Killing Homosexual Marriage

[WorldWatcher]

Which states were those?

Maryland, Washington, Maine, and Minnesota. In the case of Minnesota the initiative was to ban SSCM which was defeated allowing the legislature immediately turn around to pass the a bill setting the law.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Which states were those?

Maryland, Washington, Maine, and Minnesota. In the case of Minnesota the initiative was to ban SSCM which was defeated allowing the legislature immediately turn around to pass the a bill setting the law.


>>>>

Ok, I'll give you Minnesota. So 4 out of 50 or roughly 8.5 percent of the StateS with likely less that in poplulation.

Interesting, when you put into that context. Add the number of judges that forced it on the other states, and the population percentage moved by a factor of 0.

 

[Boss]

Same sex marriages are part of the same institution as opposite sex marriages...

Except, they are not, are they?

 

[Boss]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages. There was no discrimination happening. We also don't have child marriages, it's not a discrimination happening. We also don't have sibling marriages... not a discrimination happening. Marriage was the union of a man and woman... could be gay men and women, could be straight... no judgement was made.

Again... MY opinion is that Marriage should not be a government institution at all. There is no need for this in 2015. It is really a throwback relic to a time that has gone forever in America and we should move ahead.... progress. You libtards slobber all over Europeans and what they do... in The Netherlands people seldom ever get married. For the Dutch, it's just not an option. We should be working together to free our people of government repression and return our freedom to define our own relationships on our own terms.

But like the good little Socialist Commie you are, that's the LAST thing you want to try and do... isn't it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

For some people, their problem is that they do not accept the legitimacy of the 14th amendment, or it's applicability beyond race. Boss is unique in that he goes further and seems to not accept the legitimacy of the constitution as a whole, rejects the concept of federal supremacy and thinks that we are still under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[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.

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?

For some people, their problem is that they do not accept the legitimacy of the 14th amendment, or it's applicability beyond race. Boss is unique in that he goes further and seems to not accept the legitimacy of the constitution as a whole, rejects the concept of federal supremacy and thinks that we are still under the Articles of Confederation.

True, and those people are you. Can you name another civil right that excluded nearly everyone from full participation in its access?

I can't.

It's the same argument that Virginia attempted in "Loving". You can marry anyone, just not anyone.

 

[Boss]

For some people, their problem is that they do not accept the legitimacy of the 14th amendment, or it's applicability beyond race. Boss is unique in that he goes further and seems to not accept the legitimacy of the constitution as a whole, rejects the concept of federal supremacy and thinks that we are still under the Articles of Confederation.

I don't have any problem with the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Your problem seems to be that you believe some parts of the Constitution nullifies others. I doubt the framers were that short-sighted and I assume they intended the whole Constitution to work together. I also assume the later amendments don't nullify previous amendments unless they expressly state this repeal as their purpose, as in the case of the 21st Amendment.

Anyone who has studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers finds they are eloquently written and brilliantly constructed. The Constitution needs no "interpretation" as any aspect is explained in detail by the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.

Madison explained the "concept of federal supremacy" very well. It is not intended for federal government to usurp the power of the states. If it were, there would be no 10th Amendment. We have the Constitution, we have federal legislature and we have state legislatures. The federal government has enumerated powers which allow it to pass various laws. The state has power over everything not enumerated, which also allow them to pass various laws. All laws have to abide by the Constitution but in some cases, state and federal laws might both be in accordance with the Constitution, yet still in conflict with each other. A good example of this is Colorado's marijuana laws. As of now, there has been no problem with this because no one has challenged Colorado's law with a valid complaint of harm. If such a case arose and the court found there was a legitimate harm done, the Colorado law must defer to the federal law.

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law. Regulation of Marriage is not an enumerated power. For all of our history it has been a state-regulated institution with various state-by-state guidelines. The 14th Amendment didn't suddenly give the federal government the power to change that. Nor does the federal supremacy clause.

The 14th has again been perverted by the liberal secular left to cram something down our throats against our will. It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights. It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care. It wasn't intended for homosexuals to play house or to legitimize their promiscuous and deviant sexual behavior.

 

[Montrovant]

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.

Not entirely true. Marriage gains benefits from federal tax law. There are also immigration laws which deal with marriage I believe. There was DOMA as well.

The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.

It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care.

We don't have universal health care. The ACA is more of a bastardized mix of universal health coverage and private coverage. Not everyone has or is required to have health coverage.

 

[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.

Why would you care, you are too.

And another example of Pops lying. Which is rather redundant.

