Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[Zincwarrior]

That is how it is and how it should be be, but to be honest, several years back, I could have saved a lot of money by just moving to another state instead of paying all that money to a lawyer.

For a bit of time IIRC but some states were making this a small industry, maybe even Vegas. Its been a bit.

 

[toobfreak]

Almost there.

Wow. I just was forced to revise my abortion limit down to somewhere between the 5th and 8th week.

After that, I just cannot sanction aborting the child except in case of rape or medical emergency.

 

[Mashmont]

Others disagree and laugh at you.

The sickos disagree with me

 

[Mashmont]

What unnatural sick acts do heterosexuals engage in
Why do you care

So you don’t care about AIDS?

 

[BULLDOG]

The wife will sit on her side of the sofa and give me the finger when I merely provide advice and counsel to her on something. Sick!

Note to self --- NEVER USE THE WORDS 'YOU'RE WRONG' AGAIN

 

[rightwinger]

So you don’t care about AIDS?

Heterosexuals get STDs also

 

[rightwinger]

What Obergfell should have done is say States can decide to ISSUE or NOT ISSUE same sex marriage license on their own, but they have to HONOR any marriage license issued by other States as they have always done after Loving.

So Arkansas doesn't have to issue same sex marriage licenses, but it has to treat one from another State the same as it treats its own.

Mostly agree
But it still doesn’t address the equal protection of the laws by the 14th Amendment

Should states be able to tell you who you can love?
They couldn’t under Loving v Virginia

 

[martybegan]

Mostly agree
But it still doesn’t address the equal protection of the laws by the 14th Amendment

Should states be able to tell you who you can love?
They couldn’t under Loving v Virginia

It all depends on what people think is equal.

It was never about "love", it was about rights and privileges given by the marriage contract, and the idiot South States forcing the issue by being assholes and enforcing idiotic laws.

Sorry, but same sex marriage is a new concept only really thought about in the past few decades. If people want it, they should vote for it, because it simply isn't the same as old fashioned marriage between opposite sex people.

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry, but same sex marriage is a new concept only really thought about in the past few decades. If people want it, they should vote for it, because it simply isn't the same as old fashioned marriage between opposite sex people.

No, you should not be allowed to vote on the rights others are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for supper

 

[martybegan]

No, you should not be allowed to vote on the rights others are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for supper

All rights were originally put up to a vote to be protected in the Constitution, and a supermajority vote at that.

And sorry, but there is no "right" to a same sex marriage license.

 

[80zephyr]

One more time, YOU don't get to decide who can and cannot marry. It is NOT up to you or anyone else. You choose hate. Which is NOT pro-life.

Society chooses everyday. Can't drink till you are 21. Etc., etc., etc...

If society says that marriage is reserved for those who are biologically capable of reproduction, I'm OK with that. And no, exceptions(like infertility) do not negate the rule.

 

[80zephyr]

The OP is consumed with ha . Such clear and ugly homophobia on display. Hate is NOT a pro-life value and sure as shit ain't "Christian".

What would Jesus say?

 

[rightwinger]

All rights were originally put up to a vote to be protected in the Constitution, and a supermajority vote at that.

And sorry, but there is no "right" to a same sex marriage license.

The people did not vote to approve the Constitution. Elected officials did so

There is a right to be treated like anyone else. Equal protection under the laws. Just because some people find your marriage to be “yucky” is not a justification to ban it.

 

[martybegan]

The people did not vote to approve the Constitution. Elected officials did so

There is a right to be treated like anyone else. Equal protection under the laws. Just because some people find your marriage to be “yucky” is not a justification to ban it.

And yet a vote still happened, and States still had to ratify the amendments, including the bill of rights. supermajorities in fact.

Wanting something is not a justification to pretend it's somehow protected by the Constitution when it is clearly not protected.

Thinking like that is what got us Dredd Scott, Plessey, Roe and Chevron.

 

[rightwinger]

Society chooses everyday. Can't drink till you are 21. Etc., etc., etc...

If society says that marriage is reserved for those who are biologically capable of reproduction, I'm OK with that. And no, exceptions(like infertility) do not negate the rule.

States were able to justify banning underage drinking as a safety concern.

When asked to do so, they could not identify any harm same sex marriage does to society a

 

[80zephyr]

Our state and federal governments bestow nearly one thousand different types of cash and prizes on married couples.

Every one of those cash and prizes are bestowed by laws. They don't just happen by magic. Laws were written for each and every one of these marriage benefits.

Thus, the 14th amendment applies. "nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It is equal protection under the law. Men and women are the ONLY couples who can have kids, those laws were made for biological families.

 

[80zephyr]

States were able to justify banning underage drinking as a safety concern.

When asked to do so, they could not identify any harm same sex marriage does to society a

Why 21? Why not 18? Does society set a parameter? And I would argue that gay marriage actually leads to a disintegration of marriage.

Gay men cannot keep it in their pants, so cheating during marriage nears 100%

Lesbians divorce like heterosexual women. So when two women marry, the divorce rate is high.

Neither situation helps the institution of marriage to survive.

 

[rightwinger]

Why 21? Why not 18? Does society set a parameter? And I would argue that gay marriage actually leads to a disintegration of marriage.

I could legally drink at 18.
I saw kids in my school die in drunk driving accidents every year
My kids could not legally drink until 21, they did not have any classmates die from drunk driving.
Society had a reason to raise the drinking age

States could not identify any reason to ban same sex marriages

 

[rightwinger]

It is equal protection under the law. Men and women are the ONLY couples who can have kids, those laws were made for biological families.

States tried that argument

But no state requires a fertility test to issue a marriage license
Couples can have children without being married
Same sex couples will not have children whether married or not

Means states can not use procreation as a grounds for denying same sex marriage.

 

[Rogue AI]

That may be however.

VirtualMarriage | Get Married Online Legally

Get a legal, US marriage certificate on Virtual Marriage. Get married online fast, easy and 100% legal.

virtualmarriage.com

Doesn't matter what any individual state's Constitution says. If there's 1 state in the Union who will issue a marriage license to a gay couple it is defacto legalized gay marriage in the entire country. As far as the state is concerned marriage is just a contract between 2 people. It's not the same as a biblical marriage and we shouldnt view them or treat them the same either.

Licenses to practice law in one state doesn't automatically transfer. One must pass the bar in the state they practice in. The same can be said about concealed carry permits. So states don't have to recognize every type of license from other states.