Courts certainly do not have this power in our country under our Constitution.

2) Once you've ruled out all instances where the will of the people was unconstitutionally circumvented, I think there are only two states who have passed same sex marriage laws by vote of the people. I have no legal argument with their decision or their right to do this. States, through the people can make any kind of new institution and that is fine. My objection is to the US Government and Supreme Court doing it lawlessly by a 5-4 ruling of justices acting on their personal feelings rather than the Constitution.

Same sex Civil Marriage was passed by ballot initiative in some states. Therefore SSCM did exist as a public insitution prior to the Obergefell ruling and it was done via ballot.


>>>>

Which states were those?

 

[Pop23]

I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.

Did you know how Obergefell would be ruled? You have said it shouldn't have been heard at all, it was an incorrect decision, etc....either you don't have as strong a grasp of constitutional protections in relation to this case as you think or the court did not bother to follow the constitution. Either of these possibilities seems to argue against your predicting what the court will rule in the near future, at least until the makeup of the court changes.

The court didn't follow the Constitution. .

Says you-

Citing you

Sour grapes.

Still upset about Loving v. Virginia.

When has a Black man ever been able to change race? Silly, you don't even think they're human after all.

 

[Pop23]

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

The SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



To say Same-sex Civil Marriage didn't exist prior to the Obergegell decision is incorrect.


>>>>

Two points.

1) The courts and state legislators cannot create new institutions without expressed consent from the people. This requires a ballot initiative and if that did not happen, there is no new institution and the State can't establish any legal law based on one. If liberal activist courts ruled it into being, it doesn't exist legally. If liberal activist politicians used every trick in the book to pass it... it's illegitimate. Courts certainly do not have this power in our country under our Constitution.

2) Once you've ruled out all instances where the will of the people was unconstitutionally circumvented, I think there are only two states who have passed same sex marriage laws by vote of the people. I have no legal argument with their decision or their right to do this. States, through the people can make any kind of new institution and that is fine. My objection is to the US Government and Supreme Court doing it lawlessly by a 5-4 ruling of justices acting on their personal feelings rather than the Constitution.

Same sex Civil Marriage was passed by ballot initiative in some states. Therefore SSCM did exist as a public insitution prior to the Obergefell ruling and it was done via ballot.


>>>>

Some would also say that at that exact same time, same sex sibling marriage also became constitutional.

I KNOW, that's simply silly, but then I can't think of a single compelling state interest in denying them this right, you?

I wonder how the vote would have gone if this would have been known?

Of course when you frame the debate as "gay marriage", that deflects any interest, don't you think?

 

[Pop23]

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

The only ones that I am aware of that are bent out of shape about same sex siblings are you- and Boss.

You are bent out of shape about any siblings marrying.

Meanwhile

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have

Incompetence hangs in the air like the cold stench of death.

I'm drowning in a sea of inanity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils

They make me long for the comfort of the grave.

Dilbert Comic Strip on 2008-02-03 | Dilbert by Scott Adams

Yes!!

All is lost, they got Dilbert on their side!

 

[Pop23]

What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?

The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights.

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished.

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.

You said this :

If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights.

Whether marriage is a right or not has nothing to do with the powers of the federal government. Your claim that if marriage was a fundamental right it would be included in the Bill of Rights is clearly contradicted by the 9th amendment.

You have to read ALL the words in the sentences I post. I said: If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. Take out the word "fundamental" and my sentence becomes something entirely different, and an argument you can defeat with the 9th Amendment.

But clearly, the 9th Amendment doesn't grant the SCOTUS the power to create a new fundamental right to same sex marriages.

Wow- Boss is really upset about the Supreme Court overturning Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage.

Why would you care, you are too.

 

[Faun]

What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?

The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights.

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished.

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution and the U.S.S.C. is completely within their jurisdiction to decide if a law brought to their court, violates the Constitution.