Unlike Boss- I support the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional state marriage laws- as it did in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.

How about you?

 

[Syriusly]

[
With marriage, there is no federal marriage law. Regulation of Marriage is not an enumerated power. For all of our history it has been a state-regulated institution with various state-by-state guidelines. The 14th Amendment didn't suddenly give the federal government the power to change that. Nor does the federal supremacy clause.r.

Yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly overturned State marriage laws that are unconstitutional- and once again provides the very same argument Virginia made in defending its racists mixed race ban on marriages.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

 

[Syriusly]

Same sex marriages are part of the same institution as opposite sex marriages...

Except, they are not, are they?

Except they are- one marriage license for every couple getting married- regardless of the gender of the spouses.

 

[Syriusly]

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

State legislators represent the people- and depending upon the State's Constitution can indeed create new institutions.

Courts of course- such as the Supreme Court- create now new institutions- they only overturn unconstitutional laws.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

Making things appear greater then they actually are is another of these marketing tool. The larger you can make something appear, the harder it also appears to be to defeat.

Army's have used that trick for centuries

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yeah- people like you and the Catholic League- yet still- no siblings are getting legally married- in 12 years after 'some' people say something idiotic- their idiotic claims still have not come true.

Want to also tell us your prediction on when the Rapture will happen?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

 

[Faun]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages. There was no discrimination happening. We also don't have child marriages, it's not a discrimination happening. We also don't have sibling marriages... not a discrimination happening. Marriage was the union of a man and woman... could be gay men and women, could be straight... no judgement was made.

Again... MY opinion is that Marriage should not be a government institution at all. There is no need for this in 2015. It is really a throwback relic to a time that has gone forever in America and we should move ahead.... progress. You libtards slobber all over Europeans and what they do... in The Netherlands people seldom ever get married. For the Dutch, it's just not an option. We should be working together to free our people of government repression and return our freedom to define our own relationships on our own terms.

But like the good little Socialist Commie you are, that's the LAST thing you want to try and do... isn't it?

States sanctioning marriage is neither socialist nor communist. You truly are fucking deranged. Your mental challenges aside, yes, part of the law did violate the Constitution. The part about marriage being limited to a man and a woman violated the 14th Amendment.

 

[Boss]

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.

Not entirely true. Marriage gains benefits from federal tax law. There are also immigration laws which deal with marriage I believe. There was DOMA as well.

The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.

It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care.

We don't have universal health care. The ACA is more of a bastardized mix of universal health coverage and private coverage. Not everyone has or is required to have health coverage.

This sounds like your usual rebuttal to any argument I present at USMB. A meandering nit-picking of select terms and obtuse myopic focus on what those terms can mean when taken entirely in another context. Boss says "we have no federal marriage law" and so you have to find some examples of laws which mention or are affected by marriage to prove Boss wrong! Boss says "universal health care" and so you have to make an argument that it's not universal because it's not mandated... you can pay a "tax" and avoid coverage. Oh... and let's see if we can borrow a pronoun from another sentence to infer some unintended meaning on a different sentence, while we're playing fast and loose with context and distorting the hell out of his argument! Let's construct some more straw men and throw a few more monkey wrenches into the discussion in order to complicate the dialogue and detract from any point he may have been trying to get across. THATs what Montro is all about.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

No, I want them to go by intent. I don't want illiterate morons like you determining what it says because you don't seem to grasp context. You also seem to think we can change meanings of words willy-nilly to fit our agenda at the time. This kind of liberalism when it comes to language is a danger to the intentions of our Constitution. So I want them to study the Federalist papers, understand the context in which various arguments were made and what was intended when the final law was settled as part of the Constitution. Finally, I want them to understand their job is not to redefine institutions or redefine laws and rights, but to uphold what is established by the people... whether it fits their personal viewpoint or not.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...

They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages.

As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

 

[Syriusly]

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.

Not entirely true. Marriage gains benefits from federal tax law. There are also immigration laws which deal with marriage I believe. There was DOMA as well.

The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.

It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights.

This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.

It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care.

We don't have universal health care. The ACA is more of a bastardized mix of universal health coverage and private coverage. Not everyone has or is required to have health coverage.

No, I want them to go by intent. I don't want illiterate morons like you determining what it says because you don't seem to grasp context.t.

Instead we have illiterate morons like Boss telling us what the Constitution means- and that he knows the Constitution better than the judges and Justices that have studied it their entire lives.

Boss is still upset that the Supreme Court overturned the bans on mixed race marriages.