Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[Zincwarrior]

Heterosexuals get STDs also

And children.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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.

This is true.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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

SOunds like you are arguing no one should get married.

 

[Couchpotato]

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.

Sure, because the law is specific to that specific state and a lawyer is representing another person. The state is ensuring that lawyer is qualified to do so. It's a protection for the consumer. The same for an electrician or GC. That's not the same as a marriage license, which is just a contract between 2 people. The court can overturn Obergfell and I think there's a decent chance that they will and should. Individual states (the electorate in those states) should get to decide who they are going to issue marriage licenses to. They do not however get to decide whether they recognize licenses issued by other states or not.

 

[80zephyr]

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

I just gave you the reasons.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

There are exceptions to every rule. The fact is, that only a man and a woman can have a child.

 

[80zephyr]

SOunds like you are arguing no one should get married.

Family/marriage is under siege. Expanding it to include "friends" helps no one.

 

[Chuz Life]

Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong." "The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction."

Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling

10 years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all same-sex couples, it will consider whether to take a case asking it to overturn the decision.

abcnews.go.com

Will the evil 2015 Obergefell v Hodges ruling allowing gay marriage ruling be reversed?
We have the court to do it. Since 2015, the court has flipped to 5-4 conservative. Obergefell was a poorly reasoned ruling. Even liberal John Roberts thought the logic was preposterous. Let's all hope this is the right case. Such a reversal will be a great start on getting America back on track with God.

Justice Thomas, I believe indicated that he would like to revisit "Gay Marriage."

Thomas wants the Supreme Court to overturn landmark rulings that legalized contraception, same-sex marriage

I love that guy. (pun intended) ​

 

[Rogue AI]

Sure, because the law is specific to that specific state and a lawyer is representing another person. The state is ensuring that lawyer is qualified to do so. It's a protection for the consumer. The same for an electrician or GC. That's not the same as a marriage license, which is just a contract between 2 people. The court can overturn Obergfell and I think there's a decent chance that they will and should. Individual states (the electorate in those states) should get to decide who they are going to issue marriage licenses to. They do not however get to decide whether they recognize licenses issued by other states or not.

Yet you ignore the concealed carry licenses. The right to bear arms is directly in the Constitution, marriage is not. Marriage is a state issue, not federal. If you want more mundane examples look to fishing or hunting licenses.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yet you ignore the concealed carry licenses. The right to bear arms is directly in the Constitution, marriage is not. Marriage is a state issue, not federal. If you want more mundane examples look to fishing or hunting licenses.

Yes but they don't accept fishing licenses issued to straight people and not gay people. So the states that want to not recognize gay marriages that happen in other states will have to not recognize any marriages from those states. Even then I think they will be on dubious footing.

 

[Rogue AI]

Yes but they don't accept fishing licenses issued to straight people and not gay people. So the states that want to not recognize gay marriages that happen in other states will have to not recognize any marriages from those states. Even then I think they will be on dubious footing.

The states need only follow their constitution. Whatever it defines is all they will and must accept, regardless of other states.

 

[Couchpotato]

The states need only follow their constitution. Whatever it defines is all they will and must accept, regardless of other states.

You can’t just write whatever you want into your state constitution and use it as a shield. If a state wrote in its constitution that all people with brown hair will be jailed and summarily shot would that be ok?

Equal application of the law. You either accept all out of state marriage license or none of them. You can’t reject just the gay ones

 

[martybegan]

You can’t just write whatever you want into your state constitution and use it as a shield. If a state wrote in its constitution that all people with brown hair will be jailed and summarily shot would that be ok?

Equal application of the law. You either accept all out of state marriage license or none of them. You can’t reject just the gay ones

Agreed, which is what Obergfell should have been limited to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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."

Yup!

If the Holy Roman Constantine Church doesn't recognize a marriage, that's their business.

The laws need to be applied equally

 

[Rogue AI]

You can’t just write whatever you want into your state constitution and use it as a shield. If a state wrote in its constitution that all people with brown hair will be jailed and summarily shot would that be ok?

Equal application of the law. You either accept all out of state marriage license or none of them. You can’t reject just the gay ones

The people decide what's in the state constitution. Over thirty states have already defined marriage through constitutional amendments. Not sure how you don't get this. If marriage is a state issue, the states must define it themselves, end of story, that falls well within equal application, same as concealed carry or abortion.

 

[80zephyr]

Yup!

If the Holy Roman Constantine Church doesn't recognize a marriage, that's their business.

The laws need to be applied equally

Who says? Do blue states that have sanctuary cities apply the law equally? How about those places that allow drug usage? It seems they want laws applied equally only when it benefits them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage​

Today at nullToday at null; Supreme Court faces decision on case urging overturn of same-sex marriage

"The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide."

I hope the SCOTUS takes this case and (just as the SCOTUS did in Dobbs) kicks it back to the individual States to decide for themself what they will and will not recognize as a "marriage."mm

If it's Constitutional for "personhood" to vary State by State, why not a legal construct like "marriage" too?

It is selfish, stupid and pointless to want to deprive gay couples the right to marry. It is motivated by raw, pure bigotry and homophobia.. They have done you no harm.

They live and work among us and are part of the fabric of our communities. They pay taxes. raise children and mostly go unnoticed . What the **** is your problem?

 

[Couchpotato]

The people decide what's in the state constitution. Over thirty states have already defined marriage through constitutional amendments. Not sure how you don't get this. If marriage is a state issue, the states must define it themselves, end of story, that falls well within equal application, same as concealed carry or abortion.

That would apply to marriage licenses issued by their state. Im all for that. The electorate in an individual state can restrict marriage in whatever way it wants. What it cant do is apply the limitation to other states. I also cant recognize out of state marriage licenses of heterosexual couples and not gay couples. It's an all or nothing proposition. That pesky equal application of the law....

 

[Couchpotato]

It is selfish, stupid and pointless to want to deprive gay couples the right to marry. It is motivated by raw, pure bigotry and homophobia.. They have done you no harm.

irrelevant. Using this logic polygamy, marriage between siblings, mother and son should all be legal.

They live and work among us and are part of the fabric of our communities. They pay taxes. raise children and mostly go unnoticed . What the **** is your problem?

Also irrelvant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who says? Do blue states that have sanctuary cities apply the law equally? How about those places that allow drug usage? It seems they want laws applied equally only when it benefits them.

They have taxes and insurance benefits for spouses