SCOTUS divided over SSM

[JoeB131]

Homophobes? Why is it homophobe in your book that I do not take feces coated dick into my mouth?
Wipe the froth off your lips, quit mumbling and come up with something making sense.

Oh, it's another case of a homophobe describing gay sex in graphics terms.

That's like a vegetarian who just can't stop talking about steak.

 

[JoeB131]

Indeed. These clowns base their ideology on the principle of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" - pun intended. They scream and shout and wring their little hands to the point that most Americans are beginning to believe that they are 40-45% of the population - when, in fact, they are less than 1%.

Scream loud and long enough and society comes around to your way of thinking. And we fall.

Guy, you have yet to demonstrate why letting gays get married would be a bad thing. Which is why a lot of straights have changed their mind on this issue.

Your whole argument is based on "I think it's icky".

 

[The Rabbi]

Indeed. These clowns base their ideology on the principle of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" - pun intended. They scream and shout and wring their little hands to the point that most Americans are beginning to believe that they are 40-45% of the population - when, in fact, they are less than 1%.

Scream loud and long enough and society comes around to your way of thinking. And we fall.

Guy, you have yet to demonstrate why letting gays get married would be a bad thing. Which is why a lot of straights have changed their mind on this issue.

Your whole argument is based on "I think it's icky".

No, the whole argument is based on rabid hatred for homosexuals. Get your memes straight.

 

[martybegan]

It will go 6-3 in favor

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

You're probably right, but Kennedy was very quiet during the arguments made for state recognition of marriage contracts from other states - meaning either he'd already decided that he was against forcing states to change their own marriage contract laws and this was his way of sort-of straddling the issue or he'd already decided for national recognition of SSM. Or I'm reading into his silence too much...

I honestly think the 2nd argument is a no-brainer, as all States recognize other States marriage contracts no matter what the base differences in qualifications. So if you get married with your parents permission in say New Hampshire which allows for marriage by "special cause" or in reality pregnancy at 14 for males and 13 for females, (with parental permission) you are still married if you move to Washington, which requires 17 as a minimum unless a judge waives the requirement.

To me the 2nd question didn't warrant the discussion of the first, because the constitution and precedent are clear with regards to full faith and credit.

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

 

[The Rabbi]

It will go 6-3 in favor

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

You're probably right, but Kennedy was very quiet during the arguments made for state recognition of marriage contracts from other states - meaning either he'd already decided that he was against forcing states to change their own marriage contract laws and this was his way of sort-of straddling the issue or he'd already decided for national recognition of SSM. Or I'm reading into his silence too much...

I honestly think the 2nd argument is a no-brainer, as all States recognize other States marriage contracts no matter what the base differences in qualifications. So if you get married with your parents permission in say New Hampshire which allows for marriage by "special cause" or in reality pregnancy at 14 for males and 13 for females, (with parental permission) you are still married if you move to Washington, which requires 17 as a minimum unless a judge waives the requirement.

To me the 2nd question didn't warrant the discussion of the first, because the constitution and precedent are clear with regards to full faith and credit.

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

 

[martybegan]

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

You're probably right, but Kennedy was very quiet during the arguments made for state recognition of marriage contracts from other states - meaning either he'd already decided that he was against forcing states to change their own marriage contract laws and this was his way of sort-of straddling the issue or he'd already decided for national recognition of SSM. Or I'm reading into his silence too much...

I honestly think the 2nd argument is a no-brainer, as all States recognize other States marriage contracts no matter what the base differences in qualifications. So if you get married with your parents permission in say New Hampshire which allows for marriage by "special cause" or in reality pregnancy at 14 for males and 13 for females, (with parental permission) you are still married if you move to Washington, which requires 17 as a minimum unless a judge waives the requirement.

To me the 2nd question didn't warrant the discussion of the first, because the constitution and precedent are clear with regards to full faith and credit.

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

 

[Pete7469]

Yet there ya struggling to understand... .

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It could not be less complex.

They REFUSE to understand "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It's not that they can't understand, they reject the truth.

Liberals are the most intellectually dishonest people in the world.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're probably right, but Kennedy was very quiet during the arguments made for state recognition of marriage contracts from other states - meaning either he'd already decided that he was against forcing states to change their own marriage contract laws and this was his way of sort-of straddling the issue or he'd already decided for national recognition of SSM. Or I'm reading into his silence too much...

I honestly think the 2nd argument is a no-brainer, as all States recognize other States marriage contracts no matter what the base differences in qualifications. So if you get married with your parents permission in say New Hampshire which allows for marriage by "special cause" or in reality pregnancy at 14 for males and 13 for females, (with parental permission) you are still married if you move to Washington, which requires 17 as a minimum unless a judge waives the requirement.

To me the 2nd question didn't warrant the discussion of the first, because the constitution and precedent are clear with regards to full faith and credit.

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.

 

[martybegan]

I honestly think the 2nd argument is a no-brainer, as all States recognize other States marriage contracts no matter what the base differences in qualifications. So if you get married with your parents permission in say New Hampshire which allows for marriage by "special cause" or in reality pregnancy at 14 for males and 13 for females, (with parental permission) you are still married if you move to Washington, which requires 17 as a minimum unless a judge waives the requirement.

To me the 2nd question didn't warrant the discussion of the first, because the constitution and precedent are clear with regards to full faith and credit.

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.

I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.

And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.

I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.

 

[Pete7469]

I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.

LOL!!!

Yeah, can't wait to see how the libs contort themselves to block that from happening. I can already hear their belowing about "states rights".

 

[Seawytch]

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.

I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.

And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.

I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.

If first cousin and underage marriages didn't change FF&C when it comes to weapons permits, why would same sex marriage?

 

[martybegan]

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.

I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.

And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.

I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.

If first cousin and underage marriages didn't change FF&C when it comes to weapons permits, why would same sex marriage?

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

 

[Seawytch]

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.

I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.

And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.

I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.

If first cousin and underage marriages didn't change FF&C when it comes to weapons permits, why would same sex marriage?

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

It's a separate issue. You're not going to get CCW permits considered unless they get challenged on their own merits.

 

[martybegan]

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.

I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.

And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.

I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.

If first cousin and underage marriages didn't change FF&C when it comes to weapons permits, why would same sex marriage?

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

It's a separate issue. You're not going to get CCW permits considered unless they get challenged on their own merits.

And if they get to the SC the precedent of SSM being part of FFC would only help them.

It seems you only are for "rights" that affect you personally. How sad.

 

[Pete7469]

And if they get to the SC the precedent of SSM being part of FFC would only help them.

It seems you only are for "rights" that affect you personally. How sad.

What liberal isn't?

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And those who wish to opt out of that have every right to do so. Nobody wishes to stop or deny that right. What I wish for is that those that exersise that right accept the fact that, by choosing that option accept that it is THEY that create the difference,not me.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Unless the law says differently. Get used to it.

Laws can be overturned when the truth comes to light.

Get used to it

They can. What truth are you planning to bring to light? And why didn't you share that truth with the lawyers arguing in front of SCOTUS yesterday.

Read and learn. Your marketing of this so called "civil right" is a hoax. Bruce Jenner proved it's often a choice.

So what if it is a choice? A beautiful aspect of our rights, such as the right to pursue happiness, is our choice to pursue them. There is no legal excuse to allow the government to prevent that.

If it is choice it's not a civil rights issue and the choice belongs to the states to define.

 

[The Rabbi]

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.

I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.

You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.

There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.

I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.

And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.

I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.

OK there are limitations to FFC. As outlined here:

Although the Court was engaged in statutory interpretation in Mills, the Court eventually characterized Mills as a constitutional decision, in the 1887 case of Chicago & Alton v. Wiggins.[13] During the following decades and centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized a "public policy exception" to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute. In 1939, the Court in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident wrote:

[T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.[14]

Gay marriage would clearly fall into that. No state should be able to impose its standards on other states.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet there ya struggling to understand... .

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It could not be less complex.

They REFUSE to understand "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It's not that they can't understand, they reject the truth.

Liberals are the most intellectually dishonest people in the world.

The right is worse for practicing the abomination of hypocrisy and carrying a Lords' name in vain.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet there ya struggling to understand... .

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It could not be less complex.

They REFUSE to understand "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It's not that they can't understand, they reject the truth.

Liberals are the most intellectually dishonest people in the world.

The right is worse for practicing the abomination of hypocrisy and carrying a Lords' name in vain.

That is absurd in the context of the Laffer Curve.